Immigration is Destroying America.

[protectionist]

I was referring to a "collapse" of the social security system as it is currently constituted, you moron.

Ahhhhhh...

So it's not our SOCIETY that is going to collapse, should we throttle-back on Immigration...

It's only Social Security....

We are not going to "throttle-back on immigration" and social security is going to run up against it sooner or later anyway. The fact of our continued immigration will just give us more time to change or replace that system once inevitability finally pumps some political courage into our representatives. Read again: We are NOT going to "throttle-back on immigration." At least not legal immigration. We need not, we should not, and we will not. Get busy accepting that.

HA HA HA. No, imitation God-boy. It's long past the time that YOU got busy accepting that you are a JOKE on these pages. You have nothing to say about what happens with immigration. You're a nobody in that world, right ? Do you work in a high level job in immigration ? Do you have the power to control what happens ?

I imagine you are nothing but a big mouth jerk who swaggers around telling us what we are going to or not going to do. EARTH TO UNAWARE: When the American people decide to crack down on immigration, and put a stop to it ( January 2017 ?), then that is exactly what is going to happen, and right now the chances look pretty good for just that.

 

[protectionist]

Despite claims of record deportations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) statistics revealed a 10 percent drop in removals over the last year — from 409,849 (2012) to 368,644 (2013).

http://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/2013-ice-immigration-removals.pdf

In a letter to President Obama, 22 Republican Senators expressed "grave concerns" over the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) review – and anticipated loosening – of its deportation practices. "The changes under consideration would represent a near complete abandonment of basic immigration enforcement and discard the rule of law and the notion that the United States has enforceable borders," the letter charged. (Letter to Obama, Apr. 24, 2014) The Senators wrote the letter in response to Obama ordering DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson to find a "more humane" way for his agency to handle deportations after pro-amnesty groups pressured Obama to halt all deportations. (New York Times, Mar. 13, 2014; see also FAIR Legislative Update, Mar. 19, 2014)

In their letter, the Senators also accuse the President of violating the Constitution by implementing backdoor amnesty programs under the guise of "prosecutorial discretion" rather than through legislation. "It is not the province of the Executive to nullify the laws that the people of the United States, through their elected representatives, have chosen to enact," the letter reads. (Letter to Obama, Apr. 24, 2014) "These policies have operated as an effective repeal of duly enacted federal immigration law and exceed the bounds of the Executive Branch's prosecutorial discretion." (Id.) "Your actions demonstrate an astonishing disregard for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the rights of American citizens and residents," the letter concludes.

Legislative Update: 4/30/2014

DEPORTATION is the LAW. It MUST be enforced. This is mandatory. There are no options here, no matter what loudmouth open borders goons holler, protest, throw tantrums, or whatever else they do.

 

[protectionist]

So let's take a look at the latest immigration assault on our country that mindless members of Congress are now pushing. That would be the ENLIST Act, being pushed by lamebrain Republicans who think they need to pander to the immigrant vote.

This lunacy, known as HR2377, introduced by Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA), would give amnesty to illegal aliens just for joining the military. It would apply to illegals who have been present in the United States continuously since Dec. 31, 2011, and were younger than 15 years of age when they initially entered the United States.

Amazing the things Congressmen will do to get votes. And for those in a high illegal alien state like California, you can bet some will kiss illegal alien ass, big time.

Here the top 10 reasons why this idiocy should not be allowed. >>>

1. The ENLIST Act is amnesty. It undermines the rule of law and is inherently unfair to legal immigrants.

2. The ENLIST Act jeopardizes our national security and public safety.

3. The ENLIST Act grants zero discretion to the Department of Homeland Security to deny green cards.

4. The ENLIST Act makes illegal aliens immediately eligible for U.S. citizenship upon enlistment.

5. The ENLIST Act grants amnesty not only to illegal aliens who enlist, but to their family members as well.

6. The ENLIST Act is not just for “kids.” It allows enlistment up to the age of 42.

7. The ENLIST Act is not just for those who were “brought here through no fault of their own.”

8. The ENLIST Act is not needed to boost military enlistment.

9. The ENLIST Act creates additional burdens for our Armed Forces.

10. The Enlist Act will do nothing to solve our immigration problem, but will encourage even more illegal immigration.

http://ourtp.org/2014/05/01/enlist-act-is-no-act-of-love/

 

[Unkotare]

Evasive, and inadequate to the task at-hand.

What is your understanding of what the word 'colleague' means, and its various usages?

