Why as a rule do we oppose immigration?

Constitutional Sheepdog · May 14, 2016

TheResister said:
Yes, they do. They legislate from the bench and they even say "we are making new law."

Is it what the founding fathers intended? No. Is it constitutional by your standards or mine? I'm guessing no. But, what I'm telling you is reality. A statute can mean one thing today and the complete polar opposite the very next day. And, nobody, not even Jesus himself, has disputed the Supreme Court's claim to be the final arbiter of what the law is in the 213 years the practice has been going on.

OMG didn't you claim to be a preamble citizen Congress creates laws the president executes those laws and the courts ensures their constitutionality civics 101

TheResister · May 14, 2016

Constitutional Sheepdog said:
OMG didn't you claim to be a preamble citizen Congress creates laws the president executes those laws and the courts ensures their constitutionality civics 101

Yes, I am a Preamble Citizen. But you and I are in a big yard with rabid dogs. It doesn't make sense to up against a bigger opponent without a strategy to wear that opponent down and beat them at their own game.

Constitutional Sheepdog · May 14, 2016

TheResister said:
Yes, I am a Preamble Citizen. But you and I are in a big yard with rabid dogs. It doesn't make sense to up against a bigger opponent without a strategy to wear that opponent down and beat them at their own game.

Just in case you didn't notice I am a dog I've been on the inside of government. Former cop now a Constitutional Sheepdog.

The Sage of Main Street · May 14, 2016

TheResister said:
I agree with you in theory; however, in 1803 the United States Supreme Court decided that they (not we, the people) were the final arbiters of what the law is in a case called Marbury v. Madison. In effect, the High Court claimed to be the most powerful branch of government.

In practice NOBODY has ever challenged the Supreme Court's claim. So, the way all this works is that courts interpret the law. If you don't like the current holdings when you go to court, you can appeal to a higher court. Let's put this on a federal level since we're talking federal law here.

You don't agree with the law, so you challenge it. You may have to break a law just to be able to do so. So, you go to federal court and lose. Your next step is to take your case to a federal appeals court. Whatever the previous decisions interpreting the law will be enforced there. So, you still don't like the answer you get... so you go to the United States Supreme Court. The answer you get there is one that is like saying the buck stops here.

The legislature cannot overturn the United States Supreme Court barring a treaty or a constitutional amendment. The president can't do it; the voters can't do it. If that's all it took, some of the bad laws on the books would be gone.

I'm telling you what the law is. Politicians can afford to lie to you. They can give you false promises of hope. I can only tell you what the law says in the real world. Having watched many of my friends end up dead, in prison, or working on the opposite side after ignoring sound counsel, I simply refuse to tell you what you want to hear when the costs are so high.

What's Good for the Goosestepper Is Good for the Gander

If fascist SCROTUS could arbitrarily declare judicial supremacy, why can't Congress arbitrarily repeal it? The Court's self-serving decision is obviously not authorized in the Constitution or they would have exercised it between 1789 and 1803.

The Sage of Main Street · May 14, 2016

TheResister said:
Yes, they do. They legislate from the bench and they even say "we are making new law."

Is it what the founding fathers intended? No. Is it constitutional by your standards or mine? I'm guessing no. But, what I'm telling you is reality. A statute can mean one thing today and the complete polar opposite the very next day. And, nobody, not even Jesus himself, has disputed the Supreme Court's claim to be the final arbiter of what the law is in the 213 years the practice has been going on.

Status Quo Is Being Given Too Much Status

Just because no one with any power has had the guts to challenge SCROTUS's nine-person dictatorship does not ratify it; it only shows what cowards this anti-democratic form of government turns us into.

TheResister · May 14, 2016

The Sage of Main Street said:
What's Good for the Goosestepper Is Good for the Gander

If fascist SCROTUS could arbitrarily declare judicial supremacy, why can't Congress arbitrarily repeal it? The Court's self-serving decision is obviously not authorized in the Constitution or they would have exercised it between 1789 and 1803.

