Poverty and ignorance breeds crime. Economic immigrants and refugees are poor and uneducated. 2+2=4

[Confounding]

How much of our own comfort are we willing to sacrifice for this feel good bullshit? Do you have any idea how many poor and desperate people there are in the world? I'll give you a hint; there are a fuck load. The first world can't save everybody, and in attempting to do so we're just going to shoot ourselves in the foot. If the left got its way we would actually be fucked. The Republicans do a lot of stupid shit, but thank fuck for their stance on immigration. If we actually want to help these people we need to figure out how to help them where they live.

Do you disappointed lefties want to know why Trump won, and why he will win again? It's because you people would fuck up everything if you had full control of the immigration situation. That one issue is hurting the left badly. If you'd just pull your heads out of your asses and focus on Americans you would start dominating elections.

I thought USA’s history is made by immigrants!
Name one famous “American” who does not have an immigrant in their ancestry.
Immigrants are usually hard working and expect less pay; that’s why many USA citizens don’t like them, especially uneducated and unskilled conservatives.

And does Trump not have an immigrant in his family???

Are you trying to make a point with that statement? Oh, so at one time when we needed more people here, that's the reason to open up the borders now?

At one time we needed the ice man to put blocks of ice in our coolers.
At one time we needed ditch diggers.
At one time we needed horse shoe makers.
At one time we needed people to set up bowling pins.

Nothing is forever because we have 320 million people here now, and that's more than enough.

You've gotta be pretty desperate for justification when you start bringing up Native Americans and immigration policies from a century ago or more.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes I know you did not read the topic as your comments have nothing to with poverty, show in your post that has anything to with the OP..

Actually the article I quoted also mentions the greater amount of economic poverty in Mexican immigrants. Again, I suspect you did not actually read it so I will help you out here:

But broadly speaking, Mexican immigrants are disproportionately less educated and poor, typically working in agriculture, low-paying service jobs, manufacturing, or construction;

This is a dangerously ethno-centered position to take in order to JUSTIFY illegal immigration. Because it borders on the same "low expectations" that haunts our public school systems and creates "lower bars" for American Black kids.

If you look at the SECOND GENERATION of Mexican immigration -- IE -- the DACA kids, they are COMPETING for the SAME jobs and positions (largely) as our citizen American kids. THEY are not working the fields and changing bedpans. And MANY of them are STILL "illegal".

This "vision" of what "they are" has more than a "tint" of racism to it. Maybe at least -- it's counterproductive to not look at consequences -- 20 or 50 years out. Because like MOST of our immigrant classes, their handicaps are unburdened by the time their kids up..

Which position do you mean?

It's right there in you quoting and SEEMINGLY feasting on the "Broadly speaking" crap. Broadly speaking is just the polite way of disguising what we call "racial and ethnic" stereotypes and generalizations.

Need to be thinking LONG TERM on the consequences of ANY immigration policy and not letting sympathy and emotion rule the day.

.

You jumped in without reading through the thread and the context for WHY I put that quote there. It was because Kosh demanded to know what the LARGER bit I quoted has to do with poverty and you jumped right on it without taking in the larger context!

My position is in post 72.

I saw you focused on the poverty issue from early on. And I should have responded to the OP -- not you at that point trying to talk with Kosh. Which I did above on page around #272. BOTH SIDES need to get off the generalizations and stereotypes, like poor or stupid or criminal, and stop USING THESE FOLKS as political ammunition.

For all the reasons I just posted above. Immigration is a STRATEGIC long range issue. Not a reason for daily confrontation and protests on one of HUNDREDS of things that need fixing. We don't FIX stupid or poverty or crime waves in foreign countries by opening our borders or IGNORING 13Million illegal residents.
.

 

[Coyote]

Actually the article I quoted also mentions the greater amount of economic poverty in Mexican immigrants. Again, I suspect you did not actually read it so I will help you out here:

But broadly speaking, Mexican immigrants are disproportionately less educated and poor, typically working in agriculture, low-paying service jobs, manufacturing, or construction;

This is a dangerously ethno-centered position to take in order to JUSTIFY illegal immigration. Because it borders on the same "low expectations" that haunts our public school systems and creates "lower bars" for American Black kids.

If you look at the SECOND GENERATION of Mexican immigration -- IE -- the DACA kids, they are COMPETING for the SAME jobs and positions (largely) as our citizen American kids. THEY are not working the fields and changing bedpans. And MANY of them are STILL "illegal".

This "vision" of what "they are" has more than a "tint" of racism to it. Maybe at least -- it's counterproductive to not look at consequences -- 20 or 50 years out. Because like MOST of our immigrant classes, their handicaps are unburdened by the time their kids up..

Which position do you mean?

It's right there in you quoting and SEEMINGLY feasting on the "Broadly speaking" crap. Broadly speaking is just the polite way of disguising what we call "racial and ethnic" stereotypes and generalizations.

Need to be thinking LONG TERM on the consequences of ANY immigration policy and not letting sympathy and emotion rule the day.

.

You jumped in without reading through the thread and the context for WHY I put that quote there. It was because Kosh demanded to know what the LARGER bit I quoted has to do with poverty and you jumped right on it without taking in the larger context!

My position is in post 72.

I saw you focused on the poverty issue from early on. And I should have responded to the OP -- not you at that point trying to talk with Kosh. Which I did above on page around #272. BOTH SIDES need to get off the generalizations and stereotypes, like poor or stupid or criminal, and stop USING THESE FOLKS as political ammunition.

For all the reasons I just posted above. Immigration is a STRATEGIC long range issue. Not a reason for daily confrontation and protests on one of HUNDREDS of things that need fixing. We don't FIX stupid or poverty by opening our borders.

We might not be that far apart. I agree opening our borders to all is a non-starters. I don't think very many actually support that. But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

 

[danielpalos]

How much of our own comfort are we willing to sacrifice for this feel good bullshit? Do you have any idea how many poor and desperate people there are in the world? I'll give you a hint; there are a fuck load. The first world can't save everybody, and in attempting to do so we're just going to shoot ourselves in the foot. If the left got its way we would actually be fucked. The Republicans do a lot of stupid shit, but thank fuck for their stance on immigration. If we actually want to help these people we need to figure out how to help them where they live.

Do you disappointed lefties want to know why Trump won, and why he will win again? It's because you people would fuck up everything if you had full control of the immigration situation. That one issue is hurting the left badly. If you'd just pull your heads out of your asses and focus on Americans you would start dominating elections.

I thought USA’s history is made by immigrants!
Name one famous “American” who does not have an immigrant in their ancestry.
Immigrants are usually hard working and expect less pay; that’s why many USA citizens don’t like them, especially uneducated and unskilled conservatives.

And does Trump not have an immigrant in his family???

Are you trying to make a point with that statement? Oh, so at one time when we needed more people here, that's the reason to open up the borders now?

At one time we needed the ice man to put blocks of ice in our coolers.
At one time we needed ditch diggers.
At one time we needed horse shoe makers.
At one time we needed people to set up bowling pins.

Nothing is forever because we have 320 million people here now, and that's more than enough.

isolationism and free trade, are not compatible in the Ordinary World, only in right wing fantasy.

 

[BookShaka]

And border agents have always had the leeway to seperate them if they have reasonable cause to believe that is the case

Whoa, say what? These separations were happening BEFORE Trump came into power? Huh.

 

[flacaltenn]

But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

Poverty alone or even a foreign govt colluding with crime or unable to control crime CAN'T FAIRLY be a promotion for US immigration. There's no way to conduct unbiased foreign policy and take MORE than your fair share of poor or crime threatened people from your neighborhood. By doing that -- you are often HELPING the corrupt leadership in those countries steal more and "ship out" their worst cases. Those issues need to be fixed at the place of origin -- or you've accomplished nothing.

