One example of how undocumented workers hurt America

[imported_sling]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: sling

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Wages did not plummet and america prospered every time, how does it feel to be on the losing side of a age old argument proven wrong for 100s of years?

It's not the loosing side, and frankly, it feels like hitting a home run.

If you were on the winning side frankly your grandparents would still be in europe.

If it was not for people thinking rationally your ancestors would have "missed the boat"

Hope you all are proud of being traitors to your countries heritige, becasue this is exactly what you are. :lips:

I think that the protestant exodous from the Church has little comparison to Mexicans building mobile homes for $2 an hour in America. You realize the shockwave of unemployment the second that imigrant worker tells the farmer "Marrón del granjero ahora soy un residente legal así que exijo cinco dólares por hora y una semana fourty del trabajo de la hora."

 

[blackangst1]

OMG hahahahahahahah

I LOL'd

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
:

It is going on because the illegals know we arent doing anything about it. They can pass our borders unfettered. Your land raping theory is BS.

Immigration Flood Unleashed by NAFTA's Disastrous Impact on Mexican Economy
by Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter


The recent ferment on immigration policy has been so narrow that it has excluded the real issue: family-sustaining wages for workers both north and south of the border. The role of the North American Free Trade Agreement and misnamed 'free trade' has been scarcely mentioned in the increasingly bitter debate over the fate of America's 11 to 12 million illegal aliens.

NAFTA was sold to the American public as the magic formula that would improve the American economy at the same time it would raise up the impoverished Mexican economy. The time has come to look at the failures of this type of trade agreement before we engage in more and lower the economic prospects of all workers affected.

While there has been some media coverage of NAFTA's ruinous impact on US industrial communities, there has been even less media attention paid to its catastrophic effects in Mexico:

* NAFTA, by permitting heavily-subsidized US corn and other agri-business products to compete with small Mexican farmers, has driven the Mexican farmer off the land due to low-priced imports of US corn and other agricultural products. Some 2 million Mexicans have been forced out of agriculture, and many of those that remain are living in desperate poverty. These people are among those that cross the border to feed their families. (Meanwhile, corn-based tortilla prices climbed by 50%. No wonder many so Mexican peasants have called NAFTA their 'death warrant.'
* NAFTA's service-sector rules allowed big firms like Wal-Mart to enter the Mexican market and, selling low-priced goods made by ultra-cheap labor in China, to displace locally-based shoe, toy, and candy firms. An estimated 28,000 small and medium-sized Mexican businesses have been eliminated.
* Wages along the Mexican border have actually been driven down by about 25% since NAFTA, reported a Carnegie Endowment study. An over-supply of workers, combined with the crushing of union organizing drives as government policy, has resulted in sweatshop pay running sweatshops along the border where wages typically run 60 cents to $1 an hour.

So rather than improving living standards, Mexican wages have actually fallen since NAFTA. The initial growth in the number of jobs has leveled off, with China's even more repressive labor system luring US firms to locate there instead.

But Mexicans must still contend with the results of the American-owned 'maquiladora' sweatshops: subsistence-level wages, pollution, congestion, horrible living conditions (cardboard shacks and open sewers), and a lack of resources (for streetlights and police) to deal with a wave of violence against vulnerable young women working in the factories. The survival (or less) level wages coupled with harsh working conditions have not been the great answer to Mexican poverty, while they have temporarily been the answer to Corporate America's demand for low wages.

With US firms unwilling to pay even minimal taxes, NAFTA has hardly produced the promised uplift in the lives of Mexicans. Ciudad Juarez Mayor Gustavo Elizondo, whose city is crammed with US-owned low-wage plants, expressed it plainly: "We have no way to provide water, sewage, and sanitation workers. Every year, we get poorer and poorer even though we create more and more wealth."

Falling industrial wages, peasants forced off the land, small businesses liquidated, growing poverty: these are direct consequences of NAFTA. This harsh suffering explains why so many desperate Mexicans -- lured to the border area in the false hope that they could find dignity in the US-owned maquiladoras -- are willing to risk their lives to cross the border to provide for their families. There were 2.5 million Mexican illegals in 1995; 8 million have crossed the border since then. In 2005, some 400 desperate Mexicans died trying to enter the US.

NAFTA failed to curb illegal immigration precisely because it was never designed as a genuine development program crafted to promote rising living standards, health care, environmental cleanup, and worker rights in Mexico. The wholesale surge of Mexicans across the border dramatically illustrates that NAFTA was no attempt at a broad uplift of living conditions and democracy in Mexico, but a formula for government-sanctioned corporate plunder benefiting elites on both sides of the border.

NAFTA essentially annexed Mexico as a low-wage industrial suburb of the US and opened Mexican markets to heavily-subsidized US agribusiness products, blowing away local producers. Capital could flow freely across the border to low-wage factories and Wal-mart-type retailers, but the same standard of free access would be denied to Mexican workers.

Meanwhile, with the planned Central American Free Trade Agreement with five Central American nations coming up, we can anticipate even greater pressure on our borders as agricultural workers are pushed off the land without positive, alternative employment opportunities. People from Guatemala and Honduras will soon learn that they can't compete for industrial jobs with the most oppressed people in say, China, by agreeing to lowering their wages even more. Further, impoverished Central American countries don't have the resources to deal with the pollution and crime that results from moving people from rural areas to the city, often without their families.

Thus far, we have been presented with a narrow range of options to cope with the tide of illegal immigrants living fearfully in the shadows of American life. Should they simply be walled off and criminalized, as Sensenbrenner and House Republicans suggest? The Sensenbrenner option seeks to exploit the sentiment that illegal immigrants entering the US -- rather than US corporations exiting the US for Mexico and China -- are the primary cause of falling wages for most Americans.

The Bush version is only slightly different, envisioning the illegal immigrants as part of a vast disposable pool of cheap labor with no meaningful rights on the job or even the right to vote, to be returned to Mexico upon the whim of their employers.

Yet there is another well-known path of economic and social integration that has been ignored in the debates over immigration in the US: the one followed by the European Union and their "social charter" calling for decent wages, health care, and extensive retraining in all nations. Before then-impoverished nations like Spain, Greece and Portugal were admitted, they received massive EU investments in roads, health care, clean water, and education. The implementation of democracy, including worker rights, was an equally vital pre-condition for entry into the EU.

The underlying concept: the entire reason for trade is to provide improved lives across borders, not to exploit the cheapest labor and weakest environmental rules. We need to question the widely-held assumption that what benefits American corporations benefits Mexican workers and American workers. An authentic plan for growth and development isn't about further enriching Wall Street, major corporations, and a handful of Mexican billionaires; it is about the creation of family-supporting jobs. It is also about a healthy environment, healthy workers, good education, and ordinary people being able to achieve their dreams.

The massive tide of illegal immigration from Mexico is merely one symptom of an economic arrangement where human needs -- not maximum profits-- are not the ultimate goal but a subject of neglect. Neither a massive, shameful barrier at the border nor a disposable guest-worker program will address the problems ignited by NAFTA.

Programs providing stable, decent employment, modern transportation, clean water, and environmental cleanup are needed to take the place of the immense NAFTA failure and allow Mexicans to live decent, hopeful lives in their native land. But such an effort is imaginable only if the aim is truly mutual uplift for all citizens in both nations, instead of the NAFTA-fueled race to the bottom.

link
Supply and Demand (of labor and NAFTA)




The easiest way for a small mind is to blame them, but for some people, we like to get the facts of why before buying some racist BS about how they are all leeches.

Another winning republicans free-market scam come back to slap us in the face, who would have thought republicans would go for profit first and forget the consequences. No...Never! Like father like son.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: blackangst1
:

It is going on because the illegals know we arent doing anything about it. They can pass our borders unfettered. Your land raping theory is BS.

Immigration Flood Unleashed by NAFTA's Disastrous Impact on Mexican Economy
by Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter


The recent ferment on immigration policy has been so narrow that it has excluded the real issue: family-sustaining wages for workers both north and south of the border. The role of the North American Free Trade Agreement and misnamed 'free trade' has been scarcely mentioned in the increasingly bitter debate over the fate of America's 11 to 12 million illegal aliens.

NAFTA was sold to the American public as the magic formula that would improve the American economy at the same time it would raise up the impoverished Mexican economy. The time has come to look at the failures of this type of trade agreement before we engage in more and lower the economic prospects of all workers affected.

While there has been some media coverage of NAFTA's ruinous impact on US industrial communities, there has been even less media attention paid to its catastrophic effects in Mexico:

* NAFTA, by permitting heavily-subsidized US corn and other agri-business products to compete with small Mexican farmers, has driven the Mexican farmer off the land due to low-priced imports of US corn and other agricultural products. Some 2 million Mexicans have been forced out of agriculture, and many of those that remain are living in desperate poverty. These people are among those that cross the border to feed their families. (Meanwhile, corn-based tortilla prices climbed by 50%. No wonder many so Mexican peasants have called NAFTA their 'death warrant.'
* NAFTA's service-sector rules allowed big firms like Wal-Mart to enter the Mexican market and, selling low-priced goods made by ultra-cheap labor in China, to displace locally-based shoe, toy, and candy firms. An estimated 28,000 small and medium-sized Mexican businesses have been eliminated.
* Wages along the Mexican border have actually been driven down by about 25% since NAFTA, reported a Carnegie Endowment study. An over-supply of workers, combined with the crushing of union organizing drives as government policy, has resulted in sweatshop pay running sweatshops along the border where wages typically run 60 cents to $1 an hour.

So rather than improving living standards, Mexican wages have actually fallen since NAFTA. The initial growth in the number of jobs has leveled off, with China's even more repressive labor system luring US firms to locate there instead.

But Mexicans must still contend with the results of the American-owned 'maquiladora' sweatshops: subsistence-level wages, pollution, congestion, horrible living conditions (cardboard shacks and open sewers), and a lack of resources (for streetlights and police) to deal with a wave of violence against vulnerable young women working in the factories. The survival (or less) level wages coupled with harsh working conditions have not been the great answer to Mexican poverty, while they have temporarily been the answer to Corporate America's demand for low wages.

With US firms unwilling to pay even minimal taxes, NAFTA has hardly produced the promised uplift in the lives of Mexicans. Ciudad Juarez Mayor Gustavo Elizondo, whose city is crammed with US-owned low-wage plants, expressed it plainly: "We have no way to provide water, sewage, and sanitation workers. Every year, we get poorer and poorer even though we create more and more wealth."

Falling industrial wages, peasants forced off the land, small businesses liquidated, growing poverty: these are direct consequences of NAFTA. This harsh suffering explains why so many desperate Mexicans -- lured to the border area in the false hope that they could find dignity in the US-owned maquiladoras -- are willing to risk their lives to cross the border to provide for their families. There were 2.5 million Mexican illegals in 1995; 8 million have crossed the border since then. In 2005, some 400 desperate Mexicans died trying to enter the US.

NAFTA failed to curb illegal immigration precisely because it was never designed as a genuine development program crafted to promote rising living standards, health care, environmental cleanup, and worker rights in Mexico. The wholesale surge of Mexicans across the border dramatically illustrates that NAFTA was no attempt at a broad uplift of living conditions and democracy in Mexico, but a formula for government-sanctioned corporate plunder benefiting elites on both sides of the border.

NAFTA essentially annexed Mexico as a low-wage industrial suburb of the US and opened Mexican markets to heavily-subsidized US agribusiness products, blowing away local producers. Capital could flow freely across the border to low-wage factories and Wal-mart-type retailers, but the same standard of free access would be denied to Mexican workers.

Meanwhile, with the planned Central American Free Trade Agreement with five Central American nations coming up, we can anticipate even greater pressure on our borders as agricultural workers are pushed off the land without positive, alternative employment opportunities. People from Guatemala and Honduras will soon learn that they can't compete for industrial jobs with the most oppressed people in say, China, by agreeing to lowering their wages even more. Further, impoverished Central American countries don't have the resources to deal with the pollution and crime that results from moving people from rural areas to the city, often without their families.

Thus far, we have been presented with a narrow range of options to cope with the tide of illegal immigrants living fearfully in the shadows of American life. Should they simply be walled off and criminalized, as Sensenbrenner and House Republicans suggest? The Sensenbrenner option seeks to exploit the sentiment that illegal immigrants entering the US -- rather than US corporations exiting the US for Mexico and China -- are the primary cause of falling wages for most Americans.

The Bush version is only slightly different, envisioning the illegal immigrants as part of a vast disposable pool of cheap labor with no meaningful rights on the job or even the right to vote, to be returned to Mexico upon the whim of their employers.

Yet there is another well-known path of economic and social integration that has been ignored in the debates over immigration in the US: the one followed by the European Union and their "social charter" calling for decent wages, health care, and extensive retraining in all nations. Before then-impoverished nations like Spain, Greece and Portugal were admitted, they received massive EU investments in roads, health care, clean water, and education. The implementation of democracy, including worker rights, was an equally vital pre-condition for entry into the EU.

The underlying concept: the entire reason for trade is to provide improved lives across borders, not to exploit the cheapest labor and weakest environmental rules. We need to question the widely-held assumption that what benefits American corporations benefits Mexican workers and American workers. An authentic plan for growth and development isn't about further enriching Wall Street, major corporations, and a handful of Mexican billionaires; it is about the creation of family-supporting jobs. It is also about a healthy environment, healthy workers, good education, and ordinary people being able to achieve their dreams.

The massive tide of illegal immigration from Mexico is merely one symptom of an economic arrangement where human needs -- not maximum profits-- are not the ultimate goal but a subject of neglect. Neither a massive, shameful barrier at the border nor a disposable guest-worker program will address the problems ignited by NAFTA.

Programs providing stable, decent employment, modern transportation, clean water, and environmental cleanup are needed to take the place of the immense NAFTA failure and allow Mexicans to live decent, hopeful lives in their native land. But such an effort is imaginable only if the aim is truly mutual uplift for all citizens in both nations, instead of the NAFTA-fueled race to the bottom.

link
Supply and Demand (of labor and NAFTA)




The easiest way for a small mind is to blame them, but for some people, we like to get the facts of why before buying some racist BS about how they are all leeches.

Another winning republicans free-market scam come back to slap us in the face, who would have thought republicans would go for profit first and forget the consequences.

So? Republicans typically do go for profit first. Whats your point? Is there something in here that is racist? lol

And, um, did I ever say "all"? Who on this topic said "all" are leeches? Sheesh give it up.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

So? Republicans typically do go for profit first. Whats your point? Is there something in here that is racist? lol

No, not racism, although it does get the base rallied over issues easily passed off like this on someones race, more ignorance, read and learn why this is happening then think about where we are going.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

So? Republicans typically do go for profit first. Whats your point? Is there something in here that is racist? lol

No, not racism, although it does get the base rallied over issues easily passed off like this on someones race, more ignorance, read and learn why this is happening then think about where we are going.

OMG I read and guess what I learned? Illegal immigrants are bad for America!

Interesting illegal-immigration statistics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 28, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


Here are some statistics from the Los Angeles Times:

40 percent of all workers are working for cash and not paying taxes. Why would they want to be legal and pay taxes? They would be able to start bringing the rest of their families to the USA.

75 percent of people on L.A.'s most-wanted list are illegal aliens.

Over two-thirds of all births are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by the taxpayers.

Nearly 25 percent of all inmates in California detention centers are here illegally.

Over 300,000 illegals are living in garages.

The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegals from south of the border.

Nearly 60 percent of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

Of the 10 million people in Los Angeles County, 5.1 million speak English and 3.9 million speak Spanish.

21 radio stations in Los Angeles are Spanish speaking.

More statistics:

Less than 2 percent of illegals are picking crops but 29 percent are on welfare.

Over 70 percent of the U.S. annual population growth (over 90 percent of California, Florida and New York) are from immigration.

29 percent of inmates in the federal prisons are illegal aliens.

The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative.

They also send between about $15 billion back to Mexico to assist their families and prop up the corrupt Mexican government that keeps most of its citizens in poverty. How about a revolt in their own country!

A new figure from yesterday: It cost Los Angeles $276 million in welfare costs for 100,000 children of illegal aliens.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49965

 

[Steeplerot]

Worldnetdaily is not a good source. It is actually garbage, look at the stuff they sell on their site, it's all right wing conspiracy crap rarely based in reality.

(I love the book they are hawking about oil "growing" out the crust of the earth thus we will never run out" :laugh:

You need some tinfoil and a big does of reality.

You read stuff like worldnetdaily no wonder you are so sadly misinformed and so conspiracy prone.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Worldnetdaily is not a good source. It is actually garbage, look at the stuff they sell on their site, it's all right wing conspiracy crap rarely based in reality.

(I love the book they are hawking about oil "growing" out the crust of the earth thus we will never run out" :laugh:

You need some tinfoil and a big does of reality.

You read stuff like worldnetdaily no wonder you are so sadly misinformed and so conspiracy prone.

uh

It's from the LA Times. And of course it sucks...it doesnt bolster your socialist agenda

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Worldnetdaily is not a good source. It is actually garbage, look at the stuff they sell on their site, it's all right wing conspiracy crap rarely based in reality.

(I love the book they are hawking about oil "growing" out the crust of the earth thus we will never run out" :laugh:

You need some tinfoil and a big does of reality.

You read stuff like worldnetdaily no wonder you are so sadly misinformed and so conspiracy prone.

uh

It's from the LA Times. And of course it sucks...it doesnt bolster your socialist agenda

That is not from the times, worldnetdaily SAYS it is.

Find me the LA times article and I will continue, I am not debating that crap and some "socialist conspiracy" worldnet daily/national enquirer wingnut who cannot get his facts straight, you have already stated that you do not care if a law is a racist one, our founding fathers are racist bigots so what they say is hypocritical and a few other choice bits.

You are a waste of time, I dug up links, educate yourself please before spouting off like a bigoted knucklehead who knows he may be wrong but continues to blame innocent people so you can play partisan games.

Edit: I tried to look up the author of that and it doesent even have one! It's a "letter" submitted to a known site for it's misrepresentations and for outright lying.

Do a search, worldnetdaily is not worth the hard disk space it is served from.

Sad to say, but most of what you know is probably a lie if you use it as a news source.

 

[blackangst1]

It's a lie because you say it is. OK.

Now. Steeplerot. Quit avoiding my question and answer please. Do you support the US Constitution, knowing it was written by elitists and racists? Yes or no.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
It's a lie because you say it is. OK.

Now. Steeplerot. Quit avoiding my question and answer please. Do you support the US Constitution, knowing it was written by elitists and racists? Yes or no.

Your source is crap, check conwatch for debunkings, worldnetdaily is one of the biggest liars/thieves out there. link

Anyhow, If the founders drafted a document that states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" I would not label them racist bigots, sorry.

They had flaws in character, drinking etc. but the constitution was not founded and written from fake studies from the KKK as that immigration act you defend is. You are barking up the wrong tree here.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: blackangst1
It's a lie because you say it is. OK.

Now. Steeplerot. Quit avoiding my question and answer please. Do you support the US Constitution, knowing it was written by elitists and racists? Yes or no.

Your source is crap, check conwatch for debunkings, worldnetdaily is one of the biggest liars/thieves out there. link

Anyhow, If the founders drafted a document that states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" I would not label them racist bigots, sorry.

They had flaws in character, drinking etc. but the constitution was not founded and written from fake studies from the KKK as that immigration act you defend is. You are barking up the wrong tree here.

ORLY? The immigration act I quote in my sig was written based on fake studies? Do tell!

Oh. And dont let the wording of the constitution fool you. They would not allow women to vote, nor blacks. And since you agree with the constitution, you too are a racist and an elitist. According to you, since I happen to support a law supposedly written by the KKK *snicker* I am a racist. See the math? Thanks for answering.

Now where are those *cough* fake studies...

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Oh. And dont let the wording of the constitution fool you.

They would not allow women to vote, nor blacks.

Where in the constitution does it say this? Or any of the founding documents?

Originally posted by: blackangst1

ORLY? The immigration act I quote in my sig was written based on fake studies? Do tell!

As for the success of the Republicans in implementing conservative positions, a most impressive case in point is immigration restriction, a cause the Klan vigorously espoused. The Republicans delivered on this with the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 which targetted precisely those nationalities the Klan labelled most dangerous. The Klan vociferously opposed the role of Catholics in public life, to cite another important issue. Since these Catholic officeholders and office seekers clustered in the Democratic party, it was the Republican party which provided the candidates to oppose them. The Klan supported Prohibition. It was Coolidge and then Hoover who carried the standard of "the noble experiment," as Hoover called it.

Fears of communism and unchecked immigration spurred the formation of patriotic and nativist groups throughout the country during the post-war period. In response to the latter, Congress passed the Johnson-Reed Act in 1924 which severely restricted the number of immigrants who could enter the country. Within the U.S., the migration of Southern blacks to the industrialized cities of the North was viewed as an economic and racial threat by the North?s predominantly white labor base. Catholics and Jews were still viewed as ?foreign? religions that threatened the fabric of American life. Capitalizing upon these fears, the founder of the Second Ku Klux Klan, William Joseph Simmons, created a nation-wide organization that both perpetuated and profited from this new conservatism.


Here

here




Oh yeah, here is the goldmine:


Probably the most active and in?uential eugenist in the 1920s was Dr.
Harry H. Laughlin, who worked at the Eugenics Records O?ce at the Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory.3 In the twenties, Laughlin researched the ?im-
migrant stocks by nationality and speci?c type of defect?the feebleminded,
the insane, the criminalistic and the like.?4 Laughlin also served as an
?expert eugenics agent? on the House Committee on Immigration and Nat-
uralization on the request of its chairman, Albert Johnson.
explained that ?[t]he character of a nation is determined primarily by
its racial qualities; that is, by the hereditary physical, mental, and moral or
temperamental traits of its people.?6 For this reason, he recommended that
in regulating immigration the United States should conduct elaborate stud-
ies of the prospective immigrant in his home town, because that was the only
place to get the ?eugenical facts? and to ascertain that he and his ?family
stock? had ?such physical, mental, and moral qualities? as should exist in
America?s ?future citizenry.?7 To emphasize the urgency of stock selection,
Laughlin referred to the disproportionate numbers of foreign-born in insane
asylums?this, ?rst of all, cost the states money, and second, meant that
the U.S. was receiving inferior stock which would corrupt the American race.
This corruption, according to Laughlin, was inevitable because the birth rate
was higher among the immigrants than among the native-born, and because
it would be impossible to preserve racial purity, since ?[w]herever two races
come in contact, it is found that the women of the lower race are not, as a
rule, adverse to intercourse with men of the higher.?8
Although Laughlin contended that immigrant selection was not princi-
pally a question of national origin but of verifying the eugenic quali?cations
of the individual immigrant, he went on to point out that the ?lower or less
progressive races? such as Mexicans appeared to furnish a disproportionate
number of the inmates of prisons and institutions.


Wow, SAME ARGUMENT EVEN TODAY!

This is the stuff here, This is a guys master thesis..good stuff! (page 70 on Eugenics)

Vilja Lehtinen
Master's Thesis, May 2002.
University of Helsinki, Department of History, Faculty of Arts.

All my links are to schools or history sites with credibility.

Please feel free to take an hour out and lay out this much info.

I want to see your case on how you are not a supporter of racist eugenic laws.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: blackangst1


Yep I'm ready. *IF* the left wing socialists of this country like you get their way and pass amnesty, we will repeat the cycle we have already been through the last few times we did it...cause an even BIGGER influx of illegals into our country

O0o0o0ooo scaaary commie lefties gonna eat my babies with the invaders!
Hmm, where is that big fat tinfoil picture link...

thought that was your desktop wallpaper..lol

 

[Steeplerot]

Here is another bit for you to chew on about the 1924 Immigration Law.

Harry Laughlin's report to the House Committee, printed in 1923, helped formulate the 1924 immigration law, which, in addition to drastically limiting total immigration to the United States, imposed national origin quotas based on the 1910 census, so as to weight the sources of immigration as much as possible in favor of northern Europeans. Laughlin later emphasized that American women must keep the nation's blood pure by not marrying what he called the "colored races," in which he included southern Europeans as well as blacks: for if "men with a small fraction of colored blood could readily find mates among the white women, the gates would be thrown open to a final radical race mixture of the whole population." To Laughlin the moral was clear: "The perpetuity of the American race and consequently of American institutions depends upon the virtue and fecundity of American women."

Here



That is the father of the "illegal" part of your argument.

 

[imported_sling]

"he went on to point out that the ?lower or less
progressive races? such as Mexicans appeared to furnish a disproportionate
number of the inmates of prisons and institutions. "

Applied then, applies today. It's a fact. A little time as a corrections officer in Texas tells me so. I'm sure other border states have it no different.


I'd like to see, say, San Bernardino County's Count board at their jail...I bet the numbers would be stunning.

It's a moot point anyways, I could care less about how the 1924 law got there...point is, it is there, and we're not enforcing it....that's a failure and an unacceptable one at that. It's not like the law doesn't make sense. Let me see....should we limit/control/pick those that come into our country from other countries. WHY HELL YES WE SHOULD!

Like I said in my first post....put that .45 back in your mouth and relieve yourself of what little grey matter you posses.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: sling
"he went on to point out that the ?lower or less
progressive races? such as Mexicans appeared to furnish a disproportionate
number of the inmates of prisons and institutions. "

Applied then, applies today. It's a fact. A little time as a corrections officer in Texas tells me so. I'm sure other border states have it no different.


I'd like to see, say, San Bernardino County's Count board at their jail...I bet the numbers would be stunning.

It's a moot point anyways, I could care less about how the 1924 law got there...point is, it is there, and we're not enforcing it....that's a failure and an unacceptable one at that. It's not like the law doesn't make sense. Let me see....should we limit/control/pick those that come into our country from other countries. WHY HELL YES WE SHOULD!

Like I said in my first post....put that .45 back in your mouth and relieve yourself of what little grey matter you posses.

At least you are honest about supporting racist scum such as yourself,You are the worthy recipient of a bullet so go follow your leader.


Too bad the rest of your ilk in here are not more honest.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Oh. And dont let the wording of the constitution fool you.

They would not allow women to vote, nor blacks.

Where in the constitution does it say this? Or any of the founding documents?


How about every history book ever written? It is widely known women and blacks were not allowed to vote. You may want to review the supreme court Dred Scott decision...

As far as the links you provided...good stuff However, none of it really matters. What matters is the law. Which you seem to discredit because of it's authors. Next you might try and convince me the entire senate and president who signed it are racist. Good God.

Just remember...you support our constitution that was written by elitists and racists. Therefore you are one also. Careful pointing fingers...three more are pointing back at ya

 

[Steeplerot]

I asked you what document they wrote, and where in the constitution, decleration of independence, or bill of rights where our founding fathers are being "elitists and racists".


I spent a lot of time researching the 1925 immigration thing to prove my point to you.

Kthx

 

[BoomerD]

At the time the Constitution was written, owning slaves was very common. Even George Washington owned slaves, as did Thomas Jefferson...what about the way the American Indian, (indigenous peoples?) were treated? Run off their land, and killed in massacres across the country...and to vote, you had to be a titled landholder...You had to own land to vote...Nothing aobut any of that in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, OR Declaration of Independence...but those things are true...
Those three items fit the bill for elitist and racist...even if I don't necessarily agree with some of the other posters on our "founding fatherss".

 

[Cerb]

BBond...resorting to caps and blinders, I see.

Keep your wall.
Give it barbed wire, and electrify it.
When that fails, make it steels and concrete.
When the world rains down from above, make a solid ceiling.
When the world rises from the soil, seal the very ground beneath your feet.
When you begin to starve, we won't notice.
We will not have the walls.

Have a nice day with that hate and fear.

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
At the time the Constitution was written, owning slaves was very common. Even George Washington owned slaves, as did Thomas Jefferson...what about the way the American Indian, (indigenous peoples?) were treated? Run off their land, and killed in massacres across the country...and to vote, you had to be a titled landholder...You had to own land to vote...Nothing aobut any of that in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, OR Declaration of Independence...but those things are true...
Those three items fit the bill for elitist and racist...even if I don't necessarily agree with some of the other posters on our "founding fatherss".

This is a great point, which illustrates over time we had to *change* current laws to reflect how society feels about particular subjects. Society evolves, we are clearly a different animal from the inception of the Declaration of Independence. We give minorities a far greater degree of freedom then we originally did, there is not doubt about this. We change to reflect the will and opinions of the current generations. Just as in 1986 you will most likely see another amnesty grant along with more "promises" to toughen our stance on illegals. I believe the current path we take cause more harm than good, which is my we should take a long hard look about why most if not all the past and current immigration policies have been overwhelming failures.


edit:

Also I would like to again point out gems like this:

Originally posted by: BBond
Not only are these ILLEGAL immigrants forcing wages DOWN, they are LEECHING off of social programs like Medicare and Social Security -- PROGRAMS THAT WERE MEANT FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS NOT ILLEGAL CRIMINALS WHO VIOLATE OUR BORDERS AND WHOSE PRESENCE IS A DETRIMENT TO OUR ECONOMY.

Our noble fellow US Citizens are the problems here. Immigrants want to work, and employers need workers. Corrupt employeers seek out "Illegal" workers so they can pay them sub-par wages, under the table, and untaxed. The sole reason for doing so is to line their own pockets, by cheating tax revenue from the local or federal government. Don't place blame on those who are *so* willing to work, they work for what we consider peanuts. Blame the people hiring under the table for their own greed.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: BBond
Not only are these ILLEGAL immigrants forcing wages DOWN, they are LEECHING off of social programs like Medicare and Social Security -- PROGRAMS THAT WERE MEANT FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS NOT ILLEGAL CRIMINALS WHO VIOLATE OUR BORDERS AND WHOSE PRESENCE IS A DETRIMENT TO OUR ECONOMY.

Social programs that should not exist, social programs that mostly benefit the lazy and incompotent.

Socialism is not the answer it is the problem.

Fess up, you're a bot aren't you?

More like an illegal bot.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

So? Republicans typically do go for profit first. Whats your point? Is there something in here that is racist? lol

No, not racism, although it does get the base rallied over issues easily passed off like this on someones race, more ignorance, read and learn why this is happening then think about where we are going.

You just don't get it and I'm begining to believe that for some perverted reason you just like calling other people racist. The illegals are a drain on our system, the only people benifiting from them are their direct employers.

We need to punish everyone we cna catch who employs illegals. Large fines and possibly even jail entences for the worst of them. Accountability for everyone.

We also need to build a fence on the border. I wasn't sure about that, but listening to all the defenders of illegals telling me it won't work has convinced me it will work, or at the very least slow the illegal immigration down 90% or better.

It's too bad their country is so crappy and ours is so good, but it's really not my problem. However, illegals sneaking into our country is my problem and I hope we do something about it. Hey, they have oil and an apparently terrorist goverment, let's invade them!!

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


You just don't get it and I'm begining to believe that for some perverted reason you just like calling other people racist. The illegals are a drain on our system, the only people benifiting from them are their direct employers.

Becasue, you take away the hypocritical illegal finger pointing and that is all they have besides same old racist fearmongering saying they are a "drain" that is a load of crap, you dont add workers to a economy and it hurts them, crack a history book, this is a unamerican concept that has always been proven wrong lou dobbs or whoever you get this xenophobic crap is full of sh1t try american history lesson and not a right wing pundit aligning themselves with KKK and nazis, it is good for the heart and mind.

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
We need to punish everyone we cna catch who employs illegals. Large fines and possibly even jail entences for the worst of them. Accountability for everyone.

I agree, we should come down on those who bypass workers rights.

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
We also need to build a fence on the border. I wasn't sure about that, but listening to all the defenders of illegals telling me it won't work has convinced me it will work, or at the very least slow the illegal immigration down 90% or better.

For one, no fence has ever worked, it is a waste of money, and money is about the only rational argument there is to the issue, deportation is far more expensive in the long run and we would be throwing away free labor and the next generation of workers we need to keep this country solvent. A wall will be scaled endlessly until we look at why they are migrating in such large numbers, namely NAFTA raping them out of their homes and employment.

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
It's too bad their country is so crappy and ours is so good, but it's really not my problem. However, illegals sneaking into our country is my problem and I hope we do something about it. Hey, they have oil and an apparently terrorist goverment, let's invade them!!

[/quote]

It is our neighbor and we have a level of responsibility for them coming over here through globalization scams. There is no rational argument yet not based on xenophobia for hindering these workers. Feel free to try though. But historiclly, economiclly in the long term there is no rational reason to screw over this many workers, this is a free ride for americas economy, and you are so wrapped up in them feeding their famlies you forget the big picture.


Laws change with the stroke of a pen, save your illegal stuff, we all heard it again and again, where are your papers, oh yeah, you probably have none since you were just handed your citizenship on a platter and crossed no desert or risked your freedom to start a new life here.
Once again the right pushes a issue and divides america in most unamerican ways, congrats for becoming a elitest becasue you happen to be squeezed out on a section of land, you are owed everything now arent you and how dare someone come here to help themselves to what is yours? Pathetic right wing jingoistic bvllsh1t is what it is.

Educate yourself on what is going on already, I know you are not a fool like the bigots in here.

Here is a refresher of something you already know, If the right pushes an issue and it is cut and dry one way or another on their side, dollars to doughnuts is there is a whole other story and their side is emotional/fear based to distract.