It's not a matter of 'my' understanding. Words have meanings. The central meaning of that word refers to people who work together or share the same profession. The way you've been trying to use it is misapplied. I'm trying to help you stop making yourself look so foolish, but you're not making it easy.

Words do, indeed, have meanings, and, oftentimes, multiple meanings, even within the framework of mainstream usage.

You are in error. Admit it and move on. You only make yourself appear more ignorant this way.

 

[Unkotare]

Just to reiterate: We are not going to "throttle-back on immigration" and social security is going to run up against it sooner or later anyway. The fact of our continued immigration will just give us more time to change or replace that system once inevitability finally pumps some political courage into our representatives. Read again: We are NOT going to "throttle-back on immigration." At least not legal immigration. We need not, we should not, and we will not. Get busy accepting that.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno...............if someone is willing to put their asses on the front line, defending what this country says they stand for, if the can serve at least one full enlistment (4 years), then they should be citizens.

I mean..................only 1 percent of the current population of this country is willing to do so, and the other 99 percent like to state how much they support the troops.

If you're an immigrant, and are willing to support this country in all it's battles, and serve, even if it means you get sent to the front lines, you should have citizenship for this nation.

Lots of others only go to college and state how they would defend this country. If you enlist, you actually DO care about defending this nation.

 

[Unkotare]

To bring this back to the topic of the thread, we are not going to "throttle-back on immigration." No matter how badly some frightened dimwits would like it to be, we will not. No matter how ignorant of what this country is and what it stands for some idiots posting here are, we will not. Social security is going to run up against inevitability sooner or later; the fact of our continued immigration will just give us more time to change or replace that system once that inevitability finally pumps some political courage into our representatives. Read again: We are NOT going to "throttle-back on immigration." At least not legal immigration. We need not, we should not, and we will not. Some idiots are very busy denying reality when they should be getting busy accepting the FACTS as I have presented them.

 

[Kondor3]

To bring this back to the topic of the thread, we are not going to "throttle-back on immigration." No matter how badly some frightened dimwits would like it to be, we will not. No matter how ignorant of what this country is and what it stands for some idiots posting here are, we will not. Social security is going to run up against inevitability sooner or later; the fact of our continued immigration will just give us more time to change or replace that system once that inevitability finally pumps some political courage into our representatives. Read again: We are NOT going to "throttle-back on immigration." At least not legal immigration. We need not, we should not, and we will not. Some idiots are very busy denying reality when they should be getting busy accepting the FACTS as I have presented them.

You, like another pissant on these boards, remind me of an old girlfriend...

Always flappin' your gums, always coming back around to same boring old sing-song, and always gotta have the last word...

Even if you have to wait for 2:30 AM, when nobody else is around to counterpoint you, in order to say it...

People who believe that we no longer require large-scale immigration are neither frightened nor dimwits...

People who believe that we no longer require large-scale immigration are neither ignorant nor oblivious to their country's history and what it stands for...

People who believe that we no longer require large-scale immigration are not idiots nor oblivious to various speculations and so-called 'fact' presented herein, in connection with such arguments...

People who believe that we no longer require large-scale immigration are merely fellow citizens who hold an opinion different than yours on the subject, and who interpret the data differently, and who draw different conclusions about the best future approach...

They are most oftentimes people who showed you no hostility whatsoever, until you demonstrated your own...

Your misplaced and pretended superiority in this regard does amuse, however...

 

[dr.d]

If it weren't for immigration, U wouldn't be here..Neither would the U.S. be the source of grand inventions involving the use of electricity,..like the phone and lightbulb.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Kondor3]

If it weren't for immigration, U wouldn't be here..Neither would the U.S. be the source of grand inventions involving the use of electricity,..like the phone and lightbulb...

Absolutely correct.

Nolo contendere.

No contest.

No argument.

When my people came here, we had not yet expanded to the West Coast.

When my people came here, we had 40,000,000 souls living within our boundaries.

We have now expanded as much as we can, east-to-west.

We have no expanded as much as we can, north-to-south.

We're done growing, physically.

Within those same boundaries, in 1950, we had 150,000,000 souls.

Within those same boundaries, in 2010, we had 300,000,000 souls.

That's a doubling of the population in just a little more than a half-century.

All living on the same amount of land and with the same amount of resources as we had in 1950.

Just because we have been doing something in the past, and just because that has worked out well for us in the past, does not mean that we must continue to do it in the future, or that it will continue to work well for us in the future.

