Immigration, good or bad

[Rabbi Dali Rick]

Well, why am i not surprised, the new Los Angeles arch diose is a hispanic from Mexico. Don't expect any help there..





the rebbi

[Thecatman]

Kinda scary when Janet Napolitano does'nt know if the borders are secure/safe.
She got asked that and her response was "thats not a fair question."
And she's supossed to be Secretary of Homeland Security?

[Ugly Dougly]

Well, why am i not surprised, the new Los Angeles arch diose is a hispanic from Mexico. Don't expect any help there..

the rebbi

Are you Catholic? Learn English!

A diose is a monosaccharide containing two carbon atoms. Because the general chemical formula of an unmodified monosaccharide is (C·H2O)n, where n is three or greater, it does not meet the formal definition of a monosaccharide. However, since it does fit the formula (C·H2O)n, it is sometimes thought of as the most basic sugar. There is only one possible diose, glycolaldehyde (2-hydroxyethanal), which is an aldodiose (a ketodiose is not possible since there are only two carbons).

You are probably attempting to say "diocese". Es mas claro?

Do you remember who built the California missions?

[Rabbi Dali Rick]

am i catholic? sorry, i don't do little boys and girls.

i am sorry to have usurped you incongenuious behavior with a snarky efffluently disregarded fllambouancy, but oh well what the fuck.

sometimes you have to put your hands in shit, to throw it....





the rebbi

[Rabbi Dali Rick]

Do you remember who built the California missions?

uh, Schwarzenegger?










the rebbi

[ygmir]

Well, why am i not surprised, the new Los Angeles arch diose is a hispanic from Mexico. Don't expect any help there..

the rebbi

Are you Catholic? Learn English!

A diose is a monosaccharide containing two carbon atoms. Because the general chemical formula of an unmodified monosaccharide is (C·H2O)n, where n is three or greater, it does not meet the formal definition of a monosaccharide. However, since it does fit the formula (C·H2O)n, it is sometimes thought of as the most basic sugar. There is only one possible diose, glycolaldehyde (2-hydroxyethanal), which is an aldodiose (a ketodiose is not possible since there are only two carbons).

You are probably attempting to say "diocese". Es mas claro?

Do you remember who built the California missions?

catholic spaniards, using native slaves?

[Rabbi Dali Rick]

using African/indians, first stealing their land in the name of G*d, then using them to build the buildings, see Pico Pico (yes Virginia, the Pico Blvd, Pico)




the rebbi

[Ugly Dougly]

am i catholic? sorry, i don't do little boys and girls.

i am sorry to have usurped you incongenuious behavior with a snarky efffluently disregarded fllambouancy, but oh well what the fuck.

sometimes you have to put your hands in shit, to throw it....





the rebbi

Damnit, you broke my Spelchecker®!

[Trishntek]

My understanding is, when the Spanish came to town in those days, the native had two choices: Accept Jesus or Die!

[ygmir]

My understanding is, when the Spanish came to town in those days, the native had two choices: Accept Jesus or Die!

if the Spanish were Catholic, was it "Jesus" the natives had to accept?............
or, Catholicism?..........

IIRC, they're not exactly the same.

[Trishntek]

Correct you are ygmir, they are not the same. I was being a bit lazy in my paraphrase while forgetting the "if I recall,,," preface has absolutely no value here due to the specificity of what is said being directly proportional to its believability.

[Zona]

Let us remember the days when people from the east of the US went to Texas, and the Spanish had the same problem immigration problem. Who went? People who often did not fit in. Wanted posters of the day in places like New York often had "GTT" (gone to Texas) on them. Not a good view from the Spanish point of view.

The point is that people move around, and we need to address the reasons.

[ygmir]

would you say, then, that if the Spanish were in Texas first, it was a mistake, to let the Americans in?
Did they eventually lose Texas, because of that action, or in-action?

[Trishntek]

Maybe we could invent a Bullshit scale. The place with the least BS is where you will find the happiest people; therefore, more people move there to escape the Bullshit from higher-BS ratings. The problem is, the more people live there, the more BS has to be tolerated. Texas must have been relatively low on the BS scale when compared to New York. Just my opinion.

[Thecatman]

From the L. A. Times
1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes.
This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7... The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8 Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L.. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.. (There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County .)

(All 10 of the above facts were published in the Los Angeles Times

[Trishntek]

"I LOVE L.A." - Randy Newman

you better have some fuckin' awesome lookin' cats, cuz my grandkids are purdy dayim cute.

[Thecatman]

I don't mean to offensive there Trish so I'll include Albuquerque and Phoenix. Some are the same or similar.
* 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

* 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

* 86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

* 75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

* 24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

* 40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

* 48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

* 29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually

* 53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.

