Are Illegal Immigrants Good Or Bad For Economy?

[Bill from NYC]

Nice broad generalization Bill... Come to my neck of the woods and you will see how it works! And works well... Without your hate... Don't be afraid to drive around with the top and windows down... Lots of diverse culture to be had! You can learn some Spanish too!

 

My hate? Learn Spanish? My wife of 24 years is full blooded hispanic, and we have 3 daughters. I have learned a lot of Spanish at home.

Amazing how you went right to charges of racism though. A few posts back, a leftist is talking about noisy kids, and his steadfast refusal to live with "those people," but I am the racist, huh? No problem, accusations as such automatically spew out in many circles.

 

I happen to be quite fond of my wifes culture. The thing is, we didn't drain the system or have anchor babies for you to pay for.

 

Oh, and I am glad you could work your way past your initial misgivings. How kind!

[ExiledInIllinois]

My hate? Learn Spanish? My wife of 24 years is full blooded hispanic, and we have 3 daughters. I have learned a lot of Spanish at home.

Amazing how you went right to charges of racism though. A few posts back, a leftist is talking about noisy kids, and his steadfast refusal to live with "those people," but I am the racist, huh? No problem, accusations as such automatically spew out in many circles.

 

I happen to be quite fond of my wifes culture. The thing is, we didn't drain the system or have anchor babies for you to pay for.

 

Oh, and I am glad you could work your way past your initial misgivings. How kind!

 

Wow!... Why so defensive?... I made no charges of racism... Fear, yes... That is you putting words in your own mouth... And believe it or not, I was not attacking you... Sorry, if you see it that way...

 

With the Spanish under your belt... You could help me out!

[pdh1]

I think they are good. Most are hard working people would good values who contribute significantly to the American economy. The Minutemen obviously think otherwise.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

What makes the story even worse it that one the local "immigrant rights groups" says this our fault, because we don't give driver licenses and insurance to "undocumented migrants":

 

3 Charged With Making Bogus Documents

Raeford — Three illegal immigrants were arrested Wednesday after Hoke County authorities broke up what they called a mill that churned out phony identification documents.

 

Mallely G. Hernandez, of 200 McDuffie St. in Raeford, Gustavo Mateo St. Augustine, of 130 B.J. Court in Red Springs, and Joel P. Zalazar, of 100 Sheppard Lane in Raeford, face charges of identity fraud and trafficking and distribution of false documents, authorities said. Each is being held in the Hoke County Jail on a $300,000 bond.

 

Authorities raided three houses Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, including one less than a block from the Hoke County Sheriff's Office, and seized dozens of phony driver's licenses, Social Security cards, birth certificates and auto insurance cards. The documents were used to help illegal immigrants obtain jobs and buy cars, authorities said.

 

Peterkin said members of an established ring would arrange to pick up illegal immigrants being brought to North Carolina and handle their living arrangements and get them documentation -- all for a fee.

 

The U.S. Secret Service is assisting the Hoke County Sheriff's Office in the investigation, and more arrests are likely, he said.

 

"A lot of the IDs that were produced that were fake have legitimate numbers on them," Peterkin said. "Unless you know what you're looking for, just looking at it, it looks real."

 

About $7,000 in cash, as well as jewelry and computer equipment, were also seized in the raids. Laptops were used to produce the phony documents, he said.

It's unclear how the suspects obtained legitimate driver's license and Social Security numbers, he said, adding that they might have found lost or discarded licenses or searched through trash to obtain financial information.

[RLflutie7]

<vizualization>

 

Ah yes, I can hear it now, the thundering of boots....

 

*thud, thud, thud, thud*

 

Can't you see the banners flying? It's stirring no doubt as you stand, enthralled, awaiting THE speech. The one about how blood and country, language and identity are threatened by an "alien people." The one that shows the way out of a situation that seemingly has no solution. It's all so simple. You stand with the rest, raise your hand in the air and as the speaker approaches the podium you shout out in joy....

