Still rooting for Ron Paul.

Will Smith.

Meh, just curious. :-w

 

 

 

This thread applies to anyone here, even if you're not a US citizen. Tell me who do you want in the white house and why.

 

 

 

Debate on here if you want, but this is meant to be an experiment. I don't wnat to just know who you support, I want to know the reasons. Also if you don't know/lost confidence in the government also post.

 

 

 

EDIT: Incase you're wondering, my support is firmly rested with Ron Paul, for several reasons:

 

 

 

(1) He's a constitutionalist, and would never consciously approve of any law that encroached on the people's basic rights, not even in the face of terrorism.

 

 

 

(2) He will get rid of all the waste of government, and concentrate only on things that need to be done. I once heard him question why we paid to bomb bridges in Iraq, rebuild them, and leave the bridges at home rotting. :P

 

 

 

(3) He will cut down on spending big time, and abolish the income tax. :D

 

 

 

(4) He's not corrupt and tyrannical like all the other politicians in Washington. He's never once taken money from a corporate lobbyist, either.

 

 

 

(5) He is going to follow George Washington's warning not to get entangled in foreign alliances by pulling out all troops, not just in Iraq in Afghanistan, but in all foreign countries.

 

 

 

(6) After decades of debate, he's finally going to put up a fence at the border. :D

 

 

 

Basically, the exact opposite of Big Brother, which is what America needs.

 

 

 

Go to his campaign site for more information.

You truly believe all that? You think a president is going to take all foreign troops out of other countries and abolish income tax? As well, ditching all foreign alliances?! (I've heard he wants out of NATO and the UN).

 

 

 

That's the kind of stuff that, while not as openly bad as having a war, is going to have much more severe consequences (not that it's going to happen, because politicians lie :-w ).

 

 

 

Edit-I've just bolded something...A) If he was corrupt, you wouldn't know it. B) If the other Washington politicians are all corrupt, you don't know that either.

(6) After decades of debate, he's finally going to put up a fence at the border.

I still don't understand why some people are so proud to be racist.

 

 

 

So if a person thinks million upon millions of foreign people shouldn't be allowed to illegally sneak into a country they are a racist?

 

 

 

Who are you to judge what someone thinks when you don't even know? Are you inside his head? Do you know his reasons for supporting a fence? There are many many reasons why someone might oppose massive illegal immigration besides racism.

 

 

 

By giving a knee jerk reaction and judging him a racist based off the sentence he wrote means one of two things:

 

a. You are ignorant and don't realize that there are other reasons people are against illegal immigration(I doubt this because you have been quite witty in other threads).

 

b. You know there are other reasons and you are just being a jerk because you have fun condemning people you disagree with.

So if a person thinks million upon millions of foreign people shouldn't be allowed to illegally sneak into a country they are a racist?

 

These people provide cheap labor that raise profit margins for businesses and lower prices for consumers. The only reason why you would oppose moving people from an area of extreme poverty to an area of mutually beneficial opportunities is racism.

 

 

 

 

Who are you to judge what someone thinks when you don't even know? Are you inside his head? Do you know his reasons for supporting a fence?

 

Do you know his reason for supporting a mexican fence but not a canadian one?

 

 

 

 

There are many many reasons why someone might oppose massive illegal immigration besides racism.

 

Name those reasons, and I will show you how each of them refer back to racism.

 

 

 

 

By giving a knee jerk reaction and judging him a racist based off the sentence he wrote means one of two things:

 

a. You are ignorant and don't realize that there are other reasons people are against illegal immigration(I doubt this because you have been quite witty in other threads).

 

Name those reasons.

 

 

 

 

b. You know there are other reasons and you are just being a jerk because you have fun condemning people you disagree with.

 

Name those reasons.

Do you know his reason for supporting a mexican fence but not a canadian one?

 

Actually I think he has about 12+ million more reasons for supporting a Mexican fence than a Canadian one...

 

 

 

Name those reasons, and I will show you how each of them refer back to racism.

 

I'll name off a couple of reasons for ya... of course this won't be every reason because I don't feel like taking the time to add more at the moment.

 

 

 

First and foremost they broke the law to be here. The law states that people are not to enter this country illegally yet millions have done so. Some people think building a fence where the vast majority of the infractions have taken place can help enforce existing US law. I'm not debating if the wall is or isn't a good way to enforce the law but some people feel it is. Wanting to follow US law is not a racist action.

 

 

 

Illegal aliens add a big tax burden on citizens. Some people don't like killing themselves at a job and being taxed a big chunk of their paycheck only for billions of dollars to go to people that are not paying taxes and are here illegally. Here are some numbers on costs US taxpayers are having to pay due to people being here illegally.

 

 

 

1. Illegal aliens drain on tax monies that would otherwise be spent for law-abiding citizens. Social services for illegal aliens were estimated to cost the law-abiding American taxpayers, in 2004, over $70 billion annually (Federation for American Immigration Reform, 2004, accessed 2/26/2007). Most current estimates for costs of illegal alien services since 1996 is almost 400 trillion dollars (ImmigrationCounters.com, accessed 2/26/2007).

 

2. New Jersey spends more than $2.1 billion annually on public expenditures for education, medical care, and incarceration for the estimated 372,000 illegal aliens residing in the state. Governor Jon Corzine admitted, that illegal aliens are, "one of the worst tax burdens in the United States." The Costs of Illegal Immigration to New Jerseyites.

 

3. Officials in California report that providing illegal immigrants these social services costs the state $3 billion annually. (Close Up Foundation, accessed 2/26/2007).

 

4. Illegal aliens increase poverty. Most ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ålack a high school education resulting in increased poverty and expanded government expenditure.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Do you know his reason for supporting a mexican fence but not a canadian one?

 

Actually I think he has about 12+ million more reasons for supporting a Mexican fence than a Canadian one...

 

And I know 4.8 million reasons why he shouldn't.

 

 

 

 

Name those reasons, and I will show you how each of them refer back to racism.

 

I'll name off a couple of reasons for ya... of course this won't be every reason because I don't feel like taking the time to add more at the moment.

 

Sure, copying and pasting is very hard work. I understand.

 

 

 

 

First and foremost they broke the law to be here. The law states that people are not to enter this country illegally yet millions have done so. Some people think building a fence where the vast majority of the infractions have taken place can help enforce existing US law. I'm not debating if the wall is or isn't a good way to enforce the law but some people feel it is. Wanting to follow US law is not a racist action.

 

So during the 50's, people who followed Jim Crow laws weren't racist? And before that, people who followed slavery laws weren't racist?

 

 

 

 

Illegal aliens add a big tax burden on citizens. Some people don't like killing themselves at a job and being taxed a big chunk of their paycheck only for billions of dollars to go to people that are not paying taxes and are here illegally. Here are some numbers on costs US taxpayers are having to pay due to people being here illegally.

 

 

 

1. Illegal aliens drain on tax monies that would otherwise be spent for law-abiding citizens. Social services for illegal aliens were estimated to cost the law-abiding American taxpayers, in 2004, over $70 billion annually (Federation for American Immigration Reform, 2004, accessed 2/26/2007).

 

To obtain social services, you would need a legal social security identity. Illegal immigrants do not have that. Therefore, they cannot possibly obtain social services.

 

 

 

 

Most current estimates for costs of illegal alien services since 1996 is almost 400 trillion dollars (ImmigrationCounters.com, accessed 2/26/2007).

 

 

 

From your site:

 

 

 

"Remittance contributes to the net costs of illegal immigration as published on the "Costs of Social Services" counter because these funds are diverted from offsetting the increased cost of "free" social services for illegal immigrants"

 

 

 

In other words, your supposed "social services" counter is the amount of money that Mexicans are sending back to their families. It does not have anything to do with what social services is costing the government.