First, I believe that our country must deal with the 12,000,000 Illegal Aliens already in our midst, and I do not mean giving them their sneaky hearts' desire, and granting them Shamnesty and eventual citizenship.

Second, I believe that our country must face reality, and begin to live within its means, in connection with total population, and that it must begin to scale-back total population, to levels likely to be sustainable as a high quality-of-life, in the not too distant future.

We scale back total population through simple attrition; allowing a temporarily shrinking birth rate and an aging Boomer population to take their toll, so that our boundaries hold a lesser and more comfortable and more sustainable 250,000,000 or 200,000,000 within the next century or so; all without getting 'radical' like the Chinese did with their one-child tyranny.

I believe that the nation would benefit from some serious and sustained attention in the matter of population size, and that future large-scale immigration should be part of that conversation.

Whether we ever get around to having such a conversation is an entirely different matter.

Times change, and the good ideas of the past can - and oftentimes do - become the wrong ideas of the present or future.

Most of us are, indeed, and in whole or in part, the descendants of immigrants to this country.

That does not automatically oblige us to continue down that path, once that path becomes detrimental to the nation rather than beneficial.

It's all a matter of whether we have reached that point, or whether we're getting close to that point; a matter of serious import, much good debate, and not a few laughs along the way.

 

[Unkotare]

To bring this back to the topic of the thread, we are not going to "throttle-back on immigration." No matter how badly some frightened dimwits would like it to be, we will not. No matter how ignorant of what this country is and what it stands for some idiots posting here are, we will not. Social security is going to run up against inevitability sooner or later; the fact of our continued immigration will just give us more time to change or replace that system once that inevitability finally pumps some political courage into our representatives. Read again: We are NOT going to "throttle-back on immigration." At least not legal immigration. We need not, we should not, and we will not. Some idiots are very busy denying reality when they should be getting busy accepting the FACTS as I have presented them.

You, like another pissant on these boards, remind me of an old girlfriend.....

You don't expect anyone to believe you ever had a girlfriend, do you?

 

[Unkotare]

I believe that our country must face reality...

Bullshit you do. You've been evading, denying, and dismissing "reality" throughout this thread. Don't be a fool AND a liar.

 

[Unkotare]

... and begin to live within its means....

As I've pointed out over and over, our "means" are vast and quite sufficient to accommodate a far larger population. However, that is something of a moot point, since we are looking at staving off a population contraction in the mid to long term. There is no "population explosion" to worry about. Exactly the contrary is the challenge facing our nation in the not-so-distant future. At this point, only the willfully stupid can fail to understand the situation as I have repeatedly explained it with a great deal of supporting facts.

 

[Unkotare]

it must begin to scale-back total population

Exactly the opposite is the problem that we must face before too long. There will be no deliberate "scale back" of legal immigration.

 

[Kondor3]

Seen.

 

[RKMBrown]

I wasn't inviting you to comment upon the validity of the program.

You asked me to identify a Democrat -leaning initiative that I supported, and asked me to reference the reason(s).

I gave you what you asked for, in all courtesy and good faith.

How does that constitute being a dumb-ass?

----------

Edited to add:

Oh, and, while I'm at it...

If you have a Skilled Job to fill...

Would you rather pay to train an American to do the job...

Or would you rather give that meal-ticket to a foreigner who already has the skill, and leave the American on-the-dole?

Paying much higher mid- to long-term costs, to keep that American on-the-dole.

That is the choice you face, in denouncing or supporting such programming.

Make up your mind, the ends justify the means or not. Stealing my income, to train your friends is not justified. My government using my income to import foreign workers to put me out of work is also not justified. Using my income to put people on the dole is further not justified.

None of your libtard policies are justified. NONE OF THEM. You deny the means is justified by the ends, then you provide yet another example of where you feel the ends justify the means. Then you ask what constitutes... It does not matter if you talk nice about taking my income, it does not matter if the spending is good, it's still justifying theft.

I'll be very happy to address your Tax Payer Revolt angst, as soon as you extend to me the courtesy of answering my question, enlarged, above.

Under conditions in which you cannot fill a job with resources already on hand, do you choose to...

1. re-train an American to do that job

2. hire an immigrant who already has those skills, to do that job

Never mind the qualifiers and evasiveness and deflection, never mind all the happy horseshit about ends and means, or stealing tax dollars, or Libtards or welfare or yadda yadda yadda... just give a friggin' straight answer to the question, if you can, and if you dare.

I'm guessing that a fair number of our colleagues will also be interested to see how you answer.

Whose side are you on?

Choose.

