10 million Mexicans

[TomAiello 26]

I think you're missing the distinction.

I don't think he's arguing that folks here legally (in other words, people born here, regardless of their extraction) are the problem. You appear to be setting up a straw man (an argument that citizenship is somehow based on race or ethnic derivation) in order to claim that is his contention. I'm pretty sure it's not, and while your point is valid, it is not on point to the original discussion.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

I think it's time our elected officials listen to the people

Instead of just chasing money? Wouldn't it be nice if they would...

illegible usually

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What makes you so special?

The fact that he's here legally, and in accordance with the current governing law of the land? The fact that he is a citizen? The fact that he was born within the borders of the US (and hence, is a citizen)?

Just a few things that might make him "special". Well that and he's one of the tallest people I've ever met.

As i said, he might be there legally, born and bred. But trace his blood lines back. Somewhere you will find his ancestors who were not born and raised in the States, and who were not there legally. Just because his ancestory have moved on several generations, why should that change the fact that people now want to do exactly what his ancestors did way back when?

Anyone now legal in the States who was born and raised there got lucky. Somewhere, if you trace the family history back, you will find settlers who came over to make a life for themselves. They got in before immigration laws were tightened to the extent they are today. It's nothing short of luck and it will not stop people from trying to have a similar life to the ones anyone lucky enough to be a US citizen wants for themselves and their family.

Now, the argument about whether this is right or wrong is different. All i'm saying is, unless you are 100% blood line Native American, somewhere at some point, your ancestors were immigrants themselves.

__________________________________

I can appreciate what you're saying. If, you go way, way back in history (of the world) I think, you'll find what you say, happened in England and a few other countries too. The fact of the matter is, there is a problem. Our immigration laws were 'tightened' at Ellis Island. Not so much on the Southwest border.


Chuck

[Newbie 0]

Quote

I think you're missing the distinction.

I don't think he's arguing that folks here legally (in other words, people born here, regardless of their extraction) are the problem. You appear to be setting up a straw man (an argument that citizenship is somehow based on race or ethnic derivation) in order to claim that is his contention. I'm pretty sure it's not, and while your point is valid, it is not on point to the original discussion.

I'm not trying to make that point (at least intentionally).
All i'm saying is he states that "our" country is being overrun (when referring to the US). The simple fact is, it was never his to begin with. He has a claim to be a citizen of that place because of a generational move on the part of an ancestor, and that people are always going to want to make a better life for themselves, hence we still see movement and migration of people. He has carved out a slice of life for himself there based on what he now owns, but does he own America? No, he owns a plot of land (i presume), you know, house, yard, maybe business premises etc, but the land itself has been taken from the original inhabitants in the first place anyway.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I think it's time our elected officials listen to the people

Instead of just chasing money? Wouldn't it be nice if they would...

_______________________________

You nailed it, friend! It's all about the money! That is the bottom line and another topic but, it's the bottom line. Who is gonna profit from it.


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I think you're missing the distinction.

I don't think he's arguing that folks here legally (in other words, people born here, regardless of their extraction) are the problem. You appear to be setting up a straw man (an argument that citizenship is somehow based on race or ethnic derivation) in order to claim that is his contention. I'm pretty sure it's not, and while your point is valid, it is not on point to the original discussion.

I'm not trying to make that point (at least intentionally).
All i'm saying is he states that "our" country is being overrun (when referring to the US). The simple fact is, it was never his to begin with. He has a claim to be a citizen of that place because of a generational move on the part of an ancestor, and that people are always going to want to make a better life for themselves, hence we still see movement and migration of people. He has carved out a slice of life for himself there based on what he now owns, but does he own America? No, he owns a plot of land (i presume), you know, house, yard, maybe business premises etc, but the land itself has been taken from the original inhabitants in the first place anyway.

_____________________________________

Ya' know, in all actuality, there were folks here before us and after the Native Americans. What about the French, Spanish, the Norse. California, was settled by the Spanish, long before us. They weren't too kind to the Native Americans either. We can't take all the blame!


Chuck


Chuck

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Quote

I think you're missing the distinction.

I don't think he's arguing that folks here legally (in other words, people born here, regardless of their extraction) are the problem. You appear to be setting up a straw man (an argument that citizenship is somehow based on race or ethnic derivation) in order to claim that is his contention. I'm pretty sure it's not, and while your point is valid, it is not on point to the original discussion.

I'm not trying to make that point (at least intentionally).
All i'm saying is he states that "our" country is being overrun (when referring to the US). The simple fact is, it was never his to begin with. He has a claim to be a citizen of that place because of a generational move on the part of an ancestor, and that people are always going to want to make a better life for themselves, hence we still see movement and migration of people. He has carved out a slice of life for himself there based on what he now owns, but does he own America? No, he owns a plot of land (i presume), you know, house, yard, maybe business premises etc, but the land itself has been taken from the original inhabitants in the first place anyway.

That dog won't hunt neither...

Give it a rest.

illegible usually

[Newbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What makes you so special?