 

SIEG HEIL!

 

 

</vizualization>

 

Your entire argument is that because these people are "different," because they don't share our "shared belief systems" (whatever THAT means), they don't belong here. That they don't have the right to fair and equitable treatment at the hands of a notoriously inefficient and inept immigration system. Your argument is that because these people can't AFFORD the thousands of dollars and countless hours it takes to be here legally, that somehow they are of a lesser status.

 

Oh, and BTW, these people are Catholics, like a good HALF the current US population.

 

And WTF ARE our shared beliefs, exactly? A 5-minute read of this !@#$ing board shows that hardly ANYBODY shares a belief on ANYTHING.

 

And France? They're anything but multicultural. French muslims are excluded from mainstream society. One reason we DON'T have France's problems it that we're more willing to absorb others into our mainstream. Once that stops being the case, the trains may as well start pulling up to the stations.

 

My entire argument is that because these people are different that they don't share our belief systems. YOU ARE RIGHT! That's what I said and I stick by it. I don't believe that they have a right to free health care. No one else in this county gets free health care except welfare people and old people. Mexicans believe the have a right to free health care system.

 

Yes they are Catholic and yes that's a good thing because it's a common belief system.

 

Have you ever thought of what the Notre Dame student population is going to look like in 20 years? I'll bet it will be 30 percent Mexican. Maybe even 40 percent. Is that a bad thing? No! It's a good thing. But it gets offset by all the "life in prison" people that come with it.

 

You've already been proven wrong about the France thing. Face it, multicultural societies haven't worked in the past. It's a question if they'll work in the future.

[Orton's Arm]

Face it, multicultural societies haven't worked in the past. It's a question if they'll work in the future.

If they haven't worked in the past, why would they work in the future?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You've already been proven wrong about the France thing. Face it, multicultural societies haven't worked in the past. It's a question if they'll work in the future.

 

So the American experiment's been a failure?

 

I for one am a polyglot guy. I'm half polish and half a mix of Scot, French Canadian and German.

 

I'd wager most "white" people have multicultural backgrounds.

[Orton's Arm]

So the American experiment's been a failure?

 

I for one am a polyglot guy. I'm half polish and half a mix of Scot, French Canadian and German.

 

I'd wager most "white" people have multicultural backgrounds.

There's a certain level of mixture a nation can get away with and still have a unified people. The English, for example, are a mix of Jutes, Angles, Saxons, and Danes. Those four groups are all Germanic or Scandinavian--there aren't huge differences between them. Over time, they've mixed together to give England the kind of unity which must always exist before there can be strength.

 

Compare that to most of Latin America, where whites, Native Americans, and blacks have intermarried to form a mixed race. Latin American governments are typically very corrupt. Armies are ineffective, and the rich oppress the poor. The largest effective unit is the extended family, or else a few Native American tribes which have been untouched by outside influences. The differences between people were too different to overcome. Strong, internally unified nations have not been built.

[justnzane]

There's a certain level of mixture a nation can get away with and still have a unified people. The English, for example, are a mix of Jutes, Angles, Saxons, and Danes. Those four groups are all Germanic or Scandinavian--there aren't huge differences between them. Over time, they've mixed together to give England the kind of unity which must always exist before there can be strength.

 

Compare that to most of Latin America, where whites, Native Americans, and blacks have intermarried to form a mixed race. Latin American governments are typically very corrupt. Armies are ineffective, and the rich oppress the poor. The largest effective unit is the extended family, or else a few Native American tribes which have been untouched by outside influences. The differences between people were too different to overcome. Strong, internally unified nations have not been built.

 

 

What the hell are you talking about?

Seriously, I agree w/ JSP there. Americans are the biggest bunch of mutts in the world and our society has thrived. The Latin American gov'ts downfall is not their mixed races ya xenophobic dip . Mexicans and other Latin countries have a strong sense of unity that you obviously have neveer experienced. The downfall for a good chunk of the Latin countries is the overpopulation and corruption of the leaders as you mentioned. But the corruption is no result of interracial mixing.

