50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
el pohl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 May, 2006 01:31 pm
If the Roman empire fell...

I agree up to a point. If inmigrants keep flooding California and other states, without adapting to the "american" culture, well... I won't say that America would be destroyed, but rather, redefined.

Dang, it's unfortunate that there is no illegal inmigrant registered in A2K to take a part in this forums. Probably he is hiding in Relationships and & Marriage... Idea
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 May, 2006 02:48 pm
Foxfyre, quoting others wrote:
The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.


Mr. Lipset's historical "scholarship" is suspect: Canada--has an amending forumula for constitutional change which requires unanimity of the provinces, the special interests of the prairie Provinces, and of the First Nations threaten that nation as much as anyone can allege that Québec does, which it the obvious contention here--the last separation vote in that province was defeated in 1995, and no separation vote has ever come close to dissolving the Confederation; Belgium--the tensions between the Flemish and the Walloons has never threatened that nation's existence as a unitary state; Malaysia--the tensions between the Muslim majority and the minority ethnic groups has never threatened that nation's existence as a unitary state; Lebanon--Lebanon's civil war was sparked by an Israeli invasion targeting Palestinian refugee camps and the PLO, all of which had been expelled from Palestine by the Israelis, Syria subsequently invaded, and the Israelis made the Maronite Christian militias their military clients in response to the Syrian invasion. There was no threat to the existence of Lebanon as a unitary state until it had been twice invaded. Pakistan--was created as a divided state in 1947; East Pakistan became Bangladesh both because of neglect and abuse by Islamabad, and the active, military interferrence of Indira Ghandi. Prior to the 1971 war in
East Pakistan, Pakistan had never been cohesive, unitary state, and was only created as it was to provide enclaves for the Muslims of India. Cyprus was divided because the Turks invaded, and the Greeks were unable to expell them. As both of those nations are members of NATO, international diplomacy was paralyzed in reaching a solution. Nigeria's majority tribe waged war against the Biafrans--it is completely false ot have characterized that as "an ethnic rebellion." France has never been threatened as a unitary state by the Basques, or the Bretons, and the Corsicans are a people of Italian descent, who became the "property" of France as the result of the transfer of the island from Genoa to France. The Corsicans fought the Genoese, and when France took over, they fought the French. Corsicans have never threatened France's stability as a unitary nation (unless you count Napoleon, which would be a hell of a stretch).

Quote:
Third, "We could make the United States a 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity
.

This is another canard, based upon a false contention that the province of Québec threatens the Canadian confederation. Once again, no vote in Québec has ever endorsed separatism.

Quote:
Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games.

A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.


This is disingenous, and finishes with a bald-faced lie. Greece was never a unitary nation before they rose against the Turks in the 1820s. Their "disunity" in the ancient world was no different than the "disunity" of all polities then, in an age when the concept of nationalism simply did not exist. It is a lie that "Greece fell." The Persians not only did not succeed in conquering Greece, the Greeks were a necessary ingredient in the eventual Macedonian conquest of the Persian empire. Your boy here is just lying outright to make his false claims.

Both Lamm's hateful drivel, and the lies which underpin it, are identical to the article which Fox has quoted--a hateful screed, puked up in the vilest form of propaganda.

The only redeeming feature here, if one can consider it to be that, is that Fox, for once, isn't making these things up herself, she is quoting someone else who has done so.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 May, 2006 11:43 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I am less concerned with the nonsense upon which you rely, than the nonsense you expouse.


I'm most thankfull for your deep analysis of my opinion.


You're quite welcome.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 May, 2006 11:51 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I would never argue that the Guardian is pro-UK, only that it is reliably anti-US. Think otherwise if you will.


I obviously missunderstood your remarks ...

What else is new?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Typical insipid nonsense from the Guardian.

First of all, criticism of illegal immigration is not the same thing as criticism of "migration." The Left is desperate to frame this issue in terms of racism or xenophobia, but it is a hollow charge.
[...]
That any UK institution (press or otherwise) might lecture the US on it's regard for foreigners is absurd and, frankly, nauseating. Guardian, deal first with your own issues before even considering an opinion on ours! But, of course, they will not because for their Liberal readers the produce of their coin is the bashing of America.


... since I'd thought, in your terminology 'liberal' was equivalent to the Left.

(You are correct that one might consider the Guardian not to be strictly a left [= Labour] paper but more leaning to the Liberal-Democrats. Althought they don't follow their strategies strictly either.)

You conveniently missed my point.

That Europe, within a hair's breadth of its Colonial past might seek to lecture the US on it's foreign policy is laughable. The more so for the former continental powers. At least Britain believed that it was shoving virtue down the throats of the bloody Wogs.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 May, 2006 12:45 am
ebrown_p wrote:
Finn,

I love your posts.

So gratified am I.

The sheer impotance of your position fills me with hope and excitement.

