What should be done about illegal immigration?

Advocate wrote:

You must be misreading my post. BTW, just make your statement, and not ask me stupid questions.

I don't think I am misreading your post at all. You are using arguments which if when used against African American people of color, you and I would agree is racist.

Yet you use the exact same arguments against non African-American people of color and it isn't racism.

For you to use the term "people of color" when you are referring to the stereotypical "illegal" people is ironic. The confederate flag waving people whose rhetoric you are using seem to think "illegals" are people of color

... at least they treat them the same way.

0 Replies

Up to your race baitin again, ebrown? Seems thats about all that interests you here?

0 Replies

Okie,

Advocate implied that a "person of color" (and by this I assume he/she meant African-American) can not be racist.

Don't you think we have the right to challenge this?

0 Replies

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Thursday that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is partly responsible for the vast number of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. today

As mayor of the nation's most populous city for eight years, Giuliani created an environment that lured illegal workers by sheltering them from legal risk, Romney said.

"He welcomed illegal aliens to the city," Romney told reporters after appearing before about 200 supporters at a hotel. "That sanctuary state of mind is one of the reasons we have so many illegal immigrants in our country today."

Giuliani's campaign didn't directly respond to the criticism, saying that the former Massachusetts governor is trying to radically recast his record on immigration.

"Under Gov. Mitt Romney the number of illegal immigrants skyrocketed, while he recommended millions of dollars in state aid to numerous sanctuary cities and to companies employing illegal immigrants, not to mention the illegals working on his own lawn," Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella said in a statement.

Romney has been raising illegal immigration in campaign appearances and advertisements to draw distinctions between himself and other GOP contenders. The issue is particularly salient in Iowa's conservative western region, given the influx of immigrants coming to work in fields and factories.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071116/ap_on_el_pr/romney;_ylt=ArfFRJJ47KRyTRK_nQxoAfeyFz4D

0 Replies

Anybody who uses terms such as "person of color" still hasn't outgrown their prejudices when used in a thread such as this. They will never understand why.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Where did I admit such a thing? BTW, the vast majority of the illegals are people who can't make it in their own countries, have little or no education or skills, have no wealth, etc. I call these people the dregs of the countries of origin.

I guess that would apply to most all of our past immigrants as well; maybe your own?

Yes.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

BTW, the vast majority of the illegals are people who can't make it in their own countries, have little or no education or skills, have no wealth, etc. I call these people the dregs of the countries of origin.

The vast majority of the immigrants to the US between the mid and late 19th century to the early 20th century fit precisely that description. The only difference being that they were admitted legally into the country. The anti-immigration laws--these that serve as the foundation for the present anti-immigration laws of the nation--that were passed shortly thereafter primarily addressed bigoted and racist attitudes against these people with little or no education or skills, wealth, etc.--these dregs of the countries of orgin.

0 Replies

advocate

You understand, I trust, that Xingu, Infrablue and Walter make a serious point?

Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand and more were all populated by such folks as you term dregs. In fact, go back further and we see the entire globe populated by folks immigrating up out of africa.

When populations move (and that is a constant in history) they move to find another place where their survival will hopefully be enhanced. Their numbers will include some of the bravest and most imaginative individuals in that originating stock. If you think initiative a good thing, you'll find a lot of that quality in any immigrant group.

0 Replies

I feel that, with 300 M people, the USA is overpopulated. Thus, we should keep illegals out, and expel those already here. Legal immigration should be reduced and limited to people who would make a real contribution to our country. (Most other countries, to the extent they allow any immigration, do this.)

I was called a racist for espousing the above. I replied that the extension of this logic is that the majority in this country (including many people of color), who basically agree with me, must then be racist. That logic is stupid.

0 Replies

Advocate,

Are you saying (again) that since "people of color" are saying something, it can't be racist? If you are saying this, it is both ignorant and offensive. If you are not saying this... then why bring up the term "people of color" in the first place.

A couple of years ago I participated in the immigrants rights marches. The people on your side (who were opposing us) had Confederate flags.

You do agree that the Confederate flag is a racist symbol, don't you?

0 Replies

I may point out that illegals make the same contribution as legals. Many times they work side by side.

Overpopulation is a subjective term. We can hold far more people than what we have now. China has about the same land mass as we do and a billion more people.

The only way we will remain static or lose our population is if conditions get so bad that no one wants to enter, stay or have families.

I'm thinking of Russia at this point but I'm not sure if their present population is gaining or losing. I believe at one point it was losing. Walter may have something on that.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

I may point out that illegals make the same contribution as legals. Many times they work side by side.

Overpopulation is a subjective term. We can hold far more people than what we have now. China has about the same land mass as we do and a billion more people.

The only way we will remain static or lose our population is if conditions get so bad that no one wants to enter, stay or have families.

I'm thinking of Russia at this point but I'm not sure if their present population is gaining or losing. I believe at one point it was losing. Walter may have something on that.

I gather that, in general, living conditions are pretty poor in China (and India).

0 Replies

They always have been.

So what. That has nothing to do with immigration in America.

0 Replies

No idea about the changes in Russia, xingu.

But this is another nice statistic .... interesting for Advocate perhaps as well:

Source

0 Replies

Thanks

0 Replies

The argument here seems to be that, since the USA can accommodate more people, we should. Just because we can accommodate more, doesn't mean that it would be desirable. As I explained ad nauseum, it would have an overall negative effect on the country and its people.

0 Replies

I am sure that Germany can accommodate a lot more people. Thus, Walter must be desirous of opening the immigrant floodgates.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I am sure that Germany can accommodate a lot more people. Thus, Walter must be desirous of opening the immigrant floodgates.

Im really sure, we can accomodate more immigrants. We've proved that before. (Besides that we could 17 million new citizens from one day to the other.)

We had had the highest numbers in 1992 (1,219,348 new admissions, nearly 440,000 asylum seekers). Since those years in the 90's the numbers went down (to a bit above 650,000 in totaliter last year).

And with 230.5 persons per sq km we certainly haven't reached The Netherlands. Or Singapore.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Advocate wrote:
I am sure that Germany can accommodate a lot more people. Thus, Walter must be desirous of opening the immigrant floodgates.

Im really sure, we can accomodate more immigrants. We've proved that before. (Besides that we could 17 million new citizens from one day to the other.)

We had had the highest numbers in 1992 (1,219,348 new admissions, nearly 440,000 asylum seekers). Since those years in the 90's the numbers went down (to a bit above 650,000 in totaliter last year).

And with 230.5 persons per sq km we certainly haven't reached The Netherlands. Or Singapore.

We have quite a large number of illegals who we can send you. OK?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The argument here seems to be that, since the USA can accommodate more people, we should. Just because we can accommodate more, doesn't mean that it would be desirable. As I explained ad nauseum, it would have an overall negative effect on the country and its people.

As I have said this has been an argument nativist have used for 150 years or so. I have yet to see the negative effect past immigration has had on this country but I have seen a lot of good from their decendants.

There is no way you, Dobbs or anyone else can predict the future of this country based on immigration. If anyone does then they are either full of BS and engaging in fear mongering or we have to recognize that they have been given a special gift of prophesy by the Lord and let them be our guiding light.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know