The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

Can someone explain to me why the Republicans seem to be so rabid about the immigration issue? It seems to be the #1 issue on republican voters' list (even above Iraq, terrorism, the economy). So much so, that the crowd was booing a national hero (McCain, one of the few who actually tried to attack the problem with something other than rhetoric), because he suggested that deporting every illegal immigrant might not be a workable solution.

What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.) What percentage is purely an economic issue? How much is fear of crime or terrorism?

The part from the debate that bugs me most is when the candidates try to use the phony argument that there are a bunch of "legal" immigrants lined up at the border, who can't get in because all the "illegals" sneaked in and "took their spots". As if the USA has some sort of Fire Dept. max occupancy sign on the wall. The USA can still let in all the legal immigrants it chooses to. So this idea that they really just want to deport the illegals so they can let all those poor legal immigrants in, is the worst kind of pandering political BS IMO.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

I think a lot of it is fear. It seems like every other story on Fox news is a story about some crime or another that was commited by an illegal immigrant. Racism/ignorance is probably a decent part as well as fear of terrorism.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

There are 3 issues that will decide the general election. Iraq, taxes and immigration, everything else is just noise.

There are no major differences between the major candidates, and little in their historical records to differentiate them on Iraq and taxes. They have all been all over the place on immigration, however, and they need to solidify their message before the general.

The reasons it is a major issue should be obvious. It is a combination of national security, economics and rule of law. Are their racists? Sure, on both sides of the issue. Cries of racism are mostly dodges for those who don't want to or can't carry a discussion of the real issues.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

Sure, Copernicus. But watching their answers makes it clear that the politicians don't have any gumption to address the "real issues" - rather, they propose policies that would address the rhetorical strategies that MAY APPEAL because real issues make them attractive.

I don't think, a border fence for example, is whatsoever a logical response to the economic incentives that attract illegal immigrants here. But it sure psychologically feels good as a proposal with "racist" underpinnings. It says "keep the brown people out!" far better than an appropriate guest-worker program. I'm sure alot of that outward talk stems from real economic uncertainty amongst working folks who are affected by immigrant competition. Just another feature of politics, and the human mind.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.) What percentage is purely an economic issue? How much is fear of crime or terrorism?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is talking about assimilation code word for racism? If you truly were a racist and wanted to keep brown people down, the best way would be to keep them from learning English and hope they stay in barrios. Not speaking English greatly limits opportunities in the US.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

Candidate Ratings (http://www.betterimmigration.com)

A Tom Tancredo
A- Duncan Hunter
A- Al Gore
B+ Ron Paul
C Fred Thompson
D John Edwards
D John McCain
D- Hillary Clinton
D- Dennis Kucinich
D- Barack Obama
F- Bill Richardson

The grades are based on their voting records, so only those who have served in the House or Senate are graded. I was shocked to see Al Gore up there too.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, Copernicus. But watching their answers makes it clear that the politicians don't have any gumption to address the "real issues" - rather, they propose policies that would address the rhetorical strategies that MAY APPEAL because real issues make them attractive.

I don't think, a border fence for example, is whatsoever a logical response to the economic incentives that attract illegal immigrants here. But it sure psychologically feels good as a proposal with "racist" underpinnings. It says "keep the brown people out!" far better than an appropriate guest-worker program. I'm sure alot of that outward talk stems from real economic uncertainty amongst working folks who are affected by immigrant competition. Just another feature of politics, and the human mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt watch the debate, so I don't know what issues were addressed (other than the embarassing RG/MR exchange at the beginning.

Of course a border fence isnt a "logical response to the economic incentives", it isnt a response to that at all. Its border control, plain and simple. You will never eliminate the economic incentives as long as South American governments destroy their economies and attempt to export their poverty to the US to avoid revolution and maintain power. That isnt going to change in our lifetimes, but border security is a necessary beginning to keep the economic erosion from worsening.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.) What percentage is purely an economic issue? How much is fear of crime or terrorism?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is talking about assimilation code word for racism? If you truly were a racist and wanted to keep brown people down, the best way would be to keep them from learning English and hope they stay in barrios. Not speaking English greatly limits opportunities in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought conservatives generally believed in "free to choose"? There is value in preserving one's culture, for its own damn sake. There is a trade-off one chooses between personal values and outward success!