Whatever floats your boat "eb," but it is a bizarre point of view that chooses to use "impotence" in this debate. Given that "impotence' has an unarguably sexually connotation, one must wonder what you might be suggesting. Those who disagree with you are eunachs?

As a movement builds that is energizing the Latino community, gaining support from various groups from the Catholic community to African-Americans; all you can do is rant about liberals.

Because Liberals are the Bad Actors in this drama.

As a sidebar, I have to acknowledge that you are are absolute Aces as respects Leftist jargon and propoganda. It's tough, indeed, to catch you off (ridiculous) message.


We will know whether you are right, or whether I am by what happens next. If the Right Wing Republicans are able to pass anti-immigrant legislation in a Congress that is still controlled by Republicans... if there are mass arrests... if there is English only legislation passed than I will know that you are right.

What utter tripe (and so expected).

Is it possible for you to frame your arguments as anything but a challenge to the Evil? Good God this is such a Liberal trait!

Stop your blather for a moment and try, if you will, to demonstrate where and how I have argued in favor of "mass arrests,: or "English Only," legislation.

You know EB, there are plenty of mofos out there in the real world who would love to see us utterly fail, if not utterly die. Try and save your righteous indignation for the bastards who woild murder you and your little babe, and waste not your energy on your fellow Americans.


But I don't think so.

As Ghandi said about popular movements

Ghandi wrote:

First they ignore you, than they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.


This is more than a fight about illegal immigration. This is part of a broader struggle for what America means.

The Republican Right is launching a war on multiculturalism. The battle is whether the United States is about being English-speaking and Straight and Christian, or whether we truly are a melting-pot of many different cultures who are all respected and who all contribute to something greater.

Blah blah bla blah and blah!

If there is actually a war on "muti-culturalism," then sign me up...for the offense.

Of course the US is about "English-speaking." Only Liberal idiots suggest otherwise. Language is, intrinsicaly, understanding." Not political. It takes extreme chooch-meyers (like Ebrown) to make the extraodrdinary jumop between what is and what they want to fight.

EB, your posts depress me. Clearly you are not a moron and yet you insist on expressing and advancing moronic opinions. Somewhere you have come to the conclusion tht you must "Fight The Power." Good for you you pathetic warrior.

Speak Truth to Power doesn;t encompass the tirades of you and your fellow Lefties. No one on the A2K Right is a a recognizable representative of "The Right," who might change their stripes for the promise of manna.

Step down from your soap-box and engage.







This is why more and more American citizens from diverse backgrounds-- Haitian, Jewish, Catholic, Irish and Asian are voicing support for this movement. The continued use of the noun "illegal" to refer to a person, attacks on the Spanish language (and thus the Latin-American identity) all help us gain support.

The next couple of elections... and the next session in Congress is going to say whether my view of an inclusive, compassionate, diverse and accepting United States has political support.

I am confident the White Christian legalistic view of America that attacks diversity and puts law-and-order over human decency is on its way out

... but we will find out in the near future won't we.

Just understand that when the Immigrants rights movement gains strength, when the anti-immigrant forces lose political power, and when politicians pass legislation that you don't like... it is not the "illegal" immigrants fault. They have no power.

Politicians are under pressure to follow the will of voters-- American citizens. That is what the politicians from Schwarzenegger to Kennedy to McCain to Spectre to Bush are doing. That is why anti-immigrant legislation in Arizona was vetoed. That is why HR4432 is basically politically dead.

By the way, you win in Georgia. But given their history in the civil rights movement this is not very surprising.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 May, 2006 01:01 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
A question aside: does noone demonstrate against the music the music of the National Anthem of the United States of America since it has been composed by a royalist Britton?


Oh how droll Walter!

I hope that didn't take you overlong to come up wiith.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 May, 2006 01:03 am
Re: immigration
hamburger wrote:
frederic pohl , one of the greatest science-fiction writers

http://www.frederikpohl.com/images/fpohl-140-Pohl2004.jpg


Indeed!
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 May, 2006 01:04 am
Re: immigration
hamburger wrote:
frederic pohl , one of the greatest science-fiction writers

http://www.frederikpohl.com/images/fpohl-140-Pohl2004.jpg


But not in the Top Ten.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 06:51 am
Karl Rove's attempt to create a wedge issue over a backlash against immigration is failing miserably. As well, foxfyre's absurd allegation that her views are in the majority is proven wrong.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29685

Quote:
By Nathan Newman | bio

The most recent NY Times/CBS poll is getting headlines for showing that Bush is the lamest of lame ducks, but the most interesting numbers are on immigration.

On the political front, 45% support the Dem position versus 29% supporting the GOP on immigration.


Remarkably, the number of people calling for LEGAL immigration to be decreased is at a historical low. Just last year and for most of the last decades, roughly a majority of the public called for decreasi


ng immigration below its present levels.

