General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2213186

    On illegal immigration part 2

    Locked

    by lars_honeytoast ·

    The first discussion was gettinga little crowded.
    http://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.”

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2816454

      Human time bombs?

      by ansugisalas ·

      In reply to On illegal immigration part 2

      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.

    • #2816440

      Lars, “a little crowded”?

      by charliespencer ·

      In reply to On illegal immigration part 2

      “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.

      • #2816401

        Don’t say that word here!!

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to Lars, “a little crowded”?

        You may wake it from the dead!!!!

        • #2826301

          Can’t; it was purged.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Don’t say that word here!!

          In fact, can’t even find it on Google Groups anymore. 🙁

        • #2826252

          The other one I had in mind

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Can’t; it was purged.

          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.

        • #2813793

          You know,

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to Can’t; it was purged.

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

        • #2813790

          Concur.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You know,

          But, being the bums that we are, we’ve no standing. 😉

      • #2816341

        My apologies.

        by lars_honeytoast ·

        In reply to Lars, “a little crowded”?

        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.

        • #2816249

          No big deal.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to My apologies.

          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.

    • #2816435

      Besides, Lars

      by santeewelding ·

      In reply to On illegal immigration part 2

      Your position — twice, you said — is not yours, but Sowell’s.

      I read Sowell. You don’t come close.

      • #2816340

        Perhaps I labeled mine as that of Sowell?

        by lars_honeytoast ·

        In reply to Besides, Lars

        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?

        • #2816337

          Parallel

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Perhaps I labeled mine as that of Sowell?

          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.

        • #2816265

          Thank you for your insight,

          by lars_honeytoast ·

          In reply to Parallel

          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.

    • #2816428

      First, you aren’t clear on your position

      by nicknielsen ·

      In reply to On illegal immigration part 2

      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.

      • #2816421

        That’s not what he said.

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to First, you aren’t clear on your position

        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.

        • #2816375

          Could work that way

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to That’s not what he said.

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

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

        • #2816373

          Welcome

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Could work that way

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

        • #2816338

          You’re open to opinions

          by lars_honeytoast ·

          In reply to That’s not what he said.

          What is wrong with acquiring Mexico as our own?

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

        • #2816318

          Oh nothing…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to You’re open to opinions

          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.

        • #2816227

          Just a quick interjection…

          by otaku_lord ·

          In reply to Oh nothing…

          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?

        • #2816218

          Helpdesks

          by jfuller05 ·

          In reply to Just a quick interjection…

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

          That’s an understatement! lol

        • #2816208

          Incorrect

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Just a quick interjection…

          [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.

        • #2826206

          But then…

          by otaku_lord ·

          In reply to Incorrect

          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.

        • #2826155

          You dodged my point

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Incorrect

          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

        • #2813792

          I am

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to Incorrect

          [b]so[/b] very glad you found that ‘d’. 😀

        • #2826486

          Fer crying out loud!

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Just a quick interjection…

          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.

        • #2826313

          Perhaps not entirely accurate.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Just a quick interjection…

          [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.

        • #2816269

          Why would we need more land?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to You’re open to opinions

          At 29.77 people per km^2, the population density of the US is less than 60% that of Mexico (52.15), about 35% that of Spain (78.43) or Greece (81.86), just over a quarter of that of France (108.09), and 10-15% the population density of Germany (234.86) and the UK (244.69). http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/geo_pop_den-geography-population-density

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

        • #2816268

          Finland still tops that though

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Why would we need more land?

          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 😉

        • #2816262

          haha

          by lars_honeytoast ·

          In reply to Why would we need more land?

          “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? 🙂

        • #2816248

          We’ve got more viable land than Mexico.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to haha

          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…

        • #2816219

          Perhaps

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to haha

          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?

        • #2826475

          Pay.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Perhaps

          “…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.

        • #2826386

          But then

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Perhaps

          the CxOs wouldn’t have gotten all those bonuses and great stock options.

      • #2816339

        I’m a little messy I see.

        by lars_honeytoast ·

        In reply to First, you aren’t clear on your position

        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.

        • #2826249

          “Messy”

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to I’m a little messy I see.

          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:

          http://techrepublic.com.com/1200-10871-5757160.html

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

          And welcome to the asylum.

      • #2816335

        I think

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to First, you aren’t clear on your position

        he wants to offer it statehood 🙂

        • #2816330

          That’s one solution

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I think

          It would solve the immigration “problem” as regards Mexicans…

        • #2826483

          Heck,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to That’s one solution

          we could offer the whole WORLD statehood!

        • #2826385

          Wouldn’t work

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Heck,

          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. 😀

        • #2826356

          It would go a long way

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Heck,

          … to making your World Series, well, a World Series. 🙂

    • #2816202

      Two observations

      by saurondor ·

      In reply to On illegal immigration part 2

      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.

    • #2826332

      Yes, what is really needed

      by dr dij ·

      In reply to On illegal immigration part 2

      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.

    • #2813857

      I, for one, believe that a new thread is here called for.

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to On illegal immigration part 2

      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.

      • #2813855

        Who better

        by santeewelding ·

        In reply to I, for one, believe that a new thread is here called for.

        To frame this in terms that stand for all time?

      • #2813850

        Fire it up, Sandy

        by nicknielsen ·

        In reply to I, for one, believe that a new thread is here called for.

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

        • #2813844

          Done boldly and well

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Fire it up, Sandy

          There can be no for and against. Only, universal acquiescence.

      • #2813832

        Well it is not

        by michael jay ·

        In reply to I, for one, believe that a new thread is here called for.

        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.

      • #2813797

        I do not presume to speak for the OP beyond …

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to I, for one, believe that a new thread is here called for.

        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.

      • #2813736

        clear premise

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to I, for one, believe that a new thread is here called for.

        I think that boat sailed already… maybe a third thread will help?

      • #2813709

        Sorry for my delay of replying to the thread

        by lars_honeytoast ·

        In reply to I, for one, believe that a new thread is here called for.

        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.

    • #2813849

      If you’re thinking the one I think you are,

      by boxfiddler ·

      In reply to On illegal immigration part 2

      I have a personal copy that I’ll sell for dark chocolate ice cream in a waffle bowl. 😐

      • #2813829

        That is probably

        by santeewelding ·

        In reply to If you’re thinking the one I think you are,

        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?

      • #2813798

        Some things are priceless.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to If you’re thinking the one I think you are,

        For the rest there’s MasterCard.

        EL?

        Text only; or, with live links?

      • #2813794

        Five hundred some odd pages.

        by boxfiddler ·

        In reply to If you’re thinking the one I think you are,

        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. 😀

        etu
        etu again:
        sandy – EL?

      • #2813791

        The EL = TTTSNBN

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to If you’re thinking the one I think you are,

        Do, though, by all means get the garden in first.

    • #2814533

      solutions

      by dr dij ·

      In reply to On illegal immigration part 2

      This article was fairly reasonable about solutions:

      http://www.dailypilot.com/news/opinion/dpt-gray053010,0,931255.story

      • #2814524

        Agreed

        by nicknielsen ·

        In reply to solutions

        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.

Viewing 8 reply threads