The Immigration Protests

From the article: "The whole thing just makes my blood boil," said Bruce R. Wing, a 52-year-old Missouri City resident. "I want them all out of here."

I fucking love the name on that quote.

And what's the problem with foreign flags? Is it now such a bad thing to remember and honour one's background? Around here, you see people with all kinds of flags from other nations. Those of American backgrounds have American flags, English have English flags, Australian, Australian flags, French flags, German flags, all kinds of flags. It'd be a little unfair to an American if we disallowed them from bearing that flag, and they'd be a little upset, no?

This does not mean that they do not respect or appreciate the country that they call home now. Just that they still feel a connection, either directly, or through family to the other country.

And what's the problem with protests now? Other than you've implied that they are illegals (which is not substantiated in the article), there is no reason that these students shouldn't be able to express themselves as much as any other citizen.

Why is there 'room for but one language..' anyways? What's the reasoning behind it?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by TubeRacer

Going into someone else's country illegally, demanding free hand-outs while waving your own flag should be enough to get your ass kicked. These people are entitled to nothing, except free deportation services.

That's going on the assumption that they are all illegals. Nothing in the last article I read said anything to that effect. It's easy to assume that those protesting are illegals, but it's only assumption. Isn't it likely that many people feel sorry for the illegals, or know some, and that is why they are protesting or wearing those colours? Gukarma is defending their position, does that mean that he is an illegal?

And border security is something that no one has a workable, or even plausible solution to.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Wesker

I really hope you aren't that stupid. So, the Poles and Italians and Germans who came over should have just kept speaking their native language. I'm sure they would have melded with society just fine without knowing English. Do we want a Blakanized country with every group having its own little enclave, or do we want a united country. And just how successful can a person be in this country if he doesn't know English?

Apparently i am that stupid. My question was not whether or not having English as the native language was good/bad. Nor was it whether or not people should learn it. I believe they should as a common ground with everyone from everywhere in the country. My question, from the quote provided, was why there was no room for any other language.

The quote sure makes it sound like it's English all the way, and that all other languages should stop at the border. This is the part that I was questioning.

Originally Posted by Wesker

As to your flag comments, sure, everyone can have a flag of their former coutry at home. wave it if you want, but don't fly a foreign flag over a U.S. government school!!

Why?*

*And please no comment about how stupid I may or not be for inquiring as to the reasons and logic behind the argument. Thanks.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Wesker

The school is in Houston Texas, USA..it is supported by taxes paid by citizens of the USA. It is not in Mexico. Mexico pays no money to support the school. The school is not an establishment of the Mexican government. Mexico does nothing for this school, provides nothing for the support of this school and owns none of the property of the school. All of the students in the school are not Mexican citizens. There is no reason to fly the flag of a soveriegn foriegn nation over any government building in the USA.

So I get that they haven't a right to display the flag, that there is no need to do so. But what harm is done in doing so?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

But is it better to have local jobs taken by illegals instead of outsourced? According to opinions I've read, illegals not only don't help the economy, but actively harm it.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by gukarma

I've recently heazrd in NPR that in some industries, such as that of masons, illegals make up more than 40% of the work force.

They also said that these are well-paying industries - 15-20 dollars an hour - and that the home-building market, which is responsible for 15%-18% of our GDP.

Waitaminute, what happened to the 'jobs so bad that real citizens wouldn't do them' argument? That's a decent job, so there goes that argument. Thanks.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by gukarma

Just because one example doesn't hold it doesn't mean the whole argument is wrong.

What the hell.

That's like saying:

A: All medical doctors perform operations.
B: AHA! Psychiatrists don't! Therefore all doctors do not perform operations.

And where did I say Americans would not do them? You need training for these jobs, I am assuming the employers would rather go with illegals who know how to do their work rather than training an american from scratch.

It's the nature of capitalism.

Which is exactly my point. The argument has been made (I never said you made it), that illegals are 'needed', and can be supported because the jobs they do are those that wouldn't be filled by citizens. I always assumed this was hogwash, and that it was just an excuse to undercut society's wages.

And you've provided the best example I've heard as to it being a bullshit excuse to undercut society's wages.

And it does discredit the argument in it's entirety because it goes to show that employers are hiring illegals instead of citizens in order to cheap out. And the justification that citizens 'will not' do the job are only true because the jobs have been targeted by the employers at those which will do it illegally.

It is indeed the nature of capitalism, but that doesn't mean that it's right. The minimum wages, etc. are in place for a reason, and this is just a way to get around those laws.

FELIPE NO

"You'd be amazed at what people will do when they are hungry."

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Apparently your welfare laws are considerably different than mine. 'Round here you don't get welfare just because you don't feel like working, you need to be laid off from a job and meet other requirements. Plus it only lasts for so long.

Pretty strange system you've got.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Gumby

This is what you miss gukarma. Those illegals have no right to be here, they have no right to make a living here, they have no right to use our social services, they have no right drain our economy by sending money to mexico, and they are criminals. Period.

