What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[danielpalos]

Capitalism, all the way! No need for right wing Socialism on a National basis!

 

[Flopper]

You said that bakers should refuse to bake wedding cakes because they are being forced to participate in a ritual they consider immoral.

Except that it isn't part of the ritual mentioned in the bible. Doing a virgin check on your daughter and stoning her ass is, though.

If you are making a cake for a gay wedding, of course you are involved, just like you are involved if they call you to tape the wedding or custom make flower arrangements. You are involved.

But they aren't part of the ritual and they aren't mentioned in the bible or the Koran.

And, no, the bakers in question refused to provide the service at all.

For those playing along at home, wedding cakes are actually a ROMAN pagan tradition that got carried over into Christianity because who doesn't like cake?

I'm talking about the latest supreme court case. The baker did say he would sell them a cake, just not custom make one. They could buy any other cake in the shop.

Except they didn't signal him out. They were recommended to his business by friends. They didn't know he was a raging homophobe until they go there.

Bull, it that was the case, they would have just gone to one of the many other bakers in the area. They went there specifically to start trouble.

Um, no, what I said was if they can't follow the law, they shouldn't be in business.

Sorry you were confused there.

Hey, did you check out all those truck driving jobs on Indeed that actually offer health benefits? Wow. Amazing. I was able to find these things for you. It's almost like I do that for a living.

Post 3530:

"Bullshit.... if you don't want to participate in certain activities, don't be in that line of work."

Great. Show me these jobs that I can apply for with my government restrictions: I can't leave state lines, I can't get Haz-Mat, I can't get a passenger endorsement.

From the brief, it appears that there was no discussion of the type of wedding cake. The couple ask to purchase a wedding cake for a gay marriage and the baker said no.

This case and all public accommodation suits boils down to one question. Does a person who opens his business to the public have a right to choose his customers based on his own personal prejudices?

You can be in business without being a public accommodation. For example, the baker could sell his goods privately through churches are clubs. He also could sell his goods wholesale or he do a combination, selling decorated cakes privately or wholesale and standard bake goods to the public. There are a number of options if he doesn't won't to sell to the public. The courts position has been for over 50 years, if you are open to public, you got to be open to the public. You can't yes to the white guy and no to the black guy or in Colorado, yes to straight couple and no to the gay couple.

 

[Dragonlady]

In a history of stupid posts, this is by far the dumbest thing ever.

You bitch about your job endlessly. Why don’t you quit and open your own trucking company, or become an independent hauler?

Yeah, I thought about that many times. But I already have a side business that keeps me occupied. I don't need two businesses.

And why is my remark stupid? Is it because you can't answer my question?

Yes, the workers work. That's what they get paid to do. But the workers didn't come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to open up that store. The workers couldn't pay the utilities or taxes. The workers couldn't compete with similar stores if they paid themselves great money. The workers don't have an office staff to handle government regulations, payroll, billers and paperwork pushers. They don't have the resources to even open up such an office. They don't have to spend the money for snow removal or lot maintenance.

What the Walton's have done is provide a place for people to work. Without them, some of those people wouldn't have any kind of job at all. They spent money to create the idea, the structure, the organization. They risked their own money. That's what they do.

Just because they don't sweep floors doesn't mean they are not earning their money. In the event you didn't know, investment is where you do spend your own money hoping for a return plus profit.

Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.

You mean we are the only country where people take care of themselves? My Lord, what an awful place.

Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!

The US produces close to a half-million new millionaires every year. How much more upward mobility do you want than that? The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility. Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.

"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't."
Rush Limbaugh

Did you read the whole article Ray, or did you stop after the part about 500,000 new millionaires ever year?

Did you read the part which said that these new millionaires are being created by a tax code which transfers wealth from the working class to the investment class? People aren’t getting rich from their own efforts, but rather by a tax code which transfers money from those who work to those who don’t.

Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?

Or that 3/4 of all wealthy individuals say inheritance was a factor in their accumulation of wealth?

1,700 People in America Are Becoming Millionaires Every Day

Try reading the WHOLE article this time Ray.

There are 4 million babies born in the US each year. Even with a half a million millionaires being created each year, this means the other 3 million children who are being born this year are not going to be “thrivers”. 3/4 of these children will grow up poor because Donald Trump is accelerating that transfer of wealth with the new tax code.