The fact that he's here legally, and in accordance with the current governing law of the land? The fact that he is a citizen? The fact that he was born within the borders of the US (and hence, is a citizen)?

Just a few things that might make him "special". Well that and he's one of the tallest people I've ever met.

As i said, he might be there legally, born and bred. But trace his blood lines back. Somewhere you will find his ancestors who were not born and raised in the States, and who were not there legally. Just because his ancestory have moved on several generations, why should that change the fact that people now want to do exactly what his ancestors did way back when?

Anyone now legal in the States who was born and raised there got lucky. Somewhere, if you trace the family history back, you will find settlers who came over to make a life for themselves. They got in before immigration laws were tightened to the extent they are today. It's nothing short of luck and it will not stop people from trying to have a similar life to the ones anyone lucky enough to be a US citizen wants for themselves and their family.

Now, the argument about whether this is right or wrong is different. All i'm saying is, unless you are 100% blood line Native American, somewhere at some point, your ancestors were immigrants themselves.

__________________________________

I can appreciate what you're saying. If, you go way, way back in history (of the world) I think, you'll find what you say, happened in England and a few other countries too. The fact of the matter is, there is a problem. Our immigration laws were 'tightened' at Ellis Island. Not so much on the Southwest border.


Chuck

It sure did happen here, and still goes on today (at a rate many here think to be unacceptable). I know mass migration of people is a problem, but i think this is a tough cookie to crack, at least if you have compassion towards others not in as fortunate a position as ourselves. After all, if people had turned around to our ancestory when they just wanted to make a better life for themselves and their families and said "tough luck, you can't come here" where would we be today? Yes, things have changed, but motivations and desires of people are still the same.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Ya' know, in all actuality, there were folks here before us and after the Native Americans.

It's kind of tough to pin down who "us" is, though.

The majority of my ancestors immigrated (legally) to the US between 1910 and 1950. It seems reasonable that other people ought to be able to do the same, but it also seems reasonable that those other people ought to abide by the rules in place about how to do that.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Newbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think you're missing the distinction.

I don't think he's arguing that folks here legally (in other words, people born here, regardless of their extraction) are the problem. You appear to be setting up a straw man (an argument that citizenship is somehow based on race or ethnic derivation) in order to claim that is his contention. I'm pretty sure it's not, and while your point is valid, it is not on point to the original discussion.

I'm not trying to make that point (at least intentionally).
All i'm saying is he states that "our" country is being overrun (when referring to the US). The simple fact is, it was never his to begin with. He has a claim to be a citizen of that place because of a generational move on the part of an ancestor, and that people are always going to want to make a better life for themselves, hence we still see movement and migration of people. He has carved out a slice of life for himself there based on what he now owns, but does he own America? No, he owns a plot of land (i presume), you know, house, yard, maybe business premises etc, but the land itself has been taken from the original inhabitants in the first place anyway.

That dog won't hunt neither...

Give it a rest.

yup good points there, thanks for adding to the discussion.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[Newbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Ya' know, in all actuality, there were folks here before us and after the Native Americans.

It's kind of tough to pin down who "us" is, though.

The majority of my ancestors immigrated (legally) to the US between 1910 and 1950. It seems reasonable that other people ought to be able to do the same, but it also seems reasonable that those other people ought to abide by the rules in place about how to do that.

and so we have a paradoxical situation that to me is going to be very hard to resolve (not just in the US, but anywhere people wish to migrate to in large numbers, the UK being another such place)

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[masterrig 1]

Yes, things have changed, but motivations and desires of people are still the same.

[TomAiello 26]

I'm pretty sure the resolution lies in the same place as we try to resolve all those kinds of issues. We elect representatives who create rules governing how immigration occurs.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

I get tired of hearing how they only take the jobs folks in this country won't do.

Absolutely, just take a look at university professors in engineering and science - at least 50% of them are foreign, because Americans just won't take the rotten job. Same is true of scientists in the National Labs. Medical doctors too, just see how many of them are Indian or Chinese.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Newbie 0]

Quote

Yes, things have changed, but motivations and desires of people are still the same.

_________________________________

I agree! But dammit. We can't afford it. I wish I had the answers but, I don't. The world is getting smaller. It all goes back to the original point of this thread. We welcome the hell out of folks who want to live here and make a better life for themselves and their families. Just go through the friggin' legal process for cryin' out loud! It has nothing to do with racism or Native Americans or the Mayflower. It's about the law. Then too, we have terrorism to be concerned with.


Chuck

[EricTheRed 0]

OK a couple of real points for you.

The "native americans" weren't the first people here anyway. Google Kennewick man. There were others first.
Truth is the first "humans" were probably north african so why don't we just have everyone else go somewhere else.

The fact is that people that are citizens (that means they are actually here legally) have the right to say that NON-citizens need to apply to become citizens before they set up shop. There are many reasons to ignore this inconvenient fact but it pretty much comes down to greed.

If the countries that all the mass migrations of people are coming from had sensible policies regarding birth control and family planning, there would be a lot less need for them to migrate in the first place.

Unfortunately, an ever increasing population is required for MOST existing political and religious systems to continue their quest for unlimited growth.

We should close our borders to UNCONTROLLED imigration, deport all illegal aliens, and push other nations to adopt laws that promote family planning.

Try getting elected on that platform though...

illegible usually

[storm1977 0]

Your arguement is fundamentally flawed. If you are a US Citizen... Then you can call the USA "Your" country. You pay taxes and you contribute.
Same in England.

Now..... I am guessing that your ancestors are not Native Brits. Go back far enough and you'll see I am right.

Most austrailians are not native either, but that is England's fault for Dumping their prisinoes there.

So I ask Newbie.... What's your point?

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[kallend 2,034]

No-one would come here illegally if there wasn't an employer willing (wanting) to give them jobs.

Policing the border will never work, it's too long and difficult. Sanctioning employers who employ illegals is the way to go.

Do you like cheap lettuce and avocados, grapes and peaches? If so, then don't complain, you are part of the problem.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Your arguement is fundamentally flawed. If you are a US Citizen... Then you can call the USA "Your" country. You pay taxes and you contribute

Slight nuance: you can be a legal residen alien, still pay taxes and contribute. Can't vote though. (Taxation without representation?)

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Am i missing something in US immigration law which says any Mexican citizen can legally come and settle in the US, they just have to mail in a form etc? (i'm asking seriously, because i do know a bit about US immigration law, but i can't believe it would allow for this, but then i could be completely wrong)

According to 8 CFR 204, they have to file a petition (a formal request) which is then reviewed and denied or approved by the government. It looks like, in general, petitions with good reasons attached (i.e. not just "I want to live there", but "my wife is there and I want to join her" or "I have a job there I want to take") are most likely to be granted.

I don't actually know anything about the process, since I've never had to do it. I do know several people who've gone through the whole thing, and I wouldn't describe it as easy, but then uprooting and moving into another country isn't easy in itself, either.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Newbie 0]

Quote

OK a couple of real points for you.

The "native americans" weren't the first people here anyway. Google Kennewick man. There were others first.
Truth is the first "humans" were probably north african so why don't we just have everyone else go somewhere else.

The fact is that people that are citizens (that means they are actually here legally) have the right to say that NON-citizens need to apply to become citizens before they set up shop. There are many reasons to ignore this inconvenient fact but it pretty much comes down to greed.

If the countries that all the mass migrations of people are coming from had sensible policies regarding birth control and family planning, there would be a lot less need for them to migrate in the first place.

Unfortunately, an ever increasing population is required for MOST existing political and religious systems to continue their quest for unlimited growth.

We should close our borders to UNCONTROLLED imigration, deport all illegal aliens, and push other nations to adopt laws that promote family planning.

Try getting elected on that platform though...

Kennewich man has been completely inconclusive, whereas i don't think anyone is going to argue that the Native American Indian population was here before you and your ancestory (unless of course you are Native Indian).

Greed on who's side? The fact people want a slice of the good life, or the fact that those who were lucky enough to get in before things got locked down on the immigration front now want to shut them out so it's more for themselves?

Policies of birth control? Wow. Not much i can say to that other than if you are going to keyhole people on the fact they want to uproot, maybe leave their families behind in their mother land as many immigrants do, be utterly sad and despondent at this fact, risk their well being and lives and pay a lot of money to some mule just to go work somewhere just so they can get enough money together to pay for their family to have a good life back at home is because they all have 10 kids to feed, well, i don't really know what to say to that other than maybe go ask a few orange sellers why they spend 12 hours a day on the corner, and where their family members are.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...unless of course you are Native Indian..

What about those folks (i.e. much of America) who have mixed ancestry?

I still think the point is not so much about ancestry as about legal status under current law.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelel01 1]

Perhaps it would be about that, if he hadn't singled out Mexicans . . . and called the areas they live in trashy.

This sounds like more of a race and "I don't want Spanish on my ATM" issue than an issue with someone's legal status.

[EricTheRed 0]

So you know, I have. I work with illegals on at least a weekly basis. It's very sad the conditions that they endure in order to try to give themselves a better life but we are subsidizing the poor choices of their governments.

If we allow every person from a third world country free, unrestricted access to our country and continue to provide them with the full range of social services, the US will soon look just like the place that they fled from in the first place.

Where will we go then?

There is nothing wrong with limiting reproduction. The ability to plan when to have children and how many children to have has a direct impact on wealth, health and social stability.
Fix the problem, don't export it.

illegible usually

[Nightingale 0]

I agree that immigrants should immigrate legally. However, I think the US also needs to do its part and make the immigration process more straightforward and streamlined. I've had friends go through the immigration process, and it's a nightmare. If the system was easier to navigate, more people would use it and immigrate legally. Right now, some face the choice of coming here illegally, or waiting sometimes five to ten years to be with their families who are here legally.

Immigrants are going to come in. We've got big borders, and it's virtually impossible to secure them completely. Therefore, I think it's better to make the immigration process easier so we can document more immigrants rather than having so many people here without documentation.