 

Look at Africa in general most of those nations have relatively similar racial features, yet they are all F***ed up, because of Corruption, overpopulation, barren lands and disease. So, Please take head out of ass, and use it to generate some rational thoughts

[DC Tom]

There's a certain level of mixture a nation can get away with and still have a unified people. The English, for example, are a mix of Jutes, Angles, Saxons, and Danes. Those four groups are all Germanic or Scandinavian--there aren't huge differences between them. Over time, they've mixed together to give England the kind of unity which must always exist before there can be strength.

 

Compare that to most of Latin America, where whites, Native Americans, and blacks have intermarried to form a mixed race. Latin American governments are typically very corrupt. Armies are ineffective, and the rich oppress the poor. The largest effective unit is the extended family, or else a few Native American tribes which have been untouched by outside influences. The differences between people were too different to overcome. Strong, internally unified nations have not been built.

 

I'm sensing a Kurt Goebbels like "racial purity" discussion in our future...

[Orton's Arm]

 

What the hell are you talking about?

Seriously, I agree w/ JSP there. Americans are the biggest bunch of mutts in the world and our society has thrived. The Latin American gov'ts downfall is not their mixed races ya xenophobic dip . Mexicans and other Latin countries have a strong sense of unity that you obviously have neveer experienced. The downfall for a good chunk of the Latin countries is the overpopulation and corruption of the leaders as you mentioned. But the corruption is no result of interracial mixing.

 

Look at Africa in general most of those nations have relatively similar racial features, yet they are all F***ed up, because of Corruption, overpopulation, barren lands and disease. So, Please take head out of ass, and use it to generate some rational thoughts

I'll agree there are examples of nations which are racially similar, yet don't have strong internal unity. The African nations you mentioned are a good example of that; just as other examples could be found in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East.

 

But are there examples of nations which have had a high degree of mixing, yet retained their internal strength and unity? I don't know that there are. The corruption of Latin American officials is because people were more interested in helping themselves or their families than in helping their nations. I don't know of any examples of Latin American nations fielding effective militaries, which is a natural result of an unwillingness to die for one's nation.

 

When a nation is internally unified, the actions of individuals serve to build up the whole. When a nation isn't unified, individual actions serve to prey upon the whole. America is a mix of these two types of behaviors, with the latter becoming more common as our unity wanes. Latin America is also a mix of these two behaviors, but the balance is closer to disunity than ours is.

[Orton's Arm]

I'm sensing a Kurt Goebbels like "racial purity" discussion in our future...

Lawyers sometimes say that when the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. And when both the law and the facts are against you, scream and call the other side a bunch of names. Your use of name-calling to the exclusion of intelligent debate is quite telling.

[Ramius]

There's a certain level of mixture a nation can get away with and still have a unified people. The English, for example, are a mix of Jutes, Angles, Saxons, and Danes. Those four groups are all Germanic or Scandinavian--there aren't huge differences between them. Over time, they've mixed together to give England the kind of unity which must always exist before there can be strength.

 

Compare that to most of Latin America, where whites, Native Americans, and blacks have intermarried to form a mixed race. Latin American governments are typically very corrupt. Armies are ineffective, and the rich oppress the poor. The largest effective unit is the extended family, or else a few Native American tribes which have been untouched by outside influences. The differences between people were too different to overcome. Strong, internally unified nations have not been built.

 

Lets see...

 

interracial marriages cause corrupt government and ineffective armies? You're back in top retarded form, Herr Holcomb.

[Orton's Arm]

Lets see...

 

interracial marriages cause corrupt government and ineffective armies? You're back in top retarded form, Herr Holcomb.

Like it or not, human nature is such that people are more likely to sacrifice for people like themselves than for people who are different. If you're trying to say that this fundamental truth about human nature is a Nazi-only belief, you're even dumber or more brainwashed than I thought.