I didn't say Congress couldn't say stop to the SCOTUS. I said they haven't. Think about it. Why couldn't Congress step in every time the court reverses itself and declare a SCOTUS ruling illegal? It's kind of idiotic to say a statute means one thing today and the opposite tomorrow. It's a question we should be asking on talk radio and to our elected politicians.

The Sage of Main Street · May 15, 2016

TheResister said:
I didn't say Congress couldn't say stop to the SCOTUS. I said they haven't. Think about it. Why couldn't Congress step in every time the court reverses itself and declare a SCOTUS ruling illegal? It's kind of idiotic to say a statute means one thing today and the opposite tomorrow. It's a question we should be asking on talk radio and to our elected politicians.

Three Branches of the Same Poison Oak

It's a charade. SCROTUS is just another layer of the united Establishment's tyranny over the majority. At the country club, they laugh at us suckers for believing their judicial partners protect us, the people.

TheResister · May 15, 2016

The Sage of Main Street said:
Three Branches of the Same Poison Oak

It's a charade. SCROTUS is just another layer of the united Establishment's tyranny over the majority. At the country club, they laugh at us suckers for believing their judicial partners protect us, the people.

The United States Supreme Court is made up of nine robed lawyers that like to play God. If I'm not mistaken, ALL of them belong to the American Bar Association... which is the most liberal organization in the United States.

Nobody dares cross them, but for all intents and purposes, what they say IS the law. In the short term, you have to plan your strategies around their rulings and try to avoid ever doing anything that may end up in the judicial branch of government. A secondary strategy is just what you and I are doing - questioning their misuse of the Court.

reason10 · Jun 10, 2016

Adam Somlec said:
I am absolutely serious at my question. I'm really curious those who's opposed to immigration.. Why? I may somehow understand why Europeans would be opposed to immigration but if you are an American, I don't understand it. You know, since America is " a melting pot" being cooked in immigration sauce. Explain me your position.

Nobody is opposed to immigration. There is a nice long line of immigrants waiting their turn to come into this country LEGALLY.

I have no problem with this whatsoever.

TheResister · Jun 10, 2016

reason10 said:
Nobody is opposed to immigration. There is a nice long line of immigrants waiting their turn to come into this country LEGALLY.

I have no problem with this whatsoever.

When you aren't spewing B.S. and expletives, you're presuming that most people are idiots. Your responses don't impress me.

The anti-immigrant lobby claims that they want people to come here "legally" and they make sure to capitalize it, bold it, etc. In law, the coming here part is not about "legal" or "illegal" (sic.) The statute deals with proper entry. And hell no, I'm nobody's liberal for pointing this out. I'm someone that will point out what the founding fathers said relative to this strategy that has failed the anti-immigrant lobby:

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

–Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)

Let's be frank. reason10 gets on this board and lies to you while pretending to call me out... even insinuating that I'm a liberal. The fact is reason10 has endorsed the most massive spending spree in American history, resulting in TRILLIONS of dollars spent to supposedly solve a problem and after the money has been spent and Liberties LOST, reason10 thinks that is going to hide the inconsistent thinking the anti-immigrant lobby is saddled with.

You see, in the fantasies of reason10, IF we could deport the foreigners, the right would somehow, magically come out in droves and protest any effort to bring them back. But, Donald Trump is a billionaire. He didn't make his money not knowing how wealth is created. So, while he's promised a fence and all that B.S. he has said that after deportation, the foreigners will be back. He's going to let them back in.

So what? They come back "legally" and then get forced into citizenship, only to vote the anti-immigrant lobby out of existence. All of this B.S. over a piece of flipping paper and human registration??? If the anti-immigrant lobby had a constitutionalist among them, they'd be worried about the National ID, 24 / 7 / 365 surveillance, and the lost liberties they are adding to their list of accomplishments. reason10 needs to know a little secret: Even if you could deport a few of the millions here, he and I will be pushing up daisies and there will be more and more Hisanics in this country - unless the anti-immigrant lobby changes course.