I'm more or less with you until the 'drain our economy by sending money to Mexico' thing. I agree they haven't the right to do anything there as they are illegally present. But there's nothing wrong with sending money out of country if you are legally landed.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by insertnamehere

I am sick and tired of people ignoring this part of the debate and how illegals are contributing more to the economy than draining.

People aren't ignoring it, they just aren't convinced it's true. Companies undercutting wages because illegals are available is agreed upon (What's debated is whether this is good or bad). Other than that, the whole stuff about social security, taxes, medical care, insurance etc. are all things that I've seen no conclusive numbers to indicate whether or not they contibute more than they drain. Both cases have been asserted, but neither have been strongly backed.

And the fact remains that *legal* immigrants would better than illegal ones. I fail to see how ignoring illegal immigration is a better solution than reforming legal immigration.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

iGod, if you use proper spelling and grammar you'll come across much better in written debates. It takes no more effort, and it's a good habit. To do otherwise and *defend* the poor practice is asinine. Yes you can act poorly, but there is no reason to do so.

Gumby, aside from the ever popular 'You're a communist' sentiment, you might want to consider why you lump those who are poor and struggling with useless pieces of shit. If they try to better themselves (legally), they should be afforded the opportunity to do so. A much more constructive attitude than 'They don't have as much money, and are therefore bad people, at least compared to me.'

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Dullenplain

I wonder if there is a version of "O Canada" in French, since English and French are the two languages of that nation.

Yes it's available in French, English, and mixtures of both. It's often played one version after the other as well.

As for this whole 'no official language' thing. Why not just adopt English as the official language? It'd be a hell of a lot more simple since it seems to be what a huge majority wants anyways.

I was speaking idiomatically.

True, but wouldn't it be better than arguing over perceived language laws? I mean, since people want things legislated as if it were an official language it'd be a lot more clear, and less hypocritical to just make it so. Why pretend like it isn't the nation's language if you are just going to turn around and act as though it is?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by gukarma

I told you 3 pages ago to read up on American history.

I am serious, man. You could be a much less confused person if you did so.

---

I think I am boycotting. My family is not.

I hope the legislature gets voted on soon... Frist said he should get it together by May 30th.

It's amazing how telling me to read the history of the entire nation from begining to end is a great way to avoid answering a question. When I ask questions it's often to find out one's opinion. You've basically given me the equivalent of 'You should know why I'm mad at you.' Having an opinion that you are reluctant to state, or that you can't explain/back up isn't a great way to enter political debates.

A quick glance about national language makes it clear that there isn't one at the federal level (presumably due entirely to the consitution which hasn't been altered). However several states have adopted their own official language.

These ones: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming

Have chosen english as their only official state language. So what exactly should I read about American history which will explain this in such a way that all will become clear to me?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by simonsimon

This is not about morality, this is about abiding to the law, right or wrong, simple as that.

What? So you're saying that morality has no place in law? And that laws, whether they be right or wrong, shouldn't be examined and changed if they are 'wrong'?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by simonsimon

You are right, if the law is indeed wrong, and the congress decided to change them, then it will be an whole other issue.
Yet, it is not so as for now, right?
Also, where do you see the law right now is unfit, please explain more fully? Shouldn't those who come illegally get deported, what morally wrong is this?
Right back at you, sir.

I wasn't arguing against this law in particular. Just the way you phrased your wish for blind adherence to laws regardless of their validity. That does not in any way imply that I have an issue with deporting illegal aliens.

But as has been pointed out before, what do you hope to achieve by deporting them? They'll be right back, and it'll cost tons of money. It's the right thing to do, but only *after* a solution has been found with regards to border security and/or immigration reform.

Just deporting 10M people might make you feel better, but it's not going to do much else that is positive.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I can't recall from the old 'build a wall' thread. Do you feel that building a hightech wall and having oodles of guards is a workable and economically sound response?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

ahahahaha

FUCKING

OH FOR GODDAMN

SPANISH RADIO

WHOSE COUNTRY IS THIS ANYWAY #@&$%

Yeah, that one was good. I also like how 300,000 of them living in garages is supposed to, uh, let us think we are doing them a favour by deporting them?

I also like how it sneaks in a statistic about population growth being 70% the result of immigration. Waitaminute, that one wasn't illegal immigration. Oh well, now we can get some good 'ol imgant blame on.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Darklink2135

They've broken the law, plain and simple, get them the fuck out of here.

So this is an issue that money/economy doesn't really factor into right? I mean, it's all about security and law, cost of enforcement be damned right?

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

I'm sorry, but you appear to have a VERY poor understanding of economics.

http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html

Oh, I mean, it's about economics. And since CAIR, a site which claims that immigrants in general are a considerable drain on the economy*, says so, then on money grounds, we should kick out the illegal immigrants.

Originally Posted by Darklink2135

Umm...its illegal because there are laws defining it as illegal? Shit, I don't know.

... Um.. Nevermind. It seems this wasn't given any thought, instead a position was taken, and any and all excuses to back up the arbitrary position just because.

Seriously though, from an economic viewpoint, there doesn't seem to be a way to stop illegal immigration in a cost effective manner. The cost of enforcement long term (nevermind short term) seems very likely to be more than the savings which may be possible by kicking out/keeping out illegals.

From a security standpoint, you support the notion of spending a massive, ever growing amount of money on systems that are likely to have a marginal effect on the security of the nation? I would put money on the prediction that it would likely cost far more money than it is worth from either a security or an economic standpoint, to escalate security enough to keep out most/all illegal immigrants.

Is it really worth turning on an endless spigot of money, pooring money into perceived border security and deportation, just for peace of mind?


*If legal immigrants cost however many millions/billions a year, and do not offer a benifit to the country, then why are they allowed in at all? I mean, how does one justify legal immigration if all it doesn't offer any net financial gain? Um, charity?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Gumby

I guess at the very least they will be building a fence... How this stops someone with bolt cutters or any other heavy duty cutting tool for that matter baffles me. We need a little more than just a fence.

No permanent or semi-permanent structure I can think of will have an appreciable effect. The only thing that would is putting piles of money into tons of soldiers (or call them what you will) to patrol the border(s).

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Gumby

Good luck with that. A fine reason why I am a proponent of gun ownership rights.

Wow. Any excuse to start a one man armed stand against, uh, whatever eh? I still don't understand why some people argued against you in the 'gun thread'.

/aside.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I'm sure they've got some names for people like you, but that's not important. What you need is some serious help or a padded room.

What does your racist rant hope to accomplish? Have you thought through the consequences in International and inter-state relations that would come from your 'hanging bodies, shooting pregnant women' policy?

Civil war? That's sure taking things pretty far. And you might be quite surprised by how few people would support the genocide of hispanic or Mexican people even if such a war did occur. Amazing, no?

Oh wait, you also offer them slavery. Well that's worked out so smashingly in the past right? Again, you figure that the international comunity won't hold that against your nation? Or that states that don't support slavery (any state that doesn't have a large number of Mexicans is guaranteed to not support it.) won't take issue with it? What you suggest further alienates the US from the rest of the world and would encourage civil unrest and potentially a civil war.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

It all depends on who's spin and exageration you want to believe. If you want to believe Boortz's *Invasion* way of looking at the issue, then you can get all kinds of worked up against illegals. If you wish to believe that they aren't as big a problem as we are led to believe, then you'll downplay it.

1 Apparently those who proposed these changes/amnesty feel that the illegal immigrants have contributed to the country enough to warrant this.

2 Just a break for businesses. Hard to excuse this one on moral grounds, but it's likely just to keep the economy in good shape. Besides, how much bitching would you hear if the companies had to pay fines etc. regarding workers who have since been granted citizenship?

3 I don't know how they expect this to work out. An attempt to document the illegal workers? If so, then why not just guide them to legal means or deport them? This one I can't quite guess the logic behind.

4 More immigrants isn't proven to be a bad thing. But this recent illegal immigration hot topic has given a lot of people an excuse to go back to that line of reasoning. More legal immigrants should decrease illegal immigrants. What's the problem?

5 I thought you wanted more fence/wall? You're getting it.

Basically the arguments against this mostly stem from a lack of punishment for the immigrants and their employers. "In other words ... nothing. Not a damn thing. No punishment whatsoever to those who have violated the law." -Boortz What's more important? Getting your pound of flesh? Or working to make a situation more bearable?

Please note that it's not like they aren't going to patrol the boarder, and from everything I've heard lately it's going to be done with more vigor than before. So you are working to stem the illegal immigrants (or invaders if you rather), while making efforts to assimilate and accept those who are already there for 2+years. It's not as dramatic or satisfying (to some) as kicking out millions of people and scrambling to fill the positions they've held.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, the laws are currently under review and being changed, so the whole 'Disregard for the law' argument, while valid to an extent, isn't quite solid until the changes are made. And seeing as how the proposed legal changes are being met, I doubt that the 'new' laws would be very welcomed by it's opponents. It cuts both ways, and laws are always subject to review, whether they are laws we like or not.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

Which only exacerbates the fucking problem, what the fuck?

I thought the non-extremists weren't against legal immigration?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by gukarma

Not many illegals work under the table.

I still don't buy this argument. In my country it is well known, and admitted that illegal immigrants work under the table. I find it hard to imagine that it's very different in the US. Your anecdotal evidence based on your friends' situation notwithstanding.

Night Phoenix, so would you preffer that immigration quotas remain as they have been, be reduced, or increased? I mean, what is the limit which should be placed on it? And is 'assimilation' all that important? Why? Not looking for a fight, just curious.

Jam it back in, in the dark.