IMMIGRATION RED-HOT CAMPAIGN ISSUE

Setanta wrote:

Advocate wrote:
F, perhaps you are unaware that Quebec came within a hair of declaring independence, and that this was virtually all due to the language difference.

Appalling ignorance.

Please fill us in, but without being nasty and obnoxious.

0 Replies

advocate wrote:

but without being nasty and obnoxious.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

old europe wrote:
Advocate wrote:
F, perhaps you are unaware that Quebec came within a hair of declaring independence, and that this was virtually all due to the language difference.

We haven't seen a serious threat of this SO FAR in the USA.

You mean, apart from the Civil War....

Oh, you feel that the Civil War was over language?

At least in the way one used language to define the rights, or lack of rights, of Black Americans. Northern abolitionists might have just as well been speaking another language when the question of slavery came up with Southern politicians.

But, if the South seceeded, and no Civil War was fought, the Northern United States (to coin a term for that remaining country) would likely today have one more ally to vote with us in the United Nations (the Southern United States).

The world being different than only 100 years ago, one, perhaps, shouldn't use historical criteria for the positives, or negatives, of a country splitting up. In fact, Scotland is supposed to vote on whether to secede from Britain, I thought. Britain would, in effect, get an ally to vote with them in the U.N.

And, if a nation became a set of smaller nations, that would certainly stymie the efforts of the "one worlder's" desire for one world government.

0 Replies

The civil war has no relationship to this topic.

0 Replies

That's strange.

Every time I have been to a pro-immigration rally (and I have been to several) people opposing us have carried Confederate flags.

... how do you explain that (I thought it was a Civil war thing)?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

That's strange.

Every time I have been to a pro-immigration rally (and I have been to several) people opposing us have carried Confederate flags.

... how do you explain that (I thought it was a Civil war thing)?

Maybe they are some of the poor people who have lost jobs, or received lower wages, because of illegals.

0 Replies

... because of black people, Jewish people, gay people, Catholic people or illegal people.

There seems to be no shortage of "people" to blame your problems on.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

... because of black people, Jewish people, gay people, Catholic people or illegal people.

There seems to be no shortage of "people" to blame your problems on.

I am only blaming illegals. Are you one, or do you just exploit some?

I gather you lack the ability to make any intelligent input here, so you have to take silly shots at me.

0 Replies

No.

I am only making you face up to the fact that your hatred of illegal people has caused you to get into bed with the Confederate flag waving people.

You talk just as they do. You use their rhetoric. Only the target has changed.

You do see the painful irony of you portraying the Confederate flag as just a symbol of "people upset about losing their jobs", don't you?

0 Replies

There is a lot of support of the immigrant rights movement from within the African American community.

There is a small vocal minority of African Americans who have taken up the cause of anti-immigrant extremism.

But from the establishment... the NAACP has spoken up in support of rights for illegal people, to the grass roots where many African Americans are working as side by side with Hispanics to earn rights for neighbors, friends and family, there is strong support.

This makes sense since for the most part, the people who are against rights for illegal people are the same people who are against civil rights (and for the same reasons). It makes sense for African-Americans and Hispanics (including illegal people) should work together against the real enemies who are trying to keep the unfair parts of our society in place.

Advocate keeps speaking as if he or she believes that he speaks for a groundswell of what he calls "people of color" (neglecting the fact that most illegal people are people of color from Latinos to Haitians to Africans). I know from personal experience that his belief is ludicrous.

But this self-righteous belief is what upsets me about Advocates angry rhetoric (and why I am still arguing with him).

In truth, his views on immigration are almost completely irrelevant.

0 Replies

What if friendly extraterrestrials landed in the U.S., and offered us a cure for many diseases, and they wanted to stay in the U.S. (their planet was having volcanic eruptions)? Could they stay?

I'd guess paranoia would make many people protest their staying with signs like, "Did Neanderthal Make the Same Mistake?"

Anyway, I'm not going to change anyone's mind with my previous posts, since much of their veracity is basically ignored, since, I believe, this issue is processed in our brains where gut feelings are processed.