* 50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border.

* 71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or “transport coyotes".

* 47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.

* 63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens

* 66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66% 98% are illegal aliens.

* 380,000 plus “anchor babiesâ€

[DVD Burner]

Good Lord!

[Thecatman]

The "racist" makes another post.
Sorry to bore you with the truth DVD.

[Thecatman]

The "racist" makes another post.
Sorry to bore you with the truth DVD.

[geekster]

What do you believe should be the main concern of immigration law?
You can't let everybody in and you can't keep everybody out. Who gets in?
The Commerce dept. reports that there is a huge shortage of workers. They say that it will get far worse in the near future.

Interesting to contrast a 2007 view with today. Basically what unchecked immigration does is gets employers around minimum wage laws. Minimum wage laws are the most destructive thing to happen in our economy and social structure in a century or so. They basically ensure high unemployment for those who can otherwise qualify for benefits and effectively enslave those who can't and work "under the table" for less than minimum wage under threat that their immigration status will be reported if they don't just shut up and take it.

Elimination of minimum wages or at least a drastic reduction of them would result in both a surge in economic activity AND a great improvement in the condition of a lot of poor families. Who is going to pay someone to hang around and sweep up and be a general "gopher" for $8 per hour? Pretty much nobody.

Who benefits from illegal immigration? In the Southwest is is mostly legitimate businesses such as home builders and agricultural operations. If you look at most construction sites in these areas, you will find they are staffed with mostly immigrant workers. Why? Because they work, they show up every day, they don't complain, you don't have to worry about one of them suing you because of some minor accident. In the Midwest it is mostly industrial operations, often in food related industries, for the same reasons. They work hard, have good attendance, don't complain, and don't sue.

In other words, illegal migrants are filling spots in the labor pool that native workers have either abandoned or are too much of a pain in the ass to hire for. Nothing is *really* going to get done about illegals as long as politically powerful people are hiring them. Real estate developers and builders have a lot of political clout in many areas. Same with operators of medium sized industrial operations in many areas.

Who do you "let in"? Simple. Those who have something to offer. Just being from a poor country is not reason enough. I would suggest changing how we do it with immigrants from the Americas. First of all, I would sell a work permit that would cost the migrant worker less money than they would have to pay a coyote to sneak them in. So with no risk to their safety, they can cross the border and work legitimately if they can show they have a job waiting for them. It also would allow these people to return home when the jobs dry up because they know they can get back in later. If you tighten the border too much, those already here don't want to go home when jobs get tight because they might not be able to make it back. It "traps" them here. The permit would be revoked upon commission of a crime or could be converted to resident alien status after 10 years of good standing.

This puts the migrant "above board". They can then not worry about doing their taxes and they don't have to accept low wages under duress. Migrant labor would get expensive and that is why it will never happen. Too many powerful people make too much money off the system the way it is now. There is a REASON why nothing is being done about it and following the money will lead you to that reason.

The people who make the most noise about not enforcing current laws are the ones who are doing the most to enslave those people and keep them locked in a sub-class forever. Minimum wages do the same thing. Milton Friedman said it best:

[youtube][/youtube]

(keep in mind that this was recorded many years ago).

Elimination of minimum wage laws would suddenly open the market for competition in lower skilled jobs that natives and legal immigrants could apply for. Teenagers might find more jobs. The second thing that should be done in concert is a reduction of unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits enable high unemployment because it enables people to stay out of work longer. They are not going to take a lower paying job as long as they are on benefits and believe they might land a job paying as much as their previous job. They certainly aren't going to take a job that pays less than than they are getting from being on benefits. Since illegals do not qualify for any benefits, they will take those lower paying jobs. Basically, natives are paid to take a seat so that undocumented workers can fill the labor niche created by the passage of minimum wage laws and unemployment compensation. In fact, federal unemployment benefits are probably unconstitutional.

But in any case, illegal immigration fills an economic void created by labor policy. It provides low cost labor that shows up to work, works hard, doesn't complain, and doesn't pretend to get injured and go out on benefits or go out on "stress" disability every time they work long enough for their benefits to reset.

We are actually "helping" people to death with benefits. These benefits are not helping the people they are sold as to the general public. If anything, it impedes progress up the economic ladder by keeping people shut out of the labor market.

[Rabbi Dali Rick]

the rebbi

[Simon of the Playa]

Unless you are a timber nigger, oops, i mean injun, oops, i mean NATIVE AMERICAN, you have no right to call ANYONE an "Illegal Immigrant" unless you consider yourself to be one as well.

so shut the fuck up all of you dumb micks, wops, kikes, frogs, krauts and limeys, you're all nothing more than intercontinental Flotsam and Jetsom.


and James K. Polk was a faggot.

