We were snookered in 1986 when Kennedy and Chuck Schumer and P. Leahy lied to us and promiesed that our borders would be secured. We were suckers then. Those same repulsive people (minus Kenndedy) are trying to do the same thing now. We need to SECURE THE BORDER now. No citizenship until the border is secured. We allowed amnesty for 2 million in 1986 - maybe 16 million now. In 10 years maybe 50 million unless we secure the border. We don't want people who don't want to assimilate!
You make too much sense. This won't fly.
I agree that Republicans should further marginalize themselves to the point that they can win only local elections, so that Democrats can get back to the hard work of preparing this country for the future. Define "secure its borders." There has never been nearly as much money spent or people deported and lives and families disrupted. And what do we have to show for it? Immigrants are a large net economic and social good for this country. Having people work in the shadows promotes negative outcomes, and hence, amnesty is beneficial for society and for the individuals affected. Mexican immigrants assimilate as well as any other historical group of immigrants, as studies have shown time and again.
jjjjjjjj wrote:
I agree that Republicans should further marginalize themselves to the point that they can win only local elections, so that Democrats can get back to the hard work of preparing this country for the future. Define "secure its borders." There has never been nearly as much money spent or people deported and lives and families disrupted. And what do we have to show for it? Immigrants are a large net economic and social good for this country. Having people work in the shadows promotes negative outcomes, and hence, amnesty is beneficial for society and for the individuals affected. Mexican immigrants assimilate as well as any other historical group of immigrants, as studies have shown time and again.
Should a country allow illegal immigrants to flaunt its laws and just come in at their will? What other country does that? Are you not an idiot to think that 16 million now will not be 50 million in the future? What country can allow so many immmigrants to continue to come in. Most will be drains on the economy.
theoretically, what would happen 50 million poor, uneducated, unskilled immigrants flooded america?
of course they want to make 7 bucks an hour instead. will they bring crime? will they bring prejudice?
"There are thousands of Americans killed intentionally and accidentally by illegal immigrants"
i want to see success stories, but i don't think this is the solution.
we have to ask ourselves why a billionaire in mexico, carlos slim, does not promote raising the minimum wage in his own country. the minimum wage in mexico is 58 cents per hour.
we have to ask ourselves, will the 50 million immigrants become artists, musicians, doctors, engineers, and innovators for america in the 21st century? or will they drag down wages, create racial tension, vote for repressive laws, and use up even more welfare resources?
will the united states become another brazil 2.0? a melting pot with many racial groups, a large economy but also with shantytowns and crime.
or will 50 million mexicans suddenly transform america and bring a new renaissance in the 21st century?
this is a big experiment with no guarantees for prosperity.
Sally, weren't your ancestors immigrants? Maybe even your momma?
Sally Vixens wrote:
We were snookered in 1986 when Kennedy.... blah blah blah...don't want people who don't want to assimilate!
As usual, S. Vixens confuses this for LetsRightWingRant.com. Running, S. Vixens? Nationals this week?
brownsmith76 wrote:
will the united states become another brazil 2.0? a melting pot with many racial groups, a large economy but also with shantytowns and crime.
or will 50 million mexicans suddenly transform america and bring a new renaissance in the 21st century?
this is a big experiment with no guarantees for prosperity.
I'm all for experiments. Let's get this party started.
brownsmith76 wrote:
will the united states become another brazil 2.0? a melting pot with many racial groups, a large economy but also with shantytowns and crime.
or will 50 million mexicans suddenly transform america and bring a new renaissance in the 21st century?
this is a big experiment with no guarantees for prosperity.
You might wish to take a look at what's already happened in CA. It once was the envy of the country; it's now a third-world hellhole.
Sen. Ted Cruz Speaks in Support of his Border Security Amendment to the Amnesty Bill:
brownsmith76 wrote:
theoretically, what would happen 50 million poor, uneducated, unskilled immigrants flooded america?
You forgot low-g (dumb):
www.vdare.comi see potential in every human being. i think every person born into this world deserves a chance. a chance to learn, to hope, to have freedom.
i'm still waiting for an answer as to why liberals think the 58-cents-per-hour minimum wage is an untouchable subject for mexico... even when they have natural resources and billionaires of their own. why is the solution to, essentially, be the welfare state for mexico's poor?
i'm very concerned of our future. there has to be another answer.
i hear people are sick of having outsourced indians with accents giving telephone support. would you want 50 million of the poorest and most desperate indians on the streets of america?
brownsmith76 wrote:
why is the solution to, essentially, be the welfare state for mexico's poor?
Bingo. Leaving out the less obvious costs,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer"In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar."
You cannot have open immigration AND a welfare state. And the USSA is a massive welfare state, and growing larger by the year.
Lol teabaggers
chewbacca wrote:
Lol teabaggers
Is that all you got Chewbacca? Namecalling? Do you even know what "teabagger" means?" I am not a member of the tea party. I am a conservative who is concerned about our country. Who are you? Tell me about yourself.
What is the quota on Mexicans allowed to legally enter the USA each year?
How about Israelis and Russian Jews?
These are important facts that seem to be unknown to all of us.
I suspect the quota on Mexicans is far lower than the number that wish to come here and the number employers need. By keeping the quota low you can keep labor poor and submissive.
As far as Israelis and Russian Jews, I would be willing to bet there is no cap on the amount that can come live in the USA.
Anybody in possession of any facts on quotas?
Or are we just going to argue without knowing the facts?
That begs the question, what more can be done to secure the border? The border with Mexico just shy of 2,000 miles. Tell us what has to happen to keep people from crossing it.
Tough task.
That Canadian border is pretty long.
And those canucks aren't afraid to swim across the great lakes, either.
Ole Timer wrote:
That begs the question, what more can be done to secure the border? The border with Mexico just shy of 2,000 miles. Tell us what has to happen to keep people from crossing it.
Better wall/fencing. More enforcement agents, getting rid of "sanctuary cities," tougher penalties for aiding and abetting illegal immigrants and also for employing them, use of drone aircraft to patrol the border, working with the Mexican government to attack the issue from both sides, etc.
Obviously we are never going to be able to completely control the border, but we can certainly do a better job.