Upthread someone whinged that 30% of all immigrants are on welfare. That’s substantially less than the 47% of American citizens who are currently receiving social assistance? The people Mitt Romney labelled as “takers”.

The ignorance of right wingers on matters of the economy makes it easy for Republicans to fool you into thinking they know what they’re doing.

 

[Flopper]

Oh, so you know all this even though we don't have one? My you are so good, in fact, you are so much better than all our agencies that said a wall would benefit them greatly; the same agencies that participated in the design of the wall that would help eliminate all the things you wrote above.

Actually, the agencies aren't saying that at all.

https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-doesnt-want-a-wall-they-want-drones-an-1773661854

Even the conservative Cato Institute says a wall won't work.

Why the Wall Won't Work

Are you serious? Gizmodo for your evidence? Here, try a real source:

Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds

Your survey says they want a wall in strategic locations.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, so you know all this even though we don't have one? My you are so good, in fact, you are so much better than all our agencies that said a wall would benefit them greatly; the same agencies that participated in the design of the wall that would help eliminate all the things you wrote above.

Actually, the agencies aren't saying that at all.

https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-doesnt-want-a-wall-they-want-drones-an-1773661854

Even the conservative Cato Institute says a wall won't work.

Why the Wall Won't Work

Are you serious? Gizmodo for your evidence? Here, try a real source:

Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds

Your survey says they want a wall in strategic locations.

And????????

 

[AZGAL]

There is a GIANT misunderstanding about what has happened to the (illegal) children both under the Obama presidency, and what has just happened because of "zero tolerance". Zero tolerance refers to CHARGING a misdemeanor when an ADULT enters the USA illegally. BECAUSE of the FLORES law NO CHILDREN could be held in detention with the parent/s awaiting a hearing. THEREFORe the CHILDREN who arrived WITH PARENTS recently had to be placed elsewhere temporarily, not permanently. MOST of these children were NOT of TENDER AGE (under 13), and in FACT only a handful of toddler/ infants ever went away from their parents. THERE were NO CHILDREN in "CAGES" as the LYIN' liberal media claimed, just families who were being "processed" at the border. The UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN who came in the highest record ever- about 70,000 CAME DURING THE OBAMA administration and were also "processed" at the border. NO, not all of them got sponsors. MANY had to live in children only facilities because THEIR PARENTS set them off on a dangerous journey with teenagers and coyotes THROUGH MEXICO by way of trains, buses, on foot and WITHOUT PARENTS. The record number of unaccompanied children was in 2014. It was called a "surge" of children. SOME were granted temporary or permanent status (stay or asylum) and MANY were returned to their home countries.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNY LISETTE FLORES, et al, Plaintiffs
v.
JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants

Case No. CV 85-4544-RJK(Px)

The Flores lawsuit went all the way to the Supreme Court. Eventually, in 1997, the two sides signed a settlement that has governed treatment of migrant children in detention ever since. The Flores settlement has been revisited multiple times, most recently in 2015 when the Obama administration sought to carve out an exception for minors who had arrived in the U.S. with their parents. It came amid a surge in migrant families from Central America, and the administration wanted to detain some of them for as long as it took to process their cases. A federal judge in California said no, which brings us to yesterday when the Trump administration submitted a very similar request. And the same federal judge, Dolly Gee, is set to hear the case 33 years after Carlos Holguin first brought suit on behalf of Jenny Flores.

 

[AZGAL]

"Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?"...so then LETS PRIORITIZE HELPING OUR FAMILIES HERE. In addition, this nation is in debt and the President is improving the economy. The USA always takes in some asylum seekers and immigrants, but we cannot and will not take in the whole world.

 

[Flopper]

Yup... except they can't actually vote for a long time, but never mind.

At least not legally.

The big plan is to stuff as many of these minorities into the country as they can. If and when they regain total power of the federal government, grant citizenship to all the illegals who would then be eligible to vote.