[Rabbi Dali Rick]

Ok, how about the new Az law to stop automatically legalizing Anchor babies, as their next target....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... abies.html








the rebbi

[geekster]

Ok, how about the new Az law to stop automatically legalizing Anchor babies, as their next target.

I don't think that one will actually pass because a state doesn't get to say what does or does not qualify one for national citizenship.

But they might have a way out. Section 1 of the 14th amendment says:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ...

So the question is if illegal immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Generally only diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US so this would seem to rule out the children of foreign diplomats.

But the amendment clearly says that states can't pass laws on the matter, that it is a federal matter. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the question of "anchor babies". If you go into the DMV in Tucson on most any day of the week, you will find the waiting area has several mothers with very small babies. These are women who came across the border to have their baby born in a US hospital. They get the birth certificate, then they go to the DMV to get a state ID card for the baby. Then about half of them go back home and the rest are living here.

It is a problem. It should be decided. Personally, I feel that someone comes here for the sole purpose of having their baby born here should not be granted citizenship for that baby. I don't feel that does the US any good.

But, if the fertility of the native population is falling, the majority of population increase is coming from such migration, and if one political party can capitalize on that for no other reason than to exploit them for their vote so that party can gain political power, I can see where there will be resistance to preventing them from having a vote later from that political party. On the other hand, it looks like the party that has been doing that is facing an epic defeat in the next two rounds of national elections.

The Labor Party in the UK admitted to having done just this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... al-UK.html

It would seem that a US political party is attempting the same sort of engineering here but they are currently set to suffer a worse backlash than Labor recently did in the UK.

[geekster]

Also note that the Arizona law is, generally, extremely popular in both Arizona and across the US. In every poll to date, the Arizona law gets high approval ratings. What is amazing is the amount of support it has in Arizona among voters of Hispanic origin. California also already has a law on the books like the Arizona law.

California law states:

(1) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

(2) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

Arizona simply had no such law on its books and recently made one.

So if the federal government sues Arizona, will then then sue other states with similar laws?

[Trishntek]

So far, I haven't seen the National Gubmint let a good law stand in their way,,, take the U.S. Constitution for example.

[ygmir]

Unless you are a timber nigger, oops, i mean injun, oops, i mean NATIVE AMERICAN, you have no right to call ANYONE an "Illegal Immigrant" unless you consider yourself to be one as well.

so shut the fuck up all of you dumb micks, wops, kikes, frogs, krauts and limeys, you're all nothing more than intercontinental Flotsam and Jetsom.


and James K. Polk was a faggot.

one might argue that immigrating here "first" does not confer "native" status, as well.........and, we don't really even know from whence the "tribes" of people, (disparate as they may have been), emigrated, exactly.
I'd propose, no humans in the
Americas, call themselves "native"...........seems they all walked or floated here, at some point.

The other side, is, if you were born here, you're native.

both have merit, IMHO.

[can't sit still]

Geekster, great posts. Most countries don't allow anchor babies. Then again, most countries don't allow dual citizenship in high GOV.
The U.S. has gradually morphed into a welfare state. State GOVs have borrowed $ 38 billion to keep unemployment benefits going. This will come to an end. The Govenator says that welfare in Ca will come to an end also. Ca regularly spent $ 10 billion a year more than it took in.
When all the benefits come to an end, there will be a lot of people who will scramble to get any kind of job. The Latinos are a lot less likely to complain or to sue. In many areas, the Latinos are the only available workers who can pass a drug test. I saw this in many areas in Oregon.
The Az law was / is all about jobs. That's why the resident Hispanics support it. As benefits die out in Ca, anti-immigrant sentiment can be expected to rise.
Europe is seeing a lot of this directed at the Poles and others.

[Simon of the Playa]

Unless you are a timber nigger, oops, i mean injun, oops, i mean NATIVE AMERICAN, you have no right to call ANYONE an "Illegal Immigrant" unless you consider yourself to be one as well.

so shut the fuck up all of you dumb micks, wops, kikes, frogs, krauts and limeys, you're all nothing more than intercontinental Flotsam and Jetsom.


and James K. Polk was a faggot.

one might argue that immigrating here "first" does not confer "native" status, as well.........and, we don't really even know from whence the "tribes" of people, (disparate as they may have been), emigrated, exactly.
I'd propose, no humans in the
Americas, call themselves "native"...........seems they all walked or floated here, at some point.

The other side, is, if you were born here, you're native.

both have merit, IMHO.

you are right Ygmir, i forgot the MORMANS who claim to have been here 10,000 years ago and African Americans, the only NON-VOLUNTARY immigrant group.

but the red men were the keepers of this land long before us, i think that is undeniable.