Amnesty without securing the border??? You say there is a problem but not fixing what caused it in the first place??

agip wrote:

JFC

you're right - the reason nations that were formerly english colonies are so massively rich is only because of abusive corproations. hey, you got me. Great argument. And the only reason third world nations have been poor is because they...they...hmmm....i'm sure it's the white man's fault but I can't quite figure it out right now. I'm sure you'll help. Probably something to do with walmart.

sarcasm over.

do you have no common sense? do you truly see the wealth making ability of western countries to be a BAD thing? are you so PC that you insist all culttures are equal in wealth making?

This is truly comical. Firstly, I was partly joking, but if you couldn't see that, you're helpless. But the point of the satire was dead serious.

The USA didn't partly become successful/rich/powerful by forcing slaves to help build our country? You forgot this chapter? wow.

And you don't think that during certain times of the Industrial Revolution and Gilded Age, large employers took advantage of poor employees, working children and others to the bone in poor conditions for small compensation, while raking in millions and in living in enormous luxury?

And you don't think that even today, huge corporations don't take advantage of poor, unrepresented foreign workers who will work for a pittance in order to have any job, and who also work in conditions that most 1st world countries would deem unacceptable, and that is enables them to become incredibly wealthy?

Of course all that is true. And of course it is part of the reason the USA is so rich. And of course my example of undocumented illegals becoming part of that history to work for mega agricultural companies for very low salaries was accurate.

But all you can come back with is "JFC" and some sarcastic walmart comment.

Weak and pathetic. You overrate your ability on these boards, your last past was very weak.

tell you what - reread your post and see if my reply was weak and pathetic.

Your general point is:

eh , all the new immigrants live together anyway, so there is no culture shock.

and your second point is:

but this is nasty country that only succeeds by leeching money out of people

__

How am I supposed to respond to that but exasperatingly.

What - you think new immigrants always want to live in ghettos? they won't want to move to the burbs? It's a conveyor belt - if you are fresh off the boat, you live in the ghetto and have a rough life. Your kids then get on the conveyor belt and get comparatively well off. That's how it always works. You seem to want immigrants to stay in the ghetto? You don't want them to benefit from the amazing culture of wealth this country has built? What is your point?

As for finding out how the country works - not sure if you are sarcastic here - but if the life is so rough and bad here, I'm sure people are flowing out toward other countries, looking for a way out of being a wage slave. I mean, who would want to work here? Oh right - millions of people risk their lives to get here to work. How does that fit into your thinking exactly?

I will not defend the 19th century. Not a kind gentle time. But we aren't in the 19th century anymore. We are now a high skill/high wage economy, and it will be increasingly harder for new immigrants without english or education to succeed. Having a too-large flow of immigrants would create an underclass of low-skill people who can't get a better job.

the hispanic vote is overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats; they put Obama in office.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/politics/latino-vote-key-election/

All incentives point to liberals giving amnesty and illegals continuing to enter the country. When you deconstruct the liberal platform, these guys have ridiculously anti-american, mal-economic policies.

Also: forget securing the border - invade Mexico and shut this off at the tap at Guatemala.

krispy kremlin wrote:

Also: forget securing the border - invade Mexico and shut this off at the tap at Guatemala.

yup - proving once again that there are few problems right wingers don't thing a few bombs would solve.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

The "culture"/environment that these illegals will be joining, for the most, is already very poor (not much poorer than where they came) and is often full of hispanics and other minorities. It's not a much of a culture shock for them or for the people they are joining.

ah yes, let's add more poor people to the poor people we already have. that always works.

unfortunately, this is actually how most liberals I know think.

But Rexing, how does this actually play out in reality: more and growing social programs once they are "citizens", more liberal votes, bigger state, more "acceptance" of border crossing, lower wages and then more social programs - this system works great.

This is the *reality* of the liberal dream - gut the middle class america that you've been taught to hate - whether you realize you are doing it or not.

agip wrote:

krispy kremlin wrote:

Also: forget securing the border - invade Mexico and shut this off at the tap at Guatemala.

yup - proving once again that there are few problems right wingers don't thing a few bombs would solve.

I didn't say anything about bombs - and I'm hardly a right winger.

But something has to be done about Mexico before it becomes a failed state. We should be sending manufacturing jobs down there not to China. It would help everyone and make our hemisphere more secure.

