Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PLEASE SHARE YOUR OPINION

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Chuck
    acelaw-yes, 90% usc born here now. but country was not built now. it was built by the immigrants who came over the past 200 years.


    I think you are confused , we are a nation who permits immigration , not a nation of immigrates. I stopped being one way back when my great-great-great Grandfather came here. We did not build wealth in this country until the 1930's, we were a poor farming nation before that . Since 1930 until 1985 we had less then 15 million immigrates to this country, that's 55 years with less then 300,000 per year coming here, so no, what you see today was not built by immigrates it was built by those born here and we did all the jobs .It is not say that we did not have help from some, but the loins share was done by USC who were born here.
    The century following 1820 can be divided into 3 great periods of immigration, or "waves." These three have immigrants coming from primarily three different regions. (there is more detail below):
    1820-1860, Great Britain, Ireland, and Western Germany.
    1860-1890, The above countries continued to provide, as well as Scandinavian Nations.
    1890-1910, The majority was Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Russia, up until World War 1.
    From 1905 until 1914, an average of more than a million aliens yearly entered the U.S. With the outbreak of World War 1, the number declined sharply. In 1921 the number again rose, but only for a short time until changing conditions in Europe as well as new U.S. Laws governing Immigration were established.
    We are now taking in more legal immigration then ever before in our history, plus all the illegal immigration, what are we building ? Nothing , we are filling up this country with poverty we will never be able to pay for and supporting a government of another country on the backs of us taxpayers, get it ??? This is not even close to the kind of immigration you talk about..


    To E

    Acelaw, average american family is made of 4 members.
    If average tax burden is $8000, then multoply this number by four and you have $32000.
    Acelaw, do you think you can feed me this "wooper"???

    Looking at Income and Poverty
    Median Income
    2000 Median Income
    1999
    (2000 Dollars)
    All Households $42,148 $42,187
    Family Households $51,751 $51,618
    Married-Couple $59,346 $58,736
    Female Householder $28,116 $27,043
    Male Householder $42,129 $43,243
    White $44,226 $43,932
    White non-Hispanic $45,904 $45,856
    African-American $30,439 $28,848
    Hispanic $33,447 $31,767



    Average US Household income according to Department of Labor was $38000 few years ago.
    Do you mean that average family lives on $6000??????
    Of course you don't. you simply assume that nobody will bother to investigate all that data.
    You think all it takes to prove your point is to make it "seem" scientifical. But the truth is your "science" is nothing BUT FRAUD!

    WELL argue with this , the article you refer too was a simple generalization of who pays what, the top 50% OF WAGE EARNERS pay 96.03 of the all the taxes, the bottom 50%pay 3.97 of all the taxes WOW they really pay there way don't they ?????Kind of shocking isn't it ???? They use all the entilement programs , I PAY FOR IT GET IT???
    Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What!
    For Tax Year 2001
    Percentiles Ranked by AGI AGI Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
    Top 1% $292,913 33.89
    Top 5% $127,904 53.25
    Top 10% $92,754 64.89
    Top 25% $56,085 82.90
    Top 50% $28,528 96.03
    Bottom 50<$28,528 3.97
    Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
    Source: Internal Revenue Service



    I do agree that US must limit Immigration to the level that economy can absorb. Did I EVER say America must open its borders to ALL?

    JUST ILLEGALS FROM MEXICO HUH?
    No what you say is their illegal behavior is justified by there economic failures IN A COUNTRY THAT i HAVE NO VOICE IN BUT MUST PAY FOR???,

    1. Most of Illegal immigrants are from Mexico, where they can't find a job and where their families are simply starving to death. So, for them it is a matter of survival whether they will make to US where they can find any job to feed themselves and their families.

    Mexico is a land divided into the extremely rich and the extremely poor. The economy run by large business and corrupt officials has consistently ignored and spat on a massive proportion of the population. Rural areas are worst hit. The indigenous people were without a voice for decades.
    This 'First World economy', when studied, shows a lot of contradictions. 41% of the population have no running water; 34% are without electricity; 63% of the people live in accomodation of only one room; 19% of the workforce has no possible income, and 67% live on or below the minimum wage.

    The economy for years has benefitted big business, foreign and national, and the divide between rich and poor is widening every day. Since 1988 the difference between the rich and the poor has become very severe. Fifty million people live in poverty, while twenty four billionaires top Forbes list of the wealthiest people in the world.
    Well it sure looks like they could take care of these folks HMMMMM, much easier to just shove them off on the United States and let us taxpaying citizens here shoulder the finical burden HUH??? The excuse you use fits half of the world but you don't seem concerned about them only those from Mexico HMMMM These include nearly 40% of all Africans WHO ARE STRAVING TO DEATH.Why are you more important then them??? Who gave you the right to decide that ?Who gave you the right to decide what happens in a country you have no business being in ?Try your B.S. on some one else!!!


    Should we not help others less fortunate than ourselves?
    Current legal (Government mandated) U.S. immigration is approximately 900,000 per year, however it is a small fraction of over 4.6 billion people world-wide with incomes under 10% of the average American. In fact, mass immigration into the U.S. is less than 1% of Third World population growth. We should certainly strive to help others and to improve living conditions where they are, but high immigration levels do not help the majority of people less fortunate than ourselves


    No, you didn't even read my posting.(Or, most likely, you have copied and pasted your article that you keep ready to post at anytime, whenever there is a discussion about immigration.)

    1.What I said was that as a matter of fact things in Mexico are too rough and that you can't really blame people for trying to survive. (By the way Pilgrims came to america without special invitation from Native Americans, and they came here for the same reasons: economic and political persecution at home). And since they are here a comprehensive, objective, thoughtful research must be made (not biased and falsified as one presented in your posting).

    The Indians were immigrates too, they just got here before the pilgrims, there is no such things as an Native American Indian, America was founded in 1876 the Indians were here long before there ever was a "America". We did not come here because of economic and political persecution at home. We came here to found a new world ,you need to learn our history before trying to "bend it " to cover the fact that illegal immigration has no excuses to be rationalized by our history.

    The Pilgrims were English Separatists who founded (1620) Plymouth Colony in New England. In the first years of the 17th century, small numbers of English Puritans broke away from the Church of England because they felt that it had not completed the work of the Reformation. They committed themselves to a life based on the Bible. Most of these Separatists were farmers, poorly educated and without social or political standing.
    THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT
    "In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&.Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."
    There followed the signatures of 41 of the 102 passengers, 37 of whom were members of the "Separatists" who were fleeing religious persecution in Europe. This compact established the first basis in the new world for written laws. Half the colony failed to survive the first winter, but the remainder lived on and prospered.



