</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,)
It sounds like your objection is to immigrants from another country in general rather than whether that immigration legal or not.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
No, illegal immigration is, in addition to the two reasons you listed, a serious threat to national security. Regardless if its an epidemic or not. Right now, it's an epidemic and requires special attention by the government.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Attention Bush is giving by pushing a law you might not agree with. It seems that Bush and I agree on this issue in principle....
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,) Wrong. While the immigrations from eastern and southern Europe weren't easy to deal with, they integrated just fine within a generation or two. A massive wave in immigration from Mexico will not. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Wrong about what? Irish immigration had two waves. The second wave sparked a public backlash. What was wrong with them was that they lived in slums, accepted low wages, and they were Catholic. The reason they integrated (grudginly accepted) was because they took an active interest in politics and pooled their interests in the form of political power. The discrimination among local businesses was still prevalent.
The Italian backlash began in the 1920s. Congress passed laws on immigration quotas. Local levels were more severe and manipulative. The Ku Klux Klan didn't target only blacks, and had the motto of "America for Americans". They only integrated just fine when World War Two ended because the stereotypes about them were wrong. Stereotypes of being slow learners of English and in general, loyal only to the Pope and distrustful of the US government, being clannish and suspicious of outsiders, etc... Plus they lived in slums, accepted low wages, and they were Catholic. Notice the patern of different American generations here.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,) This is but another parallel to the Roman Empire that one could make for the United States. When Rome became so overrun with the barbarians, they were made citizens and the Roman Empire suffered a schism. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
You're condensing a few centuries of Roman history here... Emperor Valens accepted the Goths under false pretenses only to put the settling Goths in concentration camps to be conscripted or sold to slavery. Two years laer, the Goths rebeled and eventually killed Valens at Adrianople. Hopefully there won't be a condensed parallel at work....
The truth is that it's the immigrants choice whether to accept the doctrine of Anglo-assimilation or not. The Italians, Jews, Poles, etc... accepted it because it appealed to their personal interests. Whether or not the second or third generation non-whites will accept it is largely determined by their socio-economic status, don't you agree?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,) Now, this problem was not just because of the barbarians, the division of the Roman Empire was also due to a lot of the in-fighting going on; separate political entities were constantly vieing for dominance. The comparison here is how the Democrats are constantly assailing the President and his policies. However, the barbarians played no small part. Remember that.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Yes, blame the evil Democrats for plaguing a process that has occured since the birth of this nation. How quickly we forget the Clinton impeachment trials and the shutdown of our government.. Both parties are guilty of the same crime, but I've yet to see political assassinations and secret coups, unless you want to count
Gore v. Bush...
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,) St. Patrick's Day, which is not a federal holiday like Christmas, has been celebrated in the United States since 1762. And it is considered a Catholic holiday. I don't see how that is connected with the history of immigration in the United States, except that perhaps there were a lot of Irishmen in New York City in the 1700s. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Interesting. Do you know anyone who wears green on St. Patty's Day but aren't fully Irish? Do you see people getting pinched? Has Halloween always been celebrated as a candy soliciting festival in the US? Easter Bunny? Those aren't inherited or concieved American traditions?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,) They're not immigrating "just because," rice. The corruption in the Mexican government is what has given rise to the immigration crisis in the first place. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
That could be one of many factors. Or maybe they're fed up with living in squalor like any other immigant. Doesn't mean the people are corrupt or won't work hard like you have been implying.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,) We might as well, California has already become so overrun, non-Hispanics are a minority in Los Angeles. Talk to anybody who lives in southern California, the situation is horrible there.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I live in SoCal. Do you know anyone around here or have you just heard about New MexiCal... Yeah, there's a lotta Mexicans. I don't ride around huddled with my gun suspiciously eyeing Mexicans. Most of them just want to do their own thing and live in America.
So what exactly is so horrible? I don't know what you've heard, but that explosive debt was not caused by illegal immigrants. Not a lot of like minded faces? Aww, you might have to get to know the people... Surprisingly, some of the second or third generationers seem to speak good English like they've integrated just fine or something.
California isn't the only state with Mexican immigrants. All border states have them. Texas rivals California in percentage. California is more metropolitan and more exposed, so it's understandable that it'll be in the spotlight with its highs and lows exagerated. You have no proof that illegal immigration was the primary factor to why people from California are moving to other states. It could be the air quality or standard of living, or because they want a
good job in a time where California has a 50 billion dollar debt. Buchannan doesn't live here. He's a demogauge spouting typical rhetoric with no standing proof.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,) Why do you think the Democrats attempted to push pro-immigration legislation during the gubernatorial election? To defeat Arnold with the Hispanic vote, because they know how bad it is there -- and they welcome it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
So according to the article Bush knows how bad it is/will be and is appealing to the Mexican vote now. Another Democrat conspiracy at work were.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,) Give me a break, low-wage just serves corporate interest and gives preference to an illegal over an American citizen.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
If you really wanted to mow my lawn, clean my toilets, flip a burger, or wait at my beck and call, all you had to do was just ask.
Again, these jobs are menial that no educated American would tolerate for more than a year. It spills beyond corporate interests to local businesses and startups. Illegal immigration benefits the economy in secondary forms. The employers, retailers, and middlemen all pay taxes based on the increased productivity of these undocumented aliens. Bush's proposal would put these people on record, tax them, and give them humanitarian benefits that people living and working in the US should recieve.
It's a tough thing to swallow for people who believe in national boundaries. I agree, it's a very grey issue. But the reality is here. Condoning it or not will not change the flow of illegal immigration. Spending billions on border patrol hasn't netted us any visible benefits. The people caught just try again and hope to succeed. The thing I believe is that if they're here and get a good opportunity, most likely the majority won't sqander it. Some might be so entrenched they'll become xenophobic as the rest of us. Double plus for America. On the other hand, if they're ignored or to be swept into the cracks of society, then they will become a greater burden on the system with very slim chances of clawing out of their slums.