Illegal Immigration/Invasion

[karel]

F**ck them send them back on a grayhound,get them the hell out of out country

[Dukasaur]

You speak as if opportunity is unlimited; it's not.
No, I don't. Of course opportunity carries limitations, but it's not a zero-sum game, either. Generally speaking, you won't hurt the economy by adding more people. The extra production and the extra consumption tend to balance out. The things that limit opportunity tend to be tax rates, learning curves, and so on, all of which are relatively independent of the size of the labour pool.
You speak as if opportunity doesn't require a set of values and laws and morals and order and respect and commitment and honor and heritage and tradition, as well tremendous personal sacrifice, priceless amounts of labor, and an uncountable quantity of patriot blood spilled over dozens of generations; it does.
With the exception of the last bit, I tend to agree. I don't think spilling blood is required at all, I think it's entirely possible for a peaceful society to have opportunity. Other than that, I agree with you. Morals and committment and most of the rest. So what's the point? You think foreigners lack morals or honour or committment? Maybe it's time you met some.
You speak as if 20,000 unskilled people can be dropped in your neighborhood, and crime won't rise and there won't be gangs and wages will not plummet.
20,000 unskilled Irishmen were dropped in Boston, 20,000 unskilled Germans were dropped in Milwaukee, 20,000 unskilled Italians were dropped in Newark, etc., etc., etc. Yeah, the crime rate rose, and there were gangs, and yet the vast majority of the people in those communities were not criminals, and they found gainful employment as best they could, and some of them became captains of industry and scientist and artists and everything else admirable. You think change is always pretty? Change is chaotic, and it is often messy. If nobody came to the country until a middle-class job and a respectable house in the suburbs was waiting for them, it would still be empty.
You speak as if everyone in the world can jump on the same life boat, and there are no capacity limits.
Overpopulation bothers me a lot. You haven't been paying attention if you don't know that. But you need to keep in mind that when people start to make decent money and have a career, they start to realize that having a pile of kids is going to interfere with that, and they start using birth control. The people breeding out of control are the one's whose careers aren't worth preserving. Study after study after study shows that as income goes up, breeding goes down. So, letting people make decent money makes life better for everyone.
You speak as if 1714 and 1814 and 1914 is exactly the same as 2014.
Well the first three are all years when Prussian troops were marching on French soil, so 2014 kind-of broke up the pattern.

Of course things have changed, but the things we are speaking about did not. Since the dawn of time, people stuck in shitty places with no opportunity packed up their bags and headed for the places where the jobs were. And just as predictably, the people living comfortably in those places said "I don't want those %$#@^ coming here and taking my job!" And you know what? The people who were saying that in 1814 were the same ones who benefitted from their grandfathers coming over in 1714, and the people who were saying that in 1714 were the same ones whose grandfathers came over in 1614, and so on and so on and so on. So short the memories. Such ingratitude we have, that we don't want other people to get the gifts we were given.
You speak as if all these people are interested in becoming American
I believe most of them are, yes.
You speak as if there is no such thing as reconquista.
The reconquest of Iberia by the Christians? Yes, I believe it was finished by 1500. Is that something you're going to tell me is different between 1414 and 2014?
You speak as if none of them are drug dealers and pimps and even terrorists.
No, I don't. Terrorists I doubt, but drug dealers and pimps? Plenty of those, I'm sure! As long as people like to get high, there will be people supplying the demand, and as long as there are people who have trouble getting laid, there will be... well, you get the picture. So what? It's a job, like any other. Unless you buy the government propaganda about how drugs are bad for you. I didn't think you were so gullible.
You speak as if Europeans and Hispanics are exactly the same people.
Pretty close, not exactly the same. However, this is the overwhelming fact that you must learn to understand in any discussion of ethnicity: The variation within groups is far greater than the variation between groups. That means it may be true on average that Group A eats 50 pancakes a day and Group B only eats 48, but Joe Blow of Group A eats 72 while Larry Hairy of Group A only eats 28. To put it another way, regardless of what stats you may have about a nation, you can't point at any individual from there and reliably describe them. The variance will overwhelm any generalization you care to make.
You speak as if nobody comes here just for the free shit.
I think the vast majority want to earn an honest living. I think the free shit has a pretty small role in the overall decision.
You speak as if the people you are talking about are not already burning American flags.
I haven't seen any burning flags, no. But even if some of them are, it's a pretty small minority. And even in that case, I would like you to have a look at Woodruff's signature and ponder the meaning of it.
We have ways for people to come here legally, and it's a fact the overwhelming majority of Americans are all for that.
Allowing some pompous bureaucrat with his civil-service pension to decide who should stay and who should go is like hiring an alligator to design a vegetarian menu. There's no formula, and certainly no government document, that will tell you who will be the next Thomas Edison or Albert Einstein.
The current situation is something completely different.
I doubt if it's as different as you think it is.