I'll even lead-by-example and go first.

Me?

I choose the betterment of my own countrymen, every time.

I choose to re-train the American to do the job rather than bringing-in an immigrant.

You?

One of my best friends was a legal immigrant from England, a software engineer. He came here on a green card and became an American Citizen, then married an American, and had American children. Another of my best friends was a legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic, he's now an American Citizen with a home and a BMW. Yeah well you can't have everything. Most of my friends were born here in the USA. But I don't see a reason to besmirch newly arrived Americans.

I'd hire known quantities before hiring an illegal immigrant or an untrained American.

To your question:

"Under conditions in which you cannot fill a job with resources already on hand, do you choose to...
1. re-train an American to do that job
2. hire an immigrant who already has those skills, to do that job"

I'd hire the better worker. Training is almost always a minor issue. Interview the legal immigrant and the American that needs training, and hire the better candidate. IMO specific skills as check marks on an application are normally not necessary. Granted some skills take considerable time to learn, so it would depend on the missing skill and approximate time it would take for the person to learn said skill. If you are talking about illegal immigrants, obviously I would not be interested in hiring illegals to my employ. That said, if I need someone to do some stone work, I'm not gonna ask to see their proof of citizenship.

 

[Kondor3]

Make up your mind, the ends justify the means or not. Stealing my income, to train your friends is not justified. My government using my income to import foreign workers to put me out of work is also not justified. Using my income to put people on the dole is further not justified.

None of your libtard policies are justified. NONE OF THEM. You deny the means is justified by the ends, then you provide yet another example of where you feel the ends justify the means. Then you ask what constitutes... It does not matter if you talk nice about taking my income, it does not matter if the spending is good, it's still justifying theft.

I'll be very happy to address your Tax Payer Revolt angst, as soon as you extend to me the courtesy of answering my question, enlarged, above.

Under conditions in which you cannot fill a job with resources already on hand, do you choose to...

1. re-train an American to do that job

2. hire an immigrant who already has those skills, to do that job

Never mind the qualifiers and evasiveness and deflection, never mind all the happy horseshit about ends and means, or stealing tax dollars, or Libtards or welfare or yadda yadda yadda... just give a friggin' straight answer to the question, if you can, and if you dare.

I'm guessing that a fair number of our colleagues will also be interested to see how you answer.

Whose side are you on?

Choose.

I'll even lead-by-example and go first.

Me?

I choose the betterment of my own countrymen, every time.

I choose to re-train the American to do the job rather than bringing-in an immigrant.

You?

One of my best friends was a legal immigrant from England, a software engineer. He came here on a green card and became an American Citizen, then married an American, and had American children. Another of my best friends was a legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic, he's now an American Citizen with a home and a BMW. Yeah well you can't have everything. Most of my friends were born here in the USA. But I don't see a reason to besmirch newly arrived Americans.

I'd hire known quantities before hiring an illegal immigrant or an untrained American.

To your question:

"Under conditions in which you cannot fill a job with resources already on hand, do you choose to...
1. re-train an American to do that job
2. hire an immigrant who already has those skills, to do that job"

I'd hire the better worker. Training is almost always a minor issue. Interview the legal immigrant and the American that needs training, and hire the better candidate. IMO specific skills as check marks on an application are normally not necessary. Granted some skills take considerable time to learn, so it would depend on the missing skill and approximate time it would take for the person to learn said skill. If you are talking about illegal immigrants, obviously I would not be interested in hiring illegals to my employ. That said, if I need someone to do some stone work, I'm not gonna ask to see their proof of citizenship.

Thanks for the feedback.

That is where we differ.

You would take the Immigrant, under circumstances where he was better-trained.

I, on the other hand, would rather re-train a fellow American, to take that job.

You give the impression that you are concerned only with your business.

I am coming at this from multiple angles; including the best interests of my own business, the best interests of my own community, reducing the number of people on-the-dole (and therefore reducing the number of people that I and my business are being taxed to support), and from the angle of good corporate citizenship.

If you have the margins, to consider such an alternative approach, I'd certainly encourage you to take a closer look at some of those Job Re-Training programs, already in operation where you live; quite probably operated by a County Workforce Investment Board and its subsidiary Workforce Division or Task Force; charged with vetting and awarding job re-training grants to those most in need of them, to get them off the dole.