    Such a study must weigh without prejudice all facts and facts only and then let the INFORMED public to make its decision.

    Poll after poll will get the same results , we have the facts and this is what the American people want .
    Illegal Immigration
    Virtually All Americans Believe Illegal Immigration Is a "Serious" Problem; Majority Believes It Is "Very Serious"
    85% of those polled believe illegal immigration is a "serious" problem.
    55% of those polled believe illegal immigration is a "very serious" problem.
    68% of those polled agree with halting illegal immigration as a goal.
    67% of those polled agree with reducing the number of illegal aliens now present in the United States to near zero as a goal.
    RoperASW Poll, March 2003



    If it worth to "ship 'em all out", if it really is in US interests then let's do it. But not in a fasion that HITLER did to "foreigners", but let's make it in Civilized, thoughtful way!
    And by the way do not forget what Fed's Chairman Alan said recently: BABY BOOMERS WILL RETIRE SOON< THERE IS NOT ENOUGH US TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR THEIR SSI AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS. ACCORDING TO ALAN G. IN AVSENCE OF IMMIGRATION US WILL NOT MEET ITS OBLIGATION TO RETIRING GENERATION AND THAT ALSO MEANS THAT YOU WILL EITHER PAY DOUBLE OF SS TAXES THAT YOU PAY NOW OR THE BABY BOOMERS WILL STARVE TO DEATH.

    Well lets see , if they pay now they get it later right ???What kind of math are you using , they will collect benefits sooner or later ,looks like sooner to me . GET A CLUE
    Social Security Crisis Will Worsen if Mexicans Cash In
    Posted March 10, 2003
    By James R. Edwards Jr.
    Published: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 If you thought a Social Security crisis was looming already, you should know it could get a lot worse quickly, if the Bush administration cuts a sweetheart deal with Mexico.

    State Department and Social Security Administration officials are working quietly on a plan that rewards Mexican lawbreakers for their lawlessness. Millions of both legal and illegal aliens from Mexico could start collecting Social Security benefits.

    The pending deal differs from similar agreements. So-called totalization agreements have been around since the 1970s. They allow foreigners who worked legally in the United States and paid Social Security taxes to collect benefits.

    Almost all of the 20 existing agreements are with European nations. The cost to U.S. taypayers is a total of $183 million for 94,000 beneficiaries, according to the Social Security Administration. By contrast, the Mexican deal could cost, according to National Review's Joel Mowbray, $345 billion during the next 20 years. That's billion with a "B.''

    Take the fact that about half of the 8 million to 11 million illegal aliens in the United States are from Mexico. Take the fact that since 1990 about $300 billion has been paid from the earnings of illegal aliens using fake Social Security numbers. Add the fact that Social Security pays on a "progressive" scale, meaning low-income payers receive a **** of a lot more money in benefits than they paid in, and that Mexican illegals by and large are unskilled.

    Such a totalization agreement with Mexico promises to become a money pit for Americans, arising from the sheer volume of people involved, Mexicans' high proportion in the illegal-alien population and their vast reliance on fraud, such as fraudulent Social Security numbers and other identity fraud.

    This agreement uniquely "provides a foreign government Social Security money even for those of its citizens who have worked illegally in America," immigration lawyer Matt Hayes writes on FOXNews.com. He further points out that the Mexico deal "will dismantle the chief provision of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, a law which has saved U.S. taxpayers $72 billion since its inception, because it will give Social Security payments to illegal aliens and legal aliens who have not paid into our payroll tax system for the requisite 10 years."

    Ironically, the Bush administration already has warned of the impending cash crunch that Social Security faces. That's the impetus behind allowing people to save a portion of their Social Security payments in a personal-investment account.

    The Social Security program will go bankrupt in 2038, so policymakers have been looking for a way to salvage it financially. But "bankrupt" doesn't really capture the problem.

    In the first place, the Social Security "trust fund" is an accounting gimmick. It represents no real, separate account of money. Under the "pay-as-you-go" system, the portion of revenue that's attributed to Social Security on the books will start falling behind benefit payments in 2016. The accounting ruse will show the trust fund as empty in 2038, with baby boomers then all retired.

    "Pay as you go" means that wage earners currently in the workforce pay Social Security taxes that pass through the Treasury doors, are accounted and sent right out to current beneficiaries. At present, the income and payroll taxes of 3.3 workers fund the Social Security benefits of each retiree. By 2030, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio will be 2-to-1. By 2075, there are expected to be 1.85 workers per Social Security pensioner.

    That means the bottom line, when boomers' retirement years roll around, is that Social Security will bleed red ink, ***ping directly against the rest of federal expenditures demanding cash. With Mexico on the Social Security redistribution-of-wealth dole, this sweetheart deal would be sweet only for Mexico and awfully sour for Americans, both retirees and taxpayers. So guess who will laugh all the way to the bank?

    Our politicians should remember that senior citizens vote more faithfully than any other demographic group and that the 65-and-older crowd is growing. Politically, this scheme risks Social Security's financial stability for the sake of placating Mexico and pandering to Latino special-interest activists. It pokes a finger in the eye of American senior citizens.

    If policymakers really want to save Social Security, first do no harm. The Mexico deal would do nothing but harm -- not just to the program, but to hardworking Americans.

    James R. Edwards Jr., coauthor of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, is an adjunct fellow with the Hudson Institute

    Please take your time and get the facts before making your case. It is embarrasing to yourself to put out something that could be discredited so easily.

    I repeat what I said above: let's have TRUTHFUL discussion, not a WISHFUL thinking.

    I genuinely believe that UNLIMITED immigration is BAD for US economy and fabric of society and I never said anything to support the opposite.
    But what I said was that something in Mexico must be terribly wrong to push man to cross a border risking his life and then coming here to take the sh**-cleaning jobs to send back to his family.

    THAT IS NOT THE IMMIGRATION THAT HELPS BUILD THIS COUINTRY, NOT PLANNING ON STAYING HERE JUST USING WHAT OTHER WORKED THERE A.S.S.E.S. OFF FOR HMMM SO WE SHOULD PAY THE COSTS OF THERE SHORT STAY IN OUR COUNTRY, DOES THAT NOT TAKE FOOD OFF MY TABLE ????

