Those numbers tell me all I need too know, what I already knew, and what the socialist left in this country will never figure out.
Amnesty = Bandaid, one that obsolves out local/state/federal authorities of the responsibility of enforcing the LAW.
Those numbers tell me all I need too know, what I already knew, and what the socialist left in this country will never figure out.
Amnesty = Bandaid, one that obsolves out local/state/federal authorities of the responsibility of enforcing the LAW.
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
The bigger question is why are we giving amnesty AGAIN?
This isnt the first time we've been down this road.
Amnesty does NOTHING but allow more and more illegals in. I believe we've given amnesty two other times previously. If it didnt work back then it wont work again.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
Because, like I said in another similar thread, liberalism is a mental defect. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing but expecting different results.
The even BIGGER question is this: If better than half of the illegals in the US came here legally but overstayed their visa/permit, why are we still offering them? Seems like it's an abused system and maybe that should be looked at as an issue. I mean, if the ancient chinese could build a wall 4000+ miles (ironic that they used immigrant labor) how can it not be feasable for us to build one with todays machines and technology a little less than 2000 miles long? Even with a great wall of anti-amnesty in place it makes no difference if we just let them on the terms of an obviously non-binding permit/visa.
And why is La Migra not at these rallies? Good god talk about efficient. They're scared of the political issues that would come from that I suppose. 100% Chicken Sh!t, Board Certified.
We don't have to beg people to come here. Not by a long shot. So we're in by god good bargaining position if we start arresting/deporting those that are here that haven't gone through the proper channels. We'll still have immigration, we always will, but it should be at our discretion, and those that are here now have not met that.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
Wow. I need to get a copy of that article. Let's see a few members response to actual data instead of some of the made up sh*t some are pushing.
Considering their income levels the taxes don't begin to compensate for the government services they consume. If immigration is going to continue to be of the loweset skilled lowest earning power people who send a large portion of their money to Mexico and then take advantage of government services to subsidize their behavior this country will IMPLODE....and much sooner than you think.
We won't have another 20 years. Immigration has helped build this nation into what it is because a large portion of those allowed to LEGALLY enter are ones that will contribute MORE to our country than they take from it which is interesting since both parties in that exchange think they are getting the better deal. The type of immigrants coming from the south, if not stopped or limited heavily, are the death knell to everything we have built....as a nation of LEGAL immigrants.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
What are you talking about?
It's President Bush, a conserative republican, pushing for anmesty. Then 12 million more can line up for it.
It's Presedent Bush, a conservative republican, who refuses to enforce the borders, audit employers or cross reference records and send them back to employers telling them they have an illegal.
It's governor Bush, a conservative republican, giving them in state tuition in Florida, something you nor I could get.
The real movers in Republican Party want them here to exploit them for cheap labor and to undermine "socailist" ideas about decent pay, safe work envrioments etc.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
There are only a finite number of displaced farmworkers in mexico displaced by NAFTA, I heard 30m so you probably are close. That is if we don;t get to the root of the problem and reform our globalization treatys to be less of an impact on our neighbors, as material I have linked says, EU has this issue as they share trade, BUT the big difference is when one labor market moves there is free citizenship between states of the EU.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
You have any, you know, FACTS, to back that up? Because every single immigrant group in history started out on the bottom and worked their way up...that's how immigration typically works. Every ethnic group in the US, most likely including the one you're part of, came into this country and did a lot of crap work, and their kids and grandkids are now middle class folks that form the backbone of this country. Is there ANYTHING that suggests Mexicans are somehow different?
Perhaps this is just based on my personal experience, but I figure it's pretty relevant. My grandparents on both sides weren't from this country...they came from a variety of European countries as kids and their parents basically worked low wage jobs cleaning houses and various other low paying jobs that are now done mostly by Mexican immigrants (legal and otherwise). But they worked hard, and my grandparents were a little better off (but not too much). But my grandparents also worked hard, and were able to raise kids who went to college. My grandparents couldn't pay for it, but they made sure that their kids had the education and smarts to make it. And now, my parents are pretty well off and I'm starting off pretty good myself.
