I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.
>>I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.<<
My OP isn't about race so much as immigration or in today's world illegal immigration. My personal beliefs are that there should be a clear established line. I rather have legal immigration, but the liberals allowed illegal immigration and we're stuck with it. It doesn't make sense to deport all the illegals and maybe some can get legal status. Thus, we have the sanctuary cities and their policies. If you want to make it about race, in this case, whites, then it's about smart whites vs not so smart whites who run these cities. It's not just whites who run these cities, but I'm just making it simple.
Maybe having a white American cut your grass is a sign of quality in your city. However, I don't think it will last.
Basically what I'm saying is the sanctuary cities will thrive more and your city won't be thriving as much. People die daily. You can't just get 100,000K increase in population in a few years through birth.
I find that people making these arguments about legal v illegal immigration to be selling a pig in a poke.
Let me see if I understand you:
You are "for" legal (sic) immigration. According to the anti-immigration activists "legal immigration" is code for citizenship. So you have no problem with immigrants provided they went through some legal process aimed at requiring people to become citizens.
Now, let us forget the fact that this year alone at least 780,000 people will take the oath and become citizens. Radical Muslims, communists, atheists, murderers, social outcasts and all manner of people you would find to be objectionable under most circumstances are welcome... they did it "legally" as you are so fond of calling it.
These 780,000 people (this year alone) can now be a part of the body politic, having the privilege of voting and then drawing out of Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AND voting in their version of what they think America ought to be.
Meanwhile, you get your boxers in a bunch because low wage people come here and work jobs that Americans obviously don't want... don't try to "school" me until you've spent a couple of weeks here with me. Here the whites and the "legal" Americans don't apply for the jobs; they don't want the jobs; they won't work them when they get them. ANYBODY who thinks differently is welcome to spend a couple of weeks with me and I will shatter your presupposition all to Hell.
But, I will not give up trying to get the substance of your argument.
>>You are "for" legal (sic) immigration. According to the anti-immigration activists "legal immigration" is code for citizenship. So you have no problem with immigrants provided they went through some legal process aimed at requiring people to become citizens.<<
Somebody will take these people. The USA has always been a nation of immigrants and this is why the US has been thriving and became #1 in the world if you ask me. Other countries are generally homogeneous. Of course, legal immigration leads to citizenship. That is the idea. I'm not sure you get this.
>>Now, let us forget the fact that this year alone at least 780,000 people will take the oath and become citizens. Radical Muslims, communists, atheists, murderers, social outcasts and all manner of people you would find to be objectionable under most circumstances are welcome... they did it "legally" as you are so fond of calling it.<<
This is utter BS. It isn't about Saddam releasing all the prisoners and sending them to his neighboring countries. The terrorists, criminals and commies are few and far between. Most are working poor. Legal or not, these people help fill the bottom level of our economy. As for the baddies, we hire police and use new technology to monitor and arrest them.
>>Meanwhile, you get your boxers in a bunch because low wage people come here and work jobs that Americans obviously don't want... don't try to "school" me until you've spent a couple of weeks here with me. Here the whites and the "legal" Americans don't apply for the jobs; they don't want the jobs; they won't work them when they get them. ANYBODY who thinks differently is welcome to spend a couple of weeks with me and I will shatter your presupposition all to Hell.<<
I want people here who will take jobs Americans don't want. Prolly any job that makes their skin darker or ruins their mani-pedis are jobs they don't want. The other guy said if you pay them enough, then Americans will take the jobs, but this isn't true. Besides, what businessperson in their right minds wants to pay $15 or more minimum wage for people to do these unskilled jobs?
>>But, I will not give up trying to get the substance of your argument.<<
My argument is about my city thriving and having a sanctuary city in today's environment guarantees that my city will thrive. You can be a redneck and disallow immigrants, but your city will end up stagnating as its population will go down. People die daily. It doesn't matter if you build out suburbs in these metro centers when its population goes down. The whole area's economy will suffer. People will move to where there are jobs and when the population of a city goes up, then that's where the big companies will want to take advantage of. Companies who build out in towns and cities that aren't growing and thriving will go downhill.
Dude, for real. You need to learn how to quote people so that the rest of us can tell when one poster's comments begin and end and where yours starts and ends.
Having done extensive work in immigration law, I can tell you, for a fact, that most people who come here and either enter or remain after their visa expires do not want to become citizens. So, you obviously do not get it.
Between 1986 and 2001 America offered SEVEN amnesties for those without papers. Fewer than half applied! That should tell you something. Not everybody who comes here wants to become a citizen NOR do they need to become a citizen.
The very first Naturalization Act in the United States was in 1790. It limited citizenship to whites. Still people came here by the millions to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered.
And while you're stomping your feet yelling bullshit, the fact is more violent crimes in the past decade have been committed by "legal" immigrants and their immediate offspring than by American citizens and undocumented immigrants combined!!!
America has an immigration problem, but it cannot be resolved with the build the wall, deport 'em all mantra. I'm against mass deportations, the nutty wall idea, and it's inevitable outcome - the ultimate POLICE STATE.
>>Dude, for real. You need to learn how to quote people so that the rest of us can tell when one poster's comments begin and end and where yours starts and ends.<<
Your quote is in between my arrows.
>>Having done extensive work in immigration law, I can tell you, for a fact, that most people who come here and either enter or remain after their visa expires do not want to become citizens. So, you obviously do not get it.<<
Some will not want to become citizens, but our history shows different. Most of the poor have become citizens.
>>Between 1986 and 2001 America offered SEVEN amnesties for those without papers. Fewer than half applied! That should tell you something. Not everybody who comes here wants to become a citizen NOR do they need to become a citizen.
The very first Naturalization Act in the United States was in 1790. It limited citizenship to whites. Still people came here by the millions to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered.<<
What it tells me is the today's illegals don't trust the system. Otherwise, why do we need sanctuary cities?
>>And while you're stomping your feet yelling bullshit, the fact is more violent crimes in the past decade have been committed by "legal" immigrants and their immediate offspring than by American citizens and undocumented immigrants combined!!!
America has an immigration problem, but it cannot be resolved with the build the wall, deport 'em all mantra. I'm against mass deportations, the nutty wall idea, and it's inevitable outcome - the ultimate POLICE STATE.<<
I think you're referring to illegals who were criminals. They should be fingerprinted, have high-res photos taken of them and deported. If they come back into the country, then we'll be able to track and arrest them for deportation.
I'm against the wall. That seems un-American and it's more suitable if we are a country at war with our neighbors and under attack. The wall has become a symbol for being against illegal immigration that Obumba and the Democrats allowed.
You're new at this. This is really going to hurt.
As much as I find Barack Obama to be an objectionable human being, the right should embrace him. He did not create the immigration debacle. As president, he deported more undocumented foreigners than any previous president.
The hard core, no-nonsense, bottom line reality is that our Constitution does not give the federal government any jurisdiction over immigration. The federal government only has one job with respect to foreigners. It's listed in Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Here is the sum total of the federal government's lawful / de jure / constitutional jurisdiction:
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
That's it. The word immigration isn't even IN the Constitution. Furthermore, in the Tenth Amendment, you find this:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
So, how did we get to this point of the federal government controlling immigration?
In 1876 the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" over immigration to Congress in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman. Here's the problem: Under our Constitution the United States Supreme Court has NO authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY power. The United States Supreme Court literally legislated from the bench in attacking a state's right.
Ironically, the High Court chastised the California Commissioner of Immigration and the Sheriff of San Francisco for not presenting a defense in the Chy Lung case. So, what I'm telling you is that the issue of legal v. illegal aliens is constitutionally bogus. States are constitutionally free to invite whomever they want into the United States. It's just that the federal government realizes the absolute clusterphuck they've created and they're almost powerless to do anything that affects the bottom line without turning America into a complete and total dictatorship.