[Mithras]

The Atlantic Monthly is running a really hard-hitting, pull-no-punches piece on immigration restriction, and why this is the right time to put the brakes on.

It begins by acknowledging the historical role that immigration has played in our nation:

From the beginning, it has been the policy of the United States, both officially and according to the prevailing sentiment of our people, to tolerate, to welcome, and to encourage immigration, without qualification and without discrimination. For generations, it was the settled opinion of our people, which found no challenge anywhere, that immigration was a source of both strength and wealth.

It goes on to note that support for immigration generally rests on two key ideas:
1. Immigration boosts our population, which we need because our birthrate is lower.
2. Immigration brings laborers that do work that Americans are unwilling to do.

These two opinions were, first, that immigration constituted a net reinforcement of our population; secondly, that, in addition to this, or irrespective of this, immigration was necessary, in order to supply the laborers who should do certain kinds of work,...

The article then dismantles each of these two ideas.
First, on the idea that we need immigration because our birthrate has declined -- in fact, the article shows, our birthrate has declined because of immigration:

The arrival in the United States, ... increasingly, of large numbers of degraded peasantry created for the first time in this country distinct social classes, and produced an alteration of economic relations which could not fail powerfully to affect population. The appearance of vast numbers of men, foreign in birth and often in language, with a poorer standard of living, with habits repellent to our native people, of an industrial grade suited only to the lowest kind of manual labor, was exactly such a cause as by any student of population would be expected to affect profoundly the growth of the native population. Americans shrank alike from the social contact and the economic competition thus created. They became increasingly unwilling to bring forth sons and daughters who should be obliged to compete in the market for labor and in the walks of life with those whom they did not recognize as of their own grade and condition.

And second: the idea that we need immigrants to do work that Americans are unwilling to do -- this too is turned on its head. In fact, Americans only become unwilling to do certain "degrading" labor only when new groups of immigrants arrive:

Does the Italian come because the Irishman refuses to work in ditches and trenches, in gangs; or has the Irishman taken this position because the Italian has come? The latter is undoubtedly the truth; and if the administrators of Baron Hirsch's estate send to us two millions of Russian Jews, we shall soon find the Italians standing on their dignity, and deeming themselves too good to work on streets and sewers and railroads. But meanwhile, what of the republic? what of the American standard of living? what of the American rate of wages?

Finally, the article points out that we just don't have the room to absorb this influx of immigrants any more:

First, we have the important fact of the complete exhaustion of the free public lands of the United States. Fifty years ago, thirty years ago, vast tracts of arable laud were open to every person arriving on our shores, under the Preemption Act, or later, the Homestead Act. A good farm of one hundred and sixty acres could be had at the minimum price of $1.25 an acre, or for merely the fees of registration. Under these circumstances it was a very simple matter to dispose of a large immigration. To-day there is not a good farm within the limits of the United States which is to be had under either of these acts. The wild and tumultuous scenes which attended the opening to settlement of the Territory of Oklahoma, a few years ago, and, a little later, of the so-called Cherokee Strip, testify eloquently to the vast change in our national conditions in this respect.

Finally, the author calls for a national "rest" from immigration, to give our country a chance to recuperate from its devastating effects, before more ill-educated, non-English speaking, wildly reproducing people arrive:

For one, I believe it is time that we should take a rest, and give our social, political, and industrial system some chance to recuperate. The problems which so sternly confront us to-day are serious enough without being complicated and aggravated by the addition of some millions of Hungarians, Bohemians, Poles, south Italians, and Russian Jews.

And yes, it was written in 1896.

[Chuckit]

That was fantastic.

[peeb]

Yep, I for one, have fewer children because of Mexicans, and they are the only reason I don't want to work picking fruit. That logic is incredible. Mithras, Chuckit - you'll be joining me in the fields, barefoot and pregnant, as soon as we deport all the foreigners? What complete rubbish. Goes to show that every wave of immigrants seeks to close the door on the next.

[Kerrigan]

I've always subscribed to the fact that we are, to all intents and effects, repeating the Victorian era. Eventually immigration and globalization will reach a tipping point, but that's a long way off.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

No one is talking about immigration, the debate is over ILLEGAL immigration.

