The Wall

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]hectorulises wrote:
I know what Ilegal alien stands for, I just don’t think it’s an appropiate term.[/quote]

Folks that enter our country illegally are illegal. Calling them something that makes you feel warm and fuzzy is what’s wroong with our border situation right now: no one wants to do what needs to be done because it might offend someone.

That’s not what I said. Re-read it and you will find that I said I want to stop the invasion of the smugglers. It has little to do with the drug problem. It has everything to do with the safety, and private property rights of those unfortunate enough to live on the border and who have to face ciminal trespassers on a daily basis.

[quote]I have a suggestion, stop being the first consumer of illegal drugs and pretty soon they’ll stop sending them to you.
And unless you come up with an 30,000 feet wall, the drugs will still pass through the border.[/quote]

A wall will make it much, much harder for criminals to cross ad nauseum. Walls are saving thousands of Israeli lives - I think we could learn a lesson or two from their success.

42

[quote]hectorulises wrote:
Illegal aliens? That’s a pretty harsh term for someone who works twice as much for half the money he gets paid, a pretty harsh term for someone trying to feed his family, not buy him a sports car but feed his children, and I certainly believe that it is a hash term for a fellow human.
[/quote]

Thanks for the perspective. I do, however, disagree on at least one point: illegal aliens is not a harsh term. It is, quite simply, the truth.

Illegal = an act that violates the law. Crossing the border without entering through customs is illegal. Against the law. Period.

Alien = Not a citizen of the United States.

I am certainly in agreement that, as a whole, immigrants tend to be very hard workers. They often take jobs that no one else wants and do them with smiles on their faces.

The problem is this thought that entering illegally is somehow ok. It’s not. We have laws, they should be followed.

43

[quote]rawda wrote:
the jail time would be a good idea, if it weren’t for the fact that they would have a higher standard of living in prison than would’ve had in Mexico. prison time wouldn’t dissuade any of them, unfortunately.[/quote]

Even in Siberia? :slight_smile:

Now seriously, I see your point. However I’m not sure if that’s completely true, especially considering the conditions in SOME of the prisons, and the fact they would be away from their families. I guess it depends what prison we’d send them to, what conditions, and for how long. I’ll readily admit the idea would need a lot of research put into it, but I still believe it would be effective.

44

[quote]PSlave wrote:

I am certainly in agreement that, as a whole, immigrants tend to be very hard workers. They often take jobs that no one else wants and do them with smiles on their faces.

[/quote]

This crap about them doing jobs Americans won’t is bull! Please explain how these job get done in areas of the country where there is a very low to no population of mexicans.

Ah yes, the old only-doing-jobs-Americans-won’t-do talking point.
Americans can sell dope and kill cops just like illegal aliens; as far as construction, fast food etc in other parts of the country yet to be invaded, Americans still do these jobs.
Americans just can’t do them in the occupied zones, because the illegals, competing from a 3rd world economy, have depressed the wages so much that Americans, competing in a 1st world economy, can’t afford to take the jobs that have been stolen.

Another point-so many of them are in low paying jobs, that the taxes they pay would be minimal if at all, not a fraction to offset the cost of education, health care and social services that they leech off the American people.

Simple deduct all medical expenses, etc. from their foreign aid until the balance is zero. Then send a bill! Better yet, keep a running tab for education, health care etc, and send a bill. If they can’t pay it we will take oil in exchange.

The Mexican government doesn’t want to stem the flood of illegals or the money train will derail. The #1 grossing industry for Mexico is American
cash sent back across the border.

45

Here are my thoughts,

If a wall is erected in the southern border then a wall should be placed on the northern border with Canada as well. We should apply the rules evenly across.

The number of undocumented people coming in from Mexico is far less in numbers compared to the people who stay illegally in this country that came thru the airports across the United States and stay and do not go back.

With all due respect to other nationalities, how many Chinese,Vietnamese, Polish, Germans, Filipinos and even Canadians etc. stay illegally in this country? I do not hear our government saying anything about this.

Erecting a wall is fine as long as we are doing it to curve undocumented immigration all across without just targeting one group.

Thanks

D.

46

[quote]dgavilanes wrote:
With all due respect to other nationalities, how many Chinese,Vietnamese, Polish, Germans, Filipinos and even Canadians etc. stay illegally in this country? I do not hear our government saying anything about this.
[/quote]

If you come here through an airport and don’t leave, the DHS is perfectly aware of that. In order to pass the border in an airport, you need to deliver a form called a I-94, which you get to keep a stub of. Until that stub is returned to the DHS – which can only happen with proof that you did leave the country – the DHS knows you’re here. So it’s extremely easy to count those people, and they are an extremely small minority of illegals.