But anyway, it strikes me that behind any popular idea on whatever spectrum there is some bit of evidence that a rational person could interpret and come away with that view. I used to be more idealistic and advocate completely open borders. But look at the empirical evidence in France and the European countries and the situation they face with increasing Islamization - it's clear to me now that allowing too many immigrants at once could be very well counterproductive to libertarian beliefs. Here all we do is bitch, grumble and groan when we try to roll back the welfare state, and in France they cripple the economy and violently riot. So there are good, practical reasons to support assimilation, especially in America where I really admire our individualistic mindset. We shouldn't be so blithely sure that immigrants immediately adopt that, because I think its so vital to our many successes.

But then again, most popular ideas didn't become popular on their merits. They become popular because they appeal to deeply held biases, correct or not, to maintain political identity. I doubt many people at all could even come up witha basic philosophical basis for why they support the issues they do, and argue issues like immigration from a pro-Western and chauvinist, perspective.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure, Copernicus. But watching their answers makes it clear that the politicians don't have any gumption to address the "real issues" - rather, they propose policies that would address the rhetorical strategies that MAY APPEAL because real issues make them attractive.

I don't think, a border fence for example, is whatsoever a logical response to the economic incentives that attract illegal immigrants here. But it sure psychologically feels good as a proposal with "racist" underpinnings. It says "keep the brown people out!" far better than an appropriate guest-worker program. I'm sure alot of that outward talk stems from real economic uncertainty amongst working folks who are affected by immigrant competition. Just another feature of politics, and the human mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt watch the debate, so I don't know what issues were addressed (other than the embarassing RG/MR exchange at the beginning.

Of course a border fence isnt a "logical response to the economic incentives", it isnt a response to that at all. Its border control, plain and simple. You will never eliminate the economic incentives as long as South American governments destroy their economies and attempt to export their poverty to the US to avoid revolution and maintain power. That isnt going to change in our lifetimes, but border security is a necessary beginning to keep the economic erosion from worsening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't Dubai have a functioning guest-worker system of sorts? And what exactly do you mean by "border control"? Like what's the motivation behind it. I find the Tancredo suggestion that we do a better job of locating terrorists with better border control pretty much laughable.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.) What percentage is purely an economic issue? How much is fear of crime or terrorism?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is talking about assimilation code word for racism? If you truly were a racist and wanted to keep brown people down, the best way would be to keep them from learning English and hope they stay in barrios. Not speaking English greatly limits opportunities in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought conservatives generally believed in "free to choose"? There is value in preserving one's culture, for its own damn sake. There is a trade-off one chooses between personal values and outward success!

But anyway, it strikes me that behind any popular idea on whatever spectrum there is some bit of evidence that a rational person could interpret and come away with that view. I used to be more idealistic and advocate completely open borders. But look at the empirical evidence in France and the European countries and the situation they face with increasing Islamization - it's clear to me now that allowing too many immigrants at once could be very well counterproductive to libertarian beliefs. Here all we do is bitch, grumble and groan when we try to roll back the welfare state, and in France they cripple the economy and violently riot. So there are good, practical reasons to support assimilation, especially in America where I really admire our individualistic mindset. We shouldn't be so blithely sure that immigrants immediately adopt that, because I think its so vital to our many successes.

But then again, most popular ideas didn't become popular on their merits. They become popular because they appeal to deeply held biases, correct or not, to maintain political identity. I doubt many people at all could even come up witha basic philosophical basis for why they support the issues they do, and argue issues like immigration from a pro-Western and chauvinist, perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

The philosophical basis is pro-Western and chauvinistic, why should arguments be framed in that perspective?

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I thought conservatives generally believed in "free to choose"? There is value in preserving one's culture, for its own damn sake. There is a trade-off one chooses between personal values and outward success!


