The border war...

[SamoaRowe 0]

Dick Russell said he wasn't racist either. There were good reasons to fight against anti-lynching legislation!

 

What on earth does this have to do with anything being discussed? Did someone call for lynching all illegal immigrants somewhere and I missed it?

 

Well, that's because you completely missed the point. A self claim of not being racist does not mean that one is not indeed racist.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Dick Russell said he wasn't racist either. There were good reasons to fight against anti-lynching legislation!

 

What on earth does this have to do with anything being discussed? Did someone call for lynching all illegal immigrants somewhere and I missed it?

 

Well, that's because you completely missed the point. A self claim of not being racist does not mean that one is not indeed racist.

 

The only reason it came up was because the pro-illegal immigration side always plays the racism card without answering any of the other valid points about border and national security that are brought up. You like to scream "DUR DEY TUK R JOBS"...we could just as easily mock you by saying "DUR YUR A RACIST!"

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

This is different than scores of Irish or Italians or Cubans or Jews coming here. It's a different world, and apples and oranges in terms of a comparison. Those groups were fleeing starvation and political persecution. Mexico isn't run by a cutthroat dictator and they're not starving by the tens of thousands.

 

You're acting as if, historically, the majority of immigrants didn't come here for economic benefit. The people at Ellis Island definitely weren't all political refugees and weren't all fleeing dictatorships. Plus, the economic & political situation in Mexico & Central America isn't exactly wine & roses.

 

Two more general points:

 

1.) Most economists agree that immigration is a net benefit to the economy.

 

2.) Immigrant populations have a lower crime rate than the general population.

 

I'd really like to see a source/explanations for the first point when the vast majority of the hispanic immigrants have low levels of education, and overwhelmingly work in industries like agriculture, construction, and retail. Those things aren't the high points of our economy.

 

Is the second point per capita or simply a raw number that states more natives commit crimes annually than immigrants?

 

In terms of Europeans emigrating purely for economic benefit, that's quite a gray area when avoiding a potato famine could be construed as "economic" benefit. How many of them immigrated completely illegally, as in "they walked right in"?

 

Something like 12 million immigrants went through Ellis island in a span of around, what? 60-65 years? That's less than 200,000 per year, on average. Not to mention that there was SOME kind of processing involved. Most numbers right now point to an illegal immigrant population nearly that of the Europeans that passed through Ellis between the turn of the century to the decade or so after WWII.

 

This is happening fast.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

The US was also quite picky about who got in. You were on the boat and had a disease? Guess what? You got sent right back home. Sounds cruel, but it kept epidemics from starting.

[snuffbox 0]

Invader, in his continued inability to wrap his head around this entire thread filled with his own stupidity (right down to his title labeling this, in Bill O reilly-speak, a 'war'), has, in recent posts, said that I am from the 'People's Republic' (presumably Madison, two hours from from my actual house) and subsequently referred to me as some sort of Rosie O Donnell-esque character. I'm sorry Invader but your continued vitriol towards Hispanic people, coupled with your repeated assertions that the ghettos need bombing and the push for civil rights needs to stop, can't be brushed aside with one-liners culled from the Glen Beck back-catalogues.

 

I have already posted my answers to the questions you ask in lieu of answering the ones asked of you. We have far more glaring problems in terms of crime, economy, and national security than the Mexican people. It is a waste of a HUGE amount of money & resources. Invader/Agent/etc, however, upon being asked why this kind of bogeyman-strategy should remain at the forefront continue to fall back on tired cable-news rhetoric and gibberish.

[Guest panthermatt7]

Invader, in his continued inability to wrap his head around this entire thread filled with his own stupidity (right down to his title labeling this, in Bill O reilly-speak, a 'war'), has, in recent posts, said that I am from the 'People's Republic' (presumably Madison, two hours from from my actual house) and subsequently referred to me as some sort of Rosie O Donnell-esque character. I'm sorry Invader but your continued vitriol towards Hispanic people, coupled with your repeated assertions that the ghettos need bombing and the push for civil rights needs to stop, can't be brushed aside with one-liners culled from the Glen Beck back-catalogues.

 

I have already posted my answers to the questions you ask in lieu of answering the ones asked of you. We have far more glaring problems in terms of crime, economy, and national security than the Mexican people. It is a waste of a HUGE amount of money & resources. Invader/Agent/etc, however, upon being asked why this kind of bogeyman-strategy should remain at the forefront continue to fall back on tired cable-news rhetoric and gibberish.

