Wahbooz
Governor
Because you needed to know your comment was worthless. Toodles.And yet, you responded.... LOL
Because you needed to know your comment was worthless. Toodles.And yet, you responded.... LOL
I'm trying to figure out if I misread you. Are you saying that because of how the Europeans came hundreds of years ago, that we should grant amnesty to all illegal residents now?I should point out that I also know of a Blackfoot lady who is stopped every time she goes through customs. We seem to have selective interest here when it comes to who is welcome and who is not. If that were the case hundreds of years ago, Plymouth would not have had footprints on it.
I am saying I do not comprehend the frothing anger over it. Or the fact that it is selective as to who people want to go after. How do you rule out which 'illegal resident' you want to deport? I'm assuming you want to do that since you asked me if we should grant amnesty to all illegal residents. If you grant amnesty to someone from Europe, someone from Central or South America should be granted as well. But I hear and read people complain that we are becoming..... I won't use their words, so I'll say too latin.I'm trying to figure out if I misread you. Are you saying that because of how the Europeans came hundreds of years ago, that we should grant amnesty to all illegal residents now?
I don't want to deport anyone.I am saying I do not comprehend the frothing anger over it. Or the fact that it is selective as to who people want to go after. How do you rule out which 'illegal resident' you want to deport? I'm assuming you want to do that since you asked me if we should grant amnesty to all illegal residents. If you grant amnesty to someone from Europe, someone from Central or South America should be granted as well. But I hear and read people complain that we are becoming..... I won't use their words, so I'll say too latin.
Gotcha. So what do you see is the answer? I would like to know your opinion on the issue.I don't want to deport anyone.
JMO...amnesty for those who are here right now, today, and easier paths to legal immigration for those who want to come here.Gotcha. So what do you see is the answer? I would like to know your opinion on the issue.
I'll vote for that. Thanks, gigi.JMO...amnesty for those who are here right now, today, and easier paths to legal immigration for those who want to come here.
The land in 1620 was sparsely populated relative to Europe (largely thanks to plagues that spread in the New World following initial European contact). But, in the same sense, America today is relatively sparsely populated. Mexico's almost twice as densely populated as the US, and El Salvador is almost ten times as densely populated, and Haiti's even more densely populated than that. I suppose, from the perception of some immigrants to America today, they're flocking to absurdly underused land, much as it would have looked to Europeans in the age of conquest. But, as today, in 1620 there were existing people already there who thought of that land as theirs.Obviously, flocking to unowned land in 1620 and claimed land in today's society is entire different involving tons of different factors... so, that romantic comment, while interesting, has zero ties to the current immigration issue.
This same claim of non-assimilation has been around pretty much from the beginning. Every new generation of nativists is convinced that the immigrants of their own time are different from the virtuous immigrants of prior generations who assimilated and became good Americans. Some of my immigrant ancestors faced the same prejudice. The predominantly English/Protestant stock of America was convinced that the Irish Catholics were fundamentally different from earlier generations of immigrants, in that they had religious, political, and linguistic traditions that were incompatible with being proper Americans. That was the era of "No Irish Need Apply," when the Irish were seen as uniquely unfit for civilization. Time and again, though, the immigrants follow the same pattern of assimilation.We don't have the jobs to support the immegrants.
They are a drag on our social structure (50% on welfare after here 2 years)
They don't assimilate, our country is bulkanizing.
stop the influx its insane.
It's understandable why an outsider would have that perception, but we both know that's not exactly how it works, so the perception is irrelevant.The land in 1620 was sparsely populated relative to Europe (largely thanks to plagues that spread in the New World following initial European contact). But, in the same sense, America today is relatively sparsely populated. Mexico's almost twice as densely populated as the US, and El Salvador is almost ten times as densely populated, and Haiti's even more densely populated than that. I suppose, from the perception of some immigrants to America today, they're flocking to absurdly underused land, much as it would have looked to Europeans in the age of conquest.
A nice philosophical argument. I mean, a bunch of indian tribes constantly in gruesome wars with one another.. it's not as if they were a unified people who the Spanish or even settlers "took" the land from. The land was being fought over tooth and nail between the tribes. All that happened was another competitor came into the ranks, and sadly the native tribes were not only overmatched in technology, but also were attacked unmaliciously by disease.But, as today, in 1620 there were existing people already there who thought of that land as theirs.
Well, the good news is that, since Obama took office, we've been making good progress on those issues. Unemployment has dropped significantly, which should also bring down the amount of government dependence (the last official stats we have on that front are from way back in 2011, so we won't know for a while). Deficits have fallen by half, and thanks to rock-bottom borrowing costs, the percentage of our GDP that goes to debt maintenance is actually quite low right now. And all early indicators are that Obamacare is helping to slow the rise of healthcare costs, which were rising at an absurd rate in the decades before that reform. So, we are dealing with our internal problems. Surely more work is needed. But immigration reform can be part of that, by taking that portion of our workforce out from under the table.Bottom line? With all of the employment issues, gov't dependence, etc. combined with insanely extreme debt, deficit spending, etc., and now a health care system whose price would continue to rise? Let's fix some internal problems before we invite the world to come soak up the few funds we have that can be put to good use in our extremely wasteful and inefficient government.