[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly. I don't think anybody has to actually choose between some assimilation and honoring their own culture, but if they decided to err on the side of cultural heritage, great. However, I don't want to then hear complaints about lack of opportunities and poverty from those who choose not to assimilate.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]

The philosophical basis is pro-Western and chauvinistic, why should arguments be framed in that perspective?

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] All I'm saying is that people generally have a few good reasons for believing the things they do, but they express it in ways that appeals to our inner xenophobia, and thus the policies they implement are not satisfactory because they don't address the real underlying issues. Any major political revolution has to actually communicate well, which eliminates a good percentage of actually good ideas.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 90% of the issue is culture, not racism. Have you been to a fast food restaurant or retail store lately? No one working in those places speaks English anymore. As long as the majority of the workforce that people interact with on a daily basis have 0 language skills, people will be pissed of about illegal immigration, regardless of whether those people are illegal immigrants. That and its nice to be able to go to Home Depot without being swarmed by illegal immigrants asking you if you need help.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.) What percentage is purely an economic issue? How much is fear of crime or terrorism?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is talking about assimilation code word for racism? If you truly were a racist and wanted to keep brown people down, the best way would be to keep them from learning English and hope they stay in barrios. Not speaking English greatly limits opportunities in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought conservatives generally believed in "free to choose"? There is value in preserving one's culture, for its own damn sake. There is a trade-off one chooses between personal values and outward success!

But anyway, it strikes me that behind any popular idea on whatever spectrum there is some bit of evidence that a rational person could interpret and come away with that view. I used to be more idealistic and advocate completely open borders. But look at the empirical evidence in France and the European countries and the situation they face with increasing Islamization - it's clear to me now that allowing too many immigrants at once could be very well counterproductive to libertarian beliefs. Here all we do is bitch, grumble and groan when we try to roll back the welfare state, and in France they cripple the economy and violently riot. So there are good, practical reasons to support assimilation, especially in America where I really admire our individualistic mindset. We shouldn't be so blithely sure that immigrants immediately adopt that, because I think its so vital to our many successes.

But then again, most popular ideas didn't become popular on their merits. They become popular because they appeal to deeply held biases, correct or not, to maintain political identity. I doubt many people at all could even come up witha basic philosophical basis for why they support the issues they do, and argue issues like immigration from a pro-Western and chauvinist, perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

The philosophical basis is pro-Western and chauvinistic, why should arguments be framed in that perspective?

[/ QUOTE ]

What percent of notable accomplishments have been made by non-Western females?

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought conservatives generally believed in "free to choose"? There is value in preserving one's culture, for its own damn sake. There is a trade-off one chooses between personal values and outward success!


[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly. I don't think anybody has to actually choose between some assimilation and honoring their own culture, but if they decided to err on the side of cultural heritage, great. However, I don't want to then hear complaints about lack of opportunities and poverty from those who choose not to assimilate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you talking about people currently in America or what? I'm confused. Is it ok if they all come here just as long as they dont complain? Because if thats what you are saying it sounds awesome to me, seriously.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 90% of the issue is culture, not racism. Have you been to a fast food restaurant or retail store lately? No one working in those places speaks English anymore. As long as the majority of the workforce that people interact with on a daily basis have 0 language skills, people will be pissed of about illegal immigration, regardless of whether those people are illegal immigrants. That and its nice to be able to go to Home Depot without being swarmed by illegal immigrants asking you if you need help.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good thing the [censored] morons who you are talking about here get to decide how much my goods and services cost because they are bigoted morons. And when I say bigot I am referring to the stipulated fact that they get angry about illegal immigration just because their Gap cashier speaks broken English.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 90% of the issue is culture, not racism. Have you been to a fast food restaurant or retail store lately? No one working in those places speaks English anymore. As long as the majority of the workforce that people interact with on a daily basis have 0 language skills, people will be pissed of about illegal immigration, regardless of whether those people are illegal immigrants. That and its nice to be able to go to Home Depot without being swarmed by illegal immigrants asking you if you need help.

[/ QUOTE ]
In return, stuff is cheaper.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

McCain is a national hero?

Oh wait, I forgot that for some reason people consider bad things happening to you to be heroic. Nevermind, carry on.