 

This wasn't directed at me, but....

 

We've already established the following facts:

A.) Illegal immigration damages the economy, with the exception of the upper class.

B.) Illegal immigration causes wages to go down in the middle & lower classes.

C.) This is NOT a racial issue. (at least for those of us that are examining the situation on a purely economic basis)

D.) There is nothing honest about illegally immigrating when the opportunity exists to do it legally.

D1.) The immigration process does need to be shortened for this to be a bit more appealing.

 

As far as I'm concerned, any use of "OMG UR A RACIST!" is just a cheap way to divert attention from the points being debated. It's very Al Sharpton-esque.

[snuffbox 0]

Facts and stuff you make up are two different things, panthermatt7.

[Ripper 0]

Reasons these aren't facts

 

A.) Illegal immigration damages the economy, with the exception of the upper class.

 

Except it doesn't. The goverment makes ALOT more money off illegals than they give back. The job market in the areas where most illegals work has remained a constant. The problem is that we have inflation and the minimum wage has stayed the same, which has absolutely jack shit to do with immigration.

 

B.) Illegal immigration causes wages to go down in the middle & lower classes.

 

B.S. Lower classes are making minimum wage or close to it. The minimum wage should not leave you below the poverty line, but it does. That is a much bigger problem than illegal immigration. And I really wish some people would meet a couple of illegals for once. They aren't making 1 dollar a hour, no matter how much you want to believe that. When they don't go the fake papers route they are still getting paid enough to survive.

 

Combining Agents stuff and NoCal Mikes stuff, they are working 80 hours a week, getting paid sending back 60 percent of it, and are some how paying for housing, food, clothing, transportation and utilities for themselves and their children. Come on now. 128 dollars a month....This is where people are checking common sense at the door in favor of the bs they spew on those talking head shows in cable networks.

 

And once again, I haven't seen anyone show me how this is effecting the middle class when outsourcing is the culprit.

 

 

C.) This is NOT a racial issue. (at least for those of us that are examining the situation on a purely economic basis)

 

Fine.

 

D.) There is nothing honest about illegally immigrating when the opportunity exists to do it legally.

D1.) The immigration process does need to be shortened for this to be a bit more appealing.

 

If the crime is not being in the decade long process to become a citizen then fuck that "crime". There is a line where survival trumps a crime that doesn't kill anyone.

 

If you are saying they can become a citizen if they are proving they want to contribute to America, then why are they going after the ones that are contributing. You have people coming here and getting honest work(and please stop with the "its not honest, they are illegal" they are doing illegal activities for money) Thats what money should be spent on going after and deporting?

 

You are saying that eventually you run out of money for the humanitarian causes, but the methods in which you are suggesting would cost the economy more money to deport than to keep illegals (who aren't costing the economy any literal money. A best you can't point to the arguable points that you have).

 

This is the only humanitarian cause where the economy reaps the benifits. You actually get something back here, so I don't think that can be a reasonable excuse to point at this as the line in humanitarian aid.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

I have already posted my answers to the questions you ask in lieu of answering the ones asked of you. We have far more glaring problems in terms of crime, economy, and national security than the Mexican people. It is a waste of a HUGE amount of money & resources. Invader/Agent/etc, however, upon being asked why this kind of bogeyman-strategy should remain at the forefront continue to fall back on tired cable-news rhetoric and gibberish.

 

The summation of your answer post:

 

What do I propose? We don't waste billions on walls and mass deportations and the like. We focus our funds and our attention on real problems, on real national security threats, on actual concerns for our economic outlook. A patriotic ideal should be the desire to remove the heavy cloak of self-created bogeymen, not too spend even more needless piles of cash to further our descent into paranoia and embarassment.

 

Regarding national security:

 

I'd like to see exactly what the real problems are. What's more important to the national security of a country than the defense of its actual physical borders? What's really stopping someone from walking across the border with something rotten and setting it off in downtown Dallas? A regular Joe from south of the border who just wants a job can get across there, so how hard would it really be for some paramilitary nutcase with a pocket full of plague? Call that O'Reilly boogeyman nonsense all you want, but it's a legitimate threat.

 

Do I really harbor a visceral hatred for someone who just wants a job? Of course not. There are better ways to acheive that goal, and leaving that avenue wide open for ANYONE to march into the country is plain stupid. Doesn't it make much more sense to stop that problem before it gets into the US? I think so.

