What should be done about illegal immigration?

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Come on okie. What respectable American who can afford a computer would do yard work? Surely it is beneath his dignity.

I will happily do yard work if I don't have to pay taxes or fulfill any other obligations that that citizens or people with green cards are expected to pay or fulfill. I'm particularly fond of peonies and bean plants. So how does your garden grow?

By the way, I was just reading today that you Brits are doing a very good job of protecting your own borders and not letting folks in that aren't supposed to be there. And yet I bet I could get a Visa to visit you with little problem at all. Probably a work permit too, yes? (No you don't have my fingerprints on file yet.)

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

okie wrote:

Questions for all the people obsessed with bigotry accusations, such as O'Bill, ebrown, and all the other race baiters:
If a person is against smoking and thinks it is very bad for that person, is that person bigoted against people that smoke?

If a person is against stealing and think stealing should be punished, is that person bigoted against people that steal?

Bigoted wouldn't really fit the context... but I'll give you prejudice. Many people hold a prejudice against smokers and most hold a prejudice against thieves. Many people hold a prejudice against those who cross borders without permission, too.

I think it does fit the context. I know people that smoke, some are friends, including some relatives, I like them, but think it is bad for them. I am prejudiced against smoking, but not toward the people that smoke solely because they smoke. If they are a bad person, I don't look on them with favor. So you can choose the term, "prejudice," fine, I am prejudiced against smoking, I admit it, but I am not necessarily prejudiced against the people that smoke. After all, smoking is legal, so no reason to hold that against them. I may think they are foolish, or perhaps just unfortunate, it depends upon the person.

Quote:

The question becomes; is this prejudice justified? And if so, where is the happy medium between my rights and those I am prejudiced against?

Is it reasonable to ban stealing? Yep.
Is it reasonable to hold thieves in jail? I think so.
Is it reasonable to exile them from the country? Probably not.
Is it reasonable to execute them? I'd say no.

Is it reasonable to ban smoking in public restaurants? Probably.
Is it reasonable to ban smoking in bars? Probably not.
Is it reasonable to ban smoking altogether? I'd say no.
Is it reasonable to exile smokers from the country? I'd say no.

I don't disagree with much of anything you said there, it all seems fairly reasonable, the punishment should fit the crime.

Quote:

Is it reasonable to ban Illegal entrants from the country? Probably.
Is it reasonable to punish those who come in illegally? Probably.
Is it reasonable to execute them? I'd say no.
Is it reasonable to exile them from the country? I say no.
That punishment doesn't fit the crime in any of the above situations, IMO. It is entirely too harsh.

Heres where I think your reasoning is haywire. If I can use an analogy, you think its okay to outlaw stealing, and probably would say it is entirely proper to make them quit stealing and give up the stolen merchandise. In the case of illegally immigrating, you say it should be against the law, but you then say its okay for them to stay here, to keep what they have illegally obtained, which is residence here. That makes no sense. Its like arresting someone for speeding, and then the judge says go ahead and keep doing it. And its like arresting someone for having stolen property, then telling them to keep the stolen property. Bill, your reasoning is really just wrong.

Quote:

Tell me Okie, what other crimes do you consider heinous enough for the perpetrators of same to deserve to be exiled away from their families?

First of all, the illegals came here illegally, I did not do that, they did, okay. Second, I am not happy about what happens to people, just as I am not happy about people that commit crimes going to jail and leaving their families to fend for themselves. But they did it, not anybody else. In regard to being exiled from their families, if we enforce hiring laws, the illegals would mostly go with their families, it would not exile them from their families, they would go with their families where a job was available.

I don't have perfect solutions because this problem has been left far too long without anything being done, and the blame goes toward the politicians that failed us. If the law had been enforced all along, this problem would not be anywhere near as severe as it is.

In regard to medical care, emergencies or life threatening cases, sure, show compassion, we take care of the children, but routine stuff, physicals for sports, whatever, do not provide free medical care, do not provide in state tuition for illegals, do not provide free education, do not give away food stamps to illegals, all of this is simply common sense.

It would be nice to give everything to everybody, including those that don't play by the rules, but eventually such a policy only bankrupts the local governments, the states, and the country. And it builds resentments, resentments that did not need to happen.