I'm convinced, only the dumbest of people can't seem to figure out the difference.

Even legal immigration in the 1890's was certainly not without "qualification and without discrimination." Our nation wasn't set up to be a welfare state then, and didn't encourage immigrants not to assimilate, nor were most of the immigrants interested in either. And certainly there was no open door policy for outright illegal immigration. The immigration policies of the past, in fact, illustrate very well how lazy, intellectually vacant, and outright wrong the open borders crowd of today is.

[OAW]

From the beginning, it has been the policy of the United States, both officially and according to the prevailing sentiment of our people, to tolerate, to welcome, and to encourage immigration, without qualification and without discrimination. For generations, it was the settled opinion of our people, which found no challenge anywhere, that immigration was a source of both strength and wealth.

That right there is utter and complete BS. The US was founded and built upon discrimination. Even in the days when this article was written western Europeans of Anglo-Saxon stock were favored over central and eastern Europeans when it came to immigration. And even among western Europeans there were "pecking orders". "No Irish Allowed" sound familiar? Let's not even talk about dark skinned immigrants! But as always, there are those who believe their own press and they confuse what America professes with what it practices.

OAW

[peeb]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No one is talking about immigration, the debate is over ILLEGAL immigration.

If that were true, then you would favor legalizing current undocumented immigrants. Since you don't, then the issue IS immigration per se.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Mithras 

The arrival in the United States, ... increasingly, of large numbers of degraded peasantry created for the first time in this country distinct social classes, and produced an alteration of economic relations which could not fail powerfully to affect population. The appearance of vast numbers of men, foreign in birth and often in language, with a poorer standard of living, with habits repellent to our native people, of an industrial grade suited only to the lowest kind of manual labor, was exactly such a cause as by any student of population would be expected to affect profoundly the growth of the native population. Americans shrank alike from the social contact and the economic competition thus created. They became increasingly unwilling to bring forth sons and daughters who should be obliged to compete in the market for labor and in the walks of life with those whom they did not recognize as of their own grade and condition.

IMO the logic here is very wobbly.

[Mithras]

Yeah, no shit.

[peeb]

Or rather, the collapse of birthrate in the developed world is fueling a need for immigration.

[Kerrigan]

The main difference between Victorian days and today, all other things being equal, is that today the West has a relatively lower birthrate than the third world. So while the Victorians exported their surplus population to dominions like S. Africa and Canada, today the reverse is true. The rise of the birthrate in the third world, both relatively and absolutely, is fueling large-scale immigration to the West unlike what we have experienced in the past.

[peeb]

Or rather, the collapse of birthrate in the developed world is fueling a need for immigration. We have 'outsourced' reproduction, because it is so expensive to have children.

[TheWOAT]

Thanks for posting that article.

For those that missed it, the piece was written at the end of the 19th century.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Thanks for posting that article.

For those that missed it, the piece was written at the end of the 19th century.

But the reactionary and fear-driven impulses are the same today.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by peeb 

But the reactionary and fear-driven impulses are the same today.

Yup...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by peeb 

If that were true, then you would favor legalizing current undocumented immigrants. Since you don't, then the issue IS immigration per se.

And speaking of the aforementioned dumb people. Peeb, you're pretty much the poster child.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

And speaking of the aforementioned dumb people. Peeb, you're pretty much the poster child.

Random insults don't strengthen your case. In fact, they serve to underline that you don't have one.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Random insults don't strengthen your case. In fact, they serve to underline that you don't have one.

There is no case on the subject of legal immigration (which was what's being discussed in the OP), because that's not what the current debate is about. Again, only the stupid people (as you've proven to be over and over again) haven't figured this out yet and so will keep blabbing on about immigration and think they're being clever by leaving out the word illegal.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

There is no case on the subject of legal immigration (which was what's being discussed in the OP), because that's not what the current debate is about. Again, only the stupid people (as you've proven to be over and over again) haven't figured this out yet and so will keep blabbing on about immigration and think they're being clever by leaving out the word illegal.