 

Also, why does it have to cost us BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS to build a friggin' wall? Why not use it as an opportunity to help with domestic problems like crime, poverty, and homelessness? Make it a public works project. Knowing the current government, it'll get shipped off on a no-bid deal to some massive company on the taxpayers' dime, but it could be a serious opportunity to further the greater good. It doesn't even have to be a physical wall (though I think it would help.) Why not increase the amount of border patrol personnel? Put this country's citizens to work building stations, patrolling the border, and monitoring surveillance. Of course it would cost money, but we'd be spending it on something that would actually help people and keep the country more secure. Why not take it a step further and expand the strained immigration department? Streamline and speed up the process to come to this coutnry legally and contribute. To me, those are real answer that are far, far more practical and intelligent than simply leaving a gaping hole on our southern border and hoping for the best.

[snuffbox 0]

If the border focus were on possible terrorists coming through then we wouldn't be talking about solely Mexicans and deportations. I'm all for the hunt for and stoppage of actual terrorists. Unfortunately, the 'border war' does not include that.

 

This Administration has shown itself impotent against actual terrorism. They have ignored real threats to flounder in a separate nation. Others, on television and Congress, are milking the fears of what terrible spells the Mexicans can cast upon us all. With Iraq and Mexico somehow at the forefront, terrorism doesn't even get room in the backseat...that topic sits locked in the U-Haul trailer behind the vehicle of public attention.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

If the border focus were on possible terrorists coming through then we wouldn't be talking about solely Mexicans and deportations. I'm all for the hunt for and stoppage of actual terrorists. Unfortunately, the 'border war' does not include that.

 

Border security is boder security. While 'border war' is as retarded as any other domestic 'war' we've paid through the nose for, building a wall and increasing patrols, surveillance, etc. would obviously stem both illegal immigration and potential attackers. I can't see how that is a bad thing. Especially if the way to go about it was more like what I described and less like what the current administration would do.

 

This Administration has shown itself impotent against actual terrorism. They have ignored real threats to flounder in a separate nation. Others, on television and Congress, are milking the fears of what terrible spells the Mexicans can cast upon us all. With Iraq and Mexico somehow at the forefront, terrorism doesn't even get room in the backseat...that topic sits locked in the U-Haul trailer behind the vehicle of public attention.

 

Hey, I agree. Mass media is a sensationalistic heap of crap that seeks only to politicize trivia to the extent of ratings success and their bottom line, and much of congress is completely out of touch with the actual desires of the people they represent.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I would be fine with an increased--largely unarmed--border presence designed as a public works project. I definitely don't want my country to have an actual wall around it, though. I can hardly think of anything more antithetical to this country, except maybe shitting on a flag and baking the whole thing into an apple pie crust.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

What's an unarmed guard going to do about anything other than report the position to someone who is?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Exactly that. Let the actual national guard or whatever be the people who do that. If we're going to make it public works and go for a workforce that utilizes the homeless, the uneducated, the long out of work, etc., I really don't want somebody who hasn't worked in years or is not particularly smart and is desperate for a job to cap a Mexican because he thinks that'll make him a good guard. They can spot or man relay stations or however you want to swing, but I'd rather they not be packin'.

[Guest George's Box]

That public works project of yours doesn't seem like the most efficient use of taxpayers' dollars, but maybe you could clarify how it is.

[snuffbox 0]

Make the Mexicans build the fence!

[NoCalMike 0]

I never said illegals were making $1 an hour, however that is a strawman argument. Even making minimum wage is helping to keep wages down. As Big Ol' Smitty said earlier in this thread, there are plenty of jobs out there that used to be considered middle-class jobs even lower-middle class, such as warehouse/factory/meat packing/construction. Sure, they were NEVER "high"-paying or glamorous jobs that people seek out by the millions, but they were still decent-paying blue-collar jobs. The difference now is that the supply side of labor is enough to drive down wages because unskilled workers are flooding the labor market. Like I said. This is America, there should be some sort of standard, unless you take the 100% libertarian point of view on the economy/free-market and believe that companies should pay as low as possible when given the oppurtunity, but of course that is pretty much happening as statistics show over the last 10 years, salaries at the top are going up while salaries at the bottom are eithe falling or staying the same.

