US Immigration Farce - Page 2

Okay...so I wasn't looking for a fight.

Later.

\

Sorry. Nicotine withdrawal + a long day at work + not paying attention to usernames. My bad. Thanks, though, for pointing out when I'm being a bitch. It keeps me in check before my wife has to point it out.

No fight intended, I swear.

Cheers
Scott

Thanks. All is forgiven. Life goes on. Have a nice weekend.

>And Bill Gates is the exception to the rule, as well. But people always bring him up as an example of the American dream. I would argue that lots and lots of Americans are poor and uneducated, but that doesn't mean they should be made into slaves.<

Good, then that means you're against illegal immigration also.



>Cutting population growth would lower housing costs, MAYBE, in 25 years. Housing costs have to do with FAR, far more than simple demand. For instance, when the US government buys up all the lumber at Lowe's and Home Depot to build bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, housing costs go up.<

Housing costs do not double because of expensive lumber. There are more people than houses available. There are more people than rentals available. Rents doubled in 8 years in San Diego. Lumber had nothing to do with it.



>My parents (early 50s...they were young'uns when they had me) were busy avoiding the draft and then being unemployed under Carter/Reagan then and sitting in line for gasoline. Their parents were busy fighting WW2 and surviving the depression. Their parents were fighting WWI.<

Wars aside, they could survive on one salary. Try doing that today unless you're a lawyer or athlete.

>And if you think they did all of this without "massive illegal immigration," I suggest you listen to the Woody Guthrie song "Deportees." If you think that "illegals" haven't been steaming into this country since its inception (and if you don't think the "founding fathers" were the equivalent of "illegal immigrants," you're utterly deluded).

As a good friend of mine pointed out to me earlier this evening: do you know what they called illegal immigration 100 years ago?

Immigration. <

Bullshit. Most immigrants came from overseas and they did it legally. Compared to today there very few illegals in the US.

>What to do? I don't know. It seems like there more than practical, economic and legal matters to consider. Perhaps moral issues...by this I mean the morality of just dumping a bunch of people back into Mexico and the potential poverty/life loss scenario that could create.

Clearly there would be a huge short-term impact economically speaking...but as I said above, I'm getting tired of hearing economic reasons to turn wrong things into right things for someone's convenience.

This issue in some ways is quite simple...but digging deeper requires much more thought.

I know one thing...I am really pissed off about "political correcting" of lawless behavior ("illegal immigrant/alien" -> "non-citizen worker"...bleh)...why not "thief" -> "person property liberator". Let's call things what they are.

But let's also solve the problem. If we aren't going to enforce the damn laws...take them off the books and stop the farce.<

There are plenty of poor people in the world, here in the US included. Mexicans dont deserve any more consdieration than anyone else, especially those that broke our laws.
The only right thing to do is send em packing and let them apply to enter legally like everyone else.
Harsh as it may seem, thats the only way to fix the mess.

Dont give him the benefit of doubt. He tends to pull 'facts' out of his ass all the time.

The vast majority of immigrants were European and they did come through Ellis Island-legally. My grandparents included.

You may very well be right. Maybe it is that simple.

Of course this is all fantasy right now. There is no way on God's green earth while this administration in in control that we'll see anything to change it.

Sad to say.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by steve666
Good, then that means you're against illegal immigration also.

In fact, I'm so against "illegal immigration" that I'd like to do away with the category altogether.


Ask Fellowship whether or not that's true. And for what it's worth, I didn't say "double." I just said they go up.


OK.


Um, great?


You mean to tell me that if a landlord could build a new house for cheaper than he/she could buy he/she wouldn't. Rents doubled in San Diego because they could, and that is dependent upon a pretty wide array of market forces.


My mother survived on one salary. We lived in government-assisted housing.


Technically, all white immigrants to America came from overseas. The question for me, at least, is whether or not before there was a bureau of immigration those immigrants would've been considered "illegal" by modern standards. But that's neither here nor there.

And the verb is missing from your last sentence there, so I'm not sure whether you mean "are" or "were," so I'll not respond.

You are correct, unless Congressional Republicans led by Tom Tancredo and Jim Sensebrenner force the issue.

There is actually going to be a march to Washington to pressure Congress



HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE


A National Drive for Immigration Reform
Washington, DC
April 23-27, 2005
Come to Washington, DC and tell Congress in person what you have been telling them over the phone and in letters and faxes. Join Roger Hedgecock, top rated radio talk show host in San Diego, California (KOGO/AM 600), who is sponsoring a national drive for immigration reform on April 23-27, 2005.

Over the last 10 years, Roger has taken large groups of his listeners to Washington, DC to lobby Congress on key issues. This year he is asking radio talk show hosts around the country to join him in a national effort culminating in two days of citizen lobbying on Capitol Hill for immigration reforms. FAIR is a cosponsor of "Hold their Feet to the Fire" drive.

Further details are provided below and more information will be provided in regular upcoming updates. In the meanwhile, the first step is for activists to commit to participating. Please send this alert to your like minded friends, ask them to do the same, and mark your calendars.



Here's how Roger puts it to his listeners:

Are you ready to stop whining about immigration reform?
Are you ready to do something about it?
Will you get off the couch and get to work?

Join us in Washington, DC as we confront Congress and demand:


No Licenses for Illegals!
No Amnesty for Illegals!
Secure our Borders!
Crack Down on Employers of Illegals!
Resume Interior Sweeps to Nab Illegals!
Stop Providing Government Benefits for Illegals!
Put Homeland Security on the Front Burner!
The time for complaining is over. The time to rise up is long overdue. The time for action is NOW!!



The tentative schedule of activities is as follows:


Saturday, April 23 - Travel to Washington, DC.

Sunday, April 24 - Organize lobby teams, distribute t-shirts, tote bags, campaign buttons and congressional directories (included in the travel package). Each team will be assigned a group of lawmakers to visit.

Monday, April 25 - Begin lobbying visits.

Tuesday, April 26 - Continue lobbying visits.
On both Monday and Tuesday talk show hosts from around the country plan to broadcast their shows throughout the nation live from Capitol Hill to fire up listeners at home and to spur them to make calls and send messages of support for immigration reform.


Wednesday, April 27 - Travel home.
For information on the details or travel packages (rates to be determined), contact sandra49@pacbell.net or call toll free 877-278-4760.



_















___




__

>You mean to tell me that if a landlord could build a new house for cheaper than he/she could buy he/she wouldn't. Rents doubled in San Diego because they could, and that is dependent upon a pretty wide array of market forces. <

These rental units have been there for 20-30 years. The demand is exceeding the supply, therefore, landlords can charge whatever they want.

>Technically, all white immigrants to America came from overseas. The question for me, at least, is whether or not before there was a bureau of immigration those immigrants would've been considered "illegal" by modern standards. But that's neither here nor there.<

Sure it is, because you said most were illegal and thats a false statement. Don't worry, I don't expect you to correct yourself.

Not to mention the bajillion other factors.


That's cool. I'll correct myself if I'm wrong. I said this:


The only change I made was to correct a grammatical error. Where did I say "most"?

Cheers
Scott

I'll let you get in the last word for the night. See ya tomorrow