Thread: someone explain

What do they contribute besides,rape,murder,and DUI's.Tell me please

India does have an IMPROVING ECONOMY but:

At this point, anyone who has actually been to India will probably be puzzled. "India?" he or she will say. "With its dilapidated airports, crumbling roads, vast slums and impoverished villages? We're talking about that India?" Yes, that, too, is India. The country might have several Silicon Valleys, but it also has three Nigerias within it, more than 300 million people living on less than a dollar a day. India is home to 40 percent of the world's poor and has the world's second largest HIV population. But that is India, the India of poverty and disease, as it exists TODAY, even with their up economy and insourced American jobs.

Should the legal citizens and taxpayers of the USA be forced to go back 200 years and LIVE LIKE FREAKING INDIA??? Mexicans are rich if they are livng on $4.00 (compared to India)

Give me a break.

Originally Posted by yuyi

Arguements against illegal immigration is that they are overcrowding our country, yet countries that have massive populations are still able to accelerate economically. So does this discredit the idea that more people = more problems? This is what I don't understand, and what I am trying to understand. I am just a high school kid, but I am no idiot. The reason I have a such a will to understand illegal immigration is because I am a Chicano. My parents came here illegally, but I am an American citizen. There was a point of my life where my parents did receive food stamps, but now my dad has created his own job buying and selling houses. Now he pays thousands of dollars in taxes to sustain the standard of living for all Americans. So why doesn't anyone talk about this side of the story? In my community, there are many businesses opening up, by people that came here illegally. Once again, do NOT start talking that I am a "troll" or "traitor." I am just a person who is trying to understand all aspects of illegal immigration. Both the bad and the good. I have never said, or never will say that illegal immigration is a blessing to us, but I am just trying to understand all angles of this debate.

To me, overcrowding is the least of my objections to illegal immigration! I am much more upset about the amount of tax money that goes to pay for their food stamps, healthcare, education, etc. I can hardly afford the property tax on my home as it is, and our schools need more because they're so overcrowded! I am also unhappy that American citizens are losing jobs to illegals. Read this article for more info-- http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/a ... 04-26.html
I am unhappy about illegals killing citizens in traffic accidents after being arrested 2-3 times prior on DUI. Laws are being broken, which cost money, jobs, and lives, and it makes me angry, especially when I see Mexicans flying our flag upside down, and waving signs about taking back Aztlan. I'm glad your father is working hard and doing well, but is he legal now? Was he legal when he received food stamps? How many illegals do as well as your dad? Most of the businesses they have opened in my area cater solely to other immigrants. Your family is mostly an exception rather than the rule.

And the major worry--if it's so easy for illegals to walk across our border, how easy is it for the next Al Qaida bombers to get in?! We must enforce our laws!!

I admire you for wanting to "understand all the angles of this debate." When I was your age, things seemed a lot more black and white than they do to me now. You seem to think we have not weighed the evidence for and against illegal immigration, but most of us have. In this case yuyi, the bad outweighs the good!

By a very simple example, my dad earn amnesty in 1986,

You're dad earned nothing.

He was given amnesty by the government simply for being here. There's nothing earned about that.

By the way, do you know how to format a paragraph so that it's readable?

Originally Posted by yuyi

Dont be mad because your are unable to support your stand. Must you rationalize your views calling my dad a lawbreaker? Why have you not brought up the facts of contributions of many illegal immigrants? Why? Because you don't want to accept the idea that there is more than one side to this story, and that the other sides has parts that are beneficial to this great country. So frankly, I dont give a damn if anyone considers me annoying. But if you refuse to accept the SIMPLE fact that illegal immigration has more than one side, not all good and not all bad, then your basis for your arguements are useless because you are partly blind and not seeing the facts. By a very simple example, my dad earn amnesty in 1986, and has worked all his life to give me and my family the opportunities of this great nation. Although he came here illegally, he has paid his taxes all his life. He had 3 sons (my brothers) who ALL JOINED the armed forces (Marines, army, national guard.) So what is the fuss of me bringing this up if it is the plain truth? Now thanks to you all, I will probably get kicked out (for the 4th time) only because I wish to bring truth and relevance to this serious debate that can and will affect millions of people.

Yuyi - it is people like you which have compelled me to begin making deep and systematic plans to run for office.

Your relatives are LAW BREAKERS because they violated the laws WE the PEOPLE had our government set forth. In our country, those who refuse to obey our laws are disciplined. If they are legal citizens they are fined or imprisoned.