[AndyDufresne]

Whatcha needa to do, is build you-ah Tholian Web at there border of yers:




--Andy

[warmonger1981]

And the answer has been in front of our faces the whole time. Genius Andy....just genius.

[Phatscotty]

Damn!

[mrswdk]

You speak as if nobody comes here just for the free shit

Gotta say, I agree with Dukasaur on this one. People simply don't emigrate because they think they'll get to sponge off a rich country. Emigrants are usually seeking educational and employment opportunities they can't find in their own countries - because they want to better their situation - or they're filthy rich people who want to take their funds and set up a nice life for themselves in a developed country. People don't save up and move to another country in order to lie around doing nothing, and the governments of developed countries generally don't let them do so anyway.

Somewhat of a tangent but you may find it interesting: one of my friends had to pay a $15k deposit just to get a tourist visa to the US. If they're that shitty about who they allow to come and take photos of the Hollywood sign, think how difficult they're making it to actually permanently relocate there.

[Dukasaur]

You speak as if nobody comes here just for the free shit

Gotta say, I agree with Dukasaur on this one. People simply don't emigrate because they think they'll get to sponge off a rich country. Emigrants are usually seeking educational and employment opportunities they can't find in their own countries - because they want to better their situation - or they're filthy rich people who want to take their funds and set up a nice life for themselves in a developed country. People don't save up and move to another country in order to lie around doing nothing, and the governments of developed countries generally don't let them do so anyway.

Somewhat of a tangent but you may find it interesting: one of my friends had to pay a $15k deposit just to get a tourist visa to the US. If they're that shitty about who they allow to come and take photos of the Hollywood sign, think how difficult they're making it to actually permanently relocate there.

I agree with you, but the quoting makes it look like I said that. The correct quote is:

You speak as if nobody comes here just for the free shit

[mrswdk]

Ah yeah, my bad.

Other anecdotes that may interest: $8k deposit for a tourist visa to Australia, and several denied tourist visas to the UK because their salaries were too low.

Tourist visas are something different (they're a potential Trojan for people trying to sneak into the country when they shouldn't) but I don't understand why anyone gives a shit about people attempting to come and live in their country in the first place. The diversity of London or New York is what makes them so awesome.

[Phatscotty]