    And I think it is not TOO difficult to understand WHY they do it.
    Question is: how are you going to deal with some 4 mln mexican population here?
    By the way many small businesses HIRE them NOT because they(mexicans) are too cheap but because US SMALL business can't afford to pay MORE.
    Truth is that Chinese food you take out for lunch WON'T cost $3.00 but will cost $10.00 if you force the owner to hire professional cooks with legal residence here and higher salary demands.

    YOUR ARE FULL OF B.S. AREN'T YOU , YOU HAVE TO BE JOKEING RIGHT???
    Honest employers pay at least 20 PERCENT above their actual costs of wages and salaries for legal employees in the United States. The additional 20 PERCENT in payments are legally required worker's compensation insurance for work-related injuries and the employer's matching contributions for social security and Medicare. A small company of 30 workers earning an average of $30,000 each will pay $900,000 in wages annually plus the additional - required by law - costs of $180,000. That's BIG money for small business. It's HUGE for big corporations!!!
    It's pure profit margin for dishonest employers who ignore legal employment requirements. Employment market forces usually compel higher wages and benefits for legal workers, too.
    It's extremely hard for honest employers to compete if they must pay out at least 20% more for legal employees. Too many unscrupulous competitors already exist and more keep popping up. Then when huge monoliths like Wal-Mart institutionalize these practices making it part of their competitive advantage, law-abiding honesty becomes a pragmatic disadvantage.
    Cheap labor should actually be called socialized labor because it's so heavily subsidized by taxpayers. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates it costs $66 BILLION a year for all the health, education, translation, incarceration and other government services associated with illegal aliens. The official numbers of illegal aliens range from 4 to 12 million. Let's use 10 million as our number. That makes the cost $6,600 each. If 2/3 are employed, to account for children and others not working, the cost per working illegal becomes $9,910 each. If we had calculated the same number based on 5 million illegals it would be twice as much. TEN TO TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS PER ILLEGAL WORKER is a hefty taxpayer subsidy that is very difficult for honest employers to compete with, especially when paying at least a twenty percent premium to do it legally.
    Government spending is inherently inefficient. These social welfare costs do not appear on corporate balance sheets, but it's a huge part of the cost of government at all levels. When businesses pass off the true cost of cheap labor with all its accompanying social welfare costs to the taxpayer, this forces governments at all levels to seek more taxes which further perpetuates and causes the entire government sector component of the economic cycle to continue growing with its deepening dependency on its inherent inefficient use of resources and its additional burdens on legal taxpayers.
    Socialized cheap labor is really quite expensive. The only thing it cheapens is the rule of law in America. Costs are not eliminated. They are just passed on to American consumers and taxpayers until they break us or we say NO MORE!!!
    One of the reasons we've been so very successful as a Nation is that we built this Country on what once was the revolutionary concept of the rule of law in a capitalistic society as a pragmatic alternative to the colonial despotism of the times. But what will become of this society when the rule of law is shunned and repudiated by its own government? Extinction awaits the United States once the rule of law disappears.
    With the government supporting, on behalf of special interests, illegal immigration and other cheap labor policies which 70% of the electorate oppose, the time is ripe again to rid ourselves of our current bunch of despots.



    As a result much fewer people will take Chineese lunch out, so most of them will go bankrupt.
    Same applies to all other industries.
    Same with construction: In absence of cheap Mexican laborer cost of nuilding the house will increase and it is consumer who will have to bear the market price of the end product.
    And sales will drop too-as a result of significant growth in market price.
    And the same applies to all industries where "illegals" are hired.
    And all these costs must be carefully analized and weight against benefits of allowing these people to get temporary working status and ability to continue to work legally, under government permission, and leave, if nesessary, at the end of the term of working visa.
    YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLUE,
    While some argue that Mexican immigration - legal or otherwise - is crucial to the economy, Camarota introduced statistical data showing that Mexican immigrants comprise nearly one-third of California's population but account for approximately 3 percent of the state's economic output.
    DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!!!ONLY 3 PERCENT OF THE WHOLE STATES ECONMIC OUTPUT

    According to Camarota, California's estimated population of more than 35.5 million people includes some 10 million Mexicans, 70 percent of who are in the state illegally and 65 percent of who have less than a high school education.

    "The idea that Mexican immigration is vital to the U.S. economy is simply false," Camarota said.

    Next, Camarota noted that Mexican immigrants pay significantly less in taxes compared with native Californians but use disproportionately more welfare benefits than those born in the state.

    Camarota's data showed that the average taxes paid by Mexican immigrants in California amount to about $1,535 per year, while native-born Californians pay $5,600 in taxes.

    While Mexican immigrants pay one-third the taxes of native Californians on average, they also consume roughly three times more welfare, Camarota said.

    The CIS data showed that 41.5 percent of Mexican immigrants used "major welfare programs" like Medicaid and food stamps, while those same welfare programs were used by only 14.2 percent of native Californians.

    "There's a very big difference between what Mexican immigrants are supposed to pay in taxes and what natives are supposed to pay," said Camarota. "This fact, coupled with their extremely high use of public services, means that there's a very high cost for cheap labor."

    While the panelists illustrated the encroaching problems and their causes, few detailed solutions were offered.

    "What should we do? I think most people support immigration, we want immigration, and it always enriches the culture. But we want it in California under legal auspices," said Hanson.

    Hanson said it would require "legal, measured immigration." However, he emphasized that "something" must be done to protect the borders.



    How Much Is that Tomato in the Window?
    Retail Produce Prices Without Illegal Farmworkers
    by Wallace Huffman and Alan McCunn
    February 1996