IF this were about taxes, reason10 would have joined the constitutionalists and patriots when they were so close to victory in getting the Sixteenth Amendment repealed. It's not. That's why he has to lace his comments with crap he would NEVER say to my face and lie more than any politician in Washington Wonderland District of Corruption.

Liquid Reigns · Jun 10, 2016

TheResister said:
When you aren't spewing B.S. and expletives, you're presuming that most people are idiots. Your responses don't impress me.

Your claims show your ignorance. SMFH

The anti-immigrant lobby claims that they want people to come here "legally" and they make sure to capitalize it, bold it, etc. In law, the coming here part is not about "legal" or "illegal" (sic.) The statute deals with proper entry. And hell no, I'm nobody's liberal for pointing this out. I'm someone that will point out what the founding fathers said relative to this strategy that has failed the anti-immigrant lobby:

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

–Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)

8USC1325 deals with IMPROPER ENTRY, not proper entry. Funny how you never seem to comprehend the founders quotes. Why do you think the US is at war with countries that oppress their people?

Let's be frank. reason10 gets on this board and lies to you while pretending to call me out... even insinuating that I'm a liberal. The fact is reason10 has endorsed the most massive spending spree in American history, resulting in TRILLIONS of dollars spent to supposedly solve a problem and after the money has been spent and Liberties LOST, reason10 thinks that is going to hide the inconsistent thinking the anti-immigrant lobby is saddled with.

Claiming someone is lying when they show your claims to be fallacious and incorrect doesn't bode well for you. Making claims of things that are in fact Liberal talking points doesn't make you out to be anything other than a Liberal. You haven't shown any Liberties of the US Citizen to have been lost. SMFH

You see, in the fantasies of reason10, IF we could deport the foreigners, the right would somehow, magically come out in droves and protest any effort to bring them back. But, Donald Trump is a billionaire. He didn't make his money not knowing how wealth is created. So, while he's promised a fence and all that B.S. he has said that after deportation, the foreigners will be back. He's going to let them back in.

He has said that they could apply for re-entry from their home nation, that doesn't mandate that hey be let back in. Sure, some will be allowed back, but it won't be any significant number.

So what? They come back "legally" and then get forced into citizenship, only to vote the anti-immigrant lobby out of existence. All of this B.S. over a piece of flipping paper and human registration??? If the anti-immigrant lobby had a constitutionalist among them, they'd be worried about the National ID, 24 / 7 / 365 surveillance, and the lost liberties they are adding to their list of accomplishments. reason10 needs to know a little secret: Even if you could deport a few of the millions here, he and I will be pushing up daisies and there will be more and more Hisanics in this country - unless the anti-immigrant lobby changes course.

Why are they "forced" into citizenship? Citizenship is a choice they would be able to make at that point, they are never forced to become citizens. This is your hyperbolic stupidity. You haven't shown not one liberty as having been lost, yet you keep exclaiming this utter stupidity. The rest is hyperbole. :YAWN:

IF

Click to expand...

The biggest word in life, if you had the first clue about anything of which you speak, you wouldn't be here exclaiming activism BS.

this were about taxes, reason10 would have joined the constitutionalists and patriots when they were so close to victory in getting the Sixteenth Amendment repealed. It's not. That's why he has to lace his comments with crap he would NEVER say to my face and lie more than any politician in Washington Wonderland District of Corruption.

The Tax Protestors were never close to any victory. SMFH The 16th will never be repealed, just like the 13th, 14th, and 15th were all ratified at their time. watfuknmoron

georgephillip · Jun 11, 2016

Adam Somlec said:
I am absolutely serious at my question. I'm really curious those who's opposed to immigration.. Why? I may somehow understand why Europeans would be opposed to immigration but if you are an American, I don't understand it. You know, since America is " a melting pot" being cooked in immigration sauce. Explain me your position.