You speak as if opportunity is unlimited; it's not.
No, I don't. Of course opportunity carries limitations, but it's not a zero-sum game, either. Generally speaking, you won't hurt the economy by adding more people. The extra production and the extra consumption tend to balance out. The things that limit opportunity tend to be tax rates, learning curves, and so on, all of which are relatively independent of the size of the labour pool.
You speak as if opportunity doesn't require a set of values and laws and morals and order and respect and commitment and honor and heritage and tradition, as well tremendous personal sacrifice, priceless amounts of labor, and an uncountable quantity of patriot blood spilled over dozens of generations; it does.
With the exception of the last bit, I tend to agree. I don't think spilling blood is required at all, I think it's entirely possible for a peaceful society to have opportunity. Other than that, I agree with you. Morals and committment and most of the rest. So what's the point? You think foreigners lack morals or honour or committment? Maybe it's time you met some.
You speak as if 20,000 unskilled people can be dropped in your neighborhood, and crime won't rise and there won't be gangs and wages will not plummet.
20,000 unskilled Irishmen were dropped in Boston, 20,000 unskilled Germans were dropped in Milwaukee, 20,000 unskilled Italians were dropped in Newark, etc., etc., etc. Yeah, the crime rate rose, and there were gangs, and yet the vast majority of the people in those communities were not criminals, and they found gainful employment as best they could, and some of them became captains of industry and scientist and artists and everything else admirable. You think change is always pretty? Change is chaotic, and it is often messy. If nobody came to the country until a middle-class job and a respectable house in the suburbs was waiting for them, it would still be empty.
You speak as if everyone in the world can jump on the same life boat, and there are no capacity limits.
Overpopulation bothers me a lot. You haven't been paying attention if you don't know that. But you need to keep in mind that when people start to make decent money and have a career, they start to realize that having a pile of kids is going to interfere with that, and they start using birth control. The people breeding out of control are the one's whose careers aren't worth preserving. Study after study after study shows that as income goes up, breeding goes down. So, letting people make decent money makes life better for everyone.
You speak as if 1714 and 1814 and 1914 is exactly the same as 2014.
Well the first three are all years when Prussian troops were marching on French soil, so 2014 kind-of broke up the pattern.

Of course things have changed, but the things we are speaking about did not. Since the dawn of time, people stuck in shitty places with no opportunity packed up their bags and headed for the places where the jobs were. And just as predictably, the people living comfortably in those places said "I don't want those %$#@^ coming here and taking my job!" And you know what? The people who were saying that in 1814 were the same ones who benefitted from their grandfathers coming over in 1714, and the people who were saying that in 1714 were the same ones whose grandfathers came over in 1614, and so on and so on and so on. So short the memories. Such ingratitude we have, that we don't want other people to get the gifts we were given.
You speak as if all these people are interested in becoming American
I believe most of them are, yes.
You speak as if there is no such thing as reconquista.
The reconquest of Iberia by the Christians? Yes, I believe it was finished by 1500. Is that something you're going to tell me is different between 1414 and 2014?
You speak as if none of them are drug dealers and pimps and even terrorists.
No, I don't. Terrorists I doubt, but drug dealers and pimps? Plenty of those, I'm sure! As long as people like to get high, there will be people supplying the demand, and as long as there are people who have trouble getting laid, there will be... well, you get the picture. So what? It's a job, like any other. Unless you buy the government propaganda about how drugs are bad for you. I didn't think you were so gullible.
You speak as if Europeans and Hispanics are exactly the same people.
Pretty close, not exactly the same. However, this is the overwhelming fact that you must learn to understand in any discussion of ethnicity: The variation within groups is far greater than the variation between groups. That means it may be true on average that Group A eats 50 pancakes a day and Group B only eats 48, but Joe Blow of Group A eats 72 while Larry Hairy of Group A only eats 28. To put it another way, regardless of what stats you may have about a nation, you can't point at any individual from there and reliably describe them. The variance will overwhelm any generalization you care to make.
You speak as if nobody comes here just for the free shit.
I think the vast majority want to earn an honest living. I think the free shit has a pretty small role in the overall decision.
You speak as if the people you are talking about are not already burning American flags.
I haven't seen any burning flags, no. But even if some of them are, it's a pretty small minority. And even in that case, I would like you to have a look at Woodruff's signature and ponder the meaning of it.
We have ways for people to come here legally, and it's a fact the overwhelming majority of Americans are all for that.
Allowing some pompous bureaucrat with his civil-service pension to decide who should stay and who should go is like hiring an alligator to design a vegetarian menu. There's no formula, and certainly no government document, that will tell you who will be the next Thomas Edison or Albert Einstein.
The current situation is something completely different.
I doubt if it's as different as you think it is.

reconquista as in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California being taken back by Mexico, and I think for the motivation is mainly economic, which isn't new and I don't blame them, but you may or may not know you are standing with the billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Sheldon Adelson who matter of factly see this as a way to get around paying Americans a livable wage and benefits and transfer those billions directly into their pockets and make the rich richer and you know what happens to the poor and wages in general, and 3 people on the terror watch list were arrested in California last week, and as far as coming here to become and American there is plenty of evidence that many have no intention of assimilating, like grade schools not teaching classes in English, which is a new trend in our long history of immigrants ...otherwise, thanks for your usual respectful response, it's food for thought.

