No announcement yet.


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    It is about the right of Americans to determine what they want their country to be, as embodied in the laws they pass. If Americans want to maintain an "American" culture, rather than being inundated by 50 million Poles (are there 50 million Poles?) Indians or Chinese, then that's THEIR decision.
    Oh goodie...the truth at last. So, then, the real fear is the (and someone actually said this on FoxNews) "Browning of America"...its a legitimate fear and no-one will fault you for it. You want your children to inherit the America YOU did...assuredly white (preferably western european), christian, (preferably protestant)...these 12 million people will have an average of 4-5 children each and voila...America is brown. Oh yeah thats the real fear..I just wish they'd come out and say it though...then everyone would know where they stand.


    • #17
      You mean "brown" like Mexico? Mexico, with its European elites on top, sending its indigenous peoples to the US so that it doesn't have to deal with their poverty? Mexico, and Latin America, which have a history of European immigration which almost rivals our own? (Being Polish is about as sterotypically white as you can get--blonde and blue-eyed, by the way.) A friend of mine in college was "that little Latin girl" to our Puerto Rican doormen in NYC--even though she was a blonde, blue-eyed Uruguayan with German parents. She spoke Spanish, yes, but her mother tongue was probably German, and she spoke fluent English (Mom was an English teacher). She's "Hispanic" or "Latino", and "brown" by definition if not fact.

      Culture is not a matter of race, or even color. As an Arab-American I have more in common with my African-American friend because I am AMERICAN than I do with Arabs, or my friend does with Africans. We share a language, to a large extent histories, values, and the like. These comprise culture. And why, pray tell, shouldn't the US preserve its culture, when we hear from so many multiculturalists that it's their RIGHT to preserve theirs? For that matter, if the culture they're leaving to come here has been so unsatisfactory that they feel the need to leave it, just why would or should immigrants try to change us to its image? And why should we allow it? And if culture doesn't matter, then just why is it that some countries, such as Iraq or Liberia, can have the trappings of democracy, but fail so miserably at creating it?

      Here's a look at what the immigration bill the Senate will be considering may have for Americans. If this guy is even half right, just who do you think is going to benefit from the increased levels of immigration? Particularly if we plan to continue providing public education, and various social programs? (Which immigrants from Third World countries especially are likely to need if they are to climb out of poverty.) Remember--these "guest workers" will be available to employers for all levels of education and skills. Essentially unlimited workers mean no one who works for a living will have any ability to negotiate for better wages and working conditions, because his employer can just bring over a "guest worker". And just how "American" do you think these immigrants will become when there are large numbers of their co-ethnics here--and no pressure to ever learn English, adapt to US culture, or become citizens. Probably pretty much like I was when I lived in the UAE--a great place to live, but you always have one foot out the door to go home.


      • #18
        Frankly Ali, I am quite opposed to the "Guest Worker" program....what happens at the end of their term?? After they've built routes here, had 2-3 American children...maybe even bought a home...then the immigration issues will irrupt again?

        I also don't think 11 million people should be deported. That will be very un-American....too reminiscing of the Nazi deportations...I imagine cattle cars and wrenching goodbyes at train depots and airports....I imagine natives (US citizens) scavenging the homes of the deportees or even offering them $50 for a $500K home...then, 20 years later, I imagine another president and administration enacting a policy to pay restitution to these 2006 Deportees and their families who were unfairly treated etc., based on the xenophobic culture that gripped our nation at the time of their deportation...blah,blah,blah...

        Hmmmm I call dibs on the screenplay...

        The "Browning of America" is an expression I heard on Fox News. I almost fell off my chair. I couldn't believe it. I suspected it but did not believe it. Yes I meant Mexicans. Yes there are white (Spanish) Mexicans...but they and many like them throughout Latin America, are usually not interested in immigrating to the US...they are considered the Elite/Ruling Class in their countries, and come here on business, holidays, or to visit their kids who attend US colleges....infact, they are overwhelmingly more well-off than their US counterparts...


        • #19
          From what I've been reading recently, even the "white" middle class Latinos are more than ready to come here. Some professionals (doctors, lawyers, nurses and the like) also come here and overstay visas, or even come illegally because there's more opportunity here than where they come from--even if you're illegal. I suspect the political situation as well as the financial in their home countries motivates them--it's more stable here.

          I'd like to see all illegals deported, but can accept the reality that it won't happen. However, I see no reason not to use enforcement especially against employers to reduce the size of the population, then let it legalize a la 245i those who have US citizen relatives or employers to sponsor them. As it is, there is no way the federal government can handle processing a blanket amnesty, and do all the security checks that this would entail. Nor do I see any reason to allow people to legalize when their employers don't consider them valuable enough to sponsor (and hence, probably don't/won't pay them enough to keep them out of poverty).


          • #20
            Thanks Aliba for that link..

            the other article discussing the financial impact and the reality number of people that would actually become legal is the real story and big picture.


            Then.. how many of those workers will still continue to work "under the table" and collect welfare benefits. That really is an american dream to have "supplemental income" and a paycheck too. America is gracious.

            Kelly are you saying that making the requirement to return home to get in line to be able to come back in a legal way is unamerican?
            Come on Kell... I think it is really american and forgiving if that would be allowed. Like I said we would be gracious by forgiving the 10 year bar an let them "do it in the right way" to be able to come back. Doesnt get any better than that wouldnt you agree.. unless we just give it to them like they are trying to do. effort by alien..= zero effort. Is that fair to the families that imigrated legally ?

            I too do not agree with the guest worker program as it is set out. As Aliba says it is a shortcut/highway to greencard. Reminds me of these typical corporate jobs in america that hire tempory outside contractors to fill a position inside the compnay. after 6 months the job is posted to the "rest of the employees" to apply. Of course the company does not see candidates as qualified as the outside contractor that has already been doing the job and ..voila the outside contractor gets the permanent position. Guest worker ..yea right. Guest workers should not have in any way a ticket toward AOS. Its temporay like a cultural exchange program. They should not even be able to get married here without returning home or comingback under another program. Legislators are screwing this one up big big time.

            How long do they expect these people to stay at these 16 ports. This is totally whack. 6 years you can stay here...5 years go to a port.. Why bother????? Go HOme... Everybody go home. thats fair. no preferential treatments.


            • #21
              How long do they expect these people to stay at these 16 ports. This is totally whack. 6 years you can stay here...5 years go to a port.. Why bother????? Go HOme... Everybody go home. thats fair. no preferential treatments.
              That's never going to happen. Those that have somehow managed to secure jobs without papers, etc., are not going to risk leaving to return "legally" - no, I suspect most, like an Aunt, will wait until their US borns reach the age of 21, and are able to sponsor them for relief....or pay someone to marry them (that is still rampant by the way)

              My aunt lost both parents and a sister before my cousin filed for her 3 years ago...the whole process took just 16 months from start to finish...16 months after 28 years :-) go figure. Anyway, she was too scared to even apply for the last amnesty...she was convinced it was a "trap".


              • #22
                That's what guilty consciences do to people: they see traps in everything. And if they're here illegally, that's what they should expect. There was a guy I read about recently who found out that he was a US citizen because his father was. He'd been coming here illegally for years, was deported a few times, came back. But the real kicker is, that they found out he'd been granted amnesty years ago, but had never provided the address for correspondence to reach him. All that risk and money for what was his already--legal residence.


                • #23
                  Yes I agree about the suspicions about amnesty being a "trap". So many did not take advantage of 245I last time out. Ignorance is always worst enemy. In contrast, being educated isnt always smarter. It always amazed me at the number of "educated overstays" that showed up for special registration only to find out that they were being made an easy target to be deported. Just goes to show that education is not a match for common sense.

                  Kels. I hear ya on the 28yr plus story. I just finished with a family that finally bringing over last relative baby sister after 25 years. The whole family is here now. 25 years of legal immigration in the right way.
                  How could anyone think it would be more
                  fair to give EWI the greenlight now, while the legal immigrants family are still waiting in the que?????? Lets talk fair plan here. Fair to Whom?


                  • #24
                    deport all illegals, allow spouses and chilren if legal residents the first shot at getting green cards, not irresponsible scumbags.