    The removal of illegal workers from the seasonal agricultural workforce would increase the summer-fall supermarket prices of fresh fruits and vegetables by about 6 percent in the short run and 3 percent in the intermediate term. During the winter-spring seasons, prices would rise more than 3 percent in the short term and less then 2 percent in the intermediate term. Imports would increase about 1 percent.
    We examine the implications of successfully eliminating undocumented or illegal workers from the workforce in the United States. Our concerns are focused primarily on the implications for U.S. retail market prices of fresh fruits and vegetables, while Mexico's value of exports of fresh fruits and vegetables to the U.S. are about 50 percent of the value of U.S. production (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1992 and 1993a). The analysis is viewed through a two-country aggregate trade model for labor and fruits and vegetables. The major sources of fresh fruits and vegetables for the U.S. market differ by season. Here we focus on one period called the winter and spring season when Mexico (and some other countries) are large exporters and the second period consisting of the summer and fall seasons when U.S. producers dominate the market.
    The impact of eliminating illegal workers from the U.S. agricultural industry will have different effects in the two different periods. In both periods, there would be a rise in the U.S. wage rate for agricultural labor and an upward shift in the U.S. supply curve for fruits and vegetables. In the summer and fall period when imports are insignificant, the new immigrant policy would have its largest effect about a three percent increase in the retail market price and a 1.8 percent reduction in consumption.
    During the winter and spring when Mexican exports are large, closing off Mexicans' work options in the U.S. would dramatically reduce remittances to Mexican households (in Mexico) and lower real per capita income of Mexicans. We see little change on the Mexican wage rate, especially for low-skilled labor, so the main Mexican effect is a net reduction in aggregate domestic demand for fruits and vegetables due to the reduction in average household income.
    This frees up some fresh produce for additional exports to the United States "” about a 1.25 percent increase in excess supply. With the increase in U.S. excess demand for fresh fruits and vegetables caused by the rise in the U.S. wage, the net result is about a 0.7 percent in the winter and spring period price of fresh fruits and vegetables. U.S. imports increase by about 1 percent and U.S. consumption is reduced by about 0.4 percent


    2.Second, I asked what good it makes to throw a father or mother of US Citizen child AND a Spouse of US Perm res. out of country while the child and perm. res. spouse stays here?
    Under CURRENT law they must be SEPARATED and wait almost 8 years before they could reunite.
    What FAMILY can endure that?

    WE ALL PAY A PRICE WHEN WE BREAK THE LAWS . ARE YOU DIFFERENT THEN US? YOU SHOULD BE HELD TO DIFFERENT LAWS?

    As a matter of fact child and US Perm. Res. wife will stay here and struggle alone.
    Single mother will not earn enough to raise her child so taxpayers will pay for services that DAD would pay if he was allowed to stay legally , get a good job and take care of his family.
    Also, being very poor she will have to work overtime and will propably move to poor neighborhood where the child will grow exposed to the crime, street-gangs and drugs.
    Chances are that this child will grow to become a criminal and one day will wonder the streets to rob somebody.
    40% DROP OUT OF SCHOOLS NOW ,WHO'S FAULT IS THAT ???YOU HAVE NO GOOD REASONS TO INVADE ANOTHER COUNTRY UNIVITED AND FORCE YOUR WILL UPON ITS CITIZENS AND CAUSE THEM HARM, ALL THIS IS B.S. AND YOU COULD CARELESS ABOUT THE LIFES YOU AFFECT HERE IN THIS COUNTRY.
    And you are talking about WHAT???
    Costs????Benefits of separating families to American ECONOMY????
    Come on! Spare me!
    Give me some good, conclusive arguments and I will buy them.
    AS YOU CAN SEE YOU HAVE NOT PUT UP ANY GOOD, FACTUAL ,CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENTS, YOU ONLY OFFER THE VICTIMHOOD PLOY, POOR ME,POOR THEM..YOU MAKE VICTIMS IN THIS COUNTRY EVERYDAY YOU ARE HERE ILLEGALY WITH NO MORAL OR LEGAL RIGHT TO BACK YOUR ACTIONS.

    [This message was edited by acelaw on January 25, 2004 at 04:05 AM.]

    Comment


    • #32
      Acelaw, do you REALIZE that I am NOT a Mexican?
      Or do you think that every Human being is an ANIMAL and MUST therefore defend his IMMEDIATE/BRUTALLY SELFISH interests?
      Kind of like NAZIS, HUH?
      Well, BEWARE(!) I AM NOT A NAZI and I don't buy their hateful, antisemitic, antihumanistic, "destroy 'em all!" rhetoric!!!!!!!!!!
      I am very informed of the subject and could defeat each argument that you advance here.
      But I have a life of my own and have no intention to spend 5 hours to write a long speech on internet.
      Are you being paid to do this kind of PROPAGANDA?
      I wish you well and hope one day you will grow beyond hatered and intolerance.
      Then we could talk, DISCUSS the subject.
      I REGARD you as a HUMAN being and I think EVERY HUMAN being, regardless of citizenship and race, deserves the SAME.
      And then, only then, there could be an HONEST discussion about ANYTHING.
      Why should I waste my time arguing with you if you don't share the same VALUES and RESPECT FOR HUMAN DIGNITY AS I DO????????
      Farewell.

      Comment


      • #33
        Why is it every sensible discussion/argument goes to total chaos whenever acelaw enter his post??

        E:
        Acelaw's post sure is brutal but it does have some valid point when you dig through them:
        2.Second, I asked what good it makes to throw a father or mother of US Citizen child AND a Spouse of US Perm res. out of country while the child and perm. res. spouse stays here?
        Under CURRENT law they must be SEPARATED and wait almost 8 years before they could reunite.
        What FAMILY can endure that?

        WE ALL PAY A PRICE WHEN WE BREAK THE LAWS . ARE YOU DIFFERENT THEN US? YOU SHOULD BE HELD TO DIFFERENT LAWS?

        Look at it this way, when a thief is sent to prison for breaking law, his family will undoubtedly suffers, yet thats the consequences when one breaks law. Justice is blind. When law start giving out preferential treatments, it'll undermine its very own integrity.


        Truth is that Chinese food you take out for lunch WON'T cost $3.00 but will cost $10.00 if you force the owner to hire professional cooks with legal residence here and higher salary demands.
        As a result much fewer people will take Chineese lunch out, so most of them will go bankrupt.
        Same applies to all other industries.
        Same with construction: In absence of cheap Mexican laborer cost of building the house will increase and it is consumer who will have to bear the market price of the end product.
        And sales will drop too-as a result of significant growth in market price.
        And the same applies to all industries where "illegals" are hired.

        Small business always complaint. They complaint when their tax is raised. They complaint when minimum wage is raised, and they'll continue to complaint whenever their bottom line is threatened by raised cost, but they'll also continue to survive. Surely it'll hurt their bottom line, and no doubt some might force to close down for good, but I think the majority will survive. The more important & biggest problem is to level playing field. If that happens, then customer truly will shop based on level of quality of service. But if you have some small business take advantage by hiring illegals, then undoubtedly they charge lower and sending the other law-biding business into bankruptcy.
        You also mention the cost of housing will soar, well, in the East & West Coast housing prices have surged @ an unbeliveable rate (20%/yr), yet people still buying house, and the housing market isn't showing any sign of cooling down. I doubt that hiring legal worker, albeit it'll rise cost, will deter the public from buying house either.