Bottom line: If I can throw $5K or $10K worth of tax-dollars at a trade-school on behalf of someone who wants to work but whose skills are obsolete and who can no longer afford training on his-or-her own, and who is currently on-the-dole (unemployment, food stamps, welfare, etc.), and if that $5K or $10K investment results in restoring that worker to 'paying customer' status, and eliminates anywhere from $10K to $50K or more of welfare benefits each year, well...

Blowing $5K or $10K worth of tax-dollars as a one-time front-end load, to save recurring charges of $10K or $20K or $50K (or more) of tax dollars per year, sounds like the way to go...

But that's just me...

BTW... WIA is not a 'Libtard' idea... the W(orkforce) I(nvestment) A(ct) is a Democrat -leaning program, but it was birthed - and it is sustained - as a truly bipartisan effort... lots of Pubs have voted to support that one, as well.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'll be very happy to address your Tax Payer Revolt angst, as soon as you extend to me the courtesy of answering my question, enlarged, above.

Under conditions in which you cannot fill a job with resources already on hand, do you choose to...

1. re-train an American to do that job

2. hire an immigrant who already has those skills, to do that job

Never mind the qualifiers and evasiveness and deflection, never mind all the happy horseshit about ends and means, or stealing tax dollars, or Libtards or welfare or yadda yadda yadda... just give a friggin' straight answer to the question, if you can, and if you dare.

I'm guessing that a fair number of our colleagues will also be interested to see how you answer.

Whose side are you on?

Choose.

I'll even lead-by-example and go first.

Me?

I choose the betterment of my own countrymen, every time.

I choose to re-train the American to do the job rather than bringing-in an immigrant.

You?

One of my best friends was a legal immigrant from England, a software engineer. He came here on a green card and became an American Citizen, then married an American, and had American children. Another of my best friends was a legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic, he's now an American Citizen with a home and a BMW. Yeah well you can't have everything. Most of my friends were born here in the USA. But I don't see a reason to besmirch newly arrived Americans.

I'd hire known quantities before hiring an illegal immigrant or an untrained American.

To your question:

"Under conditions in which you cannot fill a job with resources already on hand, do you choose to...
1. re-train an American to do that job
2. hire an immigrant who already has those skills, to do that job"

I'd hire the better worker. Training is almost always a minor issue. Interview the legal immigrant and the American that needs training, and hire the better candidate. IMO specific skills as check marks on an application are normally not necessary. Granted some skills take considerable time to learn, so it would depend on the missing skill and approximate time it would take for the person to learn said skill. If you are talking about illegal immigrants, obviously I would not be interested in hiring illegals to my employ. That said, if I need someone to do some stone work, I'm not gonna ask to see their proof of citizenship.

Thanks for the feedback.

That is where we differ.

You would take the Immigrant, under circumstances where he was better-trained.

Liar, that is not even close to what I said.

 

[Unkotare]

Coming sooner or later:

Number of children in Japan falls to new low ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion

 

[Kondor3]

One of my best friends was a legal immigrant from England, a software engineer. He came here on a green card and became an American Citizen, then married an American, and had American children. Another of my best friends was a legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic, he's now an American Citizen with a home and a BMW. Yeah well you can't have everything. Most of my friends were born here in the USA. But I don't see a reason to besmirch newly arrived Americans.

I'd hire known quantities before hiring an illegal immigrant or an untrained American.

To your question:

"Under conditions in which you cannot fill a job with resources already on hand, do you choose to...
1. re-train an American to do that job
2. hire an immigrant who already has those skills, to do that job"

I'd hire the better worker. Training is almost always a minor issue. Interview the legal immigrant and the American that needs training, and hire the better candidate. IMO specific skills as check marks on an application are normally not necessary. Granted some skills take considerable time to learn, so it would depend on the missing skill and approximate time it would take for the person to learn said skill. If you are talking about illegal immigrants, obviously I would not be interested in hiring illegals to my employ. That said, if I need someone to do some stone work, I'm not gonna ask to see their proof of citizenship.

Thanks for the feedback.

That is where we differ.

You would take the Immigrant, under circumstances where he was better-trained.

Liar, that is not even close to what I said.

Liar?

Hardly.

Perhaps I misinterpreted what you said, but I was not lying when I posted it.

That would have been rather foolhardy, given that the original was copied in-full, and in close proximity, for all to see.

Was I mistaken?

How else would you summarize what you said?

Was that not the central (bottom-line) message to be inferred from what you said?

How am I wrong, in this context?

And, whatever in the world makes you think that I would bother to 'lie' over such a thing?

And, while I'm at it, what the hell is wrong with you, giving me that kind of shit, when I've never directed any such thing at you?