Without any respect for our borders or our laws, how can we be a nation?

[Phatscotty]

You speak as if nobody comes here just for the free shit

Gotta say, I agree with Dukasaur on this one. People simply don't emigrate because they think they'll get to sponge off a rich country. Emigrants are usually seeking educational and employment opportunities they can't find in their own countries - because they want to better their situation - or they're filthy rich people who want to take their funds and set up a nice life for themselves in a developed country. People don't save up and move to another country in order to lie around doing nothing, and the governments of developed countries generally don't let them do so anyway.

Somewhat of a tangent but you may find it interesting: one of my friends had to pay a $15k deposit just to get a tourist visa to the US. If they're that shitty about who they allow to come and take photos of the Hollywood sign, think how difficult they're making it to actually permanently relocate there.

I mostly agree on that with you guys too, but the keyword is 'usually'. For the most part we are not even talking about workers in the current situation; parents are sending their very young children up to the American border all by themselves, and really it is pretty clear they are being dumped on us. And if they get in, you can plan on double the number flocking to the border in the next 6 months, and then double that 4 months after. Not sure if you have seen any pictures (as the president has ordered a media blackout on the crisis) but these young children are virtually stacked on top of each other without barely an inch between them and virtually no food; that's how bad the situation is, that's why it cannot continue, that's why Obama is asking American taxpayers to cough up 4 billion dollars, it was 2 billion just last week. Obviously this cannot continue, certainly as I think our American veterans deserve emergency aid as well but aren't getting any, certainly as it is true American homeless people are not having billions of dollars sent to them and as American children are going without because their parents currency buys less and less when it comes to food and energy.

America is not responsible for every person in the world having a comfortable life. You may have noted I am all for Glenn Beck's or anyone else's mission to send charity and aid and medical staff down to the facilities because people are choosing to send millions voluntarily, but when it comes to the taxpayers, first we need to secure our dang border, THEN we can talk about what we're gonna do and how we're gonna do it.

[AndyDufresne]

We can all learn a few things from Lewis Charles Levin, a US congressman from the 1840s. "...Levin ran for Congress and was elected on his party's platform, to wit: (1) to extend the period of naturalization to twenty-one years; (2) to elect only native born to all offices; (3) to reject foreign interference in all institutions, social, religious, and political..." Wikipedia Source

During this time, "...Mr. Levin argued for a limit to the cubic footage of ships from Ireland, accused the pope of plotting to build a tunnel to America under the Atlantic Ocean..." NYT Source.

He was eventually placed in a Philadelphia hospital for the insane.


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

by Scott W. Johnson - a Minneapolis attorney and contributor to the website Power Line.

Watching the influx of unaccompanied minors crossing our southwestern border daily, a reasonable man could conclude that we are living out the fevered dreams of a dystopian novel. The United States has lost a basic aspect of sovereignty. Control over its borders is a relic of the past.

Having traversed Mexico with the help of drug cartels freely operating human trafficking networks, Central American minors are voluntarily entering the United States through the Rio Grande Valley. They’re shepherded to the border, where they cross on their own and seek apprehension by Department of Homeland Security agents, believing that minors won’t be deported.

According to Brian Bennett’s intensely reported July 5 Los Angeles Times story, U.S. Customs and Border Protection figures show that officers took fewer than 4,000 unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras into custody annually for most of the last decade. Then, in fiscal year 2012, officers seized 10,146 unaccompanied minors. Last fiscal year, they took 20,805; between last October and this June 15, they nabbed 39,133. The overused word “crisis” fits the numbers—indeed, “invasion” doesn’t seem too strong. By July 8, however, the White House had downgraded the invasion from a “crisis” to a “situation.”

Many Americans are deeply disturbed by the “situation.” They resent the expenditure of resources and the appropriation of facilities for the detention of the minors. They fear the public health consequences of their dispersion, with reports reliably indicating, despite attempts to suppress the information, the presence of tuberculosis and other unwelcome conditions among them. They also suspect that the president of the United States supports the situation.

Conditions have not suddenly changed in the minors’ home countries. So far as we can tell, the cartels and their customers have a sophisticated understanding of American immigration law (it prohibits the immediate deportation of minors “other than Mexican”) and how the White House enforces it (President Obama, as he made clear in a 2012 executive order regarding illegal minors, would prefer not to). As a Cleveland immigration attorney told Bennett, “The cartels have figured out where the hole is.”

On June 30, Obama sent a letter to congressional leaders addressing the crisis. The tone was not urgent; it verged on the complacent. He invoked “root causes,” and they had nothing to do with his own policies. He indicated that he would seek additional statutory authority to deal with unaccompanied minors from noncontiguous countries like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, but offered no specifics; by last week, according to sources cited by the Associated Press, he had withdrawn the suggestion.

He did, however, follow through on his warning that he would request additional funding to support the detained minors; he asked for emergency funding in the amount of $3.7 billion. It does not appear that these funds will be dedicated to securing the border itself. As Byron York commented in the Washington Examiner, the funding request provided as “clear an indication as any that removal of the thousands who have already come here illegally is unlikely to happen in any significant numbers.”

Also on June 30, Obama met at the White House with over a dozen “immigration advocates” and promised more in the way of executive action to extend amnesty to illegal aliens. At the meeting, according to Major Garrett’s July 3 National Journal report, Obama “became unplugged on immigration, took his temper off mute, shook up the underlying base politics of the next two elections, and turned up to boil his long-simmering feud with Republicans over the constitutional limits of executive power.”

Breitbart’s Brandon Darby last week revealed a leaked DHS report, dated June 3, that indicates the role the administration’s nonenforcement policy has played in the crisis: It identifies “successful migration attempts” as a substantial contributing factor.

The July 6 appearance of Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson on Meet the Press strongly suggested that the current crisis would result in more such “successful migration attempts.” Johnson’s evasive responses to host David Gregory’s questions were illuminating.

Gregory asked: “I know there’s a process they have to go through. Will most of these children that we have seen in this desperate situation stay in America, or will they be returned to their homes in Central America?” Johnson responded: “There’s a deportation proceeding that is commenced against illegal migrants, including children. We are looking at ways to create additional options for dealing with the children in particular, consistent with our laws and our values.”

Gregory tried again: “I’m trying to get an answer to: Will most of them end up staying, in your judgment?” Johnson responded: “I think we need to find more efficient, effective ways to turn this tide around generally, and we’ve already begun to do that.”

We can infer that the answer is they’ll end up staying. (DHS did not return my call seeking clarification of Secretary Johnson’s remarks.) The United Nations has begun demanding that the Central American minors be treated as refugees.

Scheduled to attend a couple of big-buck Democratic fundraisers last week in Dallas and Austin, within shouting distance of the border, Obama declined to take a look at what’s going on with his own eyes. A White House spokesman explained that Obama already had a good grasp of the “situation,” while the president himself declared, “I’m not interested in photo-ops. I’m interested in solving the problem.” Even some Democrats didn’t buy it. “Don’t take any cameras, Mr. President, but go down there and see what we’re facing,” Texas congressman Henry Cuellar said on CNN, calling it Obama’s “Katrina moment.”

Obama was ultimately shamed into holding a couple of meetings before he flew off to a fundraiser at the home of Machete director Robert Rodriguez, where donors paid up to $32,400 to hobnob with the president and Hollywood celebrities. After the talks, which included Texas governor Rick Perry, Obama made a brief statement, arguing for “comprehensive immigration reform” and the $3.7 billion he’s requested, and filibustered responses to two questions. He said that Governor Perry had asked him to deploy the National Guard at the border, conceded that it made sense, but opposed it as a “temporary” measure. He blamed Republicans for the crisis, deriding them as opponents of negotiation and compromise. Calling his claims straw men is an insult to straw men everywhere, but the metaphor is apt. Obama’s straw men are the only force that will be deployed at the border, and they are inviting people to come on in.