*goes and heroicly jumps into the Grand Canyon*

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.) What percentage is purely an economic issue? How much is fear of crime or terrorism?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is talking about assimilation code word for racism? If you truly were a racist and wanted to keep brown people down, the best way would be to keep them from learning English and hope they stay in barrios. Not speaking English greatly limits opportunities in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought conservatives generally believed in "free to choose"? There is value in preserving one's culture, for its own damn sake. There is a trade-off one chooses between personal values and outward success!

But anyway, it strikes me that behind any popular idea on whatever spectrum there is some bit of evidence that a rational person could interpret and come away with that view. I used to be more idealistic and advocate completely open borders. But look at the empirical evidence in France and the European countries and the situation they face with increasing Islamization - it's clear to me now that allowing too many immigrants at once could be very well counterproductive to libertarian beliefs. Here all we do is bitch, grumble and groan when we try to roll back the welfare state, and in France they cripple the economy and violently riot. So there are good, practical reasons to support assimilation, especially in America where I really admire our individualistic mindset. We shouldn't be so blithely sure that immigrants immediately adopt that, because I think its so vital to our many successes.

But then again, most popular ideas didn't become popular on their merits. They become popular because they appeal to deeply held biases, correct or not, to maintain political identity. I doubt many people at all could even come up witha basic philosophical basis for why they support the issues they do, and argue issues like immigration from a pro-Western and chauvinist, perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

The philosophical basis is pro-Western and chauvinistic, why should arguments be framed in that perspective?

[/ QUOTE ]

What percent of notable accomplishments have been made by non-Western females?

[/ QUOTE ]


Uggh, these "what % of questions" are tiresome... But here's one if you like this game:

What percent of notable atrocities have been made by non-Western females?

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain to me why the Republicans seem to be so rabid about the immigration issue? It seems to be the #1 issue on republican voters' list (even above Iraq, terrorism, the economy).

[/ QUOTE ]

At the top of my list is rule of law. I want the US to decide on who becomes new immigrants, not criminal economic motivations from a failed state.

If you hang drywall in CA then your objection is simple economics. Your pay has gone backwards due to serious competitive pressure.

Much of the less informed cohort's objection is cultural. Non-english speakers are in your face and impossible to ignore. Press 1 for English? F that, they think.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.) What percentage is purely an economic issue? How much is fear of crime or terrorism?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is talking about assimilation code word for racism? If you truly were a racist and wanted to keep brown people down, the best way would be to keep them from learning English and hope they stay in barrios. Not speaking English greatly limits opportunities in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought conservatives generally believed in "free to choose"? There is value in preserving one's culture, for its own damn sake. There is a trade-off one chooses between personal values and outward success!

But anyway, it strikes me that behind any popular idea on whatever spectrum there is some bit of evidence that a rational person could interpret and come away with that view. I used to be more idealistic and advocate completely open borders. But look at the empirical evidence in France and the European countries and the situation they face with increasing Islamization - it's clear to me now that allowing too many immigrants at once could be very well counterproductive to libertarian beliefs. Here all we do is bitch, grumble and groan when we try to roll back the welfare state, and in France they cripple the economy and violently riot. So there are good, practical reasons to support assimilation, especially in America where I really admire our individualistic mindset. We shouldn't be so blithely sure that immigrants immediately adopt that, because I think its so vital to our many successes.

But then again, most popular ideas didn't become popular on their merits. They become popular because they appeal to deeply held biases, correct or not, to maintain political identity. I doubt many people at all could even come up witha basic philosophical basis for why they support the issues they do, and argue issues like immigration from a pro-Western and chauvinist, perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

The philosophical basis is pro-Western and chauvinistic, why should arguments be framed in that perspective?

[/ QUOTE ]

What percent of notable accomplishments have been made by non-Western females?

[/ QUOTE ]


Uggh, these "what % of questions" are tiresome... But here's one if you like this game:

What percent of notable atrocities have been made by non-Western females?

[/ QUOTE ]

(or by any females). Bingo. Proof positive that that there ARE group differences, and that the "everyone is the same" credo is pure BS.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
McCain is a national hero?