        As for Mr.Greenspan comment, I'm quite sure that he's not referring to the immigration of illegal aliens there. How can you put them into the equation when they cost more to the US economy (and taxpayers) than they contribute? They're not leveraging, they're exerting more pressure to this economy.

        Comment


        • #34
          marmaduk
          Member
          posted January 25, 2004 02:15 PM
          Why is it every sensible discussion/argument goes to total chaos whenever acelaw enter his post??
          Pasha is trying to find me a shrink. what a guy..


          to E
          Or do you think that every Human being is an ANIMAL and MUST therefore defend his IMMEDIATE/BRUTALLY SELFISH interests

          So it is OK for them to violate our law, international law, the exit laws of there country, violate my basic human rights with these action and I am the IMMEDIATE/BRUTALLY SELFISH interests WOW This country was founded on the prinpals that no one group/persons became a burden to others and ride on there backs. That's why we have finical responsibility laws tied to immigration .


          Kind of like NAZIS, HUH?

          So 11 million invade a country force there will down our throats in violation of all the above mentioned laws and with no regards for our basic human rights and I am the Nazis???LOLOLOL

          Well, BEWARE(!) I AM NOT A NAZI and I don't buy their hateful, antisemitic, antihumanistic, "destroy 'em all!" rhetoric!!!!!!!!!!

          Who said anything about destroying them ???All I ask is they obey our laws, respect this country and its citizens ,just as I would if in there country,pretty simple HUH???But they don't do that and then when USC stand for our laws, our country and its well being ,we are raciest and now NAZIS HMMMM


          I am very informed of the subject and could defeat each argument that you advance here.
          But I have a life of my own and have no intention to spend 5 hours to write a long speech on internet

          Hey you would be the frist who could show any factual info on how this is good for this country and its legal citizens.But you know you can't so why put down more B.S. then you already have done, I would of, I should have , well go for it , you so infromed it should be right on the tip of your tounge, RIGHT?
          Well you sure did not mind writing a speech to start this thread DID YOU? OH like how they will save Social Security ?You didn't even have the yearly income right, oh a couple years ago LOLOL While we are on that subject here is some FACTS FOR YOU.

          [A blast from the past.-ajf]
          http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/22/ny...b2f9c0&ei=5070
          December 22, 2001

          Median Income Drops Are Tied to Immigrants
          By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
          Median household income dropped between 1989 and 1998 in Queens, Brooklyn, Suffolk, Fairfield and many other counties across the nation that experienced a large influx of immigrants, according to census data.
          The data indicate that even as the economy in the New York region and the nation rebounded after the recession of the early 90's, figures for median household income, adjusted for inflation, failed to climb in many counties because of the increase in low-income immigrant workers.
          The new data show that in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx "” counties with a major increase of immigrants "” median income fell sharply. More surprising, though, was the marked income drop in some of the region's wealthiest suburbs, including Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester Counties in New York and Fairfield County in Connecticut.
          "Immigrants are jumping immediately into these inner-ring suburbs, which is a change from the past 300 years, when the first generation lived in inner-city neighborhoods," said Robert D. Yaro, executive director of the Regional Plan Association, a civic group that works to improve the economy of the New York region. "This new phenomenon is reducing household incomes in some of the well-to-do suburbs as immigrants move into Bridgeport, Stamford and Norwalk. It's consistent with the national phenomenon of the suburbanization of poverty."
          The new data show that median income also fell in many counties in other states attractive to immigrants, including Los Angeles County and Miami-Dade County.
          In Queens, according to the data, the median household income fell to $36,480 in 1998 from $44,938 in 1989, a drop of nearly 19 percent, while in Brooklyn it fell by 18 percent, to $27,556 from $33,762.
          In Los Angeles County, where there has been a surge of immigrants from Mexico, median income fell in constant dollars to $37,655 in 1998 from $45,962, a decline of 18 percent, according to the census data.
          Andrew A. Beveridge, a professor of sociology at Queens College, prepared the analysis that compared the Census Bureau's median income estimates for 1989 and 1998.
          Many economists view the median as the best figure for assessing income trends since half the incomes are above it and half below.
          Several economists and sociologists, however, argued that the new census data exaggerated the income drop from 1989 to 1998. They said that although median household income might have fallen in many counties, it did not fall as much as the new data suggested.
          These economists questioned the new computer model developed by the Census Bureau, and they noted that there was a higher margin of error in analyzing small areas like counties. In addition, critics argued that the way inflation was adjusted might have exaggerated the drop in median income.
          Stephen Kagann, chief economist for Gov. George E. Pataki, said the estimated declines were not credible.
          "They use an inappropriate starting point, 1989, which was a cyclical peak, thereby ignoring the deep recession that occurred afterwards," Mr. Kagann said. "And they use an inappropriate inflation adjustment that overestimates inflation and thereby underestimates the growth in income."
          He said that if the analysis had taken 1993 as its starting point, when New York's economy was near the bottom, the study would have shown a 7.9 percent increase in median household income statewide.
          Jared Bernstein, an economist with the liberal Economic Policy Institute, also said that the new census data painted too gloomy a picture. Pointing to another census study, from last March, he noted that median household income for New York State dropped by 7 percent from 1989 to 1998. He added that a 5 percent increase in income in the two boom years, 1999 and 2000, meant a decline of just 2 percent from 1989 to 2000.
          Still, he saw economic problems in the state. "In New York, you've had an amplified version of the expanded income gap we've seen nationally," he said. "Folks in the high end "” in law, high tech, financial markets "” were in a good place to ride the boom. Meanwhile, the huge supply of low-wage workers who were serving these upper-end workers during the boom didn't do nearly as well."
          Mr. Beveridge's analysis estimated that median income in Nassau County fell by 14 percent ($61,096 in 1998 from $71,202 in 1989), 16 percent in Suffolk ($54,008 from $64,580), 11 percent in Westchester ($56,865 from $63,629), 12 percent in Fairfield ($57,389 from 65,583), 12 percent in Hudson County ($35,743 from $40,641), 17 percent in Passaic County ($40,923 from $49,421) and by 10 percent in Essex County ($40,595 from $45,375).
          In the preponderance of counties nationwide, median household income rose from 1989 to 1998. The counties with declines were often in metropolitan areas with the greatest surges in immigration, including New York, Miami, Los Angeles, San Diego and Washington.
          Roger Waldinger, an immigration expert at the University of California at Los Angeles, said the decline in household income could have been fueled by factors having nothing to do with immigration, like the increase in one-member and single- parent households.
          Economists have pointed to other reasons for stagnant or declining incomes, including pressure from import competition, the declining power of labor unions, automation that pushes workers out of jobs and poor schools that churn out students who lack job skills.
          Dr. Waldinger has conducted studies showing that in many communities, immigration affects income levels and the gap between rich and poor. He said income levels were dragged down by unemployment, not immigrants, who he said usually worked long hours. But many economists say limited skills and inadequate English relegated many immigrants to low-paying jobs

          You don't have to be a Rocket Scientist to figure it out ,just drive around L.A.