There is absolutely no comparison. By far the majority of illegal immigrants is coming through the border with Mexico, by all estimates.

Most other immigrants come legally, including most Asians, who can easily obtain political asylum status (the validity of which is a completely different discussion).

Unless you’re talking about white slave trade, incoming by ship – but that’s, again, yet another completely different discussion, because those illegal aliens don’t come here by choice.

47

I hope that bush’s CAFTA will ease things , and an extension of NAFTA would be in order to give mexico / central america more jobs.

Also, i don’t know if this is a good decision on our parts for the long term , because how many low-wage jobs does america need? I am not an economist , i don’t know if plumbing construction and the like are undersupplied but i would think that the immigration would eventually solve this.

Its a paradox of civilization that the less succesful ethnic groups breed faster than the more successful ethnic groups, and frequently overtake what was once the majority. Case in point: this is happening in israel right now with the significantly less affluent palestenians reprucing faster than their israeli counterparts within israel. This specific example will one day force israel to settle with the palestenians and give up a lot more than what they would have if they could have found a way to keep them out but that is another thread altogether. Anyway, hispanics are great dont get me wrong, but i don’t know if it will be a good thing for texas to be 40% hispanic which has been projected by 2040 or 2050.

This will bring down our tax base…ect ect so i think the best solution for everybody would be to find a way to give them more jobs.

I would also ( seriously ) look at cocaine consumption in canada, US, mexico and latin america , perhaps columbia and mexico are spending too much to stop the trade and legalization may be in order on a cost-benefit type of basis.

This post isn’t meant to contradict the ones that i made earlier but i do have mixed feeling about this subject.

48

[quote]dgavilanes wrote:
Here are my thoughts,

If a wall is erected in the southern border then a wall should be placed on the northern border with Canada as well. We should apply the rules evenly across. [/quote]

Illogical statement. This is not about the northern boarder, it is about the southern boarder, and these boarders are completely different issues. The southern boarder is more then overwhelmed with people trying to get across. People to the north generally try to come here legally. Also it is not as easy as you might think to get across the northern boarder. [quote]

The number of undocumented people coming in from Mexico is far less in numbers compared to the people who stay illegally in this country that came thru the airports across the United States and stay and do not go back. [/quote]

Where exactly do you get this statistic? I don’t believe it is true. I do know people overstay, but I doubt this is comparable to 10 million from the southern boarder.

[quote]
With all due respect to other nationalities, how many Chinese,Vietnamese, Polish, Germans, Filipinos and even Canadians etc. stay illegally in this country? I do not hear our government saying anything about this. [/quote]

Actually America does catch illegal aliens from other countries. Just because it does not make the news does not mean it doesn’t happen. [quote]

Erecting a wall is fine as long as we are doing it to curve undocumented immigration all across without just targeting one group. [/quote]

Agree fully.

Your welcome.

49

Here’s an interesting article in the WaPo about how local communities are attempting to target illegal immigrants: playing with the housing code and restricting “unrelated” people who are living together.

50

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Here’s an interesting article in the WaPo about how local communities are attempting to target illegal immigrants: playing with the housing code and restricting “unrelated” people who are living together.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/27/AR2005122701216.html[/quote]

Man-asses? People want to live in Man-asses?

Ok, seriously, I really cannot agree with the idea of the government deciding whether people are allowed to live together if they are not immediately related.

Regardless of intention, this really is none of their business. I doubt it could stand up in court as constitutional.

51

[quote]The Mage wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Here’s an interesting article in the WaPo about how local communities are attempting to target illegal immigrants: playing with the housing code and restricting “unrelated” people who are living together.

Man-asses? People want to live in Man-asses?

Ok, seriously, I really cannot agree with the idea of the government deciding whether people are allowed to live together if they are not immediately related.

Regardless of intention, this really is none of their business. I doubt it could stand up in court as constitutional.
[/quote]

It’s isn’t even about not being constitutional, it is simply plain wrong. Growing up, many of my friends who were asian lived in houses with many relatives from grandparents to aunts and uncles.

One close friend I had in high school from Cuba lived the same way. They are now saying you can’t live with your family or people you care about? It’s retarded and shows just how racist some people are.