 

And yes, I know outsourcing has a lot to do with it, and I have vented on that issue plenty in the past when someone posted a thread about it, but this is an entire different discussion that also happens to have effects on the economy, both positive and negative.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Both immigration and globalization (yes, even outsourcing), in a nation administered by a competent government, could be very good things for the economy.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Outsourcing is the wave of the future. It is what happens in a pure free market economy really, where people are allowed to get services from people that offer them. What's so bad about this? If I'm a business owner and I can cut my costs in half by going elsewhere for my manufacturing, I'd probably do it.

 

Reality check on the border issue; more than half of illegal immigrants enter the country legally. They obtain visas or some other such thing to have a temporary stay, then just stay longer than they are supposed to. Terrorism? All the men involved in 9/11 had official documents stating that they were legal citizens; illegal immigration and terrorism are not really on the same page. This puts a HUGE dent in the ideas about having someone actually patrol the ridiculously long border, with a wall that's built in patches and can be broken into (considering the model they're using) in a matter of minutes.

 

In one final twist of irony, many companies that have built these walls have hired illegal immigrants to do the work. Amazing.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Make the Mexicans build the fence!

 

Using convicted criminals to do at least some of the manual labor required would be fine by me. Illegal immigrants or otherwise.

 

I don't see why some people see a fence or wall as "Un-American". I find the idea of drug runners and terrorists being able to enter our country whenever they want much more "Un-American", especially when we have a president who continually talks about "learning the lessons of September 11th."

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Outsourcing is the wave of the future. It is what happens in a pure free market economy really, where people are allowed to get services from people that offer them. What's so bad about this? If I'm a business owner and I can cut my costs in half by going elsewhere for my manufacturing, I'd probably do it.

 

You have to have a government that's willing to provide some assistance, re-training, & aid to the people whose jobs were outsourced. And to make sure their pensions and other benefits aren't gutted by the fleeing companies.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I do think, to an extent, some communities need to be more pro-active in redefining their local economies. You can't count on the old mill or factory to provide jobs forever.

 

I can't remember the name of the town off hand, but I believe it was somewhere in Virginia. A few years ago, they realized that the textile industry that was the base of their economy was quickly eroding, due to foreign outsourcing and other factors. The town basically arranged for most of the local workers to be trained in modern manufacturing and such, and now they have a plant that makes parts for a European automaker.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

See, that's awesome. A nearby small hillbilly factory town went completely under when the insulation plant started laying off and eventually closed. Virtually the only people that live there now drive an hour and a half up to GM every day.

 

Things like that are what make distribution as steady of a low-middle class income as anything. It will always be cheaper to ship something to a store from within the country than from China.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I don't see why some people see a fence or wall as "Un-American". I find the idea of drug runners and terrorists being able to enter our country whenever they want much more "Un-American", especially when we have a president who continually talks about "learning the lessons of September 11th."

 

more than half of illegal immigrants enter the country legally. They obtain visas or some other such thing to have a temporary stay, then just stay longer than they are supposed to. Terrorism? All the men involved in 9/11 had official documents stating that they were legal citizens; illegal immigration and terrorism are not really on the same page. This puts a HUGE dent in the ideas about having someone actually patrol the ridiculously long border

[NoCalMike 0]

Well the idealistic thought behind outsourcing is that we send the crappy labor jobs overseas while the higher end jobs grow here. In theory that is great. The problem is, that assumes everyone could afford to go to college, stayed in college and got a degree in a field that is relevent to an ever-changing job market. The answer is usually always to go back to school get re-trained on something different etc etc....however most people aren't in the position to drop a minimum of 20,000 on a new degree, especially when they have worked in one field their entire life. Also, with technology becoming more advanced at the blink of an eye, it isn't just low-end factory jobs going overseas. And yes, anyone can find a "job" when they get laid off, but it is the ability to maintain some type of standard of living. Like I said, going from a 40k job to being a cashier at Wal-Mart is not going to get the bills paid, but it will still look good on a "jobs created" statistic that economists love to roll out every so often.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I look at it from more of a purist point of view. If we are limiting the jobs we send overseas, then where do you draw the line? If someone wants to buy a product from an overseas nation, then you are taking money away from a domestic producer that manufactures the same product. Why is this okay but outsourcing labour not okay? It amounts to the same thing in the end.

 

If a poor family has a daughter that needs surgery for life-threatening reasons, why can't they go to India to get it done at a fraction of the cost for the same amount of quality? Why are you forcing them to pay an amount of money that's much more than they can afford?

 

People say outsourcing costs many people domestically lots of problems, but there would still be many similar problems if you don't have any outsourcing at all, many of which have to do with a stagnant growth in terms of quality.

[NoCalMike 0]

I look at it from more of a purist point of view. If we are limiting the jobs we send overseas, then where do you draw the line? If someone wants to buy a product from an overseas nation, then you are taking money away from a domestic producer that manufactures the same product. Why is this okay but outsourcing labour not okay? It amounts to the same thing in the end.

 

If a poor family has a daughter that needs surgery for life-threatening reasons, why can't they go to India to get it done at a fraction of the cost for the same amount of quality? Why are you forcing them to pay an amount of money that's much more than they can afford?

 

People say outsourcing costs many people domestically lots of problems, but there would still be many similar problems if you don't have any outsourcing at all, many of which have to do with a stagnant growth in terms of quality.

 

I don't think most people are against out-sourcing all together, however what we are told is that when companies outsource jobs, it is good for American workers. I am just eagerly awaiting to see how it is good for us. Like I said, in theory it is the bad jobs we are sending overseas in order to make room for good jobs over here, but it doesn't seem like that is what is happening. Instead it seems like the companies are taking the extra profit and investing it overseas and opening everything out of america in order to avoid taxes.

[Nightwing 0]

Um, let me try my hat at this.

 

Beyond economics, beyond race, beyond whatever, we need to look at Border Control for one simple fact: Security. Economics is a fun topic, yes (Personally, I think that better control of illegal immigration would improve the lifestyle of more immigrants who come here), but security is what we should really be looking at. If people a Mexican can do it, what stops anyone else who has a vendetta against the US from doing it? I wouldn't say a full-fledged wall, but more Border Guards. Armed, as well: The Border Guards are police officers. Let's not deceive ourselves: There are some unsavory guys running across the border along with the people that honestly want to benefit from being in the US. Drug Runners, criminals, etc. Taking away a Border Guard's weapon is only going to neuter him, and even possibly put him in danger. He's an officer of the law, he needs to have a weapon to enforce it. I'm okay with pulling in the National Guard to do border duty as well: If anything, it gives them experience in civilian relations and non-combat situations that soldiers need for today's conflicts. Do rotating duty, but I'm totally for doing that.

 

Where real immigration reform needs to come, though, is in the Office Cubicle, not the Rio Grande. Paragon is right; there are a lot of expired Visas out there, people who have overstayed illegally. These are the people who can be dangerous in our country, because they get in legally and then just get forgotten about. We need to make immigration more efficient, to the point that you don't get forgotten once your Visa runs out. I'm not exactly sure how it needs to come about (Though a drastic increase in staffing would definitely help), but a great deal of focus needs to go there.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I thought this was hilarious:

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticle...ticle57096.html

 

What kind of dementia affects the politicians in San Francisco, I have no idea.

[DARRYLXWF 0]

I look at it from more of a purist point of view. If we are limiting the jobs we send overseas, then where do you draw the line? If someone wants to buy a product from an overseas nation, then you are taking money away from a domestic producer that manufactures the same product. Why is this okay but outsourcing labour not okay? It amounts to the same thing in the end.

 

If a poor family has a daughter that needs surgery for life-threatening reasons, why can't they go to India to get it done at a fraction of the cost for the same amount of quality? Why are you forcing them to pay an amount of money that's much more than they can afford?

 

People say outsourcing costs many people domestically lots of problems, but there would still be many similar problems if you don't have any outsourcing at all, many of which have to do with a stagnant growth in terms of quality.

 

I don't think most people are against out-sourcing all together, however what we are told is that when companies outsource jobs, it is good for American workers. I am just eagerly awaiting to see how it is good for us. Like I said, in theory it is the bad jobs we are sending overseas in order to make room for good jobs over here, but it doesn't seem like that is what is happening. Instead it seems like the companies are taking the extra profit and investing it overseas and opening everything out of america in order to avoid taxes.

 

The correct argument is that it has long term benefits for American workers. As companies and other businesses move to countries where their production costs are the smallest, it means their products will be cheaper for Americans to consume. As goods become cheaper, people are able to obtain a better standard of living by being able to purchase more goods, and so new markets are created, and hence new jobs a created to meet the demand of these new markets.

 

It's extraordinarily easy to identify jobs that move out of the country. It's damn near impossible to identify which businesses opened because of freer trade. That's why it is politically difficult to make the argument for outsourcing without going into the economic logic of it all. All a protectionist has to do is point to a closed down steel mill and play a Springsteen song, and the whole room is sobbing.