          Who will pay for these folks for the rest of there lives? You can't live here on poverty level wages with out getting help from us citizens , that's no secret..Is this solving anything?
          In 1970, not quite a third of the region's population lived in areas with a poverty rate of at least 20%. In the year 2000, 57% did, according to the study.

          County's Poor Areas Tripled, Study Finds
          Inner-city ring of poverty intensifies, but the problem also has spread to neighborhoods in the suburban areas.
          By Monte Morin
          Times Staff Writer

          December 2, 2003

          The number of poor neighborhoods in the Los Angeles region has more than tripled over the last 30 years, with poor and very poor neighborhoods becoming more geographically concentrated in suburban areas, according to a UCLA-Brookings Institution study released Monday.

          The study, titled "The Trajectory of Poor Neighborhoods in Southern California, 1970-2000," reports that immigration and the region's economy are responsible for a steady increase in the area's poverty rate and a shift in the location of poor neighborhoods.

          "In the past three decades, the Los Angeles region has witnessed a large-scale spatial reorganization of poverty," the report states. "Where once concentrated poverty was confined to neighborhoods in the inner city, it has since spread to the suburbs."

          The study was written by researchers with UCLA's Ralph and Goldy Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies and the Brookings Institution's Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. In a review of regional census data, researchers found that many of the area's very poor were concentrated in neighborhoods around downtown L.A.

          During the 1990s, downtown Los Angeles and the Long Beach port area saw many poor neighborhoods worsen and become very poor neighborhoods "” areas where the poverty rate exceeded 40%. The urban ring of poverty extended into the cities of Inglewood and Hawthorne, while the San Fernando Valley, Lancaster and Palmdale also saw a sharp increase in concentrated neighborhood poverty, the report said.

          This ring of very poor neighborhoods follows the Harbor and Long Beach freeway corridors south to San Pedro, as well as the Ventura Freeway between Pasadena and Burbank.

          In 1970, not quite a third of the region's population lived in areas with a poverty rate of at least 20%. In the year 2000, 57% did, according to the study.

          Areas outside urban Los Angeles experienced the most rapid expansions of poverty, especially during the 1990s. Between 1970 and 2000, the percentage of poor neighborhoods in suburban Los Angeles County quadrupled, while it tripled in surrounding counties and remained relatively constant in urban L.A.

          The report says that international migration has played a major role, as well as the loss of many well-paying manufacturing jobs in the region. A large supply of less-skilled workers has depressed wages and created more competition in the labor market, contributing to slow wage growth and limited economic mobility, the report said.

          Racial and ethnic features of area poverty have also changed, the report said. The Latino proportion of the population living in very poor neighborhoods increased more than threefold between 1970 and 2000, while the black share of the population living in very poor neighborhoods declined dramatically.


          Racial and ethnic features of area poverty have also changed, the report said. The Latino proportion of the population living in very poor neighborhoods increased more than threefold between 1970 and 2000, while the black share of the population living in very poor neighborhoods declined dramatically.



          Are you being paid to do this kind of PROPAGANDA?

          Is what you use, I like to stick to the hard factual numbers, they don't lie, DO THEY???

          I wish you well and hope one day you will grow beyond hatered and intolerance.

          Of course the race card, the hate ETC,,,All I ask is that they obey our laws, is that being raciest? Intolerance ? How much tolerance do you except people to have when there life's are adversely affected by people who came uninvited into your house ?Do they show any respect for me, my country or its laws??? And we are intolerant? Blame us for there immoral actions and when you get negative attitudes by the people you are walking all over you stoop to the lowest level and attack them HMMMMMMM
          , WOW


          Then we could talk, DISCUSS the subject.
          I REGARD you as a HUMAN being and I think EVERY HUMAN being, regardless of citizenship and race, deserves the SAME.

          Then why don't they have the same regard for us?It always seems to be a one way street for human rights with you folks , all for us , none for you. You want respect you need to earn it and also show it in return, it is not something to be DEMANDED.So you ,just by being alive you deserves the same what ?

          You all like to scream human rights well here they are and it does not allow you to enter any country you feel like :
          Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State enjoys, there's that nasty law word again !!! public health or morals and the rights and freedoms of others ,these don't seem to matter to you when we are talking about other peoples rights and the violation of them by your actions.? I REGARD YOU AS A HUMAN BEING ,BUT IT DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO DECIDE ISSUES THAT AFFECT PEOPLE OTHER THEN YOURSELF.
          This provision authorizes the State to restrict these rights only to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals and the rights and freedoms of others.
          SO WHERE DO YOU GET THE RIGHT TO MAKE THESE DECISION FOR ME AND MINE AND MY COUNTRY?????

          Liberty of movement and freedom to choose residence (para. 1)

          4. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State enjoys, within that territory, the right to move freely and to choose his or her place of residence. In principle, citizens of a State are always lawfully within the territory of that State. The question whether an alien is "lawfully" within the territory of a State is a matter governed by domestic law, which may subject the entry of an alien to the territory of a State to restrictions, provided they are in compliance with the State's international obligations. In that connection, the Committee has held that an alien who entered the State illegally, but whose status has been regularized, must be considered to be lawfully within the territory for the purposes of article 12. 2 Once a person is lawfully within a State, any restrictions on his or her rights guaranteed by article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, as well as any treatment different from that accorded to nationals, have to be justified under the rules provided for by article 12

          11. Article 12, paragraph 3, provides for exceptional circumstances in which rights under paragraphs 1 and 2 may be restricted. This provision authorizes the State to restrict these rights only to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals and the rights and freedoms of others. To be permissible, restrictions must be provided by law, must be necessary in a democratic society for the protection of these purposes and must be consistent with all other rights recognized in the Covenant (see para. 18 below).