By the time they would make any difference the political landscape will probably be entirely different. I can remember when democrats thought free trade was horrible and republicans thought it was the greatest thing since pancakes. Before Reagan, Hispanics divided pretty equally between the parties. Not too long ago Democrats were hanging blacks from the old cypress tree and republicans were selling civil rights. Democrats use to fight immigration because they feared it hurt the unions while republicans were championing immigration.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, I thought about that many times. But I already have a side business that keeps me occupied. I don't need two businesses.

And why is my remark stupid? Is it because you can't answer my question?

Yes, the workers work. That's what they get paid to do. But the workers didn't come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to open up that store. The workers couldn't pay the utilities or taxes. The workers couldn't compete with similar stores if they paid themselves great money. The workers don't have an office staff to handle government regulations, payroll, billers and paperwork pushers. They don't have the resources to even open up such an office. They don't have to spend the money for snow removal or lot maintenance.

What the Walton's have done is provide a place for people to work. Without them, some of those people wouldn't have any kind of job at all. They spent money to create the idea, the structure, the organization. They risked their own money. That's what they do.

Just because they don't sweep floors doesn't mean they are not earning their money. In the event you didn't know, investment is where you do spend your own money hoping for a return plus profit.

Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.

You mean we are the only country where people take care of themselves? My Lord, what an awful place.

Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!

The US produces close to a half-million new millionaires every year. How much more upward mobility do you want than that? The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility. Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.

"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't."
Rush Limbaugh

Did you read the whole article Ray, or did you stop after the part about 500,000 new millionaires ever year?

Did you read the part which said that these new millionaires are being created by a tax code which transfers wealth from the working class to the investment class? People aren’t getting rich from their own efforts, but rather by a tax code which transfers money from those who work to those who don’t.

Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?

Or that 3/4 of all wealthy individuals say inheritance was a factor in their accumulation of wealth?

1,700 People in America Are Becoming Millionaires Every Day

Try reading the WHOLE article this time Ray.

There are 4 million babies born in the US each year. Even with a half a million millionaires being created each year, this means the other 3 million children who are being born this year are not going to be “thrivers”. 3/4 of these children will grow up poor because Donald Trump is accelerating that transfer of wealth with the new tax code.

Upthread someone whinged that 30% of all immigrants are on welfare. That’s substantially less than the 47% of American citizens who are currently receiving social assistance? The people Mitt Romney labelled as “takers”.

The ignorance of right wingers on matters of the economy makes it easy for Republicans to fool you into thinking they know what they’re doing.

I didn't read any article because I didn't post an article. However I did read yours by Nanny Bloomberg.

What it said in a Clintonizing way was that inheritance was a factor--not the direct reason people became wealthy.

Now I'm a working class guy. I don't remember any deduction out of my paycheck that went to the rich. I do transfer money to the rich just like you do, but it's an option and not a mandate by my employer. You and I both transfer our wealth to the top several times a week. Nobody is holding a gun to our heads to do it either.

And your article didn't say anything about the tax code. Even if the tax code played a part, it's not the reason people become wealthy. All Trump's tax code did was allow people to keep more of THEIR MONEY THAT THEY EARNED!

To your chagrin, all money does not belong to government, and what they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us. Money is property no different than your car or home. You earned it, you created it, and it's rightfully yours.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yup... except they can't actually vote for a long time, but never mind.

At least not legally.

The big plan is to stuff as many of these minorities into the country as they can. If and when they regain total power of the federal government, grant citizenship to all the illegals who would then be eligible to vote.

By the time they would make any difference the political landscape will probably be entirely different. I can remember when democrats thought free trade was horrible and republicans thought it was the greatest thing since pancakes. Before Reagan, Hispanics divided pretty equally between the parties. Not too long ago Democrats were hanging blacks from the old cypress tree and republicans were selling civil rights. Democrats use to fight immigration because they feared it hurt the unions while republicans were championing immigration.

All other groups of people vote a majority Democrat. That's why the Democrats want to wipe out whites. Hispanics heavily vote Democrat. Middle-Easterners vote Democrat. The Jewish vote Democrat. The Asians vote Democrat. Blacks? Forget about it.

Once we are the minority, we will be on the path to a one-party country forever, and when that happens, it will be the end of the Great Experiment. We will fall into a Socialist hellhole like so many others, and perhaps even advance to Communism.

And don't say "by then" because we have elections every two years. Things can change on a dime like we seen during the last administration.