What if...
"Free Migration Could Double the Economy"
https://fee.org/articles/how-free-migration-could-double-the-economy/
"Great libertarian thinkers such as Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises believed that the free movement of people (labor) across borders is desirable in the same way that the free trade of goods and capital is desirable.

"Both labor and capital should not be hindered from relocating to areas in which they can be most productively used. As Mises wrote in his influential book Liberalism, 'There cannot be the slightest doubt that migration barriers diminish the productivity of human labor.'”

It's counterintuitive to suggest, as an expert in this link does, that ending government restrictions on the movement of labor could increase global income by 100%, but is it possible?

TheResister · Jun 11, 2016

georgephillip said:
What if...
"Free Migration Could Double the Economy"
https://fee.org/articles/how-free-migration-could-double-the-economy/
"Great libertarian thinkers such as Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises believed that the free movement of people (labor) across borders is desirable in the same way that the free trade of goods and capital is desirable.

"Both labor and capital should not be hindered from relocating to areas in which they can be most productively used. As Mises wrote in his influential book Liberalism, 'There cannot be the slightest doubt that migration barriers diminish the productivity of human labor.'”

It's counterintuitive to suggest, as an expert in this link does, that ending government restrictions on the movement of labor could increase global income by 100%, but is it possibly correct?

For a decade and a half I have debated and argued with the anti-immigrant lobby over this very point.

People crossing the border in order to take advantage of jobs willingly offered and do business - as GUESTS - is very profitable. It takes people with little common sense to muck it up.

The anti-immigrant lobby only sees citizenship as a way to get into the United States. Of course, they use this silly "house" analogy and talk and that you have to protect your home from people, etc.

Taken a step further, the anti-immigrant would force their daughter to marry the first guy that stepped onto the porch to ask her out on a date because becoming part of the family is the only way they see of people interacting.

The anti-immigrants cannot see how a GUEST could come here, work, earn money and then leave without becoming a citizen.

georgephillip · Jun 11, 2016

TheResister said:
For a decade and a half I have debated and argued with the anti-immigrant lobby over this very point.

People crossing the border in order to take advantage of jobs willingly offered and do business - as GUESTS - is very profitable. It takes people with little common sense to muck it up

It seems counterintuitive, at least, to suggest abolishing borders could make all workers richer. Not unlike David Ricardo's argument concerning comparative advantage?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Ricardo.27s_example
"In a famous example, Ricardo considers a world economy consisting of two countries,Portugal and England, which produce two goods of identical quality. In Portugal, the a priori more efficient country, it is possible to produce wine and cloth with less labor than it would take to produce the same quantities in England. However, the relative costs of producing those two goods differ between the countries.

Hours of work necessary to produce one unit
Country Cloth Wine
England 100 120
Portugal 90 80
In this illustration, England could commit 100 hours of labor to produce one unit of cloth, or produce {\displaystyle {\frac {5}{6}}}

units of wine. Meanwhile, in comparison, Portugal could commit 90 hours of labor to produce one unit of cloth, or produce {\displaystyle {\frac {9}{8}}}

units of wine. So, Portugal possesses an absolute advantage in producing cloth due to fewer labor hours, and England has acomparative advantage due to lower opportunity cost."

TheResister · Jun 11, 2016

georgephillip said:
It seems counterintuitive, at least, to suggest abolishing borders could make all workers richer. Not unlike David Ricardo's argument concerning comparative advantage?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Ricardo.27s_example
"In a famous example, Ricardo considers a world economy consisting of two countries,Portugal and England, which produce two goods of identical quality. In Portugal, the a priori more efficient country, it is possible to produce wine and cloth with less labor than it would take to produce the same quantities in England. However, the relative costs of producing those two goods differ between the countries.