I guess I'm just not that impressed with all of our citizens that have had family in the U.S. for many generations. Let's be real; for all the time so many families have been in the U.S., one would think the present day family would all have children speaking correct English and reading voraciously. Perhaps, good genetic make-up doesn't always come in people of European descent, 5' 10" or taller?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

No.

I am only making you face up to the fact that your hatred of illegal people has caused you to get into bed with the Confederate flag waving people.

You talk just as they do. You use their rhetoric. Only the target has changed.

You do see the painful irony of you portraying the Confederate flag as just a symbol of "people upset about losing their jobs", don't you?

I don't know how they talk. What do they talk about, and how do you know?

BTW, I noticed that a lot of demonstrators, possibly including you, wave Mexican flags. Should we be granting citizenship to such people?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

There is a lot of support of the immigrant rights movement from within the African American community.

There is a small vocal minority of African Americans who have taken up the cause of anti-immigrant extremism.

But from the establishment... the NAACP has spoken up in support of rights for illegal people, to the grass roots where many African Americans are working as side by side with Hispanics to earn rights for neighbors, friends and family, there is strong support.

This makes sense since for the most part, the people who are against rights for illegal people are the same people who are against civil rights (and for the same reasons). It makes sense for African-Americans and Hispanics (including illegal people) should work together against the real enemies who are trying to keep the unfair parts of our society in place.

Advocate keeps speaking as if he or she believes that he speaks for a groundswell of what he calls "people of color" (neglecting the fact that most illegal people are people of color from Latinos to Haitians to Africans). I know from personal experience that his belief is ludicrous.

But this self-righteous belief is what upsets me about Advocates angry rhetoric (and why I am still arguing with him).

In truth, his views on immigration are almost completely irrelevant.

Being a Latino does not denote one's race. Latinos are comprised of all races. Moreover, illegals come in all races.

I think that you are making up the crap about blacks strongly supporting illegals.

What are all these rights that illegals have? Do they have the right of citizenship? What is your authority?

I think you have to face up to your abysmal ignorance.

0 Replies

Quote:

What if friendly extraterrestrials landed in the U.S., and offered us a cure for many diseases, and they wanted to stay in the U.S. (their planet was having volcanic eruptions)? Could they stay?

Hypothetical situation and also highly unlikely.
It cant be answered.

0 Replies

Illegal immigrants mean someone who is breaking the law. You can defend their so called right to cross our borders whenever they want to but I disagree with your take on the legality of them coming into the country. I notice that you have posted some so called facts about 50% of the people agreeing with you. How about posting a site that agrees with this statement. And before you attack me as being a bigot I agree that immigrants that have signed onto the proper way to come into this country are legal and have a right to enter this country. You act like you are an illegal emigrant advocate but I suspect that you are one of those who use the cheap labor of these people to line your pockets.

0 Replies

Rabel, you don't say who you are misrepresenting... but I will assume it is me... so I will respond.

1. Illegal people have broken the law. No one is disputing this. My issue is that as people they still deserve compassion.

2. I have never defended anyones rights to cross our borders "whenever they want". My issue is that people should be treated with compassion. You can both enforce the border AND treat people here now with compassion.

3. I will not attack you as being a bigot if you don't use bigoted arguments (i.e. defamatory arguments and broad generalizations). Mysteryman, for example, disagrees with my position and bases his argument on the point that there are laws that must be enforced.-- yet I don't remember him ever using a bigoted argument (and I respect him for this). Contrast this with the arguments used by Advocate which I do feel are bigoted arguments.

There are arguments against giving rights or a a path to citizenship to illegal people that aren't bigoted.

Then there are arguments being used that are most certainly bigoted.

I won't confuse the two sets of arguments if you don't.

4. My issue is compassion.

It is funny that Advocate is insinuating that I am an illegal person-- now you are insinuating that I am a Corporate shill.

In fact I am neither.

I am a progressive who cares about this issue as a matter of compassion. This issue is especially important for me because good people I know and care about are undocumented-- and I would love for them to have the opportunity to become legal.

Your accusation couldn't be more false-- I am a progressive, pro-labor Democrat. As an American tech worker... I don't benefit from illegal immigration any more than any other American does.