 

[francoHFW]

Good for them now tax them please.... Your hero worship is touching.Why are we the only modern country without Healthcare daycare good vacations cheap college and training good infrastructure living wage, super duper? 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich.

You mean we are the only country where people take care of themselves? My Lord, what an awful place.

Also why we have the the worst inequality, poverty, upward Mobility and infrastructure and everything else in the modern world. Thanks GOP and silly dupes like you. We're number 23!!

The US produces close to a half-million new millionaires every year. How much more upward mobility do you want than that? The main reason we have poverty if because the Democrats have promoted irresponsibility. Single parent homes (which Democrats also promoted) is a leading reason for poverty.

"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't."
Rush Limbaugh

Did you read the whole article Ray, or did you stop after the part about 500,000 new millionaires ever year?

Did you read the part which said that these new millionaires are being created by a tax code which transfers wealth from the working class to the investment class? People aren’t getting rich from their own efforts, but rather by a tax code which transfers money from those who work to those who don’t.

Did you read that 75% of American families are struggling to make ends meet?

Or that 3/4 of all wealthy individuals say inheritance was a factor in their accumulation of wealth?

1,700 People in America Are Becoming Millionaires Every Day

Try reading the WHOLE article this time Ray.

There are 4 million babies born in the US each year. Even with a half a million millionaires being created each year, this means the other 3 million children who are being born this year are not going to be “thrivers”. 3/4 of these children will grow up poor because Donald Trump is accelerating that transfer of wealth with the new tax code.

Upthread someone whinged that 30% of all immigrants are on welfare. That’s substantially less than the 47% of American citizens who are currently receiving social assistance? The people Mitt Romney labelled as “takers”.

The ignorance of right wingers on matters of the economy makes it easy for Republicans to fool you into thinking they know what they’re doing.

I didn't read any article because I didn't post an article. However I did read yours by Nanny Bloomberg.

What it said in a Clintonizing way was that inheritance was a factor--not the direct reason people became wealthy.

Now I'm a working class guy. I don't remember any deduction out of my paycheck that went to the rich. I do transfer money to the rich just like you do, but it's an option and not a mandate by my employer. You and I both transfer our wealth to the top several times a week. Nobody is holding a gun to our heads to do it either.

And your article didn't say anything about the tax code. Even if the tax code played a part, it's not the reason people become wealthy. All Trump's tax code did was allow people to keep more of THEIR MONEY THAT THEY EARNED!

To your chagrin, all money does not belong to government, and what they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us. Money is property no different than your car or home. You earned it, you created it, and it's rightfully yours.

35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich, super duper. And screwing the rest...
Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = ht

 

[AZGAL]

And to all the Lyin' media: OBAMA government filled the "cages"... and sorry TIME magazine you lie too...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You said that bakers should refuse to bake wedding cakes because they are being forced to participate in a ritual they consider immoral.

Except that it isn't part of the ritual mentioned in the bible. Doing a virgin check on your daughter and stoning her ass is, though.

If you are making a cake for a gay wedding, of course you are involved, just like you are involved if they call you to tape the wedding or custom make flower arrangements. You are involved.

But they aren't part of the ritual and they aren't mentioned in the bible or the Koran.

And, no, the bakers in question refused to provide the service at all.

For those playing along at home, wedding cakes are actually a ROMAN pagan tradition that got carried over into Christianity because who doesn't like cake?

I'm talking about the latest supreme court case. The baker did say he would sell them a cake, just not custom make one. They could buy any other cake in the shop.

Except they didn't signal him out. They were recommended to his business by friends. They didn't know he was a raging homophobe until they go there.

Bull, it that was the case, they would have just gone to one of the many other bakers in the area. They went there specifically to start trouble.

Um, no, what I said was if they can't follow the law, they shouldn't be in business.

Sorry you were confused there.

Hey, did you check out all those truck driving jobs on Indeed that actually offer health benefits? Wow. Amazing. I was able to find these things for you. It's almost like I do that for a living.

Post 3530:

"Bullshit.... if you don't want to participate in certain activities, don't be in that line of work."

Great. Show me these jobs that I can apply for with my government restrictions: I can't leave state lines, I can't get Haz-Mat, I can't get a passenger endorsement.