Hours of work necessary to produce one unit
Country Cloth Wine
England 100 120
Portugal 90 80
In this illustration, England could commit 100 hours of labor to produce one unit of cloth, or produce {\displaystyle {\frac {5}{6}}}

units of wine. Meanwhile, in comparison, Portugal could commit 90 hours of labor to produce one unit of cloth, or produce {\displaystyle {\frac {9}{8}}}

units of wine. So, Portugal possesses an absolute advantage in producing cloth due to fewer labor hours, and England has acomparative advantage due to lower opportunity cost."

I'm not going to imply, suggest or be coy about what I know to be a reality.

Foreigners are here because it is profitable for business. Let me explain, in some simple terms how wealth is created by using an example:

I have a few jobs (gigs) for people to do. Even the big box guys say I can save money by farming it out rather than get them to do it. So I advertise on Craigslist.

The guy working out of his van wants the same price that the big box guy does. So, let's say I end up hiring day laborers. True, an American didn't get the job, but it's mostly because they don't want it. The guy who wants to be an entrepreneur wants big box dollars and he hasn't been in business long; doesn't have advertising overhead; many don't have insurance; their warranty (if any) is questionable.

If I pay the big box guys big dollars, they blow most of the money buying foreign vehicles, junk made in China, etc. If I save the money and use el cheapo labor, my house is worth more $$$$$ and that is good for me. But, wait. When I borrow against that house, it is worth more money AND the bank holds it as collateral. Under fractional reserve banking, the bank can loan out FOUR dollars for every one they hold in assets. That's good for the economy.

From a wealth perspective, it's a win / win. That equation might not exist if I'm paying a guy in a van about the same money a surgeon makes per hour just to do manual labor. Getting better wages for American workers is a separate subject, but we can address it elsewhere if you like.

That doesn't mean that immigration is good or benefits the worker. But, it's profitable and that is why the anti-immigrant lobby is losing on that point.

Liquid Reigns · Jun 11, 2016

TheResister said:
I'm not going to imply, suggest or be coy about what I know to be a reality.

LMFAO

Foreigners are here because it is profitable for business.

It's also profitable for the illegal all the while it costs the tax payer.

Let me explain, in some simple terms how wealth is created by using an example:

I have a few jobs (gigs) for people to do. Even the big box guys say I can save money by farming it out rather than get them to do it. So I advertise on Craigslist.

The guy working out of his van wants the same price that the big box guy does. So, let's say I end up hiring day laborers. True, an American didn't get the job, but it's mostly because they don't want it. The guy who wants to be an entrepreneur wants big box dollars and he hasn't been in business long; doesn't have advertising overhead; many don't have insurance; their warranty (if any) is questionable.

How do you know those day laborers are illegally here or are foreigners? So do day laborers have a warranty on their work? You seem to be more worried about your labor costs than anything else.

If I pay the big box guys big dollars, they blow most of the money buying foreign vehicles, junk made in China, etc. If I save the money and use el cheapo labor, my house is worth more $$$$$ and that is good for me. But, wait. When I borrow against that house, it is worth more money AND the bank holds it as collateral. Under fractional reserve banking, the bank can loan out FOUR dollars for every one they hold in assets. That's good for the economy.

Wow, assume much? Big box contractors will buy the very same stuff you will buy from your local big box Home Improvement Store. LMFAO

You are assuming those day laborers and you telling them how to do what you want is going to be both correct and pass inspection. Assuming your house is worth more money after the fact, what happens if that work then becomes problematic? Now you are out more money and your house just plummeted in value.

From a wealth perspective, it's a win / win. That equation might not exist if I'm paying a guy in a van about the same money a surgeon makes per hour just to do manual labor. Getting better wages for American workers is a separate subject, but we can address it elsewhere if you like.

Its only an assumed win/win, you get to pay as little as possible taking a very big chance that the workers work is up to code. You don't seem to understand how wages are figured.

That doesn't mean that immigration is good or benefits the worker. But, it's profitable and that is why the anti-immigrant lobby is losing on that point.