What I DO THINK should be a justification is "refugee status" from HOT wars. Which we've never really done. But that needs a SPECIAL arrangement for actual Refugee camps and support services to provide aid and comfort until the conflict is resolved or some country in their region can permanently relocate them. SOME of those folks might LIKE America so much -- they want to apply for citizenship. But taking in refugees by BULK during a hot war doesn't allow for them to DECIDE where they want to relocate. All they want to do at that point is STAY alive. We shouldn't assume they even KNOW enough to choose any particular Western country to permanently emigrate to.

 

[danielpalos]

But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

Poverty alone or even a foreign govt colluding with crime or unable to control crime CAN'T FAIRLY be a promotion for US immigration. There's no way to conduct unbiased foreign policy and take MORE than your fair share of poor or crime threatened people from your neighborhood. By doing that -- you are often HELPING the corrupt leadership in those countries steal more and "ship out" their worst cases. Those issues need to be fixed at the place of origin -- or you've accomplished nothing.

What I DO THINK should be a justification is "refugee status" from HOT wars. Which we've never really done. But that needs a SPECIAL arrangement for actual Refugee camps and support services to provide aid and comfort until the conflict is resolved or some country in their region can permanently relocate them. SOME of those folks might LIKE America so much -- they want to apply for citizenship. But taking in refugees by BULK during a hot war doesn't allow for them to DECIDE where they want to relocate. All they want to do at that point is STAY alive. We shouldn't assume they even KNOW enough to choose any particular Western country to permanently emigrate to.

They are Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror that are helping to destabilize those foreign nations.

 

[Coyote]

But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

Poverty alone or even a foreign govt colluding with crime or unable to control crime CAN'T FAIRLY be a promotion for US immigration. There's no way to conduct unbiased foreign policy and take MORE than your fair share of poor or crime threatened people from your neighborhood. By doing that -- you are often HELPING the corrupt leadership in those countries steal more and "ship out" their worst cases. Those issues need to be fixed at the place of origin -- or you've accomplished nothing.

What I DO THINK should be a justification is "refugee status" from HOT wars. Which we've never really done. But that needs a SPECIAL arrangement for actual Refugee camps and support services to provide aid and comfort until the conflict is resolved or some country in their region can permanently relocate them. SOME of those folks might LIKE America so much -- they want to apply for citizenship. But taking in refugees by BULK during a hot war doesn't allow for them to DECIDE where they want to relocate. All they want to do at that point is STAY alive. We shouldn't assume they even KNOW enough to choose any particular Western country to permanently emigrate to.

Why do you think they are "shipping out" their "worst cases"? I think that assessment is more fiction than fact. It's their best people who are fleeing - it takes a particular strength of will, character and determination not to mention courage to immigrate. The ones that aren't are the gangs profiting off the people.

 

[Coyote]

And border agents have always had the leeway to seperate them if they have reasonable cause to believe that is the case

Whoa, say what? These separations were happening BEFORE Trump came into power? Huh.

You had no idea huh? With a key difference that makes today's seperation a humanitarian disaster. Care to guess what that difference is? I'll give you a hint: a new policy.

 

[Coyote]

Unemployment is so low why are we worried about DACA kids taking jobs?

Because unemployment will not stay low forever. As history has shown, it's a rollercoaster. So when jobs are less plentiful, those DACA people will still be taking those badly needed jobs.

No they won't. They'll be legal residents or citizens. Like you.

 

[flacaltenn]

But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

Poverty alone or even a foreign govt colluding with crime or unable to control crime CAN'T FAIRLY be a promotion for US immigration. There's no way to conduct unbiased foreign policy and take MORE than your fair share of poor or crime threatened people from your neighborhood. By doing that -- you are often HELPING the corrupt leadership in those countries steal more and "ship out" their worst cases. Those issues need to be fixed at the place of origin -- or you've accomplished nothing.