They took the land from the tribes that lived there and claimed it. I don't see any sense in arguing that the failure of those tribes to unite across larger geographic areas excused that. Here's a simple thought experiment. Imagine that some aliens come down and start dispossess humans of our planet -- pushing us back onto increasingly lousy land, breaking treaties, and eventually rounding us up onto a handful of reservations, mostly consisting of remote, unproductive land. Would it excuse those acts if they could point out that humans were constantly in gruseome wars with one another and were not a unified people from whom they'd taken the land?I mean, a bunch of indian tribes constantly in gruesome wars with one another.. it's not as if they were a unified people who the Spanish or even settlers "took" the land from.
It wasn't illegal immigration. It was conquering. Survival of the fittest.View attachment 26192
I rarely think about it, even though there are those who claim Obama is giving away the country. Hell, there were those who said the same thing about Bush. But, and let's face it, illegal immigration has been going on since 1492. It's really no big deal anymore.
To those doing the incursion, it wasn't illegal. I'll bet if it was the other way around, us going over there, it would be historically described as illegal. And I suspect that is why there are many who do their utmost to claim there were other cultures here, and we pushed them out; such as the Solutrean hypothesis. Native people couldn't possibly be intelligent enough to build the Pueblos, or intelligent enough to create the mounds that dot the midwest. And on and on and on. I could point to Betty Sodders and her 'Michigan Prehistory Mysteries', what a joke.It wasn't illegal immigration. It was conquering. Survival of the fittest.
What we are doing now, is the same thing - trying to repel an invasion. if we are not successful the US as we know it, will be conquered the same way again.
connie
Arkady, whoever that is that said that, we were not in a constant gruesome war with each other. The constant gruesome war began with the 'whites', as they constantly pushed for more and more land. When they were defeated in a battle, they signed a treaty, and a few years later violated it. That gave them time to increase their numbers, and gain the will to fight again. And when they found they couldn't defeat their foe, us, they killed off 'the commissary. The buffalo slaughters was just one example. The woodlands around the Great Lakes was the home to Woodland Bison, until the Euros came. That was when they became extinct.Well, the good news is that, since Obama took office, we've been making good progress on those issues. Unemployment has dropped significantly, which should also bring down the amount of government dependence (the last official stats we have on that front are from way back in 2011, so we won't know for a while). Deficits have fallen by half, and thanks to rock-bottom borrowing costs, the percentage of our GDP that goes to debt maintenance is actually quite low right now. And all early indicators are that Obamacare is helping to slow the rise of healthcare costs, which were rising at an absurd rate in the decades before that reform. So, we are dealing with our internal problems. Surely more work is needed. But immigration reform can be part of that, by taking that portion of our workforce out from under the table.
They took the land from the tribes that lived there and claimed it. I don't see any sense in arguing that the failure of those tribes to unite across larger geographic areas excused that. Here's a simple thought experiment. Imagine that some aliens come down and start dispossess humans of our planet -- pushing us back onto increasingly lousy land, breaking treaties, and eventually rounding us up onto a handful of reservations, mostly consisting of remote, unproductive land. Would it excuse those acts if they could point out that humans were constantly in gruseome wars with one another and were not a unified people from whom they'd taken the land?
First of all, they don't have to assimilate. In America, no one is supposed to have to assimilate to some common mentality or behavior. Second, for those who would like to, it's very difficult to do when you're living under cover of darkness (figuratively) and working long hours at crappy pay because you have no rights under the labor laws that protect legal residents who work here.We don't have the jobs to support the immegrants.
They are a drag on our social structure (50% on welfare after here 2 years)
They don't assimilate, our country is bulkanizing.
stop the influx its insane.
Good response, gigi. Very few Euros were willing to assimilate into Native culture, but the vast majority are determined to force Native people to assimilate into theirs. They tried with their residential schools, but that did not totally succeed.First of all, they don't have to assimilate. In America, no one is supposed to have to assimilate to some common mentality or behavior. Second, for those who would like to, it's very difficult to do when you're living under cover of darkness (figuratively) and working long hours at crappy pay because you have no rights under the labor laws that protect legal residents who work here.
As far as jobs, illegal immigrants are hired by people often looking to exploit them for low wages and long hours. Other companies hire them because they know they'll get a full day's work from them without practically having to apologize for making them work. In either case, companies hiring illegal residents are the ones who are compromising opportunities for the rest of us. Make these people legal residents, required to pay the same taxes as the rest of us based on the same rates of pay the rest of us earn in different occupations, free to insist that their own human dignity be respected, and the appeal of exploiting, and means to exploit them goes away.
As for welfare, it's out system that's broken and needs serious attention, not the people who see it's available and decide that it's a better way to survive than to work 15 hours a day for peanuts.
During his career, my husband was laid of twice. Both times he and his coworkers lost their jobs not to illegal residents, but to "guest workers" welcomed here on H1b visas and outsourcing programs that certain electeds supported.
You're right and I agree. Lots I could say about what could have been if there was no need to assimilate back then. But it's a moot point now.Good response, gigi. Very few Euros were willing to assimilate into Native culture, but the vast majority are determined to force Native people to assimilate into theirs. They tried with their residential schools, but that did not totally succeed.