No, if you read the post above, I pointed out that if you refuse to legalize current undocumented immigrants, then you are against IMMIGRATION, since you have the choice to make it legal, yet choose not to.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

And again, you prove my point.

People immigrate to the US all the time. They have documents, because they came through the proper channels. No one is arguing to restrict anyone coming through the proper channels -as thousands do every year- and in fact it's not what the current debate is about, try as people like you might (idiotically) to confuse the issues.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

And again, you prove my point.

People immigrate to the US all the time. They have documents, because they came through the proper channels. No one is arguing to stop anyone from coming into the country through the proper channels, as thousands do every year, and in fact it's not what the current debate is about, try as people like you might (idiotically) to confuse the issues.

No, you prove your ignorance. I know people emigrate to the US all the time. There are a huge range of documents, and whether or not someone has all of them at any one time is not black and white. There are many areas of ambiguity even within what you call 'proper' channels. The issue is whether or not to maintain unenforceable damaging laws that punish the US economy, families, taxpayers and migrants. The choice is whether or not to allow those whose papers are not entirely in order to make them so. If you refuse to legitimize these immigrants when you have the chance, then it is immigration, not anything else, that you are against.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, you prove your ignorance. I know people emigrate to the US all the time. There are a huge range of documents, and whether or not someone has all of them at any one time is not black and white. There are many areas of ambiguity even within what you call 'proper' channels.

There's nothing remotely ambiguous about it, you're simply not bright enough to get what the debate is actually about. If a person stole across a border to get to a country, then they didn't come legally, period. If a person stays past the limit of their visa, then they're not in the country legally. There are thousands of people who do the proper paperwork, go through the proper process, obey the laws (which are only "unenforceable" in the minds of lazy nitwits) and deserve to be considered first and foremost over people who think they're too good, or too pitiful, or too whatever to do things the legal way.

Whether or not those that take the proper legal steps could have their process of becoming citizens more simplified, is an entirely separate debate from that of legalizing people that have never even bothered with the rules to begin with.

I realize that all of this is just too far beyond your meager powers of comprehension, but that's most likely a result of a sub-par education system that clearly doesn't teach critical thinking anymore, and that too, is for another debate.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

There's nothing remotely ambiguous about it

You are clearly entirely ignorant of the US immigration system.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

There are thousands of people who do the proper paperwork, go through the proper process, obey the laws (which are only "unenforceable" in the minds of lazy nitwits) and deserve to be considered first and foremost

These are totally different issues. Sure, people who apply for visas should be processed promptly. That has nothing to do with whether or not other immigrants should be issued visas.

Your argument that we should not fix immigration for one group because it would mean we had to fix it for others betrays your feeble mindedness.
"We should restrict immigration because we've chosen to make immigration really difficult, and it wouldn't be fair to make it easier."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

And you just keep proving my point.

If we were talking about illegal drugs, only an IDIOT would think it were clever to come out with some stupid comment about "Oh, so you're against people using an aspirin for a headache, eh?"

Some people just can't seem to tell the difference between legal and illegal in certain debates, and I'm simply not going to mince words about calling out sheer stupidity. No, the use of aspirin or any other over the counter drugs would have absolutely NOTHING to do with a debate about illegal drugs, just as making dumb comments about immigration has nothing to do with a debate about illegal immigration.

For those two dumb to get the difference, seek out an education already, your purposeful stupidity on the subject is neither cute, nor fooling anyone (besides other simpletons, that is).

[peeb]

OK, let's go with your analogy. Supposing that there was a law in the US outlawing aspirin. Suppose that some people suffered in silence, thinking that they should not use aspirin because it was illegal (even though everyone knew it was safe and effective). Suppose further that some people smuggled it in from Canada. Now suppose that a lobby sprang up calling for legalization of all aspirin, and a counter-lobby emerged, who claimed that if you legalize aspirin for all the people who have been using it illegally, that would be a slap in the face for the ones who had not. You must first make sure that you track down all the aspirin that people might have illegally, before you even think about legalizing it.
Wouldn't that be stupid? Yes, of course. And yet it is what you are arguing. Rudely.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by peeb 

OK, let's go with your analogy.

Actually, you completely missed the analogy- but then again, why am I not surprised?

Knowing the difference between an illegal drug and a legal one, and therefore the difference between a debate about illegal drugs vs. over the counter drugs, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether or not you agree with certain drugs being illegal or not.

You can be against drugs being illegal all you want, and debate that subject on its own merits, but only a complete retard would try and pretend there's no legally recognized difference because they're too stupid to know there's one, and then try and muddy every discussion about illegal drugs with constant bullcrappings about perfectly legal ones. In a nutshell, the braindead tactic you open borders nitwits try floating CONSTANTLY with the illegal immigration debate.

[peeb]

You did not read my post. The policy you are proposing with immigration is the equivalent of trying to enforce a ban on aspirin. Please try again to read my post, and try to understand it. If there are some words that are too long, let me know, and I can explain them. Your insults serve to undermine your point, since they demonstrate your lack of logical arguments.

I well understand that you think that there is a clean line between legal and illegal, but the fact is that there is not, even in the field of drugs some are legal in some contexts, and not in others. The law is complex, confusing and contradictory. I know you would like to live in a simpler, black and white world, but you do not. That is beside the point. The thrust of my argument is that the fact something is made illegal does not make it bad, or make enforcement of that law a good thing, especially not if the only reason for enforcement is some sense of parity with other groups. Just laws for everyone are achievable, but demand a more sophisticated world-view than you appear capable of.

[lpkmckenna]

Great link. Makes you realize that the more things change is worth two in the bush.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You are clearly entirely ignorant of the US immigration system.

I would like to know why you think you have perfect knowledge of the US immigration system.

I believe I have superior knowledge of the system to yours.

I have filled out
i-9, g-325, g-28, g-14, g-731, i-129f, i-134, i-485, i-698, i-751, i-765, and am now filing n-400.

It's not hard. Each form tells you which other forms you need to fill out and the instructions are clear. Mostly, it just takes time to fill them and time for DHS to get back to you. I started this when it was INS, and the changeover to DHS seemed to slow things down a little.

So when you suggest that the debate is about people who don't have all their papers in order, I'm disappointed in you. People who have made some attempt at filing the paperwork properly have a lot of leniency and several opportunities to file for extensions or appeals of decisions.

The debate is not over those people. The debate is over whether or not to give legitimacy to people who have snuck in, rather than making an effort to attain legitimacy honestly. It is an affront to people like me who have done things in order, followed the law, to suggest that you will confer legality upon law-breakers.

This is not a law-breaking of conscience. This is not a civil disobedience issue. This is not an oppressive law. This is an easy law to follow.

There is no good reason to change the rules and make the law-breakers pardoned because they didn't feel like attempting to follow the law. If you change the laws whenever you get the whim, you render the rule of law meaningless.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Yep, I for one, have fewer children because of Mexicans, and they are the only reason I don't want to work picking fruit. That logic is incredible. Mithras, Chuckit - you'll be joining me in the fields, barefoot and pregnant, as soon as we deport all the foreigners? What complete rubbish. Goes to show that every wave of immigrants seeks to close the door on the next.

I elected to have children with a Mexican.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The debate is over whether or not to give legitimacy to people who have snuck in, rather than making an effort to attain legitimacy honestly. It is an affront to people like me who have done things in order, followed the law, to suggest that you will confer legality upon law-breakers.

.........

There is no good reason to change the rules and make the law-breakers pardoned because they didn't feel like attempting to follow the law. If you change the laws whenever you get the whim, you render the rule of law meaningless.

No, there's a good reason to try and change the law because that was and is the agenda of the people in power and the individuals who support them. One of GWB main talking points in 99 was the rewriting of immigration laws to accomplish exactly what is being attempted now, extending an opportunity for legalization to illegal immigrants and creating a guest worker program so that the ones who preferred to only be in the U.S. 5 months out of the year could leave without concern about being able to return the following season.
This was in part responsible for why he was elected president.