                    • #25
                      4now--You're right to ask "fair to whom". It seems everyone in the world seems to think it's their "right" to immigrate here, without any concern for the rights of the American people to have the quality of life THEY desire--and end up paying for. Plenty of columnists seem eager to have us throw open our doors, literally, to anyone who wants to come here. I was reading an article in USA Today this morning by one guy who thinks exactly that. As if setting conditions, screening would-be immigrants, and limiting the numbers is unreasonable. When you consider that it is the immigrant who benefits most, with US citizens picking up the tab, well, American citizenship is worth one h e l l of a lot. Look what people are willing to pay smugglers or crooked lawyers for a crack at it! Not to mention, it adds quite a chunk to the dowry an H1-B can claim in India!


                      • #26
                        Excerpts from the article written by Conservative Republican, Shaun Kenney.

                        Full article is here:


                        But let's stop for just a moment and reflect on what we're really saying here. Check off the arguments Howell makes against illegal immigrants. Why should we shoo them off? Why, the reason they must go is because (apart from the fact they are illegally here, a federal problem) they impose upon our social safety net! As Jim Bacon comments :

                        [I]llegal immigration is a unavoidably a state/local problem when illegal immigrants apply for food stamps, seek medical care and attend overcrowded, fiscally stressed schools. These problems cannot be fobbed onto the federal government. The problems are inherently local, and they're real.[/]

                        Do we hear that? Republicans. Arguing that people should be shooed off because they are adversely impacting our socialized safety net of food stamps, medical care, and public schools.

                        Does anyone else see the problem here?

                        Let's be brutally honest. The reason why these programs are failing isn't because of the impact of illegal immigration. They're failing because they are traditionally societal roles that are being hijacked by a government bent on stressing socialism rather than individualism.

                        To fork over the failure of these institutions upon a convenient class of people isn't exactly what I would call just, though it certainly is a predictable repetition of history with respects to human nature.

                        Setting aside the contradiction conservatives offer defending liberally-imposed social agendas, what we have here is an appeal to that old American fear of "the other". That when something doesn't go well, we find some group of people to blame. At first it was the British, then the French, then Indians, next the Irish, extending to Catholics, then to Slavs, then to African-Americans, and currently with anyone of Arab descent. History does indeed repeat.

                        Now in an age where our open borders and socialized government system have been under threat, we are presented with illegal immigration. And it's not a stretch to say that when people speak of "illegal immigration," it's shorthand for Latin Americans crossing the Mexican border, and not grandma from the Ukraine stuffed into a duffle bag on the next Delta flight.

                        Here is where the rubber meets the road. Conservativism in my mind (and a slight deviation from the definition Ken Cuccinelli gave this morning) operates on the principles of free markets, free people, and a free society. That comes with a price tag, starting with the rules necessary to make socieities free.

                        If the concerns from the Howell bench stem from the impact illegal aliens have on our social programs, then what precisely is the problem then? As a conservative, I might suggest that the problem isn't so much the presence of illegal immigrants per se, but rather the presence of government, a presence conservatives are supposed to be fighting against.

                        Seeing this, let's argue in hypotheticals. If the social programs these illegal aliens are supposedly straining to the breaking point ceased to exist tomorrow, would the opposition be so strong?

                        Now one might argue yes, and I'll offer two generalized scenarios:

                        (1) Yes Shaun, they should still be removed because they are here in the United States illegally.

                        Then remove them, as is the federal governments responsibility to do so.

                        (2) Yes Shaun, they should still be removed because they are filthy Mexicans.

                        Then I say you're a racist, and deserve to be beaten to a **** pulp.

                        So the argument boils down accordingly. The argument against illegal immigration is either (1) a decision policy makers in Washington - not Richmond - need to develop and enforce, or (2) one motivated purely on the fear of "the other" and based on race. Propping up decaying social programs and using illegal immigrants as the scapegoat is only making a bad situation terribly worse.


                        • #27


                          • #28
                            yes Aliba

                            that article paints the true picture and reality of the impact of an amnesty.

                            JB I guess thinks a "meaningful penalty" will offset these expenses. I cnat wait to see what the **** meaningful will mean. lol What did he "mean" by that. This ought 2b good.


                            • #29


                              Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                              Home Page

                              Immigration Daily


                              Processing times

                              Immigration forms

                              Discussion board



                              Twitter feed

                              Immigrant Nation


                              CLE Workshops

                              Immigration books

                              Advertise on ILW



                              About ILW.COM

                              Connect to us



                              Immigration Daily