Also, I'm actually liking what Obama is saying right now. He's taking a balanced approach.

krispy kremlin wrote:

agip wrote:

yup - proving once again that there are few problems right wingers don't thing a few bombs would solve.

I didn't say anything about bombs - and I'm hardly a right winger.

But something has to be done about Mexico before it becomes a failed state. We should be sending manufacturing jobs down there not to China. It would help everyone and make our hemisphere more secure.

Also, I'm actually liking what Obama is saying right now. He's taking a balanced approach.

ok - when you said we should 'invade' mexico, I didn't understand you meant build factories. That is one very weird use of the world 'invade'

You need to learn the definitions of "incessant", "bitching" and "moaning". Again...pay attention...I would speak slower if I was actually talking to you but since this is written, please look up any words you don't understand...Obama is overstepping his bounds. Just because Congress doesn't do anything doesn't mean he can or should laterally step out and do something to salvage his presidency. I know it must be hard when you have limited intelligence like you have to try to understand a rational argument from someone as intelligent as I am but you have time to try and read what is going on before responding. I suggest you try.

NJ Possible wrote:

Let's build a giant wall! And put dudes with machine guys there! Yeah!!

Why would we use cyborgs?

Randy Oldman wrote:

You're blaming Obama for the inadequacies of Congress?

That will be fixed now. Dems no longer have control of half of Congress.

libby lib wrote:

I'm a liberal lib. I do not think the President should be taking executive action that is tantamount to passing a law.

You want to enact military policy (eg, Don't Ask Don't Tell), that's one thing, because the President is Commander-in-Chief.

But this...I do not like this. The slope is too slippery. I don't care if Congress is obstructionist. If you can't get anything done, then you don't get anything done. I would rather that than any branch overstepping its authority.

I agree. It is funny how liberals whined about Bush doing it and now think it is okay for Obama to do it. It is funny how "conservatives" whined when Clinton did it, but ignored when Bush did it. Executive orders should not be given any credibility, as they usually are unconstitutional, and therefore unable to be enforced.

Those same knuckleheads will scream "bloody murder" if a Republican POTUS did what Obama is doing. They should be worried about that more than anything else.

"Amnesty without securing the border??? You say there is a problem but not fixing what caused it in the first place??"

The problem is that the US has been an economically successful country and people are coming from areas that are not so good.

The problem is that many Americans enjoy taking advantage of the cheap labor that these immigrants provide.

You don't need to secure the boarder if there is nothing to come here for or if you can crack down on the under the table payments being made.

Maybe make investments in the countries they are fleeing.

The best way to prevent illegal immigration would be to stop subsidizing big ag. Most of these illegals were peasant farmers before we undermined them with cheap exports.

get used to it.. wrote:

They could build a wall, or have more men on foot, etc...the border itself isn't the issue. It should be a federal crime to hire, pay employ, etc...anyone who isn't a citizen or anyone who doesn't have permission to legally be here. The should have no access to healthcare or education. Their children, even if born here, should not be citizens. Take away people's perks for wanting to come here. If they know they can't get healthcare, find jobs and get their kids citizenship or an education, there would be no incentive to come.

Don't be scared homey.

Only about 5% of illegals work in agriculture.

The best way to stop illegal immigration is to cut off the jobs (i.e., E-Verify) and enforce the current laws, including against against visa overstayers.

Most illegals will go home over time, negating the need for another amnesty or mass deportations.

Simple solution, but there's no political will to do it amongst either party. It doesn't matter what citizens think, sadly.

Eliminating jobs is not a "simple solution".

You're dense. E-Verify and workplace enforcement have worked wonderfully when and where they have been tried.

Cutting off the jobs for illegals and freeing up these jobs for citizens and legal immigrants is the cost effective, humane, taxpayer-friendly way to solve the illegal immigration problem.

Anyone who has educated himself or herself on this issue knows this to be the case. And please, don't waste our time with the silly "head of lettuce" argument.

50000k atleast of your tax dollars per year will be spent imprisoning Romney, a person who doesn't deserve prison, atleast not for that.

If you're tax dollars are important enough to deny fellow humans health care, education, and other essentials to living in a productive society, they certainly too important to be used imprisoning someone who may have silly political platform, but does little harm.