But then came the Arabs in the fall of 2000.
Bush and Fox were already in the middle of integrating a guest worker program into a NAFTA, also a program conceived by conservatives, expansion when September 11th redrew the country's priorities. Most people here just have the attention span of a gnat and can't recall anything before last week but it was no secret that this was always going to be pushed forward. A variation of this would have already happened if it wasn't for the Muslims.

I am actually surprised you entered this discussion. Thus far these two threads have been a circle jerk of idiots using rather abstract ideological arguments to support lines of thinking that don't even really apply to the reality of the situation. The law, despite your very impassioned and well phrased claims, does change on a whim. Pertaining to this issue it will change on the whim of the more powerful and economically sound political lobby. This "discussion" (to the people who matter in the world) was never about the legal principle or the sovereignty of America but one of what was more beneficial to American business interests and by extension our economy.

Check out who comprises the two sides of this issue. Look to who has the more influential lobby. Who has the greatest concentration of wealth and capital. Who can put forth the better emotional PR campaign to sway that politically centric demographic. Who built the most encompassing coalition to withstand criticisms. That is who has won this "discussion"
It was over a long time ago. The people who think that the can argue it out now are morons.
It wasn't ever going to be put up for a vote or public referendum. Its going to happen. It will happen by degrees but the inclusion of illegal immigrants was put into the works a long time ago. Once the unions were split the last real obstacle to this was defeated. Now its a matter of acclimating the masses to the idea and that's tricky to do with national elections coming up but make no mistake it is already decided. When less than 1/3 of the Americas is composed of native English speaking individuals what did people think was going to happen in an ever increasing global economy?

Also I don't believe that any of those items you listed above account for the original visa you entered the country under. But my guess, and I don't practice immigration law, is that you got here with something like a H1B. If that is the case then it should also be addressed that those types of visas aren't threatened because of illegal immigration.

To say that you take issue because you had to play by the same rules as the group of people being discussed here is disingenuous. The two groups could not by any stretch of the imagination be farther apart on what consideration is given to them and why.
Illegal immigration will in no way effect immigrants like you and their ability to enter the country. In fact what threatens people like you is a whole separate lobby who have forced the scaling back of your types of visas because they feel they need to give Americans an advantage in the U.S. jobmarket when they have to compete against a global work pool. Its kind of sad. The point of this though is that you did not play the same game as the vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country and to claim otherwise shows a lack of understanding between how INS or DHS groups people into different categories before they even look at immigration applications.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Good grief, what a load of hot air, just to try and disguise the stating of the obvious (as well as some nonsense) with a bunch of long-winded tripe in attempt to give the appearance that you actually revealed anything of any real relevance. “Obvious” indeed.

It’s no secret to anyone that Bush’s support of amnesty is a payoff to big business that wants a permanent labor underclass maintained, and wants the continued notion floated that lazy stupid Americans can’t survive without an underclass- such is insanely profitable for big business. Nor is it any big secret that far left wacko Democrats see the importation of the third world to the United States as the only way of harvesting future Democrat majorities, since via the native population Democrats can’t pull the numbers and lose by default. Why else would such diametrically opposed nitwits be stumping shamelessly for the same thing? They’re both serving interests they owe.

None of this has a thing to do with the larger debate, and the fact that it IS up to Americans to insist on the rule of law being upheld, not just shove your head up your rear (as clearly some have done) buying into the hype that any of this is some sort of preordained manifest destiny.

Also, where the hell did vmarks claim he was “playing the same game” as the vast majority of illegal immigrants? He was talking about the process of immigrating legally.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

The law, despite your very impassioned and well phrased claims, does change on a whim.

Thank you for the compliment.

Also I don't believe that any of those items you listed above account for the original visa you entered the country under. But my guess, and I don't practice immigration law, is that you got here with something like a H1B. If that is the case then it should also be addressed that those types of visas aren't threatened because of illegal immigration.

Incorrect. I named the form for the original visa.

You don't know the names of the forms and what they match up to, and so you made a bad assumption.