What I DO THINK should be a justification is "refugee status" from HOT wars. Which we've never really done. But that needs a SPECIAL arrangement for actual Refugee camps and support services to provide aid and comfort until the conflict is resolved or some country in their region can permanently relocate them. SOME of those folks might LIKE America so much -- they want to apply for citizenship. But taking in refugees by BULK during a hot war doesn't allow for them to DECIDE where they want to relocate. All they want to do at that point is STAY alive. We shouldn't assume they even KNOW enough to choose any particular Western country to permanently emigrate to.

They are Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror that are helping to destabilize those foreign nations.

"We" don't have as much of that guilt as folks would like to believe. Just a penchant to buy and use illegal drugs. The government systems in Cent/South America never really matured completely. And are prone to instability and crime and graft.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is a dangerously ethno-centered position to take in order to JUSTIFY illegal immigration. Because it borders on the same "low expectations" that haunts our public school systems and creates "lower bars" for American Black kids.

If you look at the SECOND GENERATION of Mexican immigration -- IE -- the DACA kids, they are COMPETING for the SAME jobs and positions (largely) as our citizen American kids. THEY are not working the fields and changing bedpans. And MANY of them are STILL "illegal".

This "vision" of what "they are" has more than a "tint" of racism to it. Maybe at least -- it's counterproductive to not look at consequences -- 20 or 50 years out. Because like MOST of our immigrant classes, their handicaps are unburdened by the time their kids up..

Which position do you mean?

It's right there in you quoting and SEEMINGLY feasting on the "Broadly speaking" crap. Broadly speaking is just the polite way of disguising what we call "racial and ethnic" stereotypes and generalizations.

Need to be thinking LONG TERM on the consequences of ANY immigration policy and not letting sympathy and emotion rule the day.

.

You jumped in without reading through the thread and the context for WHY I put that quote there. It was because Kosh demanded to know what the LARGER bit I quoted has to do with poverty and you jumped right on it without taking in the larger context!

My position is in post 72.

I saw you focused on the poverty issue from early on. And I should have responded to the OP -- not you at that point trying to talk with Kosh. Which I did above on page around #272. BOTH SIDES need to get off the generalizations and stereotypes, like poor or stupid or criminal, and stop USING THESE FOLKS as political ammunition.

For all the reasons I just posted above. Immigration is a STRATEGIC long range issue. Not a reason for daily confrontation and protests on one of HUNDREDS of things that need fixing. We don't FIX stupid or poverty by opening our borders.

We might not be that far apart. I agree opening our borders to all is a non-starters. I don't think very many actually support that. But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

Correct.

No one advocates for ‘open borders.’

And the notion that immigration should somehow be ‘means tested’ is as ridiculous as it is reprehensible and wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

Poverty alone or even a foreign govt colluding with crime or unable to control crime CAN'T FAIRLY be a promotion for US immigration. There's no way to conduct unbiased foreign policy and take MORE than your fair share of poor or crime threatened people from your neighborhood. By doing that -- you are often HELPING the corrupt leadership in those countries steal more and "ship out" their worst cases. Those issues need to be fixed at the place of origin -- or you've accomplished nothing.

What I DO THINK should be a justification is "refugee status" from HOT wars. Which we've never really done. But that needs a SPECIAL arrangement for actual Refugee camps and support services to provide aid and comfort until the conflict is resolved or some country in their region can permanently relocate them. SOME of those folks might LIKE America so much -- they want to apply for citizenship. But taking in refugees by BULK during a hot war doesn't allow for them to DECIDE where they want to relocate. All they want to do at that point is STAY alive. We shouldn't assume they even KNOW enough to choose any particular Western country to permanently emigrate to.

Why do you think they are "shipping out" their "worst cases"? I think that assessment is more fiction than fact. It's their best people who are fleeing - it takes a particular strength of will, character and determination not to mention courage to immigrate. The ones that aren't are the gangs profiting off the people.

It's no where NEAR fiction. I get that information from the 3rd and 4th generation Hispanic US citizens that were my friend and colleagues in California. THEY know the type of immigrant crossing the border has changed DRAMATICALLY since about 1995 or so. And THEY don't like the impact on the mature Hispanic communities they CHOSE to live in out in Cali. It's a bigger issue for THEM than us.