Finally, I hope you one day see through your ridiculous bigotry accusations, as it only reflects on your own character, and it isn't pretty, Bill.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Come on okie. What respectable American who can afford a computer would do yard work? Surely it is beneath his dignity.

LOL, good point, I agree too many Americans are too spoiled and coddled to do yard work, but only to a point, there are still alot of people willing to work, including yard work. I used to do it, spendius, as a business, and I still do it for my own house. I do have a riding mower however.

People will do pretty much what they have to do, and if things get tight enough, more people will resort to doing physcial labor. I would in fact love it if Obama, Clinton, and some of the other arrogant policians actually had done some hard work at sometime in their lives, like work the tower of an oil drilling rig, work the hayfields for a summer, something that would have taught them something valuable that they apparently never learned. It would also be nice if some of those people actually had run a business for a few years and made payroll for a few employees, I would love to see how their thinking might have been different. Learning economics up close and real is alot better than out of a book or at some ivy league school listening to a clueless professor.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Come on okie. What respectable American who can afford a computer would do yard work? Surely it is beneath his dignity.

Are you saying that I'm not respectable?
I own 2 computers, and I do yard work.
I like doing yard work, I enjoy doing yard work, and my yard looks good because of it.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

O'Moron, that is an article I copied and pasted. I am not responsible for all that is in the article. Are you responsible for 100 % of what is in articles you post?

You are truly a POS.

Nice try, you witless coward. I see neither quotes, nor a credit anywhere in that post. If you're going to plagiarize bigoted ****, and don't want to be accused of bigotry, you may want be a little choosier about who and what you plagiarize… and identify what is your words and what isn’t. Should I take this denial to be a change of heart? Are you retracting your endorsement? That would be a step in the right direction.

Btw, accusing me of lying for accurately quoting you only serves to make you look like a total idiot. You should retract that as well, if you have a thread of integrity.

0 Replies

@okie,

Your comment about resentment started me thinking. Possibly tomorrow being Easter Sunday had something to do with it too.

I wonder how many people are converted by people like ebrown and Obill screaming "racist!" "bigot!" "you want to starve children!"? Probably as many as are converted to Islam when a militant calls them 'infidels who must die' or as many as are converted to Christianity by some arrogant, smug, self-important type informing the 'sinner' that he's 'going to hell'.

But sometimes those tactics do work I suppose. Probably many dutifully profess their allegiance to Mohammed because there would be real and serious consequences administered by the fanatics if they did not. And probably some people do adopt Christianity out of fear for their immortal souls. I have a hard time thinking such 'converts' are ever truly happy in their convictions though. Maybe somebody somewhere is convinced to accept amnesty via verbal bullying and bludgeoning too. Maybe they agree to win approval and praise from the politically correct. But I dont' think very many are happy about it. And the resentment will persist.

Reason is rarely effective with the Islamic fanatic, and such fanatics certainly do create a lot of resentment. I have often wondered how many have turned away from the Christian faith because of the unattractive way in which they were introduced to Jesus Christ. I know the resentment is real and often lasting.

I wonder how many are turned off trying to find the best plan to deal with illegal immigration by the likes of those who won't even discuss anything other than their own fanatical position and who condemn any who do not share it?

Wouldn't it be nice to discuss the pros and cons of various options with reasonable people? Perhaps there would be less resentment all around.

1 Reply

foxfyre said

Quote:

Wouldn't it be nice to discuss the pros and cons of various options with reasonable people?

I'm think YES it would really be nice to discuss various pros and cons with reasonable people. Perhaps foxfyre could begin such a discussion. (or at least participate in one)

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

Perhaps you would care to point out where I have not been reasonable, Dys? I started this thread in hopes of having a reasonable discussion on this subject. I suppose you think members calling other members 'racist' and 'bigot' and 'wanting to starve children' reasonable though. I suppose the fact that most of us on the pro-enforcement side of the debate try to actually discuss the subject instead of call people names makes us the unreasonable ones;.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I wonder how many people are converted by people like ebrown and Obill screaming "racist!" "bigot!" "you want to starve children!"? Probably as many as are converted to Islam when a militant calls them 'infidels who must die' or as many as are converted to Christianity by some arrogant, smug, self-important type informing the 'sinner' that he's 'going to hell'.