To say that you take issue because you had to play by the same rules as the group of people being discussed here is disingenuous. The two groups could not by any stretch of the imagination be farther apart on what consideration is given to them and why.
Illegal immigration will in no way effect immigrants like you and their ability to enter the country. In fact what threatens people like you is a whole separate lobby who have forced the scaling back of your types of visas because they feel they need to give Americans an advantage in the U.S. jobmarket when they have to compete against a global work pool. Its kind of sad. The point of this though is that you did not play the same game as the vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country and to claim otherwise shows a lack of understanding between how INS or DHS groups people into different categories before they even look at immigration applications.

That's the result of your bad assumption. I did not ever file for an H1B.

I can only speculate as to why you made that assumption.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I have filled out i-9, g-325, g-28, g-14, g-731, i-129f, i-134, i-485, i-698, i-751, i-765, and am now filing n-400.... It is an affront to people like me who have done things in order, followed the law, to suggest that you will confer legality upon law-breakers.

As usual, your argument boils down to a school-yard-tit-for-tat sense of 'if I went through this thing, then everyone else should'. Well, the fact is your sour grapes do not make for good immigration policy.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

If you change the laws whenever you get the whim, you render the rule of law meaningless.

No, if you fail to change laws that don't work, you render the rule of law meaningless.
You would have been marching at the end of prohibition about how changing the law would make it meaningless, and be a slap in the face to those who had not drunk alcohol - before anyone could have it, every bottle of illegal whiskey must be tracked down! What horseshit.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It’s no secret to anyone that Bush’s support of amnesty is a payoff to big business that wants a permanent labor underclass maintained, and wants the continued notion floated that lazy stupid Americans can’t survive without an underclass- such is insanely profitable for big business.

You don't understand anything about economics, do you? If they are legalized, they won't be an underclass.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It IS up to Americans to insist on the rule of law being upheld.

People are talking about changing it, not upholding it. Try to keep up.

[vmarks]

Actually, no. I tell you that if we needed a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, then we similarly need a constitutional amendment to federally prohibit drugs.

Lacking the constitutional amendment and yet prohibiting substances makes a mockery of the rule of law.

But thank you for making yet another faulty assumption in a thread of bad assumptions.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I elected to have children with a Mexican.

Wait, I'm confused. Does that make you one of the good guys, or the bad guys?

[TheWOAT]

Ive done some of the INS paperwork and it wasnt that hard. Forms G325, I129F, I693, I485, I765, I131, I864 and in the near future I751... Even if it is difficult form someone, INS(DHS) will send an RFE (Request for Further Evidence) in case there was a discrepancy/mistake or not enough evidence.

The only stumbling blocks are ca$h and knowing english or knowing someone who knows english. Or in the case of many recent arrivals, knowning someone who speaks [insert tribal language] and english. Not all illegals have the chance to get their papers fixed, but many do.

Side note: Schwarzenegger was right the other day.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Ive done some of the INS paperwork and it wasnt that hard. Forms G325, I129F, I693, I485, I765, I131, I864 and in the near future I751... Even if it is difficult form someone, INS(DHS) will send an RFE (Request for Further Evidence) in case there was a discrepancy/mistake or not enough evidence.

The only stumbling blocks are ca$h and knowing english or knowing someone who knows english. Or in the case of many recent arrivals, knowning someone who speaks [insert tribal language] and english.

On a purely practical note, if US farms had to do this for all of their fruit pickers, what do you think the result would be?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, no. I tell you that if we needed a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, then we similarly need a constitutional amendment to federally prohibit drugs.
Lacking the constitutional amendment and yet prohibiting substances makes a mockery of the rule of law.
But thank you for making yet another faulty assumption in a thread of bad assumptions.

I think there are some timing issues on the board - out of context, I don't understand who you are responding to, or what point you are making.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by peeb 

On a purely practical note, if US farms had to do this for all of their fruit pickers, what do you think the result would be?

"Do this" as in fix the papers of their workers?

Well, the result would be a huge backlog of applications that DHS-ICE (INS) couldnt handle. Besides that, the workers would be protected by having a pending application.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I think there are some timing issues on the board - out of context, I don't understand who you are responding to, or what point you are making.