          GENERAL COMMENTS ADOPTED BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
          UNDER ARTICLE 40, PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE INTERNATIONAL
          COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS


          Addendum


          GENERAL COMMENT No. 27 (67)*

          Freedom of movement


          (Article 12)



          1. Liberty of movement is an indispensable condition for the free development of a person. It interacts with several other rights enshrined in the Covenant, as is often shown in the Committee's practice in considering reports from States parties and communications from individuals. Moreover, the Committee in its general comment No. 15 ("The position of aliens under the Covenant", 1986) referred to the special link between articles 12 and 13. 1

          2. The permissible limitations which may be imposed on the rights protected under article 12 must not nullify the principle of liberty of movement, and are governed by the requirement of necessity provided for in article 12, paragraph 3, and by the need for consistency with the other rights recognized in the Covenant.

          3. States parties should provide the Committee in their reports with the relevant domestic legal rules and administrative and judicial practices relating to the rights protected by article 12, taking into account the issues discussed in the present general comment. They must also include information on remedies available if these rights are restricted.

          Liberty of movement and freedom to choose residence (para. 1)

          4. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State enjoys, within that territory, the right to move freely and to choose his or her place of residence. In principle, citizens of a State are always lawfully within the territory of that State. The question whether an alien is "lawfully" within the territory of a State is a matter governed by domestic law, which may subject the entry of an alien to the territory of a State to restrictions, provided they are in compliance with the State's international obligations. In that connection, the Committee has held that an alien who entered the State illegally, but whose status has been regularized, must be considered to be lawfully within the territory for the purposes of article 12. 2 Once a person is lawfully within a State, any restrictions on his or her rights guaranteed by article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, as well as any treatment different from that accorded to nationals, have to be justified under the rules provided for by article 12, paragraph 3. 3 It is, therefore, important that States parties indicate in their reports the circumstances in which they treat aliens differently from their nationals in this regard and how they justify this difference in treatment.

          5. The right to move freely relates to the whole territory of a State, including all parts of federal States. According to article 12, paragraph 1, persons are entitled to move from one place to another and to establish themselves in a place of their choice. The enjoyment of this right must not be made dependent on any particular purpose or reason for the person wanting to move or to stay in a place. Any restrictions must be in conformity with paragraph 3.

          6. The State party must ensure that the rights guaranteed in article 12 are protected not only from public but also from private interference. In the case of women, this obligation to protect is particularly pertinent. For example, it is incompatible with article 12, paragraph 1, that the right of a woman to move freely and to choose her residence be made subject, by law or practice, to the decision of another person, including a relative.

          7. Subject to the provisions of article 12, paragraph 3, the right to reside in a place of one's choice within the territory includes protection against all forms of forced internal displacement. It also precludes preventing the entry or stay of persons in a defined part of the territory. Lawful detention, however, affects more specifically the right to personal liberty and is covered by article 9 of the Covenant. In some circumstances, articles 12 and 9 may come into play together. 4

          Freedom to leave any country, including one's own (para. 2)

          8. Freedom to leave the territory of a State may not be made dependent on any specific purpose or on the period of time the individual chooses to stay outside the country. Thus travelling abroad is covered, as well as departure for permanent emigration. Likewise, the right of the individual to determine the State of destination is part of the legal guarantee. As the scope of article 12, paragraph 2, is not restricted to persons lawfully within the territory of a State, an alien being legally expelled from the country is likewise entitled to elect the State of destination, subject to the agreement of that State. 5

          9. In order to enable the individual to enjoy the rights guaranteed by article 12, paragraph 2, obligations are imposed both on the State of residence and on the State of nationality. 6 Since international travel usually requires appropriate documents, in particular a passport, the right to leave a country must include the right to obtain the necessary travel documents. The issuing of passports is normally incumbent on the State of nationality of the individual. The refusal by a State to issue a passport or prolong its validity for a national residing abroad may deprive this person of the right to leave the country of residence and to travel elsewhere. 7 It is no justification for the State to claim that its national would be able to return to its territory without a passport.

          10. The practice of States often shows that legal rules and administrative measures adversely affect the right to leave, in particular, a person's own country. It is therefore of the utmost importance that States parties report on all legal and practical restrictions on the right to leave which they apply both to nationals and to foreigners, in order to enable the Committee to assess the conformity of these rules and practices with article 12, paragraph 3. States parties should also include information in their reports on measures that impose sanctions on international carriers which bring to their territory persons without required documents, where those measures affect the right to leave another country.

          Restrictions (para. 3)

          11. Article 12, paragraph 3, provides for exceptional circumstances in which rights under paragraphs 1 and 2 may be restricted. This provision authorizes the State to restrict these rights only to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals and the rights and freedoms of others. To be permissible, restrictions must be provided by law, must be necessary in a democratic society for the protection of these purposes and must be consistent with all other rights recognized in the Covenant (see para. 18 below).

          12. The law itself has to establish the conditions under which the rights may be limited. State reports should therefore specify the legal norms upon which restrictions are founded. Restrictions which are not provided for in the law or are not in conformity with the requirements of article 12, paragraph 3, would violate the rights guaranteed by paragraphs 1 and 2.

          13. In adopting laws providing for restrictions permitted by article 12, paragraph 3, States should always be guided by the principle that the restrictions must not impair the essence of the right (cf. art. 5, para. 1); the relation between right and restriction, between norm and exception, must not be reversed. The laws authorizing the application of restrictions should use precise criteria and may not confer unfettered discretion on those charged with their execution.

          14. Article 12, paragraph 3, clearly indicates that it is not sufficient that the restrictions serve the permissible purposes; they must also be necessary to protect them. Restrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve the desired result; and they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected.

          15. The principle of proportionality has to be respected not only in the law that frames the restrictions, but also by the administrative and judicial authorities in applying the law. States should ensure that any proceedings relating to the exercise or restriction of these rights are expeditious and that reasons for the application of restrictive measures are provided.