This is an example of you being unreasonable (if Dys doesn't mind if I cut in). You refuse to admit that bigotry is an issue... and you refuse to admit that many Americans feel that issues of compassion, and the suffering caused to real human beings that your position causes.

I am not naive enough to think you can be converted. But there are many people who are being converted.

Hispanic-Americans (and I mean US citizens who can vote) say overwhelmingly that they are upset by the bigotry in the immigration debate. This includes Hispanic Americans who tend to be conservative and even some who are not in favor of a path to citizenship.

This has a real impact on the US electorate as you can see from the past election. When the Republicans lose Cubans (as they did in Florida) they are in deep trouble. Combined with the other people supporting compassionate immigration reform; churches, unions and law enforcement organizations. Your position is a political loser-- even though obstructionism is unfortunately easy to pull off for a while in our political system.

This is a battle for the middle. You fail to admit it Foxfyre, but you are part of an extreme minority.You hung on to block immigration reform last time-- but you had to resort to a filibuster. Your side keeps losing elections. Eventually you will lose out on this issue to the reasonable compromise that we all know is comming; a path to citizenship with border and workplace enforcement provisions and perhaps a reasonable reform in laws going forward.

I would like this to happen sooner rather than later. But, tf the right wing goes down in flames fighting the inevitable... I guess that is OK too.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

I have not refused to admit that bigotry is an issue. I have flat out said time and again that you and Obill and others like you have made it THE issue. For myself it is not and I believe for the vast majority of the pro enforcement group, it is not. But you and Obill are not willing to discuss that at all.

But as for me being in a tiny minority, this is still a big deal issue for many Americans and it appears to still be as bipartisan as it was when I first put the poll up here on A2K. You may recall that the A2K poll (which we no longer have) attracted a large number of participants and on a forum in which the liberals outnumber the conservatives at least three or four to one, that poll favored enforcement at just over two to one. My own Hispanic relatives informally poll about the same as the "Anglos" and Italians with pro-enforcement winning out over pro-amnesty about 2 to 1.

We on A2K, except for Obill, started out mostly discussing it in a reasonable manner way back then. But it seems that some have become more and more polarized and more and more frantic as the months have ticked by. I realize there are broad differences of opinion and all sides should be heard. I doubt there is anybody out there that is more aware of the real human issues involved than I am because I have been so closely involved with some of those and those concerns also should be addressed. My personal suggestions addressed those concerns but still I am branded racist and bigot by you and Obill and your ilk.

So is it all or nothing in your mind? No room for compromise so that all concerns can be heard and addressed? Is bigotry in our historical immigration policy important to the here and now? Does a brown person who is poor and needy merit more consideration than a black person or Native American or Asian or white person?

No basis to discuss this in a non ad hominem, non insulting manner?

Again re that 'tiny minority' you assume, and those benefits that Obill gets so hysterical about, the following is instructive:

Froma Harrop is nobody's idea of a rightwinger nor was she a Bush supporter.

Quote:

Immigrants and the Safety Net
A Commentary By Froma Harrop
Tuesday, September 09, 2008

The conservative economist Milton Friedman famously said, "You can't have free immigration and a welfare state." He was right. You can't flood our labor markets with illegal workers paying little in taxes -- and provide good government benefits for everyone.

But perhaps the opposite is also true. Perhaps you can't have open borders if you have a high level of benefits.

That's the case in Canada and much of Europe. Canada has a large immigration program and guaranteed health care for everyone, including foreigners who are legal residents. Canada does not tolerate illegal immigration. It can't afford to extend its expensive benefits to people who don't belong there.

Conservative politicians often portray government programs as a magnet to illegal aliens, but almost never as an incentive to enforce America's immigration laws. Rep. Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, last year voted against the popular bill to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program. This would have helped more moderate-income families cover their uninsured children. When his Democratic foe, Kay Barnes, slammed him over the vote, Graves responded that the bill would have extended "free taxpayer-funded health care" to, among others, illegal immigrants.

Funny thing about "taxpayer-payer funded health care," which, by the way, no one should ever call "free." Billionaire retirees get it, as do the poor and members of Congress, including Graves and his kin.