I was responding to you. You made a foolish statement about prohibition laws and what you presumed my position would be.

I instead responded with a consistent rule of law argument.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

"Do this" as in fix the papers of their workers?

Well, the result would be a huge backlog of applications that DHS-ICE (INS) couldnt handle. Besides that, the workers would be protected by having a pending application.

Ah, so that's the misunderstanding that's causing you so much trouble! What would happen is that US produce would triple in price, and US farmers go out of business, so all your food would be produced by Mexicans, but in Mexico. They would not be able to work just because they had filed an application, so there would also be a massive shortage of workers, and produce would rot in the fields. But these practical considerations are of no concern to you - much better an agricultural meltdown than anyone not have to go through the hoops you went through, it's only fair.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I was responding to you. You made a foolish statement about prohibition laws and what you presumed my position would be.

I instead responded with a consistent rule of law argument.

No, you responded with an inarticulate non sequitur. To be clear, what is your position on the repeal of prohibition? Surely just changing the law will, and giving effective amnesty to people who were breaking the law is inconsistent with your current demands that the law not be changed because it would be unfair to documented immigrants? The fact is that your position on immigration is not based on any kind of rational thought, it's a knee jerk reaction based on school-yard ideas of fairness.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Ah, so that's the misunderstanding that's causing you so much trouble! What would happen is that US produce would triple in price, and US farmers go out of business, so all your food would be produced by Mexicans, but in Mexico. They would not be able to work just because they had filed an application, so there would also be a massive shortage of workers, and produce would rot in the fields. But these practical considerations are of no concern to you - much better an agricultural meltdown than anyone not have to go through the hoops you went through, it's only fair.

No offense but... WTF are you talkin about?

[peeb]

The effects of implementing your fantasies. Your fear of brown people would have real consequences if it were allowed to run rampant. Effects on people doing useful jobs and paying taxes, effects on employers, taxpayers, consumers, everyone. You have not thought it through, and have no knowledge of the situation you are trying to manipulate.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Bleh, look who's talking.

Peeb, you never address anything anyone has actually said, and then turn around and make idiotic proclamations based on nothing other than your own fantasies and misunderstandings. Then when all else fails, you fall back on playing the race card- which is about as predictable as the sun rise.

[peeb]

OK, I'll call you on that particular piece of horseshit - what have I not addressed?

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The effects of implementing your fantasies. Your fear of brown people would have real consequences if it were allowed to run rampant. Effects on people doing useful jobs and paying taxes, effects on employers, taxpayers, consumers, everyone. You have not thought it through, and have no knowledge of the situation you are trying to manipulate.

News flash: I am of Mexican descent, a chicano if you will. My mom was born in Sinaloa, father in Jalisco. Me fearing brown people is akin to you fearing your mother because of her pigmentation. I was born in the US, my wife was born in Mexico, my extended family is consists of half US Citizens and the other half illegals... I KNOW THE SITUATION. IF AFFECTS ME MORE SO THAN MOST. The post you made is based on nothing I said, but rather your quest to peg all of those who stand in the middle or to the right as racist or full of fear. In fact you completely missed the point of this thread entirely. Wake up and read what is written and quit trying to put your own spin on other peoples words.

You asked a question if Farmers would fix papers of the workers what would happen. Well that is a little too open ended so the obvious consequence is a huge back log in the ICE dept. I didnt say I was against it, or for it, but just giving a direct result of having alot of people apply at the same time. How you interpreted that as me being a racist or full of fear shows that you "got some problems".

I am for a compromise. Illegals pay a penalty, and go through a 5-10 year process and then become legal, and I am also for securing the border. I am against deportations and against pure open borders. One day when you grow up, you will realize that the world isnt filled with racists and non-racists, so until that time, refrain from bringing race into the equation.

[peeb]

Well, if it looks like racism, and quacks like racism... Forgive me for thinking it was. The fact is, whether it is motivated by racism, ignorance, or willful malice, the result is the same - needless havoc wreaked on numerous groups, and no benefit except to fear-mongering politicians.