Today, just 34% call for decreasing legal immigration today, with 39% calling for INCREASED levels of legal immigration and 22% calling for maintaining present levels of immigration. Obviously, some of the message has gotten through that the best way to deal with illegal immigration is to create greater opportunities for legal status for immigrants.

And as for illlegal immigration, only 36% of Americans in the poll believe immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens. But it's on solving the problem that you see the rightwing view being rejected:

* 61% of Americans favor giving illegal immigrants legal status and keeping their present jobs
* and 66% reject building the proposed 700-mile fence at the border

So much for backlash. The American people are more pragmatic and would rather deal with immigrants as human beings needing to be brought fully into the American community.

May 10, 2006 -- 08:21:50 AM EST | Tag
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 07:11 am
OMFG NY Times/CBS poll????????????????
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 07:20 am
cjhsa wrote:
OMFG NY Times/CBS poll????????????????


Yeah, and never mind that it contradicts almost all the others, but just about everybody is conveniently cherry picking lines from the polls that support a particular position while ignoring the implications of the larger picture.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 07:51 am
Foxfyre wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
OMFG NY Times/CBS poll????????????????


Yeah, and never mind that it contradicts almost all the others, but just about everybody is conveniently cherry picking lines from the polls that support a particular position while ignoring the implications of the larger picture.


Bullshit
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 09:04 am
http://www.standardspeaker.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1845&Itemid=2

"By a wide margin, Americans want lower immigration levels and tighter immigration controls.


That's according to a new poll by Zogby and Associates, a nationally known polling firm.


Across the board, and often by margins of 2-to-1 or larger, the poll found Americans want the number of immigrants allowed in the United States reduced and a tough approach taken with those here illegally.


The poll, released Wednesday, was conducted among 1,000 likely voters between April 17 and 24. A "likely voter" is one who has voted at least once in the last two years and is likely to vote in the coming election.


By a 67-26 percent margin, poll respondents said the number of immigrants, both legal and illegal, allowed into the United States should be reduced. Eight percent said they were not sure."


"The first question offered respondents two choices: A - "The time has come to reduce immigration so we can assimilate the immigrants already in the county," and, B - "Immigrants are assimilating fine, and we should continue the current level of immigration." A whopping 67 percent picked A; just 26 percent picked B. Eight percent said they weren't sure.


There was a difference between Republicans and Democrats, though not a big one. Some 74 percent of Republicans favored A, while 61 percent of Democrats did. Only 21 percent of Republicans favored B, while 32 percent of Democrats did.


There was a small difference between whites and blacks. Whites favored A 70-23, with 6 percent unsure. Blacks favored A 65-26 percent, with 9 percent saying they weren't sure."
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 09:16 am
Your article does a good job of putting a spin on the numbers to make it appear as though more Americans want to increase immigration. Fact is, according to the poll you cite Roxxxanne, 56% want to hold the line or decrease legal immigration while 39% want to increase immigration. I guess the other 5% had no opinion, so one could say that while 39% wanted to increase immigration quotas, 61% do not want an increase.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 09:22 am
None of that is as important as Mr. Bush's clear vision for victory in Iraq, which will lead the Iraqi people to the sunny uplands of freedom, peace and democracy.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 09:25 am
Set, I don't think that'll happen until they split Iraq into three semi-independent countries with the proviso that they split the oil revenues in some equitable way. Still a tough road ahead.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 09:27 am
You know, illegal immigrants are a lot like the Iraqi people were before our President put his bold plan into motion to achieve inevitable victory in Iraq. Thanks to his vision and foresight, the Iraqi people will soon be transformed into agents of democracy, like an immigrant who receives a green card. Victory in Iraq is just around the corner!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 09:34 am
"Just around the corner?"

blacksmithn, You'd better tell Bush this good news; he's of the opinion that success will be achieved during the next administration.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 09:35 am
You probably also missed this:

Iraq killings top 1,000 in April
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has said more than 1,000 people were killed last month in Baghdad as a result of continuing sectarian violence.

Mr Talabani cited a report from a Baghdad morgue saying 1,091 people were killed between 1 and 30 April.

He said he was "shocked and angry" at daily reports of bodies being found.

He was speaking as PM-designate Nouri Maliki prepared to name his government, which analysts hope will be better able to tackle the growing violence.

A wave of sectarian violence, sparked by the 22 February bombing of a Shia shrine in Samarra, has swept across Iraq.

Bodies, some of which have shown signs of torture, have been discovered on a daily basis in the capital. Sunni Muslims say government-backed Shia militias are behind many attacks, a charge the Iraqi government denies.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 09:37 am
This sort of negativism won't help, it will only be when we all get behind the President and his courageous plan for victory in Iraq that these problems will be sorted.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/18/2025 at 11:31:53