Our nation's laws also back our benefits we've implemented to those who are deserving. These laws also protect our people and our infrastructure ourselves and many who came before us built with blood and sweat and tears.

And, since you seem to desire to antagonize instead of truly debate - we don't have time to spend on baseless conclusions and antagonistic ranting.

In this nation, we vote. I make a motion for an administrator to begin proceedings for deportation of yuyi for the FIFTH time. Anyone second this motion?

You are not going to stop people from coming here yuyi and they will come from all over the world and you will have to compete for a job and everything else, that is the way it will be so you better like it. The whole world wants to live here and they are coming.

deport em

Is that a second to the motion? If so... my vote...

deport 'em

Oh wait... we need our representation in the form of an administrative ok to proceed with the vote.

Waiting...

While there are illegal immigration success stories , they just aren't worth it.

The 1986 Amnesty caused more problems than it solved.


Amnesty, Again
This country should have learned -- apparently, it has not

By Mark Krikorian

National Review
January 26, 2004
Enemies, foreign and domestic. Of course, the corollary of administrative overload is massive fraud, as overworked bureaucrats start hurrying people through the system, usually with political encouragement. We saw this in the 1986 amnesty, when applicants who claimed to have picked watermelons from trees were legalized as farm workers, because the INS was prohibited from devoting too much attention to suspicious applications, lest the process bog down. This can become a national-security problem, when ineligible people get legal status—people like, say, Mahmud Abouhalima, a cabbie in New York, who got amnesty as a farm worker under the 1986 law and went on to help lead the first World Trade Center attack. Having an illegal-alien terrorist in your country is bad; having one with legal status is worse, since he can work and travel freely, as Abouhalima did, going to Afghanistan to receive terrorist training only after he got amnesty. And don’t fall for the claim that illegal aliens who have sneaked across the Mexican border yearn only to wash our dishes; an Iraqi-born smuggler pled guilty in 2001 to sneaking 1,000 Middle Easterners through Mexico into the U.S., and the former Mexican consul in Beirut was recently arrested for her involvement in a similar enterprise. Another amnesty is guaranteed—guaranteed—to give legal residence to a future terrorist.

“It’s a paycheck!” The morale of government workers responsible for enforcing the immigration law is grievously undermined when their political superiors continually talk about amnesty for the very people who lied, cheated, and generally flouted the law. In this environment, it’s easy to understand how, for instance, an airport immigration inspector in Miami could have allowed Mohamed Atta to re-enter the country in January 2001 even though he had overstayed his visa the last time; after all, why bother focusing on him when millions like him go unpenalized and when political leaders make crystal clear that they don’t take our immigration laws seriously? Immigration workers approach me all the time with their frustration at not being allowed to do their jobs, and amnesty would ensure that they remain trapped in this Dilbert universe, with Congress and the president filling in for the pointy-haired boss.

Priming the pump. Amnesties don’t solve the problem of illegal immigration—they exacerbate it. An INS report released about three years ago showed that after the 1986 amnesty, illegal immigration increased markedly as family and friends of the newly legalized aliens sneaked into the country. And the new illegals weren’t just Mexicans, emboldened to hop across the border; illegal immigration from other countries surged even more dramatically, suggesting that amnesty’s role in encouraging further illegal immigration is a general phenomenon.

We the People? Amnesty will create millions of new U.S.-Mexican dual citizens, who, as early as 2006, may be able to vote in both countries’ elections. This would represent the fulfillment of Mexico’s efforts to extend its authority over a large part of the American population—the most serious threat to our sovereignty since the Civil War. The Mexican consulates in the U.S. already represent the largest such network in any country, and the consuls are increasingly taking part in domestic politics and governance. Amnesty would hugely accelerate this trend.

Sticker shock. Illegal aliens can’t receive welfare; legal immigrants can. The fear of a fiscal earthquake is why Congress in 1986 barred amnesty recipients from some welfare programs for five years and reimbursed states a small portion of their aid costs for the former illegals. But no amount of fancy footwork could avoid the fact that permanently settling millions of unskilled laborers into a modern economy costs the public treasury billions. A study ten years after the last amnesty estimated that the newly legalized aliens had already generated a net fiscal deficit of $24 billion. Is this really the time to saddle states and localities—which would bear most of the costs—with an additional unfunded mandate?

sweetheart, I understand that perhaps you are educationally challenged but calling your Dad a lawbreaker is not a "rationalization." That's called TRUTH. Go look it up in the dictionary. You know how to use a dictionary, right?