That shit has nothing to do with targeting illegal immigrants. It is simply the act of those in power during that situation trying to control others they see as “unequal”.

It used to be largely a black concern to be denied housing in certain areas before civil rights helped change it. What is the deal with people hating others to this degree? Is it genetic?

52

[quote]Professor X wrote:

One close friend I had in high school from Cuba lived the same way. They are now saying you can’t live with your family or people you care about? It’s retarded and shows just how racist some people are.

That shit has nothing to do with targeting illegal immigrants. It is simply the act of those in power during that situation trying to control others they see as “unequal”.

It used to be largely a black concern to be denied housing in certain areas before civil rights helped change it. What is the deal with people hating others to this degree? Is it genetic?[/quote]

It’s only racist if they don’t apply it to all races evenly. I know a bunch of white-trash rednecks that would be forced to move under a law like this. Hell, both my mom and dad would have been forced to move as kids under a law like this.

In college I rented a two bedroom townhouse with 12 other guys. It’s a stupid law, not a racist one.

One the other side, if I bought a house that I couldn’t sell because all of the other houses in the neighborhood soon each had 30 illegal immigrants living in it, I’d be pretty pissed. Even if they were illegal Swedish immigrants.

53

[quote]doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:

One close friend I had in high school from Cuba lived the same way. They are now saying you can’t live with your family or people you care about? It’s retarded and shows just how racist some people are.

That shit has nothing to do with targeting illegal immigrants. It is simply the act of those in power during that situation trying to control others they see as “unequal”.

It used to be largely a black concern to be denied housing in certain areas before civil rights helped change it. What is the deal with people hating others to this degree? Is it genetic?

It’s only racist if they don’t apply it to all races evenly. I know a bunch of white-trash rednecks that would be forced to move under a law like this. Hell, both my mom and dad would have been forced to move as kids under a law like this.

In college I rented a two bedroom townhouse with 12 other guys. It’s a stupid law, not a racist one.

One the other side, if I bought a house that I couldn’t sell because all of the other houses in the neighborhood soon each had 30 illegal immigrants living in it, I’d be pretty pissed. Even if they were illegal Swedish immigrants.
[/quote]

Bullshit. It is racist or at the very least “culturalist”. Living with your extended family is probably only seen as strange here in the United States and possibly in the UK. Everywhere else, it would be common.

It means someone sat down at home and thought to themselves that this would be a good idea. What do think the goal was? Because living with your uncle is a negative to the housing structure? The foundation cracks if your grandmother moves in with you?

I am amazed at how easily some people write of blatant instances of bias as if it isn’t so. How could anyone possibly look at this and NOT think it was biased?

54

Also, as far as this:

[quote]doogie wrote:
One the other side, if I bought a house that I couldn’t sell because all of the other houses in the neighborhood soon each had 30 illegal immigrants living in it, I’d be pretty pissed. Even if they were illegal Swedish immigrants.
[/quote]

How would know who was illegal or not without investigating them? You can guess, but you can’t look at someone and immediately tell if they are here illegally or not which means you wouldn’t be able to sell your home because of racism in the community or in the people who might want to buy it.

Just to add, if you replace “30 illegal immigrants” with “black people”, you would have to be an idiot to not see the issue with it.

55

[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:

One close friend I had in high school from Cuba lived the same way. They are now saying you can’t live with your family or people you care about? It’s retarded and shows just how racist some people are.

That shit has nothing to do with targeting illegal immigrants. It is simply the act of those in power during that situation trying to control others they see as “unequal”.

It used to be largely a black concern to be denied housing in certain areas before civil rights helped change it. What is the deal with people hating others to this degree? Is it genetic?

It’s only racist if they don’t apply it to all races evenly. I know a bunch of white-trash rednecks that would be forced to move under a law like this. Hell, both my mom and dad would have been forced to move as kids under a law like this.

In college I rented a two bedroom townhouse with 12 other guys. It’s a stupid law, not a racist one.

One the other side, if I bought a house that I couldn’t sell because all of the other houses in the neighborhood soon each had 30 illegal immigrants living in it, I’d be pretty pissed. Even if they were illegal Swedish immigrants.

Bullshit. It is racist or at the very least “culturalist”. Living with your extended family is probably only seen as strange here in the United States and possibly in the UK. Everywhere else, it would be common.

It means someone sat down at home and thought to themselves that this would be a good idea. What do think the goal was? Because living with your uncle is a negative to the housing structure? The foundation cracks if your grandmother moves in with you?

I am amazed at how easily some people write of blatant instances of bias as if it isn’t so. How could anyone possibly look at this and NOT think it was biased? [/quote]

You said it was racist. It’s not.

Now you are arguing it’s biased. It is.

You wrote, “Living with your extended family is probably only seen as strange here in the United States and possibly in the UK.” This is an American law, though. Just like we don’t let the grocery stores sell dog meat. It’s biased towards American culture.

56

[quote]doogie wrote:
You said it was racist. It’s not.

Now you are arguing it’s biased. It is.

You wrote, “Living with your extended family is probably only seen as strange here in the United States and possibly in the UK.” This is an American law, though. Just like we don’t let the grocery stores sell dog meat. It’s biased towards American culture.
[/quote]

Since when is living with your grandmother biased towards American Culture? I had two frat brothers with fucked up credit who lived with me for 2 months until they got back on their feet. This is against American Culture? Do you even check the bullshit you type before you hit “submit”?

57

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, as far as this:

doogie wrote:
One the other side, if I bought a house that I couldn’t sell because all of the other houses in the neighborhood soon each had 30 illegal immigrants living in it, I’d be pretty pissed. Even if they were illegal Swedish immigrants.

How would know who was illegal or not without investigating them? You can guess, but you can’t look at someone and immediately tell if they are here illegally or not which means you wouldn’t be able to sell your home because of racism in the community or in the people who might want to buy it.

Just to add, if you replace “30 illegal immigrants” with “black people”, you would have to be an idiot to not see the issue with it. [/quote]

Did you really just write, “replace ‘30 illegal immigrants’ with ‘black people’” in order to show racism? The two aren’t equivalent.
Illegal immigrants=criminals.
Black people=American citizens.

You try so hard to find racism in everything, that I honestly pity you. I’m not saying racism doesn’t exist, because it certainly does. I see it every day (and I know you experience every day). What kills me is that you seem to LOOK for racism everywhere. That has to be a shitty way to go through life.

No black Smurfs=racism
Red light made you late for work=racism
Bread was stale=racism

58

[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
You said it was racist. It’s not.

Now you are arguing it’s biased. It is.

You wrote, “Living with your extended family is probably only seen as strange here in the United States and possibly in the UK.” This is an American law, though. Just like we don’t let the grocery stores sell dog meat. It’s biased towards American culture.

Since when is living with your grandmother biased towards American Culture? I had two frat brothers with fucked up credit who lived with me for 2 months until they got back on their feet. This is against American Culture? Do you even check the bullshit you type before you hit “submit”?[/quote]

Who’s the ignorant motherfucker who wrote, “Living with your extended family is probably only seen as strange here in the United States and possibly in the UK.”? Oh, it was you.

Edit: Clearly it’s a classist thing. I just went with your statement. Anyway, I’m leaving for my New Year’s trip. Happy New Year.

59

[quote]doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
You said it was racist. It’s not.

Now you are arguing it’s biased. It is.

You wrote, “Living with your extended family is probably only seen as strange here in the United States and possibly in the UK.” This is an American law, though. Just like we don’t let the grocery stores sell dog meat. It’s biased towards American culture.

Since when is living with your grandmother biased towards American Culture? I had two frat brothers with fucked up credit who lived with me for 2 months until they got back on their feet. This is against American Culture? Do you even check the bullshit you type before you hit “submit”?

Who’s the ignorant motherfucker who wrote, “Living with your extended family is probably only seen as strange here in the United States and possibly in the UK.”? Oh, it was you.[/quote]

And ME write “probably” in front of that which implies that some don’t see it as strange. Many people in this country live with extended family members…however, there is probably a large chance that most of them are from families that have not been in this country for very many generations.

Do you honestly think that housing code was written without the goal of avoiding giving housing to “certain people”? That is what was being explained to you before about institutionalized racism and how it can skirt the law.

All they have to do is make a “non-racist” rule that mostly affects people of a particular race in that community and instantly you have a “non-racist” racist housing rule.

60

ProfX, you are missing the point.

Any time a racist policy can be hidden within non-racist language, it’s seen as a win, because it is ultimately defensible.

Sort of like the concept of reverse discrimination.

So, if laws can target immigrants, but they can be worded in ways that don’t mention those groups in any way, because they have behaviors that can be targeted, then you have laws that are not written based on race.

Wink wink nudge nudge. Stop trying to upset the apple cart.