Oh wait, I forgot that for some reason people consider bad things happening to you to be heroic. Nevermind, carry on.

*goes and heroicly jumps into the Grand Canyon*

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, McCain as a National hero is a joke. The guy has always been a complete baffoon.

From what I understood, there are a few reasons why Republicans are very anti-immigration.

1) The cost. A welfare state and open immigration cannot coexist. When you get free health care, free schooling of your kids, and other handouts, this gets extremely expensive. Immigrants (at least the illegal ones) rarely make enough money to cover these benefits.

2) Security. If anyone can come into your country, maybe the turrirsts can come in too!

3) Direction of the country. This one particularly worries Republicans. Countries where immigrants come from typically have the attitude that government's role is to provide for its people. When 10 million people come across the border, the next step is to become a citizen. When they become citizens, they can vote. When they can vote, you will have 10 million new Democrats to vote them out.

At least these are their concerns, not necessarily all of them are valid.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 90% of the issue is culture, not racism. Have you been to a fast food restaurant or retail store lately? No one working in those places speaks English anymore. As long as the majority of the workforce that people interact with on a daily basis have 0 language skills, people will be pissed of about illegal immigration, regardless of whether those people are illegal immigrants. That and its nice to be able to go to Home Depot without being swarmed by illegal immigrants asking you if you need help.

[/ QUOTE ]

this doesnt really make sense imo. if enough ppl felt like this, there would be tons of restaurants and retail stores run by regular americans. also, if u dont like the staff at a place you do actually have a choice to not buy anything from them..

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I used to be more idealistic and advocate completely open borders. But look at the empirical evidence in France and the European countries and the situation they face with increasing Islamization - it's clear to me now that allowing too many immigrants at once could be very well counterproductive to libertarian beliefs. Here all we do is bitch, grumble and groan when we try to roll back the welfare state, and in France they cripple the economy and violently riot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait; is the French transit worker strike some kind of immigrant-led movement? Are the riots in France's ethnic suburbs due to the rolling back of the welfare state?

I mean, this looks like a crude and subtle attempt to say "look, bad things are happening in France, and the immigrants are at fault!"...and yet you make absolutely no attempt to actually draw a causative link between these bad things and immigration -- I mean, are we to believe France's unsustainable pension system for transit workers, Sarkozzy's attempt to roll the benefits back, and the resultant strikes which have crippled the country are somehow the fault of immigrants?

I don't think your arguing that; so what's your point in the context of the immigration debate? The French shouldn't let immigrants assimilate into their culture, because 'native' French are lazy and whiny, or Americans should try to assimilate recent immigrants into theirs, because we're chest-thumping cowboy individualists?

And what does any of this have to do with public policy, anyway? "Don't let immigrants in, because they might not assimilate"? Surprising that libertarians are going to allow the government to determine which people are fit for assimilation and which aren't. I guess state power is terrible and threatening and worthy of our ever-watchful suspicion, in all cases... except when judging the attitudes of brown people and their fitness for assimilation in our wonderful culture? If you *don't* actually think the American government should be making these kinds of determinations -- then what exactly are we debating here? I like getting on my high-horse soapbox to laud our wonderfully hard-working, industrial, individualist culture in America too; it gives me a huge hard-on. But are we really comfortable with anointing the state the power to protect that culture?

I realize you're probably not arguing for that. But I'll be candid and admit I'm not sure what you are advocating here. You "used to be for open borders", until you saw all the problems France and Europe are having, and they have immigrants too; so now you...support immigration controls?

I suppose I support 'assimilation' too. It would probably make immigrants lives easier and more prosperous if they learned English and watched baseball and ate cheeseburgers. I can get on board with that. But, assuming they're not inclined to do such things, who exactly should be enforcing those norms?

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 90% of the issue is culture, not racism. Have you been to a fast food restaurant or retail store lately? No one working in those places speaks English anymore. As long as the majority of the workforce that people interact with on a daily basis have 0 language skills, people will be pissed of about illegal immigration, regardless of whether those people are illegal immigrants. That and its nice to be able to go to Home Depot without being swarmed by illegal immigrants asking you if you need help.

[/ QUOTE ]
In return, stuff is cheaper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to less illegal immigration, a broken legal immigration system and a broken welfare system, yes.

Compared to less illegal immmigration, an effective legal immigration/guest worker program and a welfare system that puts people to work instead of feeding them life support, no.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain to me why the Republicans seem to be so rabid about the immigration issue? It seems to be the #1 issue on republican voters' list (even above Iraq, terrorism, the economy). So much so, that the crowd was booing a national hero (McCain, one of the few who actually tried to attack the problem with something other than rhetoric), because he suggested that deporting every illegal immigrant might not be a workable solution.

What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think only a small part of it has to do with racism; that small part of the public who are racists.

I saw last night on fox, where one state recently passed a law against illegal immigrants, that was so strong, the illegals packed up and left and it brought much of the construction industry to a halt. They interviewed new would be homeowners, who will not be in their new home by xmas as they had hoped.

Those are not jobs that citizens will not take.

About a yr ago, I saw on Lou Dobbs, where in the mid 90s the avg butcher in a meat processing plant made $16.50 pr hr. Now they make $9.50 an hr.

Who do you think was doing the job in the mid 90s and who is doing it now?

Dobbs cited a report, that if we were paying the butchers from the mid 90s (Americans) and adjusted their hourly wage for inflation, it would cost us approx 10-15 cents more per pound.

There are a couple of the reasons why citizens are so rabid about illegal immigrants. There are many more.

Now I DO NOT hold the same view as many: Deport all 12 million of them asap!

I believe, as McCain does, that they are human beings just like us. I believe the only reason they came here is because they saw a way to obtain a better life.

The only reason they saw that: American businesses were willing to break the law to increase their profit margin at the expense of American citizens.

The hatred for this mess should be directed towards:
1. The federal gov't & 2. The employers.

If I was living south of the border, had a family I couldn't give a decent life to because of the crooked govt and saw a way out up north, I would have packed my bags also.

So, I believe we need to build a double fence all the way across the southern border asap. Then, once we have frozen the illegal immigration, we can discuss melting the 12 million immigrants into society. You can't pack them up and send them home, when it was our govt and our crooked employers who made it so tempting for them to come.

Finally, we have all (except those who lost their jobs because of illegal immigration) benefited from lower prices from their cheap labor.

So, when I see a construction co. full of what could possibly be illegals doing the labor, my hatred is directed towards the contractor, not the brown colored laborer who has risked so much to make it here and get employed by the criminal who calls himself an American.

My feelings toward the immigrant: God Bless you and your success.

FINALLY: My next door neighbor is a bookkeeper for a mexican restaurant chain, that hires numerous illegals. They have fake ss numbers and she gets letters from the SSA all the time about them not matching.

Three years ago, the owner did 10 months in prison for paying people under the table. When he got out, he found out that what the govt wants is the taxes, not proof he is hiring legal citizens.

Now all the illegals pay taxes, including SS taxes and he has not heard from the fed despite the fact that the SSA sends him mismatched SS number letters every month.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
McCain is a national hero?

Oh wait, I forgot that for some reason people consider bad things happening to you to be heroic. Nevermind, carry on.

*goes and heroicly jumps into the Grand Canyon*

[/ QUOTE ]

forget your coffee before posting this morning?

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
McCain is a national hero?

Oh wait, I forgot that for some reason people consider bad things happening to you to be heroic. Nevermind, carry on.

*goes and heroicly jumps into the Grand Canyon*

[/ QUOTE ]

forget your coffee before posting this morning?

[/ QUOTE ]


I thought it was hilarious.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe, as McCain does, that they are human beings just like us.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know the debate about immigration is in a good, healthy place when we must reaffirm that these entities which have come across the border without the proper documentation are indeed human beings after all.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

Just to confirm: illegal (excuse me dennis kucinich, undocumented) immigrants pay taxes? Is that a fact, jack?

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

Just a couple of disagreements/clarifications of the above, otherwise I agree.