Other Americans obtain private coverage through their employer or can buy their own, assuming they don't have a sick family member. The only large uninsured group that doesn't have health-care security is the working stiffs.

And what about illegal immigrants? They don't have a government program, but they can show up in the nation's emergency rooms. The care delivered there may be "free" for them, but not for others. It is subsidized by the taxpayers and by higher premiums charged on private health insurance.

In this country, threadbare government benefits are an essential element of the cheap-labor economy. Illegal immigrants provide low-cost labor and suppress the wages of workers who must compete with them, be they native-born or legal immigrants.

And as long as few benefits are flowing to them from Washington, the Bush administration can offer this gift to employers with little skin off its own back. Those who do pay most of the resulting costs are unskilled workers and the local governments that must provide services to people who contribute little to their coffers.

But suppose the federal government guaranteed health coverage for all workers and their families. Wouldn't that make open borders a far more expensive proposition than it is now? It would.

Democrats have just dropped plans for another vote on the Children's Health Insurance Program. Bush had condemned the bill as a perilous move toward "government-run health care for every American" -- and has promised to veto the legislation as he's already done twice before. (Bush's concern about government-run enterprises must have had them rolling in the aisles on Wall Street this week, as the U.S. Treasury effectively nationalized the two financial companies responsible for three-quarters of new home mortgages.)

Singling out 10 million working-class children as the one group unworthy of a government insurance program would seem beyond the moral pale, but the Bush administration has always had a warped idea of right and not right. As for the immigration angle, the bill wouldn't have covered legal aliens, much less illegal ones.

But beyond those particulars lies this argument: The more generous the social safety net, the more essential that the people using it are here legally and making enough money to help pay the costs. Milton Friedman didn't like government, but he would have gotten the point.

2008 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/immigrants_and_the_safety_net

I didn't quote the whole piece here but it did reflect the dichotomy of wanting the immigration problem handled forcefully on one hand with concern for the civil rights of people on the other hand:

Quote:

68% of Arizona Voters Favor Sheriff Who Gets Tough on Immigration
Thursday, March 19, 2009

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Arizona voters have a favorable view of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose aggressive enforcement of laws against illegal immigration have triggered an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. Forty-six percent (46%) view the sheriff very favorably.

Just 26% have an unfavorable opinion of Arpaio, including 16% who are very unfavorable, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Arizona voters. Seven percent (7%) are not sure.

Arizona voters also strongly approve of some of the tactics the sheriff employs to fight illegal immigration and crime related to it.

Seventy-four percent (74%), for example, believe that when a police officer pulls someone over for a traffic violation, they should automatically check to see if that person is in the country legally. Twenty-one percent (21%) disagree. These numbers are virtually identical to national findings on the same question.

Sixty-three percent (63%) say that if law enforcement officers know of places where immigrants gather to find work, they should sometimes conduct surprise raids to identify and deport illegal immigrants. Thirty-one percent (31%) oppose those raids. Voters nationally are a bit more supportive of this tactic to fight illegal immigration.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/states_general/arizona/68_of_arizona_voters_favor_sheriff_who_gets_tough_on_immigration

Quote:

68% Say Those Who Employ Illegal Immigrants Should Be Punished
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of U.S. voters favor strict government sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. That’s up slightly from a couple of years ago.

Only 22% say the employers should not be penalized, and 10% are not sure.

Voters are more divided on whether to punish landlords who rent or sell property to illegal immigrants--48% support sanctions on landlords while 36% are opposed.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/68_say_those_who_employ_illegal_immigrants_should_be_punished

Quote:

73% Say Cops Should Check Immigration Status During Traffic Stops
Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Seventy-three percent (73%) of U.S. voters believe that a police officer should automatically check to see if someone is in this country legally when the officer pulls that person over for a traffic violation. Only 21% disagree, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of voters also say that if law enforcement officers know of places where immigrants gather to find work, they should sometimes conduct surprise raids to identify and deport illegal immigrants. Twenty-four percent (24%) oppose surprise raids.

But most voters (61%) are at least somewhat concerned that efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants also will end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens. That figure includes 32% who are very concerned. Thirty-seven percent (37%) are not concerned.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/73_say_cops_should_check_immigration_status_during_traffic_stops

Quote:

74% Say Government Not Doing Enough to Secure Borders
Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Seventy-four percent (74%) of U.S. voters continue to believe the federal government is not doing enough to secure the country’s borders, even as President-elect Obama has named a new secretary of Homeland Security who is opposed to a border fence.

Just 11% say the government is doing enough to secure the borders, while15% are undecided in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans and 73% of unaffiliated voters don’t think the government is doing enough to control the borders, compared to 64% of Democrats.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters say gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers in the country, but 27% say legalizing illegal immigrants is the priority. Ten percent (10%) are undecided.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/74_say_government_not_doing_enough_to_secure_borders

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

So apparently ebrown's definition of being unreasonable is to not accept his reasoning.

Foxfyre, don't you see that you are being unreasonable by not admitting that your position on this topic is founded in your personal bigotry, that you have no compassion for anyone, and that by holding your opinions you are causing suffering to "real humans?"

Ebrown points out that “Hispanic-American" Americans say overwhelmingly (which I guess means they say it very, very loudly) that they are upset by the bigotry in the immigration debate. If this doesn't prove to you that your personal opinions on the subject are bigoted, then you really are unreasonable.

When will you start being reasonable and admit that you are part of an extreme minority that is (you guessed it)...unreasonable?

Don't you realize that by not admitting you are a bigot on the fringe of society you are forcing reasonable people to point this fact out to you over and over again? This is an unreasonable burden to lay on them.

I don't share ebrown's pessimism though.

I believe that with continued, constant encouragement from reasonable folks like him, Dys, and Occum Bill, you will come to the realization that you are a indeed a bigot who is harming "real humans." Once you admit that fact you will be welcomed into the ranks of the reasonable.

Good luck.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Your comment about resentment started me thinking. Possibly tomorrow being Easter Sunday had something to do with it too.

Its only common sense, Foxfyre. How many students that play by the rules in a class would not feel resentment toward another group of students that were given a pass without taking the test or without studying, or without showing up for class. How many employees of a company would not feel resentment toward another group of employees that were hired without the same qualifications required for the first group. And the obvious parallel, how many citizens that play by the rules, paying their taxes, buying insurance, and all the other stuff, do not feel resentment toward another group of citizens that seem to ignore playing by the rules. Most people are going to quietly observe and not make a stink about it, but make no mistake, most people are pretty observant and are noticing it.

The really bad part about this is that in areas that have alot of illegal immigrants, and where it is common knowledge, there are often other fully legal citizens of hispanic heritage, and these fully legal and honorable citizens then must endure the undeserved suspicion of being illegal by other members of society, simply by virtue of their heritage. This is wrong, very wrong, and did not have to happen, but it has happened simply because too many politicians never did their job. And something the O'Bills and Ebrowns are overlooking is that the resentments that have built up, some of which they label as bigotry, is simply resentment, fully understandable, that has been caused by their very own favored political policies. So the irony here is that some of the very people screeming about bigotry are possibly the very same people that deserve the blame for the resentments in society. I would not call it bigotry, I would call it resentment.

As for myself, I have lived around hispanics, have quite a few as friends, and know of a few illegals, but any resentment I may have I think is toward the politicans and the government for not doing their jobs, rather than the illegals. Even this fades away until I am reminded again of how many prisons are required for illegals, how many jobs are usurped, and how much debt has been piled up by this problem that never needed to happen. I know of at least one acquaintance that was killed by an illegal running a stop light, and since he had no insurance, he simply disappeared and went back to Mexico, and to anyones knowledge is still there, but who knows.

Alot of this has happened because employers were so interested in the almighty dollar that they hired non-citizens, so they are to blame as much or more than the illegals themselves. That is why I think the solution is to punish the employers, and this problem would subside greatly.

1 Reply

Foxfyre, your cherry-picked polls from a conservative leaning polling firm (and don't tell me that Rasmussen isn't conservative leaning-- that they couldn't resist an anti-Obama swipe in the last article you posted which is supposed to be a report on polling data is kind of funny.)