[X. Benedict]

But are there examples of nations which have had a high degree of mixing, yet retained their internal strength and unity? I don't know that there are. The corruption of Latin American officials is because people were more interested in helping themselves or their families than in helping their nations. I don't know of any examples of Latin American nations fielding effective militaries, which is a natural result of an unwillingness to die for one's nation.

The Ottoman Empire didn't last too long. Too many Albanians, Abkhazians, Arabs, Huns, Armenians, Kurds, Bosniaks, Chechens, Circassians, Georgians, Jews, Greeks, and Gypsies.

[Orton's Arm]

The Ottoman Empire didn't last too long. Too many Albanians, Abkhazians, Arabs, Huns, Armenians, Kurds, Bosniaks, Chechens, Circassians, Georgians, Jews, Greeks, and Gypsies.

Both the Ottoman and Austrian Empires collapsed like a house of cards in WWI. But internally unified nations such as France, Germany, England, and the U.S. fought well in WWI.

[X. Benedict]

Both the Ottoman and Austrian Empires collapsed like a house of cards in WWI. But internally unified nations such as France, Germany, England, and the U.S. fought well in WWI.

 

Only a 6 century run for the Ottomans.

 

The Ottomans still managed to kill nearly 200,000 allies in the Bosporus, didn't they?

[ExiledInIllinois]

No one ever accused this bunch of being geniuses.

 

You are right Joe... See my post in your "Electric Car" thread!

 

[molson_golden2002]

Both the Ottoman and Austrian Empires collapsed like a house of cards in WWI. But internally unified nations such as France, Germany, England, and the U.S. fought well in WWI.

What???? The United States was a very diverse and divided nation in 1917. All those immigrants from 1870 and beyond were considered outsiders. Internal repression had to be resorted to to keep the country in the war, the draft going, etc. Wilson won the 1916 election pledging to keep us out of the war and then went in. The Germans, Italians, Irish, socialists and Populists were all repressed. Buffalo's German language press was closed, for example. So were many socialist papers. Many were arrested and thrown in jail. Had the war lasted who knows what would have happened. No wonder we went isolationist after that. We were much more divided then than now. Wilson had to basically ruin the Democratic party--his own party!--to keep us in the war. When people say Bush was the worst President ever, I say look at Wilson, another Southern idiot who was worse!

[Orton's Arm]

Only a 6 century run for the Ottomans.

 

The Ottomans still managed to kill nearly 200,000 allies in the Bosporus, didn't they?

If the Ottoman Empire is the best example of a successful multicultural society, I've won this debate. Man for man, the Ottoman Empire's WWI effort wasn't comparable to nations like England, France, or the U.S. Its early successes were due to unity among the Turks; just as the British Empire's strength came from unity among the British.

[Orton's Arm]

What???? The United States was a very diverse and divided nation in 1917. All those immigrants from 1870 and beyond were considered outsiders. Internal repression had to be resorted to to keep the country in the war, the draft going, etc. Wilson won the 1916 election pledging to keep us out of the war and then went in. The Germans, Italians, Irish, socialists and Populists were all repressed. Buffalo's German language press was closed, for example. So were many socialist papers. Many were arrested and thrown in jail. Had the war lasted who knows what would have happened. No wonder we went isolationist after that. We were much more divided then than now. Wilson had to basically ruin the Democratic party--his own party!--to keep us in the war. When people say Bush was the worst President ever, I say look at Wilson, another Southern idiot who was worse!

You've made a number of good points in this post. Though Bush is a bad president, you're right to say Wilson was a worse one. But I disagree with your claim that the nation was more divided in 1917 than it is today. WWI was a very expensive war in terms of men--our losses were in the hundreds of thousands. Both Iraq wars together are a pinprick in comparison. The heavy toll of WWI made internal differences and weaknesses come to the surface.