In fact my stance that the undocumented immigrants who are now easy to exploit should be given full rights and a path to citizenship is not a stance that favors "cheap labor"-- since people with rights can demand higher salaries and better working conditions.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Illegal immigrants mean someone who is breaking the law. You can defend their so called right to cross our borders whenever they want to but I disagree with your take on the legality of them coming into the country. I notice that you have posted some so called facts about 50% of the people agreeing with you. How about posting a site that agrees with this statement. And before you attack me as being a bigot I agree that immigrants that have signed onto the proper way to come into this country are legal and have a right to enter this country. You act like you are an illegal emigrant advocate but I suspect that you are one of those who use the cheap labor of these people to line your pockets.

Amen!

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Rabel, you don't say who you are misrepresenting... but I will assume it is me... so I will respond.

1. Illegal people have broken the law. No one is disputing this. My issue is that as people they still deserve compassion.

2. I have never defended anyones rights to cross our borders "whenever they want". My issue is that people should be treated with compassion. You can both enforce the border AND treat people here now with compassion.

3. I will not attack you as being a bigot if you don't use bigoted arguments (i.e. defamatory arguments and broad generalizations). Mysteryman, for example, disagrees with my position and bases his argument on the point that there are laws that must be enforced.-- yet I don't remember him ever using a bigoted argument (and I respect him for this). Contrast this with the arguments used by Advocate which I do feel are bigoted arguments.

There are arguments against giving rights or a a path to citizenship to illegal people that aren't bigoted.

Then there are arguments being used that are most certainly bigoted.

I won't confuse the two sets of arguments if you don't.

4. My issue is compassion.

It is funny that Advocate is insinuating that I am an illegal person-- now you are insinuating that I am a Corporate shill.

In fact I am neither.

I am a progressive who cares about this issue as a matter of compassion. This issue is especially important for me because good people I know and care about are undocumented-- and I would love for them to have the opportunity to become legal.

Your accusation couldn't be more false-- I am a progressive, pro-labor Democrat. As an American tech worker... I don't benefit from illegal immigration any more than any other American does.

In fact my stance that the undocumented immigrants who are now easy to exploit should be given full rights and a path to citizenship is not a stance that favors "cheap labor"-- since people with rights can demand higher salaries and better working conditions.

You are an out-and-out liar, or just a stupid person. I have never made a bigoted remark.

We have opened the floodgates to illegals, and when we don't enforce the law, or we extend benefits to them, this acts as a magnet for even more illegals. I guess you just don't care for our country or its citizens.

0 Replies

There's another issue that sort of relates to immigration; the legal kind. Should the U.S. allow for dual citizenship? Also, should the U.S. allow those that come here legally to not apply for citizenship?

In otherwords, with so many people wanting to come to the U.S., should the U.S. allow those people that do come legally to hedge on their becoming 100% Americans?

My preference is no. No dual citizenship. No legal residency, unless citizenship is applied for in a certain amount of time.

In other words, a complete correction of the "current situation" does not end with illegal immigrants, I believe. The "current situation" includes people living in this country that are sort of here for the "good times," in my opinion. The "good times" includes times when this country has economic prosperity, no draft, or just when people are young enough to work, and earn social security benefits (for sending to another country when retiring).

0 Replies

You have an interesting perspective Foofie. I mostly agree with the point you are making. I am not sure I would take it as far as you are taking it.

I think that Guest worker visas are just about the worst idea possible (if you care about American workers).

Guest workers are all about exploitation. They let big business have people who have few rights and no connection to American society. People on guest workers don't ask for raises and don't expect to be treated well.

I feel strongly that everyone working in the United States should be given the opportunity to make a permanent home in the US. This includes a path to citizenship.

History shows that guest workers lead to exploitation that hurts both the foreign workers and the American workers as well.

As an American worker, I don't want to compete with people who are too vulnerable to stand up for themselves and will work for a lower wage because they are temporary. Vulnerable workers harm the labor market for everyone.

I don't at all mind working with people who have rights and the ability to match my lifestyle. I benefit from working with them and I don't even mind competing with peers.

0 Replies

IMMIGRATION RED-HOT CAMPAIGN ISSUE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know