1. Meat processing salaries have little to do with illegal immigrants, salaries came down because of automation.

2. You can't deport X million illegals, but you must immediately deport an illegal committing another crime after they serve the appropriate punishment.

3. They must register, get legitimate SS Nos, pay taxes etc. Employers are the only feasible way to police that they do.

4. No illegal/family of an illegal should be entitled to "in state" benefits that aren't available to out of state legal residents. (Eg Children of illegals residing in Arizona shouldnt be entitled to in state college tuition if a citizen of NJ isn't, whether or not the illegal is registered.)

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
McCain is a national hero?

Oh wait, I forgot that for some reason people consider bad things happening to you to be heroic. Nevermind, carry on.

*goes and heroicly jumps into the Grand Canyon*

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy was offered an out-of-sequence release by the North Vietnamese because his father was a relatively-famous commander in the Navy and he turned it down because he didn't think it was fair to get sent home before other less-well-connected POWs who had been imprisoned for longer were forced to stay; he was then mercilessly tortured because of the refusal to leave.

I suppose we can debate what it means to be a "hero" and the nobility of purpose of flying jets in Vietnam, but you jumping into the Grand Canyon != McCain being offered the chance to escape imprisonment and torture but refusing to do so because it violated a dearly held principle. Not that I would expect your typical ACist to actually understand any of this kind of nuance, or why someone would do something like experience terrible physical trauma because of fidelity to dearly held principles (I know, I know -- you and Nielsio and other ACtards have experienced the terrible pain and suffering that the jackbooted thuggery of state authority and their taxation, which has wrought terribly wretched and painful lives upon you, which can only be remedied by sacrificing enormous time and energy...by posting about it on an the intraweb and YouTube. That is umm, a little similar, but not exactly the same).

Anyway, I thought it important to point this out, just in case there were other people like gobbomom out there who thought you were funny but hadn't quite considered why your analogy was retarded.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

owned.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
McCain is a national hero?

Oh wait, I forgot that for some reason people consider bad things happening to you to be heroic. Nevermind, carry on.

*goes and heroicly jumps into the Grand Canyon*

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy was offered an out-of-sequence release by the North Vietnamese because his father was a relatively-famous commander in the Navy and he turned it down because he didn't think it was fair to get sent home before other less-well-connected POWs who had been imprisoned for longer were forced to stay; he was then mercilessly tortured because of the refusal to leave.

I suppose we can debate what it means to be a "hero" and the nobility of purpose of flying jets in Vietnam, but you jumping into the Grand Canyon != McCain being offered the chance to escape imprisonment and torture but refusing to do so because it violated a dearly held principle. Not that I would expect your typical ACist to actually understand any of this kind of nuance, or why someone would do something like experience terrible physical trauma because of fidelity to dearly held principles (I know, I know -- you and Nielsio and other ACtards have experienced the terrible pain and suffering that the jackbooted thuggery of state authority and their taxation, which has wrought terribly wretched and painful lives upon you, which can only be remedied by sacrificing enormous time and energy...by posting about it on an the intraweb and YouTube. That is umm, a little similar, but not exactly the same).

Anyway, I thought it important to point this out, just in case there were other people like gobbomom out there who thought you were funny but hadn't quite considered why your analogy was retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh sir

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just to confirm: illegal (excuse me dennis kucinich, undocumented) immigrants pay taxes? Is that a fact, jack?

[/ QUOTE ]

They certainly pay sales taxes when they buy things. Illegal immigrants who are assigned fake SS #s by their employers are also paying payroll taxes and aren't be eligible to collect any of the benefits.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

If we had a fair tax immigrants abusing our system would be a moot point, no?

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we had a fair tax immigrants abusing our system would be a moot point, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think so, yes. "Abusing the system" may mean something like "immigrants will utilize the welfare system at a greater rate than 'native born' Americans" and that constitutes abuse, but as far as funding goes, I would suspect a national consumption tax that eliminates the need for other forms of taxation would mitigate concerns that immigrants don't fund the system.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to confirm: illegal (excuse me dennis kucinich, undocumented) immigrants pay taxes? Is that a fact, jack?

[/ QUOTE ]

They certainly pay sales taxes when they buy things. Illegal immigrants who are assigned fake SS #s by their employers are also paying payroll taxes and aren't be eligible to collect any of the benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about real estate taxes? School taxes, etc? And any idea how many illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes?

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

I don't mind people just trying to better themseves, yet sympathy is dfifferent than pragmatics sometimes.

It is really the responsibility of the USA to take care of the whole world? Why can't Mexico and other countries fix their own countries and make them reasonable and prosperous places to live????? Are we to fix their countries for them? If their government is corrupt and ineffective who needs to fix it: we or they? What about their responsibility to better their own countries? Does that not exist at all?

It is a similar mindset to policing the whole world, to think that the USA must extend welfare to the world and also admit anyone who sneaks in. I'm not saying that you think this. But those two mindsets are just different sides of the same paternalistic nanny-state coin.

IMO we shouldn't be in Iraq, or Korea, or be policing the world. IMO we shouldn't feel that we are somehow responsible for taking up the slack for every corrupt government in the world that cannot get its act together enough to allow its citizens to develop relatively free and prosperous lives of their own initiatives.

We've got plenty of problems right here at home (if you don't think so, just wait 5 more years).

As Ron Paul pointed out, this country is intended to be a Republic: not an empire, not a welfare state, and not the nanny of the wide world.

You personally can't feed every homeless person that you see on the street. The USA can't admit everyone in the world (billions of people, if they could, probably) who would prefer to live here.

Of course that homeless guy you see on the corner several times a month is a human being too. So why don't you at least let him sleep in your garage for a few months, and mow and rake your lawn for food? I'm asking this of everyone, not just you, Moseley. Now apply the answer to why the USA can't be expected to open its doors to unlimited numbers of desperate unskilled uneducated people.

At most you might let one person sleep in your garage, right? Why have limits on the number of homeless people you can accomodate?

What about the responsibility of the homeless to better their own lives? Does that exist at all?

If I were formerPresidente Vicente Fox, I'd have been DAMN EMBARRASSED to have touted more illegal immigration to the USA from Mexico as a solution BECAUSE MEXICO CAN'T GET ITS ACT TOGETHER.

What is Mexico supposed to be, like a totally dysfunctional person or something?

Mexico has oil, Mexico has a tourism industry, Mexico has natural resources. Mexico has plenty of people who obviously can work. WTF? Why is Mexico's solution to send as many as possible here? And why do Mexican Presidents see that as their solution instead of getting their country's act together???

Yes, we hear how corrupt the Mexican government is and that that is why it can't get its act together. So is corruption in the Mexican genes or something (obviously not, lol)? The problem can be fixed if it is not inherent, right? So...when the government of the USA becomes too corrupt (and it's well on it's way [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ), the solution will be for most of us to move to Canada, instead of fixing the U.S. system???

If prospective immigrants have job skills, or a solid job offer, and are non-criminal and not carriers of TB or something: fine, let them immigrate through the established process. But why does 20% of the entire country of Mexico need to emigrate to another country??? And why isn't the focus on fixing that underlying flaw, rather than on a surrogate solution?

/baffled

/questions off

/rant off

Thanks for reading.

Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)
 

[ QUOTE ]
What about real estate taxes? School taxes, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most public schools in the US are funded by a combination of local property taxes and state income taxes. Illegal immigrants almost certainly can't escape property taxes if they own property and probably bear the burden of property taxes even if they rent, since the landlord is just going to roll the price of property taxes that they're levied into the cost of renting.


[ QUOTE ]
And any idea how many illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/busine...p;partner=kmarx

"In 2002 alone, the last year with figures released by the Social Security Administration, nine million W-2's with incorrect Social Security numbers landed in the suspense file, accounting for $56 billion in earnings, or about 1.5 percent of total reported wages.

Social Security officials do not know what fraction of the suspense file corresponds to the earnings of illegal immigrants. But they suspect that the portion is significant.

"Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes," said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration."

So, according to the Social Security Admins chief actuary, the guess is that about 75% of illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes.