Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
--Sign at the Statue of Liberty
Yeah, right.
It sucks to be an immigrant of any stripe in America right now, even leaving aside the increasingly open acceptance of bigotry among ordinary folks. A sampling of headlines from today's papers report that those whose immigrant spouses are not eligible to work in this country are excluded from economic stimulus payments; immigrants, legal and illegal, who run afoul of the law are being fast-tracked into detention centers, where they wait, sometimes for years, for the verdict of deportation hearings with little or no access to health care; and congress is considering a bill forcing employers to verify the eligibility of all workers to be here.
It would almost be more fun to be a leper. When did the United States become the land of the free and the home of the xenophobe?
To be fair, there has always been bias against the most recently arrived immigrants to this country, but since 9/11, such bigotry has escalated almost to fever pitch. Legislators like Heath Shuler (D-NC) and Tom Tancredo (R-CO) have introduced and supported numerous bills that on their face support national security, while they implement an institutionalized hostility toward non-natives and spend government funds like tomorrow will never come.
Illegal immigration diverts a great deal of attention away from pressing issues that the government should be addressing, like the Iraqi quagmire, access to health care, and the economy. But beyond their value as a false-flag issue, anti-immigrant laws provide work for Corrections Corporation of America, droves of bureaucrats in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and assured budget appropriations for ever-increasing corps of law enforcement officers. At the same time, these beneficiaries of our national fear of "other-ness" offer relatively little value to the citizens of this country as a whole.
According to the Washington Post, 83 detainees have died while in the custody of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) since 2003, and more than a third of those deaths (30), have likely been the result of lack of access to proper medical care. The median age of those whose deaths the Post called questionable was 33; more than half were under 40. The Post also published internal reports from the Department of Immigration Health Services (DIHS) that document the amount of money saved by refusing to approve health care for detainees. One would perhaps applaud a government agency for attempting to cut costs. In this case, the savings amounted to a little less than $1.5 million.
At the same time as DIHS is saving tax dollars by restricting access to health care, congress is spending many times that amount with the SAVE Act of 2007. This anti-immigrant bill provides for a border relief grant program to fund law enforcement agencies within 25 miles of the southern border of the United States; requires the already overburdened Social Security Administration and every employer in the entire country to verify the identity of employees; and increases Border Patrol and other personnel connected with keeping non-natives out of the country. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will reduce federal revenues by $17.3 billion and increase federal costs by $23.4 billion during the period of 2009-2018, for a net cost of $40.7 billion to American taxpayers. In perspective, DIHS efforts to save money begin to look a great deal like the human-rights abuse it probably is.
Meanwhile, the government spends an estimated $263 billion each year in the war, also courtesy of the American taxpayer, who has probably noticed by now the quadrupling of gasoline prices and the steady climb in the cost of food. It is time for the citizens of the United States to perform their own cost-benefits analysis on its spending, and inform their representatives in the halls of power what they are and are not willing to pay for.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 67
I got an email today about a Indoor Ski Resort for the wealthy in Dubai , United Arab Emirates - with a title as to why our gas is so high....its unreal...like a lot of the unreal money situations that this country has experienced since Reagan was President.....The drug mess we have in two countries that we pump a lot of money into is still a mess......and did not happen over night...closer disasters like Enron did not happen overnight...the decision to go into Iraq did not happen over nite....the mortgage mess did not happen over nite...stock market bubble that burst did not happen over nite...these are just a few of the tragedies I believe have broken this country apart and down a misery lane for the majority of Americans...its been coming for a long time and no one wanted to check it.... a might few have been taking out a lot of money from this country from the hard work of many....
Your article was very well posted...thank you for sharing.............
And the BS "we need them to do the jobs Americans won't do" argument; we have millions on welfare who could be forced to do those jobs.
As to the ILLEGAL immigrants who don't get blue-chip health care, well, that's tragic. Let's start tossing them back across the border immediately, with no deportation proceedings, and let THEIR OWN COUNTRY take care of them.
I love solutions like that. So simple. So ludicrous.
Seven years ago . . .
Sad and shameful . . . lured here for jobs and money they need . . . paying without receiving benefits . . .
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
...And made by people who truly believe it.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
John P. Hie thee back to your church, and study your teachings on What Your Jesus Would Do.
Jim, Ann, Nippy, Doyle... Blessings.
Wilka
It's tough when citizens are losing jobs - mostly to Mexico and China - thank you, Bill Clinton. Cost of health insurance is rising and coverage is dropping steadily. Americans are losing their homes. Expecting citizens to pay taxes to house, feed and provide medical care for illegal aliens is simply not realistic.
Part of the cost of the SAVE Act is $17 BILLION in lost tax revenues. Let's throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I didn't know about the SSN requirement for the stimulus check. That's utterly hilarious. The IRS issues tax ID numbers for those who are legally in the country but can't work (they check visas, of course) so that their working spouse/parent can claim them as dependents. Then they turn around and say they don't accept them for that exact purpose?
The administration of the Village Idiot has no policy other than the application of fundamentalist slogans: religious fundamentalism, free market fundamentalism, international relations fundamentalism.
The clueless Bushies are now trapped by their own propaganda machine, as the anti-immigration fundamentalists will not permit any real discussion of issues. (Deport them all, make them suffer, then we can try to salvage what remains of our depressed construction industry.)
We are going to reap a bitter reward for gutting the industries that rely on immigrant labor.
Food shortages, anyone?
in answer to Jan S. and her thanks to Bill Clinton : It was the Reagan administration that launched the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations in 1986 that lowered global tariffs and created the World Trade Organization. It was his administration that won approval of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1988. That agreement soon expanded to include "Mexico" in what became the North American Free Trade Agreement, realizing a vision that Reagan first articulated in the 1980 campaign. It was Reagan who vetoed protectionist textile quota bills in 1985 and 1988.
During Reagan's eight years in office, Americans eagerly expanded their engagement in the global economy. In 1980, the year before Reagan became president, Americans spent a total of $334 billion on imported goods and services and payments on foreign investment in the United States.
By 1988, his last year in office, American spending in the global economy had nearly doubled, to $663 billion.
Nafta came longgggg after Reagan put the trade programs in motion....so dont give all the credit to Mr. Clinton....:
" In between, Reagan pushed for his 1979 North American accord proposal
(which eventually became the NAFTA treaty),
and signed the 1986 immigration reform law that amnestied almost 3 million illegal immigrants in exchange for relatively weak enforcement measures.
As his 1979 proposal and his support for the 1986 amnesty suggest, Reagan did not demonize illegal immigrants as all too many conservatives do today. He sought instead to enable them to legalize their status, and helped set many on the road to citizenship. In a 1977 radio address, he criticized "the illegal alien fuss" and suggested that illegal aliens may "actually [be] doing work our own people won't do."
(http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977344234)
I love you. (speaking entirely and totally as a sister...)
Thank you. You said everything I wanted to say, only better.
However, I would also add that, if we're going to hire illegal or alien labor, we owe them the same rights and privledges of a live-able income.
(I will cover, for now, my strong union background regarding the errors of hiring sub-standard labor in the right to work states as a method of undermining the whole Great American "standard of living" thing.)
Wilka
All of the illegal hire policies in this nation stem directly from Regan's effort to "break" the unions. A situation totally enabled by the Shrub. (This, in addition to Regan's "freeing" the sheltered, system-(state) medicated folks from their state homes, which created the homeless issue; that we battle--if we even notice it--still, unto this day.)
Wilka
First of all, the SAVE Act will INCREASE federal revenues, not reduce them. The CBO report is an incomplete statement. HR4088 will reduce taxes paid into the government by illegal aliens, yes, but then, it will increase taxes paid in, by having higher paid (normal American wages) Americans replacing the illegals in the jobs they leave.
Even if it were true (it isn't) that $40.7 Billion over 10 years would be lost to the federal treasury, this is a drop in the bucket, compared to the $45 Billion/YEAR our
economy is losing right now to remittances $$$ being sent out of the US (GAO), as well as another $62 Billion being lost to human services payouts to illegal aliens (ie, us stupidly paying other countries' poverty bills while they sit back and laugh at us).
So, the true comparison is at least $107 Billion/year to GAIN FROM the SAVE ACT
(ie. $1.7 TRILLION + the increase in taxes paid in). With us losing this enormous amount of money right now, to foreign modern-day pillaging, it's no wonder our economy is falling apart.
Gosh , just think a system set up to make people obey the laws that we the American people have decided we want to have to protect ourselves from all of the harms of illegal immigration and excessive legal immigration.
Ann :
Do you know what these HARMS are ? If not, I'll be happy to type out the long list of them.
1. Cheep labor is one means for businesses, (which can't outsource overseas) to get rich, (There are significant long-term reasons why a global economy is necessary, but that's for another time. For now we're focusing on those who believe they have no alternative but to hire cheep labor and why most of our current immigration problems exist), and in smaller businesses sometimes to just maintain their status quo. The alternative might be to go out of business.
Are there really so many legal's who wouldn't take these jobs?
2. When my grandparents came here, the first thing they did was learn English. In my city alone, here are some of the consequences and costs, greed, and laziness associated with today's immigration.
a. There are at least 15 free over the air Spanish speaking television and radio stations that only broadcast in Spanish. Some of these stations run motion pictures that were originally produced in English, but are only broadcasted in Spanish. If we want the same choices we have to pay for cable.
b. It costs this city over 25 million dollars to include other languages on the election ballot. If these immigrants really wanted to experience the American dream and take advantage of all we have to offer, is it really too much to expect them to speak our language?
c. I wonder how other foreigners view what's going on here. Many of these people have and are following our rules of immigration; waiting patiently within the process. Why should they follow the rules while so many others don't?
If a hundred foreigners forced themselves into any country it might be called an invasion. What would you call 12 million illegals?
Every time there's an election we hear these politicians' promises and visions for OUR future. Usually the best talker or flim-flam artist gets elected. When a politician takes somebody else's money it can become a debt that can cost us all more than just money, and has. Imagine if we elected the Mr. Smith's of our country and sent them all to Washington. Maybe the Internet might make that possible some day.
Immigration is the back-bone of our country – it's what has made us great, but it was never intended to be a free ride. Everyone has to play by the same rules with Liberty and Justice and opportunities for all under the law that do.
My Irish relatives, a hundred years ago, were treated worse than anything that is happening to immigrants today, and the Scotch and Welsh didn't fare much better in the coal mines of Pennsylvania.
Some of my Wife's ancestors were brought here in chains, and worked literally to death, then discarded.
And don't let us forget what some of these waves of immigrants did to the people that were already living here. They were pushed and driven from the lands they had lived on for thousands of years and murdered at every turn when they resisted.
There was a line from the movie and play "Finian's Rainbow" from the 60's, that comes to mind at times like these. One of the main characters said, "Immigrants, my family has had trouble with immigrants ever since they came to this country."
Robert F., you should realize that the cost of verifying all those Social Security numbers will be borne by employers and by the Social Security Administration, which at last notice, had its hands quite full already. The Congressional Budget Office claims that this bill will cost $40 billion, and I stand by that assertion. I just don't see farm workers suddenly making $6 and hour to pick lettuce, since the producers would be unable to pass the added cost to the consumer, so your assertion about rising wages and taxes is fallacious.
Simon, if there are numerous broadcast stations serving the non-English speaking community "for free," it is because there are enough advertisers willing to underwrite the cost of providing it. If it bugs you to have to pay for movies in English, learn Spanish. It will allow you to communicate with an additional 400 million people in the world, as well as let you save on your cable bill. I should warn you, however, Telemundo has much better news than you are used to, much more substance and much less about Britney Spears.
I guess I have to reiterate since you didn't catch it the first time. The $40 billion loss you speak of, is smaller than the gain from increased taxes paid, when American workers with higher wages pay the accordingly higher taxes. The relacement of the illegal aliens with Americans is a gain for our tax base. Also, with less immigrants (legal or illegal) here to send remittances $45 billion/year out of the country, guess what happens ? That $45 Billion/year stays here to help keep pumping OUR economy instead of the economies of the immigrants' countries. Likewise, we retain the $62 Billion/year we're now losing by paying their poverty bills.
There is no significant cost to verifying Social Security numbers - it can be done easily online. This ain't 1970. If your argument centers around costs vs. gains, you're climbing up the wrong tree.
There is nothing fallacious about my assertion about rising wages. Actually, they're not "rising" wages. They are a restoration to normal American wages which always existed before the mass invasion of illegal aliens. Businesses paid these normal wages for decades previously - no problem for the employers who can afford to pay a normal American living wage. For those who can't, they shouldn't be in business
period, and the sooner they go out of business the better, when their business is dependent upon screwing the American worker by undercutting his wages with cheap, foreign labor. These "producers" as you call them (who can't afford to pay a proper
wage), should go out of business, and do the same that the rest of us who also can't afford to own a business do - get a job !
As for telling Simon to learn Spanish, no that's not his burden. This is a nation. The
United States of America whose language is English. Really, stations like Telemundo and Univision shouldn't even be on the air here.
Definition : NATION - a stable, historically developed community of people with a territory, economic life, distinctive culture and language in common. Webster's New World College Dictionary - 4th Ed.
Ann,
You have taken one small element from my comment and blew it out of proportion; distorting it into something totally different from my intent. I was merely trying to point out the short and long term ramifications resulting from people who have blatantly broken our laws, and how some of this has affected our lives.
This is NOT about the few; this about over 12 million illegal's who's FIRST act was to break our laws by entering our country illegally. Now, with so many Spanish speaking people in our country many businesses are capitalizing on that demographic. Greed knows no boundaries. Some of the other costs were covered by the many comments which didn't need to be repeated. Also, if I moved to another country, the first thing I would have to do is learn their language and NOT expect everyone else to learn English. Also, since around 1993, because of this problem, when seeking a job we now have to present at least two forms of identification to prove that we're a citizen. I know someone who is a third generation citizen of the United States, and he has to present identification in an industry he's worked in all his professional life and where everyone knows him.
As Robert F. wrote: "As for telling Simon to learn Spanish, no that's not his burden. This is a nation. The United States of America whose language is English. Really, stations like Telemundo and Univision shouldn't even be on the air here. Definition : NATION - a stable, historically developed community of people with a territory, economic life, distinctive culture and language in common. Webster's New World College Dictionary - 4th Ed."
Robert's analysis of what a nation should be is correct. A common language is what binds any nation together.
We're made up of just about every culture on the face of the planet – most of which have become good and loyal citizens and most have learned to speak our language. To be sympathetic or defend those who have broken the law, for whatever reason, is simply unacceptable. Our laws exist for a reason and must be enforced or everyone must face the consequences. Everybody ends up paying millions of otherwise unnecessary dollars that are desperately needed elsewhere. Just think of the thousands of causes, needs, programs; the homeless, the needy, etc., that that money (billions) could be applied to for our citizens and not pilfered away by millions of noncitizens who have no regard for our laws.
I also wrote, "Immigration is the back-bone of our country – it's what has made us great, but it was never intended to be a free ride. Everyone has to play by the same rules with Liberty and Justice and opportunities for all under the law that do."
Reaganomics....oh, yeah, most definitely. Still waiting for all that to trickle down to me. Just before then things real promising, doing alright, and everything look like can only keep getting better. No longer drive, can't get a car, no insurance of any kind, no preventative medical care, actually pulled 2 of my own teeth in the last 3 years due to no dental care, absess, and I know what happens if those are let go. You do what you have to do. Oh, and the doing alright, with promising prospects? I work very hard, I work on my feet many hours and still has been a few years since my income has quite made it up even to the poverty level. Middle class the true minority and fast disappearing, not by accident you can be sure!!
"the first step is to stop the war and concentrate on handling these very real issues that also have extreme global importance. Equality and having a decent home are essential elements everyone is entitled to and we need address them now. " Bravo, Stacy, couldn't be put any better no doubt!
I have to disagree with you on this comment. My grandparents from Belize
(formerly British Honduras) learned to speak English fluently in 2 years. They still spoke Spanish at home, but rarely ever out in public.
My mother, born in Denmark, learned English in 2 years, as did all her brothers and sisters. Spanish-speaking immigrants (especially illegal ones) are not learning English at this relatively quick rate (2 years). Many have been here for 10 years or more and still speak only Spanish. Why ? Because they have Spanish telephone recordings, bilingual voting ballots, bilingual signs, Spanish TV and radio shows, etc.
They can fairly comfortably get along in Spanish here now as opposed to my mother, and father's parents for whom it was swim or sink.
If this was the kind of immigrant we were discussing right now it would be a completly different discussion. Unfortunately the immigrats we are talking about that have soured us against immigrants are those here illegally.
They refuse to learn English. They expect and receive every handout available. They are bankrupting the country.
It is not fair to those legal immigrants that have gone through the proper channels and followed the process as designed, to be treated poorly.
I think it is inhumane the way they treat the detainees. I know in many cases the person is held for many months or sometimes years without provocation. They receive no councel, no medical treatment, and no reason for being detained. Many times they are then released without explaination.
A common criminal has more rights.
In any case--these are anecdotes. You can't compare two anecdotes to each other and expect to come to valid conclusions about large groups of people. What matters is research data, and that shows that the percentage of non-English speakers in the US is lower than what it was 100 years ago, and current immigrants (those who don't already speak English) are acquiring English fast.
The ability to speak English is different from always speaking English in public. I know native English-speaking US citizens who speak to their children in a non-native language like French, including in public, and of course all Americans (and other English-speakers) speak English to each other on the streets of cities the world over, even if they do know the local language (which is of course a lot less likely to be the case than it is for non-Americans to know English). They're not ashamed of English, and why should they be? (I know of exceptions too where it's dangerous to let people know you're American--thank goodness this country is not one where people need to be afraid, right?)
There are some references to the data in this article by Geoff Nunberg, in the second section "Is English Really Endangered?" It's not the same article I was looking for, which he used to have on his website, I think, and which was better referenced, but it does mention the research.
None of my mother's family spoke English when they arrived in New York City in
1929 (I'm 62 years old), and it was rare for any other immigrants to speak it either. Most were from non-English speaking countries, and were quite poor and lesser educated. My mother's family was actually probably similar to Mexico's poor. They knew no English, came from a poor, rural farming background with a tough, long day regimen of hard work, and right at the beginning of the Great Depression of the 1930's
Regarding the poor of Central America and Mexico, yes sure, I have a problem with them coming here and providing the Greed Freaks of big business a way to boost their profits, while abandoning us (the American workers), in addition to the long list of other harms we're suffering because of them. But it's not just them. Actually, they bear the least blame of all the parties involved (who illegal immigration supporters rarely mention). My biggest problem is with the governments of Mexico (and the copycat countries - Ireland, Russia, Poland, China, South Korea and the Latin Americans) who are deliberately sending their people here to pillage our economy and local treasuries for their own selfish gain). An examination of the doings of the Mexican Congress can be eyebrow-raising (but how many people have done that ?) Also, my biggest problem is with George Bush and his administration, illegal employers here, the churches and unions, ethno-centric groups like La Raza who believe increasing the voting population of Hispanics here will put more Hispanics in office, and somehow this will help Hispanics
(hasn't done much good for the poor of Mexico has it ?).
Actually, the White-European leaders of the USA have done a hell of a lot more for them than the Mexican Congress or presidents ever have.
However, I have difficulty believing that any country specifically sends people over here. (I can actually speak to Poland: they're currently begging their people to go back home. So many have left since Poland joined the EU that there is a severe labor shortage.) Throughout history, people have been moving to areas where there are more opportunities--it's only since the creation of nation states that this has been recognized as a special issue and called immigration. What I don't get is how you can't see that what drives immigrants today is the exact same dynamic that drove your immigrant grandparents.
I understand what drives immigrants today. It is the shameful neglect of "leaders" in their home countries (Mexico's richest pay only 10% tax/yr). That's why I say I blame the illegal aliens the least of all. I also think they are being brainwashed into demonstrating (bad idea for them) by other people.
I've also said many times, in Gather, that a solution to the immigration mess must include severe pressure on Mexico (even military action if necessary), to get them to raise their income taxes on the rich, provide job programs, more free education, and a
safety net for the poor.
Yes, I believe that enforcement of IRCA & deportation by attrition is the answer (illegals will self-deport when locked out of the job market). But they won't self-deport
if they are just as locked out of the Mexican job market as they are here.
Self-deportation will occur when doors are closed here, and OPEN down there.
Regarding the demonstrations--the majority of illegal immigrants are not involved in those. (It is indeed dangerous for them.) They move between home and work, and hope for the best, which is an opportunity to legalize their status.
poverty country. Mexico, with great stocks of oil (Pemex), gold, silver, tourism and
agriculture is actually quite wealthy. It is the DISTRIBUTION of that wealth that is the problem. If Mexico's ruling class wasn't obsessed with wealth & greed, and if they paid a much larger % of income tax (instead of the pathetic 10% they've been paying), you
wouldn't hear a word about poverty in Mexico, because there wouldn't be any.
In some ways, Mexico is "richer" than the United States. One example is oil. They have an abundance of it, enough to be an exporter , while we struggle and import 2/3 of our oil, mostly from unfriendly countries, including Mexico.
So, the recipe is right above your last post, in my last post. It's not magic, just an acceptance of the facts as they are, and the willingness (this is the biggest hurdle) to deal with them. In a study of history, dozens of countries have gone to war against other countries, who have done things against them, similar to what Mexico, et al, have been doing to us.
As far as locking people out of the job market, haven't you heard ? It's already
happening locally, in places where tough anti-illegal alien legislation has been enacted
(ex. Oklahoma), and illegals have been leaving in droves, and moving to places with less restrictive laws. This is why the national solution is to go national with these laws,
if the influence of big business can be overcome.
So far the bans are pushing illegals to self-deport from one state or city to another,
not go "further underground".
The way you "get the rest of the world to that level" (Mexico-example) is by PRESSURE. We may start with diplomacy (after Bush is gone). That probably won't work. Mexico is raking in over $50 Billion/year in remittances and human services payouts from the United States. These combined are their #1 source of income, topping even their oil exports. They're not going give that up just with diplomacy.
For the sake of trying to be the "good guys" we should start with dipomacy.
Secondly, with diplomacy failing, we could impose economic sanctions. That might be possible, but would be difficult with a country that has us over a (oil) barrel.
It's just my guess, but I believe it will take military action to defend ourselves from the invasion/occupation/colonization that Mexico has been imposing on us, for some time now. I'd recommend (if the diplomacy & economic measures don't work)
removing the troops from Iraq, and restationing them along the Mexican border,
heavily armed, and ready to fight.
In addition, hundreds of warships (battleships and carriers) should be anchored
along both of Mexico's long coasts. My guess is that this show of force (all that's ever been needed) will crumble Mexico's ruling class to stop pillaging us, and stop neglecting their people. If it doesn't, then it's 1848 all over again.
I've found, time and time again in my life, that often, the only thing people respect is force. Mexico is a prime example. Once this all happens, the coycat countries likely will back off, as well.
The per capita GDP of the US is almost four times that of Mexico, oil or no oil.
Let's see what happens when we compare GDPs and net migration rates:
GDPs per capita (IMF) and net migration rates (CIA factbook), per 1000 pop.
US $45,845; 2.92 migrants
Ireland $43,144; 4.76 migrants
Canada $38,435; 5.62 migrants
UK $35,134; 2.17 migrants
Czech Republic*$24,236; 0.97migrants
------------------------------------------------------
Lithuania* $17,661, -0.72 migrants
Poland* $16,311; -0.46 migrants
Mexico $12,775; -3.84 migrants
Kazakhstan* $11,086; -3.31 migrants
*Still about as egalitarian in wealth distribution as you could ever hope for Mexico to become. (Well, probably more, but anyway.)
It looks like below a certain GDP, even if its benefits are more evenly distributed, the proximity of countries whose GDPs are much higher will result in migration.
Admittedly, there are other countries in the same range as Mexico (like Croatia or Costa Rica) that have a (low) positive net migration figure, but they are next to countries affected by extreme poverty, recent wars, and more or less failed governments, whose citizens they obviously attract.
My guess is that this show of force (all that's ever been needed) will crumble Mexico's ruling class to stop pillaging us, and stop neglecting their people. If it doesn't, then it's 1848 all over again.
Can you give one example where the threat of war made the ruling classes give up some of their privileges and transfer wealth to the lower classes, instead of using the threat and the resulting patriotic hysteria to crack down on the opposition and further consolidate its rule?
Well said, Aniko.
It is the hysteria in this country about the "threat" of immigrants that is leading to useless sabre-rattling and bellicose posturing.
None of it will help the disappearing middle classes of this nation -who are systematically undermined by political actions that have nothing to do with immigration.
The statement about the "threat" of immigrants carrys the inference that immigrants
(both legal and illegal) are merely a threat to our future and aren't already harming us
now, in the present (and recent past). That's as wrong as anything ever printed in gather. I'm surprised that Pathetically Party-Line Peter, who purports to be concerned about the "disappearing middle classes of this nation" isn't able to focus in to the lengthy list of harms that the American middle class is undergoing because of outsourcing both international and domestic (AKA illegal immigration). Can you list those harms for us, Peter ? If not, no problem. I can, again (and again).
It is also hypocritical for Democrats to oppose international outsourcing while accepting the domestic version ( outsourcing involving those jobs that can only be done inside the US - construction, landscaping, etc.). It's equally hypocritical for Republicans to accept international outsourcing, while opposing illegal immigration (domestic outsourcing). Please check out my article : "On Illegal Immigration and Outsourcing, Are Democrats and Republicans Hypocrites ?"
God, it's a lot of work being an Independent. Kind of like watching over a bunch of
pre-schoolers.
10% annual income tax for it's super rich, paid much more, created jobs, etc. we wouldn't be seeing the mass migration here that we do.
Robert F., May 27, 2008, 5:12pm EDT
Robert, everyone on Gather is quite aware that you spend most of your time talking to yourself.
Have you begun to congratulate yourself as well?
Robert makes a bizarre assertion.
Aniko asks for an illustration of this bizarre assertion.
Robert says that it is likely to be true because "anything can happen".
Real deductive reasoning.
Of course, Robert also notes that stats aren't really necessary".
air-traffic control
airline pilot
civil engineer
nuclear physicist
virologist
nursing
sockpuppetry
Robert F., May 27, 2008, 5:12pm EDT"
Pssst. If you're going to use an alter to pat yourself on the back you really should change the name. Trust me on that! :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Weeeeeee ! ! ! ! LoL!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Incisive and witty.
That's OK Premiseless Pete. I'll let you use my writing style for a while.
And you too, Downright Doubtful Doyle. [We really should charitible to the less fortunate]
Not you though, Studently Subjective Stephanie. No, you're too highly skilled already - just keep on whining in your own way. And you, (I'll spare you the nickname for now) Melinda. Are you saying that 10% annual income tax on Mexico's top income recipients, "they've been paying", is "frivolous". No, it's a fact. Your wrong criticism is frivolous.
Now, enough of the 5 cartoon characters. Time to address a real comment/question made by a real person.
"Can you give one example where the threat of war made the ruling classes give up some of their privileges, and transfer wealth to the lower classes....."?
Aniko, A nation victorious in war can set its own agenda/standards, in the defeated nation. Just as the Allies in 1945 forced the Germans to stop killing Jews, America in 2008 could defeat Mexico, take control of its government, and redistribute wealth.
This is supposed to be difficult ?
The US could do most anything it wanted to. The entire Mexican government (the bad guys) could be replaced by US puppet leaders, or even by US citizens outright.
The whole country could even be absorbed into, and made part of, the USA (not recommended though). Hell, we could even replace soccer as Mexico's national sport and replace it with baseball. It would serve the parasites right.
Priceless.
Instead, the fact-denying, myth-making, self-congratulating ranter starts promoting the conquest of Mexico.
While the poverty of information and spirit is depressing, the comedy is free, as Stephanie noted.
Ah, but the stooges care because , you see, they have some sort of fixation on Robert's revelations. His information is somehow threatening to them. All relative to their vested interests, which they can't reveal. They're aware of the hundreds of agreements and compliments I receive almost daily from Gather members, all contrary
to their investments of sorts. Yes, it's kind of sad in a way that they care so much about me.
That they think so highly of my intellect, comments and revelations, that they are compelled to pathetically, and ineffectively, try to refute them (if they didn't place them in so high regard, they wouldn't be here at all, all by themselves, running their mouths).
So go ahead pathetic ones, if it somehow relieves some pain deep within you. I shant deny you that. You guys (stooges, whatever) are really having a harmful effect on me. I'm beginning to enjoy tormenting you. I mean really.
Perplexity Peter : Yes I addressed Aniko's observation and challenge. It read :
"A nation victorious in war can set its own agenda/standards....", I guess you're just denying that that comment effectively addressed the observation/challenge. Well gee,
aren't we surprised to hear that from you ? Maybe we could change your name to Danny, and then we could call you Deep in Denial Danny (who isn't fooling anybody).
Speaking of challenges, Pretender Pete, you still haven't answered mine in my article
of last August (2007) "Lou Dobbs: A Challenge To His Critics", despite my mentioning it
to your cowardly ass numerous times. Now get out from under that desk, and answer that challenge Peter Wimpy !
Melodramatic Melinda : Find another thread, You're out of place with these dolts. (unless you've got some ulterior motive vested interests too).