 

 

 

 

2. New Jersey spends more than $2.1 billion annually on public expenditures for education, medical care, and incarceration for the estimated 372,000 illegal aliens residing in the state. Governor Jon Corzine admitted, that illegal aliens are, "one of the worst tax burdens in the United States." The Costs of Illegal Immigration to New Jerseyites.

 

3. Officials in California report that providing illegal immigrants these social services costs the state $3 billion annually. (Close Up Foundation, accessed 2/26/2007).

 

Why don't we allow immigrants to come here legally so they can have legal identities and pay for these costs?

 

 

 

 

 

Please link to your sources.

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Illegal aliens increase poverty. Most ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ålack a high school education resulting in increased poverty and expanded government expenditure.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

There are many many reasons why someone might oppose massive illegal immigration besides racism.

 

Name those reasons, and I will show you how each of them refer back to racism.

 

You then repeat name those reasons a few more times for effect so I named a couple of reasons so you could "show me how each of them referred back to racism."

 

 

 

So here are your responses to what I said and pasted:

 

And I know 4.8 million reasons why he shouldn't.

 

You aren't showing that reason is racist.

 

 

 

So during the 50's, people who followed Jim Crow laws weren't racist?

These two sentences are the only references back to racism you gave. During the 50's some people were racist and some people were not that abided by those laws. Some people that support the fence are racist and some people are not. Neither you nor I know what a person's heart is so until they actually expose being racist it is being a jerk to condemn them of that.

 

 

 

And before that, people who followed slavery laws weren't racist?

Yeah, I guess all slave owners were racist... especially the black slave owners... who owned... black slaves... so they were... racist against themselves? Any free person in the US could own slaves and many ex slaves went on to own slaves themselves.

 

 

 

So obviously black slave owners weren't racist yet they followed the slavery laws. This means we come back around to my last point that some people that followed the law did so for racist reasons and other people did it for other reasons so you cannot condemn every person as a racist that believes that the laws should be followed until you know their heart. Otherwise you are just being a jerk going around condemning and insulting people without proof.

 

 

 

Here are a lot of references to make sure you believe this point:

 

Tours of the property of a rich a rich Charleston black slaveowner

 

http://www.gullahtours.com/dereef.html

 

 

 

Baepler, P. (Ed.). (1999). Introduction to White slaves, African masters: An anthology of American barbary captivity narratives. (pp. 1-5Cool. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

 

 

Daudert, C. (1999). The temptation of st. Rosalie: Portrait of a black slave owner. New York: Hansa-Hewlett

 

 

 

Grooms, R. M. (1997). Dixie's censored subject: Black slaveowners. Retrieved June 3, 2002, from http://www.americancivilwar.com/authors ... owners.htm

 

 

 

Halliburton, R. (1976). Free black owners of slaves: A reappraisal of the Woodson thesis. South Carolina Historical Magazine, 76, 129-136.

 

 

 

Johnson, M. P. & Roark, J. L. (1984). Black masters: a free family of color in the old south. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.

 

 

 

Koger, L. (1995). Black slaveowners: free black slave masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860. North Carolina: Mc Farland.

 

 

 

Schwarz, P. J. (1987). Emancipators, protectors, and anomalies: free black slaveowners in Virginia. The Virginia Magazine of history and biography, 95, 317-338.

 

 

 

Vogeler, I. (1997, March). Free black slaveowners in South Carolina. Retrieved June 5, 2002 from http://www.uwec.edu

 

 

 

Woodson, G. C. (1968). Free Negro owners of slaves in the Unites States in 1830. Connecticut: Negro Universities Press.

 

 

 

 

 

To obtain social services, you would need a legal social security identity. Illegal immigrants do not have that. Therefore, they cannot possibly obtain social services.

 

 

 

From your site:

 

 

 

"Remittance contributes to the net costs of illegal immigration as published on the "Costs of Social Services" counter because these funds are diverted from offsetting the increased cost of "free" social services for illegal immigrants"

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

 

 

In other words, your supposed "social services" counter is the amount of money that Mexicans are sending back to their families. It does not have anything to do with what social services is costing the government.

 

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

Why don't we allow immigrants to come here legally so they can have legal identities and pay for these costs?

 

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

Please link to your sources.

 

1

 

Please keep your post on the topic that you were going to show how every reason was racist. You are trying to take things completely off topic by trying to start a different debate on "should we legalize all illegal immigrants." All this comes down to is you shouldn't go around calling people racist because it is rude when you don't know what they truly feel.

 

 

 

Illegal aliens do not increase poverty. They work. Whereas lack of education is directly correlated to lack of employment among american citizens, it is completely opposite among the immigrant community. Immigrants manage to find work regardless of their educational background.

 

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

I repeat: illegal immigrants cannot obtain social welfare. that is what the word "illegal" means - they do not have a legal identity.

 

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

Once again, immigrants cannot siphon off funds. they do not have legal identities in this country.

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

 

One more time, illegal immigrants cannot receive government benefits and services. They do not have legal identities in this country.

 

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

Then please explain why they are not allowed to come here legally so they can pay their own $89000.

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

 

If those immigrants were allowed to come here legally, they would be paying the $28.6 billion.

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

 

 

Please link to your sources.

 

2

 

 

 

If all illegal immigrants were replaced with legal ones, the number of emergency visits and maternity stays would remain the same.

 

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

Please link to your sources.

 

3

 

 

 

As I said above, the $4 billion in healthcare would remain regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal. Biology is not regulated by immigration laws.

 

 

 

The $24 billion in education, however, can be solved by allowing mexicans to come here legally, thereby allowing them to pay their own taxes.

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

 

 

This number, like the healthcare number, would be the same regardless of whether immigrants are legal or illegal. Biology and Psychology are not regulated by immigration laws.

 

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

Once again, services are not affected because illegal immigrants cannot obtain them.

 

 

 

Education can be solved by allowing immigrants to come here legally.

 

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

 

 

Please link to your sources.

 

4

 

So you felt the need to say this four different times. Is there any reason you felt the need to keep repeating this over and over other than to try to make me look bad or stupid? It really came across as rather rude. I myself have used your tactic this thread so you can get a taste for how annoying it is so hopefully we can have a civil debate. If you are going to attempt to make the other side look ignorant at least use a real point to do so.

 

 

 

To me this just reinforced my opinion that you like to insult, make fun of and belittle people you disagree with since that is the entire reason we started this is because you called someone a racist. Now you are trying the middle schoolish cut people down games on me. Hopefully the opinion I am beginning to form of you is wrong and we can avoid this kind of junk in your response.

 

You then repeat name those reasons a few more times for effect so I named a couple of reasons so you could "show me how each of them referred back to racism."

 

By showing that each of your stated reasons are

 

 

 

1) Contradicted by the rules of the social security system.

 

and/or

 

2) Solvable by making mexican immigration legal.

 

and/or

 

3) Existing problems irregardless of immigration laws

 

 

 

I demonstrate that your only true reason is racism. If there are reasons to oppose immigration, other than racism, that are not nullified by #1, #2, or #3, please enlighten me. Your blind repetition to my responses only strengthens the fact that you did not truly read them.

 

 

 

 

So during the 50's, people who followed Jim Crow laws weren't racist?

These two sentences are the only references back to racism you gave. During the 50's some people were racist and some people were not that abided by those laws. Some people that support the fence are racist and some people are not. Neither you nor I know what a person's heart is so until they actually expose being racist it is being a jerk to condemn them of that.

 

I stand corrected. My statement should have read, "people who supported Jim Crow laws." Yes, there were people who followed the law but were not themselves racists; however, those non-racist people would not have vocally supported maintaining the law, especially not the the point of advocating the construction of physical barriers to enforce it, as you and hi9 are doing.

 

 

 

 

And before that, people who followed slavery laws weren't racist?

Yeah, I guess all slave owners were racist... especially the black slave owners... who owned... black slaves... so they were... racist against themselves? Any free person in the US could own slaves and many ex slaves went on to own slaves themselves.

 

 

 

So obviously black slave owners weren't racist yet they followed the slavery laws. This means we come back around to my last point that some people that followed the law did so for racist reasons and other people did it for other reasons so you cannot condemn every person as a racist that believes that the laws should be followed until you know their heart. Otherwise you are just being a jerk going around condemning and insulting people without proof.

 

 

 

Here are a lot of references to make sure you believe this point:

 

Tours of the property of a rich a rich Charleston black slaveowner

 

http://www.gullahtours.com/dereef.html

 

 

 

Baepler, P. (Ed.). (1999). Introduction to White slaves, African masters: An anthology of American barbary captivity narratives. (pp. 1-5Cool. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

 

 

Daudert, C. (1999). The temptation of st. Rosalie: Portrait of a black slave owner. New York: Hansa-Hewlett

 

 

 

Grooms, R. M. (1997). Dixie's censored subject: Black slaveowners. Retrieved June 3, 2002, from http://www.americancivilwar.com/authors ... owners.htm

 

 

 

Halliburton, R. (1976). Free black owners of slaves: A reappraisal of the Woodson thesis. South Carolina Historical Magazine, 76, 129-136.

 

 

 

Johnson, M. P. & Roark, J. L. (1984). Black masters: a free family of color in the old south. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.

 

 

 

Koger, L. (1995). Black slaveowners: free black slave masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860. North Carolina: Mc Farland.

 

 

 

Schwarz, P. J. (1987). Emancipators, protectors, and anomalies: free black slaveowners in Virginia. The Virginia Magazine of history and biography, 95, 317-338.

 

 

 

Vogeler, I. (1997, March). Free black slaveowners in South Carolina. Retrieved June 5, 2002 from http://www.uwec.edu

 

 

 

Woodson, G. C. (1968). Free Negro owners of slaves in the Unites States in 1830. Connecticut: Negro Universities Press.

 

Again as with the previous quote, I did not approach this subject clearly. I should have clarified that, as with immigrants, I was arguing from the point of view of the slaves themselves: should the slaves not have attempted to gain freedom because that would have been breaking the slavery law?

 

 

 

However, to address your argument in its current form: Yes, black slave owners who owned slaves are exempt from being viewed as racist. They are simply greedy individuals who sink to such low depths as to subject others to the same treatment that they themselves were subjected to.

 

 

 

That means, unless hi9 was himself an illegal immigrant who now opposes immigration, he is still a racist.

 

 

 

 

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

1

 

Please keep your post on the topic that you were going to show how every reason was racist. You are trying to take things completely off topic by trying to start a different debate on "should we legalize all illegal immigrants." All this comes down to is you shouldn't go around calling people racist because it is rude when you don't know what they truly feel.

 

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

You aren't showing that point is racist.

 

ad nauseum

 

All of this has been addressed in the first part of my response.

 

 

 

Please link to your sources.

 

4

 

So you felt the need to say this four different times. Is there any reason you felt the need to keep repeating this over and over other than to try to make me look bad or stupid?

 

Yes. It is very "bad and stupid" to write facts and statistics, which is what the majority of your post consisted of, without showing any of your sources.

 

 

 

It really came across as rather rude. I myself have used your tactic this thread so you can get a taste for how annoying it is so hopefully we can have a civil debate.

 

Except for the fact that I did not deserve this treatment, while you did.

 

 

 

 

If you are going to attempt to make the other side look ignorant at least use a real point to do so.

 

I have used several real points in this post and my previous post. I hope you read them.

 

 

 

 

To me this just reinforced my opinion that you like to insult, make fun of and belittle people you disagree with since that is the entire reason we started this is because you called someone a racist. Now you are trying the middle schoolish cut people down games on me. Hopefully the opinion I am beginning to form of you is wrong and we can avoid this kind of junk in your response.

 

This has been addressed in the first part of my post.

to bad steven colbert or john steward isnt running they would have my vote in a heart beat...

 

 

 

other wise Vote or die...guess ill die

So Paperclipsyaaar, do you think the US should have completely open borders and anyone on Earth that wants to become a US citizen at any time can do so and move here?

 

 

 

Again as with the previous quote, I did not approach this subject clearly. I should have clarified that, as with immigrants, I was arguing from the point of view of the slaves themselves: should the slaves not have attempted to gain freedom because that would have been breaking the slavery law?

 

 

 

However, to address your argument in its current form: Yes, black slave owners who owned slaves are exempt from being viewed as racist. They are simply greedy individuals who sink to such low depths as to subject others to the same treatment that they themselves were subjected to.

 

 

 

That means, unless hi9 was himself an illegal immigrant who now opposes immigration, he is still a racist.

 

I find it funny that you are going around calling everyone racist yet you are also the only person drawing racial lines of who is right and who is wrong to feel certain ways based merely by their skin color. Last time I checked saying it is ok for one race to do something or feel a certain way but it is not ok for another race to do or feel the exact same thing is racism.

Mike Gravel.

 

 

 

He's basically a liberal Ron Paul.

 

 

 

And he wants to implement direct democracy which would be freaking awesome.

 

 

 

and he doesn't take funds from lobbyists or corporate interests, which is why you've probably never heard of him. That and the media doesn't consider him a serious candidate so he gets excluded from debates sometimes.

 

 

 

but he can definitely still win.

 

 

 

So Paperclipsyaaar, do you think the US should have completely open borders and anyone on Earth that wants to become a US citizen at any time can do so and move here?

 

Yes. Anyone who applies for a US residency and passes the health and personal background check should be allowed to move here, regardless of what country, ethnicity, and, most importantly, social class they belong to. There is no such thing as automatic citizenship. Citizenship comes 15-25 years after you first apply for residency.

 

 

 

 

Again as with the previous quote, I did not approach this subject clearly. I should have clarified that, as with immigrants, I was arguing from the point of view of the slaves themselves: should the slaves not have attempted to gain freedom because that would have been breaking the slavery law?

 

 

 

However, to address your argument in its current form: Yes, black slave owners who owned slaves are exempt from being viewed as racist. They are simply greedy individuals who sink to such low depths as to subject others to the same treatment that they themselves were subjected to.

 

 

 

That means, unless hi9 was himself an illegal immigrant who now opposes immigration, he is still a racist.

 

I find it funny that you are going around calling everyone racist yet you are also the only person drawing racial lines of who is right and who is wrong to feel certain ways based merely by their skin color. Last time I checked saying it is ok for one race to do something or feel a certain way but it is not ok for another race to do or feel the exact things is racism.

 

Where in my post do you see me "drawing racial lines"? Slavery was wrong no matter who committed it, just as preventing mexican immigration is wrong no matter who commits it.

 

 

 

Also, please address the rest of my post. You only quoted part of it.

Yes. Anyone who applies for a US residency and passes the health and personal background check should be allowed to move here, regardless of what country, ethnicity, and, most importantly, social class they belong to. There is no such thing as automatic citizenship. Citizenship comes 15-25 years after you first apply for residency.

 

 

 

So let's say your plan becomes law and in the next five years 1.5 billion people apply for citizenship and move to the United States. Who they are, what race they are or why they want to come here is irrelevant. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where in my post do you see me "drawing racial lines"? Slavery was wrong no matter who committed it, just as preventing mexican immigration is wrong no matter who commits it.

 

I agree slavery was wrong no matter who committed it. I just went back and read your responses again and it looks like I made a bridge between your comments about Jim Crow Laws and the slavery response. Sorry about that. I'll explain how it came across to me when I read it.

 

 

 

You said it was only people who SUPPORTED Jim Crow laws that were racist. I made the assumption you would feel the same way and would claim that it was only people who SUPPORTED slavery that were racist as well.

 

 

 

This made me think you were trying to say everyone that supported slavery had to be racist except for black people who owned slaves and they were doing it out of greed. What I was saying is that is a double standard because it assumes non blacks wouldn't do it purely out of greed so you would automatically assume they were racist. Anyways I did accidentally make a logic leap that you didn't actually say so if you don't believe what I thought you did I apologize.

Yes. Anyone who applies for a US residency and passes the health and personal background check should be allowed to move here, regardless of what country, ethnicity, and, most importantly, social class they belong to. There is no such thing as automatic citizenship. Citizenship comes 15-25 years after you first apply for residency.

 

 

 

So let's say your plan becomes law and in the next five years 1.5 billion people apply for citizenship and move to the United States. Who they are, what race they are or why they want to come here is irrelevant. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

 

This site says that "immigration officials estimate that the illegal alien population grows by as many as 500,000 every year." I'm not sure if that's true, since it doesn't say who these "immigration officials" are, but since it's a reasonable number, there would be 2.5 million immigrants maximum in the next five years. Keep in mind that these immigrants are sending money back to mexico, so gradually the quality of life in mexico will improve and immigration will lessen. Also, it's not true that "why they want to come here is irrelevant." The same background checks that Immigration Services currently use to screen applicants will still be used. That way, the people who are crossing the border illegally will be real criminals that deserve to be caught, rather than normal people who want to be our gardeners and janitors.

Yes. Anyone who applies for a US residency and passes the health and personal background check should be allowed to move here, regardless of what country, ethnicity, and, most importantly, social class they belong to. There is no such thing as automatic citizenship. Citizenship comes 15-25 years after you first apply for residency.

 

 

 

So let's say your plan becomes law and in the next five years 1.5 billion people apply for citizenship and move to the United States. Who they are, what race they are or why they want to come here is irrelevant. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

 

This site says that "immigration officials estimate that the illegal alien population grows by as many as 500,000 every year." I'm not sure if that's true, since it doesn't say who these "immigration officials" are, but since it's a reasonable number, there would be 2.5 million immigrants maximum in the next five years. Keep in mind that these immigrants are sending money back to mexico, so gradually the quality of life in mexico will improve and immigration will lessen. Also, it's not true that "why they want to come here is irrelevant." The same background checks that Immigration Services currently use to screen applicants will still be used. That way, the people who are crossing the border illegally will be real criminals that deserve to be caught, rather than normal people who want to be our gardeners and janitors.

 

 

 

Take the rainbow out from over your eyes.

 

 

 

Those people are going to spend that money on unfair taxes, or use it to buy goods. Either way, that money is going to go into the pockets of the Mexican elite, and not be dispersed among the people.

 

 

 

All it's doing is making the rich richer. Mexico is a modern feudal state.

 

Take the rainbow out from over your eyes.

 

 

 

Those people are going to spend that money on unfair taxes, or use it to buy goods. Either way, that money is going to go into the pockets of the Mexican elite, and not be dispersed among the people.

 

 

 

All it's doing is making the rich richer. Mexico is a modern feudal state.

 

I may have been too optimistic about the improvements that money can cause, but I do believe that trapping those people within the feudal state, often without electricity and clean water, does not contribute to the solution.

True, but very few immigrants "strike it rich" here in the US. They are still living way below the poverty line. The problem is, they are competing with eachother.

 

 

 

Most immigrants end up working at workstations, where someone drives up in a pickup and says "I need 10 boys to come build a fence" and they go do it. He can pay them pennies and they'd probably do it, with no taxes being distributed.

 

 

 

The border situation needs to be revamped, but an open border is not a solution.

That's the first time i read about the coming election in the US. From the information given here i guess if the lady or the black guy win the democrat election, you'll have a republican again. Somehow i doubt a woman or a black man would be elected. I don't think it's time yet for that.

From an outside perspective, Barak Obama - just to see how many people get pissed off.

 

+1 :lol:

This site says that "immigration officials estimate that the illegal alien population grows by as many as 500,000 every year." I'm not sure if that's true, since it doesn't say who these "immigration officials" are, but since it's a reasonable number, there would be 2.5 million immigrants maximum in the next five years. Keep in mind that these immigrants are sending money back to mexico, so gradually the quality of life in mexico will improve and immigration will lessen. Also, it's not true that "why they want to come here is irrelevant." The same background checks that Immigration Services currently use to screen applicants will still be used. That way, the people who are crossing the border illegally will be real criminals that deserve to be caught, rather than normal people who want to be our gardeners and janitors.

 

 

 

I know 1.5 billion isn't a reasonable number. The point I was trying to convey is in an alternate reality if there was an open border and you took 1.5 billion people and moved them into the US it would completely alter this country. The original population would be a minority. The infrastructure would be completely overrun. Pollution would go through the roof. Water would be scarce. Food and other prices would go through the roof. People would be living in the streets because builders couldn't keep up with such a demand. Crime would rise from people living in shanty towns that would spring up since there would be a huge lack of housing. The list just goes on and on of how it would screw up the country.

 

 

 

These are not racial issues. These are hard numbers and hard reality. I am all for letting people that will make this nation better coming into this nation in a controlled legal process. When numbers of people coming in get too high the entire system and infrastructure of this nation can and will be overrun. That is why we can't have out of control illegal immigration. School systems need time to expand to meet growing populations. The environment needs population levels kept at reasonable levels to avoid destroying it. etc etc

 

 

 

There is nothing racist about this. It is just hard numbers and hard reality. Legal immigration up to a certain point is great. The further you get past that point the worse things will get. The government needs to control who and how many people enter this country and become citizens. To allow open borders and letting in million upon millions of persons entering this country is madness. If we need more workers then increase the legal limit of immigrants that may come here each year.

 

 

 

To bring it all back to what started this just because someone thinks a fence will help solve the problem(I personally have my doubts it would) does not make them a racist.

 

The point I was trying to convey is in an alternate reality.

You aren't trying to have a reasonable discussion. You are trying to have an ego driven debate. I don't feel like wasting my time with that. If you want to actually read what I said and converse about it feel free. Otherwise I'm over it.

 

 

 

Heck as long as you quit going around calling people racist then that's the only issue I had with you. I don't care if you think we should have open borders. I disagree but whatever floats your boat.

 

I know 1.5 billion isn't a reasonable number. The point I was trying to convey is in an alternate reality if there was an open border and you took 1.5 billion people and moved them into the US it would completely alter this country. The original population would be a minority. The infrastructure would be completely overrun. Pollution would go through the roof. Water would be scarce. Food and other prices would go through the roof. People would be living in the streets because builders couldn't keep up with such a demand. Crime would rise from people living in shanty towns that would spring up since there would be a huge lack of housing. The list just goes on and on of how it would screw up the country.

 

 

 

These are not racial issues. These are hard numbers and hard reality. I am all for letting people that will make this nation better coming into this nation in a controlled legal process. When numbers of people coming in get too high the entire system and infrastructure of this nation can and will be overrun. That is why we can't have out of control illegal immigration. School systems need time to expand to meet growing populations. The environment needs population levels kept at reasonable levels to avoid destroying it. etc etc

 

 

 

There is nothing racist about this. It is just hard numbers and hard reality. Legal immigration up to a certain point is great. The further you get past that point the worse things will get. The government needs to control who and how many people enter this country and become citizens. To allow open borders and letting in million upon millions of persons entering this country is madness. If we need more workers then increase the legal limit of immigrants that may come here each year.

 

 

 

To bring it all back to what started this just because someone thinks a fence will help solve the problem(I personally have my doubts it would) does not make them a racist.

 

 

 

You aren't trying to have a reasonable discussion. You are trying to have an ego driven debate. I don't feel like wasting my time with that. If you want to actually read what I said and converse about it feel free. Otherwise I'm over it.

 

 

 

Heck as long as you quit going around calling people racist then that's the only issue I had with you. I don't care if you think we should have open borders. I disagree but whatever floats your boat.

 

The population of all of Mexico is 109 million.

 

 

 

The point I was trying to convey is in an alternate reality

id say mitt romney cause hes the most conservative in my opinion