From the brief, it appears that there was no discussion of the type of wedding cake. The couple ask to purchase a wedding cake for a gay marriage and the baker said no.

This case and all public accommodation suits boils down to one question. Does a person who opens his business to the public have a right to choose his customers based on his own personal prejudices?

You can be in business without being a public accommodation. For example, the baker could sell his goods privately through churches are clubs. He also could sell his goods wholesale or he do a combination, selling decorated cakes privately or wholesale and standard bake goods to the public. There are a number of options if he doesn't won't to sell to the public. The courts position has been for over 50 years, if you are open to public, you got to be open to the public. You can't yes to the white guy and no to the black guy or in Colorado, yes to straight couple and no to the gay couple.

The court seen it differently......at least in the last case.

The US Constitution protects your right to practice your religion as you see fit. Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible and even Koran. In fact very few religions accept a gay relationship of any kind.

It's less a personal prejudice than it is a religious one. There are no exemptions for freedom of religion just because you own a business.

 

[Ame®icano]

/——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.

Except these people aren't looking for welfare. They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.

Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.

So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants. Typical leftist thinking all the way. Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.

Let capitalism do the work. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.

in this case, it is; higher paid labor creates more in demand and pays more in taxes. only the right wing, doesn't really care and never get's it.

You failed to explain what more of demand is created?

Second, unlike communist leach such as yourself, I believe minimum wage should be zero, and also... federal tax should be zero percent and feds should be financed by the states.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If they are disabled, they can apply for disability. Yes, they have jobs. Some of our customers use temps. When they ask temps if they could work more hours, most of them refuse. Why? Because that would interfere with their stipend. And it's not like these places have them working 40 hours a week to start off with. The temp agencies often switch employees around during the week so they can keep their hours down by the request of the workers.

Believe me, they know how to play the game.

Yes, I'm sure they do. So does the construction guy who collects unemployment in the off season and does off the books work around the neighborhood.

So does the retired person who still does off the books business while collecting social security.

Guess what, buddy, EVERYONE GAMES THE SYSTEM.

So that's a reason to let others do the same? We and our employers pay into SS. We and our employers pay into unemployment. People on food stamps likely never paid a dime into our federal income tax system. How do I figure that? Because nearly half the people in our country don't pay into the system.

So you are trying to make the comparison of people getting back what they paid in, to people who take and never put in a dime. Sorry. You are speaking apples and I'm talking about oranges.

 

[candycorn]

The same time you answer the question..if “beaner” is such a term of endearment, have you belled up to a Chicano bar and called the tender a “beaner” to his face?

I asked you a question several times and you dodged every time. Then you asked me a question and demand I answer it immediately, and claimed I am dodging it.

I explained it to you, it's not how it works. Normal people live and learn. It seems you just live.

lol.... again, if you don't think "beaner" is a racial slur, would you call a white person a beaner? A black person a beaner? An Asian person a "beaner"? Of course not. Only Hispanics get called that particular racial slur.

Why you can't wrap your head around this simple fact and keep asking questions like "what race is Mexican" is just a sign of your continued and profound dishonesty and is the hallmark of all Trump supporters when you go one degree deep with them: dishonesty and "whataboutism"

/-----/ "lol.... again, if you don't think "beaner" is a racial slur, "
Ahhh shut up you Gringo

See...Cellblock gets it. Gringo is a racial slur. You wouldn't call someone who is not Anglo that word. If Cellblock gets it-- We're talking someone who is near the bottom rung of society--you should be ashamed.

If you know any mexican people then you'll know this is a non-derogatory term used to refer to US citizens. Mostly because the term "American" does not make sense to the rest of the Americans (all those people who live in the continent named "America", which is every body from Alaska to argentina), and the word "Estadounidense" (UnitedStatean)is too long.

Folklore says it was generated when the US invaded mexico, wearing green uniforms, and the people shouted at them "Green Go Home".

With time it lost all derogatory status and was turned into the most common word to refer to any US citizen.
Urban Dictionary: gringo

Know about a billion "mexican people", Gringo is used sparingly if ever. Never in polite company. I know several words in Spanish (Spanglish) which are far worse that are used daily if not hourly.

 

[Ame®icano]

The rich earned their wealth? Are you that stupid? The Walton’s earned nothing. Sam Walton earned their wealth. The Waltons sit on their asses and collect dividends off the work if others.

The rich have a tax code that keeps wealth flowing to the top. They have labour laws which allow them to deny health care or benefits to workers, and to pay them so little their workers need welfare to supplement their incomes.

They appoint a burger flipper as “manager” so they can work him/her 60 hours a week without paying overtime.

Other countries put their people first. America puts their corporations first, and the wealthy second. Working men and women, who make up the vast majority of your population are denigrated, abused and paid the least amount possible.

Envy is a bitch.

 

[kaz]

I agree, but talking with people close to the border (I've never been there) the problem they have are illegals crowding 12 people into a two family home or apartment. That brings down property value. So they can work at McDonald's part time and still make claim of supporting themselves. The other problem is anchor babies. Come here and have a bunch of kids, and then you can share in their welfare plus be able to make claim they need you here because they are little Americans that cannot support themselves.

Those are real issues that need to be solved. We have a better chance to do that though if people can only come legally

Well some of them are coming legally and that's what they do. Again, no first hand experience, but just going by what people who live in the area tell me.

Some of them are coming legally. We have just over 37 million legal immigrants living in the United States. The best estimates of undocumented immigrants are 11 to 12 million. In other words we have about 3 times as many legal immigrants. That's not just "some".

Actually, no experts actually believe 11 to 12 million. That estimate is over a decade old and would suggest that no one has come here, which is of course crap. Most put the real number at 25 to 30 million

Compete nonsense. Most all reputable research organization puts the numbers between 11 and 12 million.

Pants on fire Trump. "It could be 3 million. It could be 30 million," Trump said.

Homeland Security estimated 12 million in 2012

11.4 million Migration Policy Institute (MPI) analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2014
11.1 million Statistics Portal 2014
11.3 million Pew Research Center 2015
10.8 million Center for Immigration Studies 2016

Profile of the Unauthorized Population - US
5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.
Unauthorized immigrant population U.S. 1990-2014 | Statistic
Looking at the New Estimates of the Illegal Population

Right, and if you actually read the HLS report, it says it has significant "non-sampling error." Since you aren't a very good reader, I'll explain what that means. They only counted the people they could count and reported that. They did not attempt try to estimate the ones they couldn't count, which is exactly the point with illegal aliens, we can't count them.

The 25-30 million estimate is based on estimates of the numbers of illegal and overstays that were projected to have entered the US and stayed since the early 90s. There is no possible way that illegal entries and overstays since added up to only ~10 million based on the number of people continuing to enter the country since that time.

The number of illegal aliens in our healthcare system, educational system and prisons shows that the 10 millionish estimates are not remotely possible, there are far more illegal aliens here. The ones that estimate in that range are all like the HLS estimates where they are only reporting what they can count. HLS is just honest about that insufficiency in their sampling

 

[kaz]

So you're doing this for the rich people? What a stupid ass you are to carry their water for them

not at all..

My solution to illegal aliens would be go after the places that hire them, not try to top them at the border, which is useless since they will always find another way in.

You see, what we do with the Mexicans we catch? We send them back to Mexico and they try again a few weeks later. You have to get it right every time. they just have to get it right, once.

It's the detainees and refugees from Central America that are causing the current problem with the ugly images.

If you believed that, you wouldn't be hyperventalating about the wall. You'd say go ahead and build it. Other countries around the world that have built walls all say they do work.

The point is that sure, SOME will still get in. But nowhere near the numbers. You actually think a Mexican is going to bring his wife and kids through dangerous mountains? And they would still be electronically surveilled. No, you want illegal immigration. It's the only thing that explains your arguments. Illegals are poor, exactly what the Democrats want in voters

 

[kaz]

Only a fraction of the people coming now will get through. You know that very well, which is why you're so desperate to stop it

Actually, they'll just get more clever about getting across. Most undocumented workers don't come in across the southern border to start with.

That's a lie. Even the leftists who provided links said overstays are less than those walking in. They just didn't read the links.

And again, the ones walking across the border are far more dangerous. They are unchecked. At least the overstays were checked at one point for their criminal record