Now are you telling me that MY great-grandparents are special, simply because they came from Ireland and Poland and Hungary instead of Mexico? Because I guess I don't see the big difference. And maybe it's just me, but all the protesting of the anti-immigration folks aside, it seems a TEENSY bit racist to say that Mexicans can't do what most of our ancestors did, just because they are from Mexico.
You'll notice that "free market" types tend to be very selective about how free they think the market needs to be. For example, they bitch endlessly about the government interfering in the work of the good-spirited oil companies, who are only trying to do the right thing, and how price controls would ruin the market, and of course the nice and honest oil companies. But not a one of them, not even Ben Stein in his ridiculously pandering rant/article, say boo about the huge amounts of money the government basically gives to oil companies. It's not exactly free market, but you wouldn't know it listening to most of the free marketers.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Very true.. I can't tell you how many times growing up we had to hear about mom and dad came here from Sweden and Ireland repectivly with $90 between them to drive us about work ethic.. anyway they are millionaires today (that's not hard with property values in ca
) mom was a university prof late in life at about 40 - dad worked for pepsi 25 years and then opened a lighting company which manufactures lighting for houses, commercial buildings and exit signs. I'd say upper middle class.But the real question is, is it 1961 again? Don't we have inner cities with large swaths of unemployment we should be putting to work instead of sucking teet as they are? Don't we have relativly high 6% unemployment for Americans? Do we need 12-20 million undereducated, impovershed in this country?
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
You mean bundled bidding for drilling rights so the small frys have zero shot? And those big shots get the sweethart deals? Yeah washington is for sale.
The only thing "free" about the market is you're free to vi for advantage in it. One thing I got from cultural anthropology is someone does'nt have anything you don?t give them.
Property, worth and money are mental abstractions and can be tuned any which way we want them.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 27,274
- 36,388
- 136
Just another pompous, reality deprived right-wing pundit who is almost as big a joke as Rush Limbaugh. Like pill-poppin Rush, he has a radio talk show as well. I'm surprised that you can regurgitate the title of one of his (sadly, quite popular) books and not even know who he is. In fact, it makes me suspect you're fos.
What's really funny about Savage as of late is he is jumping on the bash Bush bandwagon yet he pushed Bush just as much for re-election.
He is worse than Rush.
At least Rush has the balls to still stand behind is Hero Bush.
Can't we just build a big bubble covering the US? Our own land, air, everything, just seal our asses off from the rest of the world.....
OP - Civil war with Mehico
No odds posted in Vegas yet so the bouts not official, we can only hope. I would be stunned however, I still don't see us unifying into one country and then spilling into civil war. I better go stock up though, thanks for the heads up....
No odds posted in Vegas yet so the bouts not official, we can only hope. I would be stunned however, I still don't see us unifying into one country and then spilling into civil war. I better go stock up though, thanks for the heads up....
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 62,875
- 11,275
- 136
http://www.romm.org/soc_com.html
"Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.
Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.
A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.
Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.
Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting (shades of the US election of 2000!) and fewer and fewer people were involved in making decisions."
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577990/Socialism.html
"The terms socialism and communism were once used interchangeably. Today, however, communism designates those theories and movements that, in accordance with one view of the teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, advocate the abolition of capitalism and all private profit, by means of violent revolution if necessary. Marx organized the International Workingmen's Association, or First International; when this congress met at Geneva in 1866, it was the first international forum for the promulgation of Communist doctrine. This doctrine was later explained by Lenin, who defined a socialist society as one in which the workers, free from capitalist exploitation, receive the full product of their labor. Most socialists deny the claim of Communists to have achieved socialism in the USSR, which they regarded as an authoritarian tyranny. But after World War II, many Communist-led political parties in the Soviet sphere of influence still used the designation socialist in their names. In East Germany (now part of the united Federal Republic of Germany), for example, the name adopted by the merged Communist and Social Democratic parties was the Socialist Unity party.
The modern socialist movement, as distinguished from communism, had its origin largely in the revisionist movement of the late 19th century. The worsening condition of the proletariat, or workers, and the class war predicted by Marx for Western Europe had not come about. Many socialist thinkers began to doubt the indispensability of revolution and to revise other basic tenets of Marxism. Led by the German writer Eduard Bernstein, they declared that socialism could best be attained by reformist, parliamentary, and evolutionary methods, including the support of the bourgeoisie."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter