Two words: Economic protectionism. I'm not proposing anything. That is how I feel, I would rather the welfare junkies leave than hard working illegal immigrants. I have seen enough to form my own opinion, and have heard enough from natives of Mexico and Honduras to know that the typical border jumper is not wanted in either country. Until I find proof otherwise, all I have is my anecdote and it is the only thing that will form my opinion. I'm familiar with Europe's African immigration problem. I don't see how it relates to this situation though, maybe you can clarify. So you are calling me racist because I oppose illegal immigration in mass quantities? And the problem with what he said is the word ALL. Many nativist movements have formed out of economic protectionism, and have developed into racism much after the fact. Its a good thing you included IMO, because now I don't care. It was just a silly retort...don't read into this too much. What are you talking about? I support controlled immigration...not completely open nor completely closed. A legal pathway to citizenship that doesn't involve being thrust out of a womb in US territory or living illegally long enough. If we shut down welfare-state support, we can reduce the amount of people that would flood our country if we were to open our borders. From then, less control would be needed...but we would still need some control, just like any other country. I think it is very valid in context. They were talking about us holding other people back by not letting them in here. Just because you don't let someone into your home and give them your money does not mean that you are holding them back. What?! I think you are mixing up too many of my arguments in an attempt at an attack on me. Keep it coherent please. Start a new post if you have to.
So tell me...how many nations in the world permit birthright citizenship? Could it possibly be that there should be more criteria other than just birth to grant citizenship to someone?
Dannytoone: What have the natives of Mexico and Honduras told you that makes you think that "borderjumpers" are not wanted?
Re: Legal immigrants oppose illegal immigration Not to mention the fact that in a ceremony in which 1,591 immigrants became naturalized citizens, the reporter found about a half-dozen that want to kick the illegal immigrants out. This is apparently a trend to some.
Re: Legal immigrants oppose illegal immigration You're right, you know. This new trend of illegal immigrants coming to America in the last couple of years is going to change everything. What's that, you say? This isn't a new trend? This has been going on for decades, but only came to the forefront in '06 because the GOP was getting it's ass handed to them over Iraq and needed someone to scapegoat, and they already used the gays? Oh, well never mind then.
Re: Legal immigrants oppose illegal immigration I'm going to assume your grandfather/grandmother immigrated from Portugal based on your being a Benfiquista. My parents immigrated here from Portugal (Acores), also legally. They are now both US citizens. Don't you think that 99% of those who have immigrated here illegally from Mexico and other countries have done so for the exact same reason your grandparent and my parents did? The only difference is the opportunity involved in coming here legally. My parents came at a time where the borders were more open, and from a country that it's easier to immigrate from, for a number of reasons. If they couldn't come here legally, would my folks have come here illegally? Well, no, because they were in the middle of the damn ocean. But the motivations are the same.
protection from whom? Then you need to tone down your opinion. While you find it valid, it simply does does not hold enough information. It is like a survey of 50 women in Dallas who agree that Bush is a good president and then saying that women, in general, think that Bush is a good president. And FYI, I have worked with many illegals (or those I suspected), with many different problems, and none of them told me they were unwanted. In fact, several said that they saw a better up side to their life in the US than staying home. On how to handle it. It is a drain? If so, how much? Is it a security risk? If so, how much? Is it bringing culture problems/clashes? If so, how much? Is it a strain/problem on the work force/economy? If so, how much? If not, how helpful? No, I was saying that I don't think you have thought your arguement through enough to give you that label. I don't think you are intentionally racist, and I don't think you really hold intentionally racist views. But some of your views are racist, and thus you can get called racist. *shrug* Again, protection from whom? I did not intend to slag off your grandfather and question his belief for this country. I realize that I left out that key phrase of "belief in this country." I understand what you support, but you have provided no help on how you think this pathway should be implemented other than to say you want hard workers and don't want junkies. I really am interested to see how you would qualify somebody to be on this pathway. This leads into the social services direction that was in a previous thread. You need to understand recovery from substance abuse to understand why that analogy doesn't work. You spoke of wanting somebody who is hard working without quantifying or qualifing how somebody meets that standard. It could be a trait that somebody only develops when presented with the correct opportunity. But (assuming your views and opinions become the standard), if you don't explain how somebody is determined to be hard working or not, you are holding those back who do not know how to apply your standard to themselves and prove they are hard working.
This thread repeats the same pattern: A Dannytoone makes some thoughtful comment. B 3 people misunderstand C 3 people make unsubstantiated kneejerk retorts D JeremyEritrea posts a klan picture, proving that he has mastered the internet
I don't know Dannytoone well enough to comment on whether he is misunderstood by posters or not. But he might fare better if he didn't post arguments which are internally inconsistent.
Incorrect. Birthright citizenship was established by the 14th amendment. Matter of fact, if you remember there was an entire race that was denied citizenship while being counted as 3/5 of a person for representation purposes.
Re: Legal immigrants oppose illegal immigration And you're a proper MLS fan. Toone can take his anti-american, euro soccer-loving ass back to Africa.
There's a reason why . Gotta give the woman credit. She gets to the point. And while I disagree with her elitist, racist tone I agree with her sentiment. The works and deeds of mankind are far more impressive and inspirational than any invisible man in the sky or any other cultist hocus pokus.
True, the 13th amendment freed the slaves and 14th Amendment established birthright citizenship for all Americans. However, prior to the Civil War, birthright citizenship did exist for whites, which was a carryover of birthright citizenship as it existed in England at the time of the founding fathes. Thankfully, the Constitution was amended and the Dred Scott decision was overturned.
Re: Legal immigrants oppose illegal immigration Now that you have posted this statement, we can truly callm this the dumbest thread ever. Funny how you think this is the dumbest thread ever yet you post in it quite frequently.
Re: Legal immigrants oppose illegal immigration Jesus man. You come off like a twelve year old with this crap.
Re: Legal immigrants oppose illegal immigration Pedophiles are people who get pleasure from farts, right? Edit: the above makes sense if you speak Spanish, like most of us in California do.