Its not profitable but only to you and that individual laborer that you hired. Your profit is in question until the work passes inspection and is shown to be up to code or the worker comes back and sues you for health reasons or that you failed to pay him what laborers doing that work actually make, which is why there are contract laws and business laws which all require licensing and insurances.

georgephillip · Jun 11, 2016

TheResister said:
That doesn't mean that immigration is good or benefits the worker. But, it's profitable and that is why the anti-immigrant lobby is losing on that point.

Does that mean migration barriers diminish the productivity of human labor?

"To illustrate this point, consider the differences in productivity between the United States and Mexico.

"The United States is much more productive than Mexico and, consequently, has five times more income per person.

"It's not just that the United States has better educated or more skilled workers, although it does. Rather, the capital, institutions, and infrastructure makes the same workers much more productive simply by being in a different place.

"Identical workers will earn more than 3.8 times as much in the US as in Mexico. Yemenese and Nigerian workers would earn about 14 times as much as in the US. Haitians would earn more than 23 times as much."

https://fee.org/articles/how-free-migration-could-double-the-economy/

maverickldr · Aug 18, 2017

TheResister said:
Jen,

I spent six years working in immigration law. Prior to that I was actually a guy that went to patrol the border and worked on the anti-immigrant side for many years. Having been on all sides of the issues, it seems that it might be the subject yours truly understands - and I can't say that about other subjects people have attacked me over.

Here is the REAL issue:

The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

When the Declaration of Independence was penned, there were no American citizens. Yet the Founding Fathers proclaimed that all men have unalienable Rights. An unalienable Right is not given by government; it is above the law; no mortal man can give you an unalienable Right; mortal man cannot take the Right.

The usual plan of attack by the anti-immigrant forces is to try and convince you that the Declaration of Independence is not law; however it is at the head of the United States Code Annotated... which happens to be the official laws of the United States. While it may not be a "law" like a court case, statute, or regulation, it is law. The United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."
Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

Are you with me so far?

We discuss "illegal immigration" as if to imply people are criminals. In American jurisprudence, they are not. Improper Entry is a civil violation of federal law, but it is not a crime. Furthermore, the candidates on both sides of the political spectrum now accept that as legal fact, so it is NOT my personal opinion.

Yet, the anti-immigrant lobby is willing to spend upward of a TRILLION DOLLARS to build a gigantic wall around the U.S. when ALL of the politicians (especially Donald Trump) have no intention of prohibiting people from being in the United States. All we hear is the constant crowing about "illegal immigration." At best, the people are complaining because some people do not have human registration papers.

And so, it's not about immigrants being here, it's all about creating the ultimate POLICE STATE wherein people are put under surveillance, monitored (24 / 7 / 365), scrutinized, and their every movement evaluated and regulated by tyrants. People are in love with a POLICE STATE.

In case you're wondering about my personal agenda, it goes back to the 1980s when patriots were handing the feds one defeat after another. You see, the income tax could not be enforced as it was voluntary and the way you "volunteered," was to get a Socialist Surveillance Number... oooops. "Social(ist) Security Number." Then all the hoopla was created over so - called "illegal immigration" and Preamble Citizens were FORCED to get an SSN and National ID Card which gave the illegally adopted 16th Amendment new teeth.

We're urinating away our unalienable Rights and those pushing the nutty wall idea (while harping on so - called "illegal immigration") cannot articulate a coherent argument for the wall... which again is not intended to keep anyone out, but just to force them into having human registration papers. And that means the government wants to reduce YOU to statutory slavery because if the immigrant has to have papers, so do you.

Woolleybugger · Aug 19, 2017

The Sage of Main Street said:
Only Those Who Built It Can Build It Up

California would be livable if the increase was caused by a higher birthrate among native-born Americans. That would indicate that we are a nation that believes in having a future.

Unfortunately, you are dead wrong. We would still have the same over population issues even if every one of the 37 million were like you or I. My only real issue with the illegal immigration issue is population control. Other than that, I am sympathetic to all these good people who want a better life and come here to work their asses off to get it. We need to grasp a fundamental truth about carrying capacity and quality of life. We cannot grow forever can we?