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[Phatscotty]

PS, are you making a comparison between Egypt's border policy WITH GAZA and the US border with Mexicon (and Canada)?

Let's be clear. Let's end your incessant bullshitting.

Don't wanna derail, so come with it in the other thread if you want, just making a statement against the knee-jerk reactionists who don't think there are any legitimate reasons for a country to have secure borders

1. What is the optimal amount of security required to obtain "secure borders"?

2. And... why? What are the costs and benefits of such a policy?

We need more security than we have now, until the tide is stemmed. Results have shown the border security at San Diego has one of the best solutions, a double fence with motion detection.

Why? Because of the costs, and how about because it's a primary function of our government, up there with courts and defense. Divvy up the 4 billion we are about to spend on the situation, it comes out to roughly $70,000 per immigrant, an amount the average person would have to work 3-4 years and not spend a dime to obtain, and what's worse, the 4 billion does not address the issue of border security, it only papers over the problem. And we haven't even opened the box of all the people who broke our laws in the past, all the welfare and foodstamps, all the crowded class rooms everyone elses communities are paying for, all the crimes committed, all the free healthcare, the costs run into the hundreds of billions. How many billions to imprison criminals who should have been caught and turned back? What is the value you put on a kidnapping? What is the final cost of billions made in America not being spent back into the economy but sent instead to foreign countries? What is the cost of illegal child sex rings, human lives lost in the human traffic trade.

Here, watch this short video, add up all the costs, report back with a monetary figure. Heck, I suppose you could even add up and multiply all the lost revenues of American citizens who have been murdered by gang members and killed by drunk drivers.

But the cost isn't really the only issue or the main issue, what about the issue of right and wrong? What about he concept of a country. what about respect for our laws and respect for order?

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[danfrank666]

--Andy

Funny , Thats the one when sulu has multiple personalities (i believe) .. Classic

[oVo]

The Nation of Immigrants

[Phatscotty]

A Loss of Sovereignty Disguised as Compassion

A Kauai man was sentenced to one year probation and a $200 fine on May 29, 2014 for letting his 8-year-old son walk one mile home as punishment for getting in trouble at school. I wondered what the progressive courts would do to American parents who would allow their minor children to trek unaccompanied across Mexico, hanging on trains, on buses, walking with a coyote, in order to arrive in a more prosperous country where welfare and economic security would await them through the generosity of a president who decided to nullify the southern border?


Social services and progressives don’t seem to have any words of criticism for such neglectful parenting. On the contrary, they are praising their courage. I would not exactly call this type of parental abuse courage.

Nancy Pelosi assured the crowd gathered at the southern border that U.S. and Mexico are one nation, “a community with a border going through it.” When Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House in 2007, she made sure all funding for the 2006 Secure Fence Act ceased. Charles Krauthammer made a good point that, if a border fence is not really effective, why is there still a fence around the White House?

Compassion, it is so easy to be compassionate with other people’s money! Compassion is a human “feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate suffering.” What’s $4 billion when we are such a rich country and already in insurmountable debt? Yes, it’s true, charity begins at home but, we are told, nobody in the U.S. is suffering. These tattooed young men and women with 4-5 kids in tow are special economic victims that must be treated with compassion.

We don’t seem to have concern for the millions of Americans who are currently suffering in our own country. We don’t have pity, empathy, and the money to treat the elderly properly. We don’t have care and mercy for our sick veterans whom we treat with indifference and cruelty.

But we have selective compassion and humanity for the fellow human beings from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. After all, they are allegedly poor victims and United Nations wants to give them refugee status. They are refugees from their own mismanaged and corrupt governments whom they put in power time after time because they believe bigger governments are good. These shady governments are so crafty at what they do that they enrich themselves at the public socialist trough while keeping their citizens impoverished and suffering economic hardships.