But the point is what makes up a reasonable immigration compromise that moderate Americans would support. Find me a poll that asks a form of this question:

Quote:

"One proposal that has been discussed in Congress would allow illegal immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years, and who do not have a criminal record, to start on a path to citizenship by registering that they are in the country, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted, and learning English, among other requirements. Do you support or oppose this, or haven't you heard enough about it to say?"

But, right wingers wrote:

No Amnesty Today! No Amnesty Tomorrow! No Amnesty Forever!

This is out of line with real mainstream America.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Hi Finn!

You know, I think that it is so predictable that whatever I think is so obviously unreasonable to Dys, Obill, and ebrown, that I could probably settle the immigration debate by taking the open borders, ya'll come, no questions asked approach. They would then most likely take the other side and we have a done deal. Smile

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

My 'cherry picked polls' are the most up-to-date available that I could find, but you are certainly capable of posting your own up-to-date polls that will demonstrate how biased you think Rasmussen to be. (I bet you would be praising the polls if they supported your position better; and I'm pretty darn sure you didn't read the links or you would see how unbiased those polls actually are. I even led off by a piece by one of the most vocal far leftwing critics of the Bush administration and a strong Obama supporter, but yeah, I'm biased. You didn't read that either, did you. )

I would have no problem with your solution EXCEPT that it has already been tried - twice - and it did not solve the problem. It only encouraged much more illegality. You see it here in the USA among citizens too. Make breaking the traffic laws little more than a slap on the wrist, payment of a fine, go to traffic school for a few sessions, etc. and there is little incentive not to break the law. Make those fines painful, however, revoke drivers' licenses, etc. and all but the most hardcore lawbreakers become quite law abiding.

When New Mexico was one of the last states to adopt a Megan's Law, the lawmakers were finally persuaded to pass one when sex offenders started streaming into New Mexico where they could escape that law in other states. Illegal immigration is not dealing with sex offenses and before you say it, I am not comparing illegals to sex offenders. But the principle involved is the same.

What is your problem with requiring people to obey the law in order to be eligible for citizenship? Why shouldn't all people have to follow the rules to come here to work? Why do you see such a concept to be such a heinous grievance against human rights? What do you say to the brother of my friend who just got his invitation to come and is now on the path to citizenship? He waited years for that privilege and his brother says he can't wait to be an American. And now you want to tell him that 12 million people plus their families which will likely swell that number three or four fold will be forgiven their offense and will be given new rules?

I saw Affirmative Action as necessary to break down entrenched attitudes of segregation, but once that was done, it should have been discontinued so that honorable hard working black people would be recognized for accomplishing their achievements on merit and not because of affirmative action. Okie is right that the same principle applies re illegal immigrants. Make everybody follow the same rules and all will be welcomed as new citizens. Reward millions for breaking the law and all of their nationality and/or ethnic group become suspect as former illegals.

No, my suggestions are far more humane and far more likely to accomplish what you, obill, Dys etc. want to accomplish. It will allow people who want and need to be here to come with no stigma and no question about how they got here with far less justified resentment involved. That is the better way to go.

0 Replies

@okie,

ebrown won't believe that my Hispanic family members are pro-enforcement about two to one. We have a very large Hispanic population here in New Mexico and I am guessing that if you laid out his plan beside my plan and asked everybody to pick one, a majority would pick mine for all the reasons I have already stated. (Hispanic is the generic word New Mexicans use for 'brown' people from Spain, Mexico, etc. here in New Mexico.)

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

I did screw up by not citing a source, something I always do. However, you mischaracterize the article. It says no welfare or food stamps, but doesn't say anything about starving the illegals, or ruling out emergency food aid. But that is a little too complex for your little brain.

You are probably the dumbest poster on A2K, saying such really stupid things; we should open our borders, we can accommodate billions more people, and desalination is the answer to water problems.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Learning economics up close and real is alot better than out of a book or at some ivy league school listening to a clueless professor.

Professor Veblen claimed he learned the essentials of the subject whilst walking beside his father ploughing the fields with a horse.

But it's a bit naive today I'm afraid. Psychology is more important now.

1 Reply

@spendius,

oy spendi, I never expected you to cite a darwinist.

2 Replies

@dyslexia,

Just a quick break to say Happy Easter.

Jesus was a man who defended lawbreakers and argued with Pharisees. That makes him OK in my book.

1 Reply

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know