Acurite · Jan 15, 2019

Adam Somlec said:
I am absolutely serious at my question. I'm really curious those who's opposed to immigration.. Why? I may somehow understand why Europeans would be opposed to immigration but if you are an American, I don't understand it. You know, since America is " a melting pot" being cooked in immigration sauce. Explain me your position.

Woolleybugger said:
Unfortunately, you are dead wrong. We would still have the same over population issues even if every one of the 37 million were like you or I. My only real issue with the illegal immigration issue is population control. Other than that, I am sympathetic to all these good people who want a better life and come here to work their asses off to get it. We need to grasp a fundamental truth about carrying capacity and quality of life. We cannot grow forever can we?

First of all America is no longer a melting pot as in the majority of immigrants now be they legal or illegal ( most are illegal) do not assimiilate no where near the level that we could still claim America is a melting pot as it was for a long time....up until 1965 when LBJ engineered a new immigration policy into effect.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/immigration-act-1965/408409/

I think there is more confusion about immigration than just about any other topic of great importance in America today.

Very few have ever even heard of the radical immigration bill of 1965.....at least on most of the boards I have been on and I have been on a lot t of them.

In a nutshell...LBJ's new and radical immigration law of 1965 changed who we favored as immigrants. Before the new law we favored Europeans....ya know people like us....caucasian, with a similar level of intelligence, educated, with job skills, in good health and a similar view on religion.

After the new law on immigration went into effect we began to favor 3rd world immigrants.

The net result has been a huge influx of people from 3rd world nations. People with little or no education, low i.q.'s having alien religious beliefs, no job skills and a very different racial status....not even to mention many of them are infected with contagious diseases.

Many of these new immigrants are of that group of which Abraham Lincoln said they were so different he did not believe we could ever live together with ----in the same society on a equitable basis.

These new immigrants or a great many of them at least ---did not come here to be Americans....they came here to milk the cash cow.

They send as much money as they possibly can back to the old country to support their relatives back there.

Where they run back to on visits as often as they can when they accumulate enough to be able to do that.

Many of them hate America....especially those of the muslim persuasion.

People with good common sense should understand that our immigration policy should be based on letting in those who have something to contribute to America....job skills, good intelligence ....a desire to work hard etc. The so called system of immigration based on 'merit'...which Trump has mentioned though I think few understood what he was talking about.

The first thing many new immigrants now do is to get on some welfare program.

Not even to mention that the children of muslim immigrants are very susceptible to radicalization...all of the muslim acts of terror in America since 9/11 have been committed by the children of muslim parents who immigrated here under LBJ's immigration law.

Now, personally I do like Mexicans...they are hard working family people...but we have let far too many in.

They are now our largest minority.

They replaced blacks as our traditional servant class when we placed so many blacks on the dole and indoctrinated them into believing they were 'entitled' to get all the basics of life free....which has cost us billion and billions of dollars.

Due to all the 3rd world immigrants and our so called African-Americans we now rank as a nation #16 on the average i.q. list. As in --the people in 15 countries now have higher average i.q.'s than Americans.

For the ramifictions of that see 'I.Q. and the Wealth of nations.

Wherein....Lynn and Vanhanen test the hypothesis on the causal relationship between the average national intelligence (IQ) and the gap between rich and poor countries by empirical evidence. Based on an extensive survey of national IQ tests, the results of their work challenge the previous theories of economic development and provide a new basis to evaluate the prospects of economic development throughout the world.

https://www.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X

Why as a rule do we oppose immigration?

][][][%er!!!!!!!

Council Member

][][][%er!!!!!!!

Governor

Governor

Council Member

Governor

Council Member

Governor

Council Member

Council Member

Senator

Council Member

Senator

Council Member

Council Member

Senator

Council Member

Attachments

Mayor

Council Member