Is it compassionate to sneak foreign children and adults with active and incurable tuberculosis among unsuspecting American communities?
Is it humane to infect healthy populations with measles, Chagas disease, lice, scabies, incurable TB, STDs, swine flu, rubella, and pneumonic plague? Diseases are not selective. They do not distinguish between liberals and conservatives, rich and poor; they are equal opportunistic contagions.
Is it tolerant and merciful to release MS-13 gang members, rapists, murderers and drug dealers among our U.S. population while denying entry to white, healthy, and educated Europeans?
Is it compassionate to allow disease, crime (human trafficking, drug smuggling, gangs, murder, property theft and destruction), and Islamic terrorists enter our country unchecked?
Is it kind to steal from one group of people and give to the invading hordes from foreign countries who are not really fleeing a war zone?
Is it compassionate to force our own citizens to work hard to pay taxes and then give this money away to illegals who have broken the laws of our country?
The Soviets must have been received with compassion when they relocated Russians into the countries they had occupied! In this vein, we are compassionately populating the country with poor and government-dependent illegal immigrants who broke our laws and who will vote for Democrat fossils and a much larger government to care for the poor and unskilled, forever altering our collective future.

Do we even have a country anymore since the southern border is wide open to anyone except white Europeans?
As one of our Founding Fathers said, “A country without borders is no longer a country.” Is being poor, destitute, and illiterate now the most important requirement for American citizenship?
Do “asylum seekers” no longer need to assimilate or know anything about our country’s history, culture, and language?
Aren’t “asylum seekers” supposed to be returned to the country where they first touched soil, in this case, Mexico? Is the extended hand to accept welfare and the know-how to get it faster the new reality in America?
What happens in this socialist utopia when we run out of other people’s money and the ants refuse to work to support the invading crickets?
It is compassionate to help feed and house temporarily people in need. Is it compassionate to create chaos in our country, bring in third world problems into our communities, invite in any criminal elements who hate America and endanger our safety, overwhelm the police, destroy our school system, exacerbate the overburdened welfare system, inflate the unemployment rolls, increase our national debt, and destroy our children’s future?

Read more at http://barbwire.com/2014/07/18/loss-sov ... A82b0FS.99

[Phatscotty]

The Nation of Immigrants

Ovo, what does sovereignty mean to you?

[BigBallinStalin]

How much GDP per year are y'all willing to sacrifice in order to maintain relatively closed borders?

e.g. if GDP could double if immigration restrictions drastically fell, would you end your position?
(GDP doubling is like everyone in the US getting twice as rich. GDP tends to increase by about 3% per year, so it's an insane amount of prosperity).

[mrswdk]

Note that BBS never denied that he would by happy to sell his neighbor's daughter to a Middle Eastern brothel or feed invalids into his wood chipper.

[PLAYER57832]

Has anyone bothered to mention the REAL reason so many kids are suddenly so desperate to get out?

Try that gangs of criminals, kids who were RAISED IN THE US and then DEPORTED, to a country that did not have the resources to handle them, have taken over.

Why were those original kids who wound up in US gangs here?

Because so many US employers wanted cheap, COMPLIANT labor.

This is, in fact a problem the US helped create... so the claim that we have no responsibility.. well, typical of the latest Republican/Liberatarian/Tea Party-ite views.

The REAL solution to this mess is not to lock down our borders, it is to tax employers who want to hire non-citizens. The extra cost will ensure that legal American citizens get true priority in hiring, plus the money can be used to pay for the needed social services.

Beyond that, loosen restrictions on travel. Allow folks to work here seasonally, and to travel home... like they used to do. Allow the kids of immigrants to come, learn to be good American supporters, instead of haters (because of how they are treated and abused here). The tax will help fund the schools & hospitals.

BUT... find a way around the "anchor baby" issue. Coming here pregnant should not be a ticket to automatic citizenship for a whole family.

[patches70]

How much GDP per year are y'all willing to sacrifice in order to maintain relatively closed borders?

e.g. if GDP could double if immigration restrictions drastically fell, would you end your position?
(GDP doubling is like everyone in the US getting twice as rich. GDP tends to increase by about 3% per year, so it's an insane amount of prosperity).

Hey! We could double the GDP easily! Just close the police stations and let the cities riot for a few months. The loss of life would be great but after about three months just mobilize, put down the riots and lawlessness and start rebuilding everything that got destroyed. And just to make sure that plenty of stuff gets destroyed, just have a few air wings of the Air force run daily bombing campaigns through every major city, town and village across these United States.

It would be the greatest rebuilding project in the history of the US and it would easily double the (now revised down GDP) GDP.



I dunno, GDP is a horrible metric to determine wealth, but you already know that, don't you BBS?


You know what would double most people's wealth almost overnight? A nice round of deflation and market correction to address the over inflated asset prices of virtually everything in the US. The money in people's wallets could double in value virtually overnight, and double again and again and again! Savers would be the new rich, those in debt would be the new paupers.

The slum lord who owns a ton of shit building would find those buildings become worth a quarter of the value they once held. Those who are rich because of the stocks they hold would find themselves staring at the window and that long fall outside with supreme longing as they watch their positions degrade.

The banks would find themselves smashed because the collateral they have on the loans they made would not be worth a fraction of the cost of the money they lent.

It would be glorious and anyone who is not in debt, has savings, has a recession proof job, skills that are absolutely vital no matter what the economic conditions are, they would all be fine with having any one or more of those option available to them.

Everyone else would be pretty much fucked. But hey, making money ain't always easy. Gotta break a few eggs to double one's worth, it all comes down to whom's eggs are going to be cracked, doesn't it?

[oVo]

The Nation of Immigrants

Ovo, what does sovereignty mean to you?

Basically the concept of holding supreme power to govern
and the authority to enforce the laws of the land.

[Phatscotty]

Has anyone bothered to mention the REAL reason so many kids are suddenly so desperate to get out?

Try that gangs of criminals, kids who were RAISED IN THE US and then DEPORTED, to a country that did not have the resources to handle them, have taken over.

Why were those original kids who wound up in US gangs here?

Because so many US employers wanted cheap, COMPLIANT labor.

This is, in fact a problem the US helped create... so the claim that we have no responsibility.. well, typical of the latest Republican/Liberatarian/Tea Party-ite views.

The REAL solution to this mess is not to lock down our borders, it is to tax employers who want to hire non-citizens. The extra cost will ensure that legal American citizens get true priority in hiring, plus the money can be used to pay for the needed social services.

Beyond that, loosen restrictions on travel. Allow folks to work here seasonally, and to travel home... like they used to do. Allow the kids of immigrants to come, learn to be good American supporters, instead of haters (because of how they are treated and abused here). The tax will help fund the schools & hospitals.

BUT... find a way around the "anchor baby" issue. Coming here pregnant should not be a ticket to automatic citizenship for a whole family.

They turned to gangs because employers want to drive down costs... WUT? The gang members I used to know did not do so because of low wages, as the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants I used to work with once upon a time worked 2 full time jobs and lived 6-8 people to an apartment. The gangs members I used to know did so because they didn't like waking up before they felt like waking up, they didn't like being places on time, and they liked to use drugs and make easy money selling drugs and stealing things.

Just tax them? Like the way we taxed medical device makers to fund Obamacare.... Oh hey Medtronic recently announced they are leaving the USA and moving their HQ to Ireland. How about we deal with reality and what will happen if yet another tax is levied, a certain number are going to leave or close up shop . I'm not sayin you are necessarily on the wrong track, but taxing employers is not the answer.

And I would say in my experience the % of immigrants who had respect for America was about 30%, with 30% of them hated America, and the rest of them didn't care one way or the other, they were just here because this is where the jobs are, this is where money can be make, period. The haters were proud to not speak English and to cause a fuss about it everywhere they went with every gringo they dealt with. They wiped their ass with the American flag. Some of them collected welfare for years, some of them would joke how they stole my social security number, and after a summer they would go home to wherever their 'primary' families were (many started other families in other cities) and they would come back the next spring with a different name and social security number. What in the world leads you to think they are gonna have respect for America? Is that why they evade government officials, respect? Is that why they steal social security numbers, respect? We don't even respect our borders, and a country that doesn't respect it's own borders ceases to be a country.