          16. States have often failed to show that the application of their laws restricting the rights enshrined in article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, are in conformity with all requirements referred to in article 12, paragraph 3. The application of restrictions in any individual case must be based on clear legal grounds and meet the test of necessity and the requirements of proportionality. These conditions would not be met, for example, if an individual were prevented from leaving a country merely on the ground that he or she is the holder of "State secrets", or if an individual were prevented from travelling internally without a specific permit. On the other hand, the conditions could be met by restrictions on access to military zones on national security grounds, or limitations on the freedom to settle in areas inhabited by indigenous or minorities communities. 8

          17. A major source of concern is the manifold legal and bureaucratic barriers unnecessarily affecting the full enjoyment of the rights of the individuals to move freely, to leave a country, including their own, and to take up residence. Regarding the right to movement within a country, the Committee has criticized provisions requiring individuals to apply for permission to change their residence or to seek the approval of the local authorities of the place of destination, as well as delays in processing such written applications. States' practice presents an even richer array of obstacles making it more difficult to leave the country, in particular for their own nationals. These rules and practices include, inter alia, lack of access for applicants to the competent authorities and lack of information regarding requirements; the requirement to apply for special forms through which the proper application documents for the issuance of a passport can be obtained; the need for supportive statements from employers or family members; exact description of the travel route; issuance of passports only on payment of high fees substantially exceeding the cost of the service rendered by the administration; unreasonable delays in the issuance of travel documents; restrictions on family members travelling together; requirement of a repatriation deposit or a return ticket; requirement of an invitation from the State of destination or from people living there; harassment of applicants, for example by physical intimidation, arrest, loss of employment or expulsion of their children from school or university; refusal to issue a passport because the applicant is said to harm the good name of the country. In the light of these practices, States parties should make sure that all restrictions imposed by them are in full compliance with article 12, paragraph 3.

          18. The application of the restrictions permissible under article 12, paragraph 3, needs to be consistent with the other rights guaranteed in the Covenant and with the fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination. Thus, it would be a clear violation of the Covenant if the rights enshrined in article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, were restricted by making distinctions of any kind, such as on the basis of race, colour, ***, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. In examining State reports, the Committee has on several occasions found that measures preventing women from moving freely or from leaving the country by requiring them to have the consent or the escort of a male person constitute a violation of article 12.



          And then, only then, there could be an HONEST discussion about ANYTHING.
          Why should I waste my time arguing with you if you don't share the same VALUES and RESPECT FOR HUMAN DIGNITY AS I DO????????
          Farewell.

          I t seems the United Nations also does not share your VALUES either , could be because there are selfish , greedy and immoral ??? Respect for basic human dignity ? What is that ? Is coming to a country where you are not invited to do so showing respect for those folks basic human dignity? Violating there rights to freedom , violating there rights not to be exposed to deadly diseases we wiped out long ago because you decided to by pass the required health checks??? Exposing our children to them as they sit in over crowed classroom because you decided to violate there rights too? Taking resources that should be spent on : Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State and creating a finical burden upon these citizens who then have a loss of freedom and ability to provide for there family , are you showing RESPECT FOR HUMAN DIGNITY AS I DO????????
          Farewell.
          I DON'T THINK SO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!who is the nazis?ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THEN WORDS MY FRIEND!@!@!@

          Comment


          • #35
            Never heard so much b!tching and moaning from so many people.

            Just the typical "discussion" that ends up being the same old arguments that move from one thread to another.......

            Yep, the millions here are still here. More enter, overstay, and drive as we speak.

            I find it amusing how some of you will still cling to the false hope that one day, one day, who knows when and if you'll be alive, OUR government will order massive deportations and house-to-house raids. It is mind boggling how some of you, who SEEM intelligent, honestly believe something like this will happen. Everytime I see this I laugh, then kinda feel sad for you guys because it is completely ignorant. Anyways, reality passes you by daily.

            Comment


            • #36
              I have read President Bush's Immigration Reform proposal, I think it is really good for everyone and is a true compromise and the only one that has a chance of geting a backing of divided congress.
              I was very much impressed by his wisdom and compassion!

              BUT, AFTER I read postings by "professional" opinion-makers like ACELAW I always WISH that all Illegal Immigrants be deported immediately.
              I wish, I REALLY WISH GOVERNMENT LISTENED to his plea and rounded all Illegals up and shipped "'em all" out.

              Do you know WHY I wish so?
              Because I strongly believe that people like ACELAW don't REALLY want it happen.
              People like ACELAW wish illegals were here FOREVER: Because using Illegals as scapegoats ACELAW can claim a great value for himself as a defender of the "Human Rights of US Citizens" whose parents he so strongly desires to throw out of the country.

              Using the anger and bitterness that he creates by postings such as his, ACELAW is able to win some public support for himself WITHOUT bothering to think how to improve the lives of the US Citizens that he claims to value so much.

              Therefore I wish to see ALL ILLEGALS out and see what ACELAW will use to pump-up himself after they are all gone.
              I want to see what group he will target next???
              ACELAW, after reading your posting I VERY MUCH SUPPORT TOTAL DEPORTATION so I could see Who would you target next????
              I wish all your wishes about deporting Illegals came true-so you would finally reveal your TRUE face as well.
              Farewell.
              I will not return to this discussion again.
              You can post all you wish.
              Hopefully Immigration Reform will NOT be enacted and instead there will be new,very tough anti-illegal laws that government will enforce.
              Hopefully all 10mln population is forced to leave AT ONCE, so that everyone would know for sure what ACELAW truly stands for.

              [This message was edited by E. on January 25, 2004 at 11:00 PM.]

              [This message was edited by E. on January 25, 2004 at 11:07 PM.]

              Comment


              • #37
                E
                Don't forget to change your huggies before you leave, you might have a bad rash from the sound of your post???

                Comment


                • #38
                  Hehehehe
                  You know what, you may want to put Huggies where your mouth is
                  Your rash is REALLY much worse

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I will not return to this discussion again.
                    You can post all you wish.

                    I thought you would never return here????You are so nice to allow me to contiune to post here.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      hi everybody...

                      No offense to anyone.... But I m kinda glad that I don't read / follow this post from first.... I m not sure about amnesty program might be harmful but this discussion is definitely giving stress to lot of people on this board... that could be a real harm to health personally.... Good luck with finding final conclusion at the end of this debate...Pasha

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        hi everybody...

                        No offense to anyone.... But I m kinda glad that I don't read / follow this post from first.... I m not sure about amnesty program might be harmful but this discussion is definitely giving stress to lot of people on this board... that could be a real harm to health personally.... Good luck with finding final conclusion at the end of debate...Pasha

                        Comment

                        Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                        Home Page

                        Immigration Daily

                        Archives

                        Processing times

                        Immigration forms

                        Discussion board

                        Resources

                        Blogs

                        Twitter feed

                        Immigrant Nation

                        Attorney2Attorney

                        CLE Workshops

                        Immigration books

                        Advertise on ILW

                        EB-5

                        移民日报

                        About ILW.COM

                        Connect to us

                        Questions/Comments

                        SUBSCRIBE

                        Immigration Daily



                        Working...
                        X