Text 26588, 107 rader
Skriven 2007-01-28 17:46:16 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
     Kommentar till en text av EARL CROASMUN
Ärende: Presidential race
=========================
EARL CROASMUN -> John Hull wrote:
 ~>> Secondly, when Europeans first came to the New World, it was a virtual
 ~>> wilderness with only a few million indians in the whole place.

 EC> You called them "Europeans" rather than "wetbacks."  Interesting.

Yeah, because at that time there was no country to set laws, therefore nobody
was illegal. My family has been here since the early 1600's, so if anybody has
a right to bitch it's me.


 ~>> By the late
 ~>> 1800's there was no longer a frontier, and that's when we should have
 ~>> started restricting wholesale immigration.

 EC> That's about the time the US government DID start restricting immigration.
 EC>  In other words, old immigrants and their descendants deprived potential
 EC> new immigrants of the opportunities they themselves enjoyed.  And every
 EC> time we restricted immigration it hurt OUR economy.

We didn't restrict immigration so much as try to control it.  Why? Because even
then, all those people poring in came here without a pot to piss in and were a
drag on the economy.  They congregated in the poorest parts of those ports they
entered at, like New York City's Five Points and Hell's Kitchen, and the crime
rates skyrocketed.  How do you think inner city slums got started on a large
scale.


 ~>> Fourth, with 300 million of our own citizens, we no longer have the
 ~>> infrastructure capable of handling millions of people who come in
 EC> without
 ~>> means of support, health care, language skills, etc.

 EC> If you are concerned about people who don't support themselves, why
 EC> distinguish between citizens and non-citizens?


We have to pay the freight for our own unemployed.  Why should we have to foot
the bill for the illegals as well?  That's BS if you ask me.

 ~>> 20 million illegal aliens (of
 ~>> all races, creeds, colors, and religions) have nearly bankrupted
 EC> California, Arizona, and Texas;

 EC> There have been many studies done over the years by reputable economists
 EC> that show they add more to the economy than they take away, including
 EC> bringing in more governmental revenue than they cost government.

That's a load of crap, too.  All those illegal end up on welfare for food
stamps, housing, medicare, etc., and don't pay one stinkin' dime for any of it.
 They get to send their kids to our public schools and we pay for that, too. 
They raise the crime rate significantly, and bring in diseases that we
eradicated decades ago.


 ~>> have created a permanent underclass of unemployable
 ~>> Americans who can't afford to work for the slave wages illegals will
 EC> work for;

 EC> "Slave wages" hardly applies when someone voluntarily comes into the
 EC> country and voluntarily takes a job.  That is the nature of a free market.
 EC>  For my own part I don't like the idea of government stepping in and
 EC> artificially raising wages whether it is done by minimum wage laws or by
 EC> locking out willing workers.  And I'd definitely prefer the workers coming
 EC> in than the company going OUT of the country.

I don't support raising the minimum wage either, because that just eliminates
more entry level jobs.  But paying illegals under the table costs us millions
of dollars a month in taxes, and doesn't help our own unemployed who get laid
off when the minimum is raised.

You want to talk about companies leaving the US, fine, but that's a different
discussion.  They leave because they can't compete against cheap foreign labor
when unions and governmental restrictions have raised their cost of doing
business beyond the ability to cover by raising retail prices.


 ~>> These people have no right to be here, have no right to the benefits
 EC> that
 ~>> accrue to American citizens who are born here,

 EC> That was a discussion from about five years back.  There are very few
 EC> constitutional rights or privileges or benefits that are exclusively for
 EC> native citizens.

 ~>> and have no right to tell me I owe them anything because I owe them
 EC> nothing.

 EC> Who said otherwise?

 ~>> On top of everything else, they
 ~>> are screwing over those foreigners who follow the law and go through the
 ~>> process of legally becoming citizens.

 EC> How many of your complaints would go away if all those here illegally were
 EC> made legal?  If there are any remaining, they are complaints about
 EC> immigrants, not exclusively ILLEGAL immigrants.


Absolutely NOT.  That's amnesty, and is nothing but a reward for coming here
illegally.  All it does is send a message to anybody who wants to jump the line
that if they get here and keep from getting caught, that they will likely get a
pass at some point in the future because we don't have the guts to enforce our
own damn laws!

--- Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)