I left Cali BECAUSE the NEW wave of immigration was bringing in a much more insidious type of illegal. The turning point was me was roving bands of schools kids blocking streets and WALKING ACROSS the hood of my Bimmer. Was not safe or fun to send your kids downtown or even pick them at school.. Or to go to our award winning library. Where the humping and cursing in the stacks was rampant after school. Had been there 12 years with an ADMIRATION for our local "Little Tijuana". They had rejuvenated and cleansed the worst part of our town on the SF peninsula. It was wonderful until the "new wave" came. And that was top of my list for bailing. No DOUBT the type of people coming had lower social adjustment and attitudes.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

If the democrats' future depends on the 'Dreamers,' they are in big-ass trouble.

is that why the right wing is, "cozying up to the White Russians instead of the Red Russians?"

So the Red Russians or rather Bolsheviks are somehow better, how do you figure?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Unemployment is so low why are we worried about DACA kids taking jobs?

Because unemployment will not stay low forever. As history has shown, it's a rollercoaster. So when jobs are less plentiful, those DACA people will still be taking those badly needed jobs.

No they won't. They'll be legal residents or citizens. Like you.

Based on the assumption that they will be as productive in generating wealth for society.

Where's the evidence for this, really?

Sure, some Hispanics might become solid Middle-Class, or even a few might become above Middle-Class, but what about the masses?

If we look at parts of New Mexico, Miami, or the Bronx where a good deal of these Hispanics have already been for a few generations they are far from being as rich as Whites.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

Poverty alone or even a foreign govt colluding with crime or unable to control crime CAN'T FAIRLY be a promotion for US immigration. There's no way to conduct unbiased foreign policy and take MORE than your fair share of poor or crime threatened people from your neighborhood. By doing that -- you are often HELPING the corrupt leadership in those countries steal more and "ship out" their worst cases. Those issues need to be fixed at the place of origin -- or you've accomplished nothing.

What I DO THINK should be a justification is "refugee status" from HOT wars. Which we've never really done. But that needs a SPECIAL arrangement for actual Refugee camps and support services to provide aid and comfort until the conflict is resolved or some country in their region can permanently relocate them. SOME of those folks might LIKE America so much -- they want to apply for citizenship. But taking in refugees by BULK during a hot war doesn't allow for them to DECIDE where they want to relocate. All they want to do at that point is STAY alive. We shouldn't assume they even KNOW enough to choose any particular Western country to permanently emigrate to.

Why do you think they are "shipping out" their "worst cases"? I think that assessment is more fiction than fact. It's their best people who are fleeing - it takes a particular strength of will, character and determination not to mention courage to immigrate. The ones that aren't are the gangs profiting off the people.

Hispanic immigrants often vary by region, anyways.

Puerto Ricans , and Dominicans seem to have mostly sent their lower classes to the continental U.S.A..

Cubans, and Ecuadorians seem to have mostly sent their upper end classes to the continental U.S.A

As for Mexicans, Guatemalans, Salvadorians they are probably some where in between.

But, then again, the middle class of Mexico, and even more so Guatemala is more like the lower class of the U.S.A...

 

[Unkotare]

But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

Poverty alone or even a foreign govt colluding with crime or unable to control crime CAN'T FAIRLY be a promotion for US immigration. There's no way to conduct unbiased foreign policy and take MORE than your fair share of poor or crime threatened people from your neighborhood. By doing that -- you are often HELPING the corrupt leadership in those countries steal more and "ship out" their worst cases. Those issues need to be fixed at the place of origin -- or you've accomplished nothing.

What I DO THINK should be a justification is "refugee status" from HOT wars. Which we've never really done. But that needs a SPECIAL arrangement for actual Refugee camps and support services to provide aid and comfort until the conflict is resolved or some country in their region can permanently relocate them. SOME of those folks might LIKE America so much -- they want to apply for citizenship. But taking in refugees by BULK during a hot war doesn't allow for them to DECIDE where they want to relocate. All they want to do at that point is STAY alive. We shouldn't assume they even KNOW enough to choose any particular Western country to permanently emigrate to.

Why do you think they are "shipping out" their "worst cases"? I think that assessment is more fiction than fact. It's their best people who are fleeing - it takes a particular strength of will, character and determination not to mention courage to immigrate. The ones that aren't are the gangs profiting off the people.

Illogical

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is a dangerously ethno-centered position to take in order to JUSTIFY illegal immigration. Because it borders on the same "low expectations" that haunts our public school systems and creates "lower bars" for American Black kids.

If you look at the SECOND GENERATION of Mexican immigration -- IE -- the DACA kids, they are COMPETING for the SAME jobs and positions (largely) as our citizen American kids. THEY are not working the fields and changing bedpans. And MANY of them are STILL "illegal".

This "vision" of what "they are" has more than a "tint" of racism to it. Maybe at least -- it's counterproductive to not look at consequences -- 20 or 50 years out. Because like MOST of our immigrant classes, their handicaps are unburdened by the time their kids up..

Which position do you mean?

It's right there in you quoting and SEEMINGLY feasting on the "Broadly speaking" crap. Broadly speaking is just the polite way of disguising what we call "racial and ethnic" stereotypes and generalizations.

Need to be thinking LONG TERM on the consequences of ANY immigration policy and not letting sympathy and emotion rule the day.

.

You jumped in without reading through the thread and the context for WHY I put that quote there. It was because Kosh demanded to know what the LARGER bit I quoted has to do with poverty and you jumped right on it without taking in the larger context!

My position is in post 72.

I saw you focused on the poverty issue from early on. And I should have responded to the OP -- not you at that point trying to talk with Kosh. Which I did above on page around #272. BOTH SIDES need to get off the generalizations and stereotypes, like poor or stupid or criminal, and stop USING THESE FOLKS as political ammunition.

For all the reasons I just posted above. Immigration is a STRATEGIC long range issue. Not a reason for daily confrontation and protests on one of HUNDREDS of things that need fixing. We don't FIX stupid or poverty by opening our borders.

We might not be that far apart. I agree opening our borders to all is a non-starters. I don't think very many actually support that. But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

Then the question is when will it stop? Will it ever stop? These people are having children in these so-called hellholes and shipping their offspring to the US. Out of empathy we are supposed to just keep bringing them in from these breeding grounds with no end in sight. When the next batch are ready, put them on the conveyer belt to the US like all the others.

If the US funds birth control to these countries, it likely won't help because having children has always been a choice for most people, and these CA and Mexicans have them all the time in spite of their environment. If their surroundings are so bad, so deplorable, so dangerous, WTF are they having kids in the first place?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

I left Cali BECAUSE the NEW wave of immigration was bringing in a much more insidious type of illegal. The turning point was me was roving bands of schools kids blocking streets and WALKING ACROSS the hood of my Bimmer. Was not safe or fun to send your kids downtown or even pick them at school.. Or to go to our award winning library. Where the humping and cursing in the stacks was rampant after school. Had been there 12 years with an ADMIRATION for our local "Little Tijuana". They had rejuvenated and cleansed the worst part of our town on the SF peninsula. It was wonderful until the "new wave" came. And that was top of my list for bailing. No DOUBT the type of people coming had lower social adjustment and attitudes.

Eh, when I was growing up in Putnam Lake, NY the local "Guidos" and "White Friends" used to throw rocks, glass bottles, and fire-crackers at "Cars" for "Fun".

Some White neighborhoods aren't all too great in this country either.

But, I will agree that Hispanics tend to be worse overall.

Blacks tend to be worse than Hispanics.

 

[danielpalos]

If the democrats' future depends on the 'Dreamers,' they are in big-ass trouble.

is that why the right wing is, "cozying up to the White Russians instead of the Red Russians?"

So the Red Russians or rather Bolsheviks are somehow better, how do you figure?

socialism on a national basis; it can be confused.