REVIVING THE 'MELTING POT'

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You can look at the writings of our Founding Fathers all you like, but the best place to look for what matters is the Constitution.

And nowhere in it is there anything about the government having authority to close borders.

And nowhere in this discussion has anyone but you talked of closing the borders.

LOL....you're good Reinhard. That's one of the things I like about you.

You're right, no one else brought it up. But it's one of the issues with immigration, is it not?

Not really. Not an issue that needs serious debate anyway. Closing the borders is clearly undesirable and impossible. There's a huge difference between closing the border and controlling and regulating who gets to cross it and when, no? The government most certainly has the undisputed right - and maybe even so much as an obligation - to do the latter.

Edited July 8, 2007 by ET-US2004

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

despite all them illegal immigrants, the us of a is still the strongest nation on earth.

Patriotic nonesense. USA might be the big bully of the World, but if you want to look at the "Strongest Nation on Earth" look towards the country that owns most of our national debt: China.

Try printing notes in your basement and see if the Chinese buy them.

Once you fail to make the sale, ponder a little on why they're so much eager to buy notes printed by Uncle Sam and not those by you.

[rebeccajo 14]

You can look at the writings of our Founding Fathers all you like, but the best place to look for what matters is the Constitution.

And nowhere in it is there anything about the government having authority to close borders.

And nowhere in this discussion has anyone but you talked of closing the borders.

LOL....you're good Reinhard. That's one of the things I like about you.

You're right, no one else brought it up. But it's one of the issues with immigration, is it not?

Not really. Not an issue that needs serious debate anyway. Closing the borders is clearly undesirable and impossible. There's a huge difference between closing the border and controlling and regulating who gets to cross it and when, no? The government most certainly has the undisputed right - and maybe even so much as an obligation - to do the latter.

But it gets brought up. That's what the ridiculous fence is about.

And I do think there's a big difference between regulating migration of individuals because of security reasons vs. the fear of them 'invading' us by NOT eventually assimilating, taking over our economy, or some other hoo-haa-haa rhetoric.

I'm not, never have been nor ever will be a proponent of simply letting people in willy nilly. But I don't think our government has the right to keep anyone out for any reason other than they pose a potential security threat.

Edited July 8, 2007 by rebeccajo

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You can look at the writings of our Founding Fathers all you like, but the best place to look for what matters is the Constitution.

And nowhere in it is there anything about the government having authority to close borders.

And nowhere in this discussion has anyone but you talked of closing the borders.

LOL....you're good Reinhard. That's one of the things I like about you.

You're right, no one else brought it up. But it's one of the issues with immigration, is it not?

Not really. Not an issue that needs serious debate anyway. Closing the borders is clearly undesirable and impossible. There's a huge difference between closing the border and controlling and regulating who gets to cross it and when, no? The government most certainly has the undisputed right - and maybe even so much as an obligation - to do the latter.

But it gets brought up. That's what the ridiculous fence is about.

And I do think there's a big difference between regulating migration of individuals because of security reasons vs. the fear of them 'invading' us by NOT eventually assimilating, taking over our economy, or some other hoo-haa-haa rhetoric.

I'm not, never have been nor ever will be a proponent of simply letting people in willy nilly. But I don't think our government has the right to keep anyone out for any reason other than they pose a potential security threat.

How's that going to work in practical terms? There's a billion or so people that want to come to this country. You don't think the government should decide who does and who doesn't get in? Then who decides? Or do we just welcome them all?

[rebeccajo 14]

You can look at the writings of our Founding Fathers all you like, but the best place to look for what matters is the Constitution.

And nowhere in it is there anything about the government having authority to close borders.

And nowhere in this discussion has anyone but you talked of closing the borders.

LOL....you're good Reinhard. That's one of the things I like about you.

You're right, no one else brought it up. But it's one of the issues with immigration, is it not?

Not really. Not an issue that needs serious debate anyway. Closing the borders is clearly undesirable and impossible. There's a huge difference between closing the border and controlling and regulating who gets to cross it and when, no? The government most certainly has the undisputed right - and maybe even so much as an obligation - to do the latter.

But it gets brought up. That's what the ridiculous fence is about.

And I do think there's a big difference between regulating migration of individuals because of security reasons vs. the fear of them 'invading' us by NOT eventually assimilating, taking over our economy, or some other hoo-haa-haa rhetoric.

I'm not, never have been nor ever will be a proponent of simply letting people in willy nilly. But I don't think our government has the right to keep anyone out for any reason other than they pose a potential security threat.

How's that going to work in practical terms? There's a billion or so people that want to come to this country. You don't think the government should decide who does and who doesn't get in? Then who decides? Or do we just welcome them all?

I know it's idealistic. But it's my opinion.

A billion people? Do you think that's a realistic number? I'm seriously asking because I don't know. I personally don't believe that as many people in foreign nations would like to live here as a lot of us think. We've got a higher opinion of ourselves than the rest of the world does, you know.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I look at people coming and going through the world as something governments shouldn't mess with unless there are security issues. I believe that economics (if it's not being interferred with also by the government) will naturally take care of the issues. When migrants came to this nation in the purer Ellis Island days, they sank or swam. And that's one reason they did eventually assimilate.

Plus there's hard data that proves the influx of immigrants to this nation won't crush our economy. The Bureau of Labor statistics has stated that within the next 30 years, there won't be enough native born americans to do all the work needed in this country. This is a result of another natural occurence - the baby boomers passing on and the new, smaller nuclear family.

I dunno. I say let them come. Legally. Give them a legal path. That's not the same as amnesty. I don't know what the solution is for those already here in the shadows. There's no way most will go back and there's no way the government can round them all up. But has it been right all along for our government to say that you can't come here by some legal means and have the opportunity to try and better yourself? I don't think so. In my opinion, the very fact that we have tried to limit the numbers, to 'pick and choose' our immigrants - that is what has caused the problem in the first place.

[pedroh 21]

FYI, the pro-illegal crowd, as you call it, is enjoying that her fiancé is home and not working in Texas. Sorry to disappoint. I expect I'll post less as C. is around more.

But anyhow. Melting pot is a great idea, fearmongering on the basis that the brown Mexicans are going to overtake the white Protestant America blonde cheerleaders and make them celebrate Cinco de Mayo isn't. If you want people to assimilate, give them a path to legality. If you like your de facto apartheid situation, keep insisting on impossible solutions.

Because the reason my Italian, uneducated grandfather assimilated is that he was legal. Take away the ability for his daughter to get a job or go to school, and I'm pretty sure I'm waiting tables at the bodega. If you honestly want assimilation, you want a path to legal status

i know, im sick and tired of this argument.. that's just some rush limbaugh-o'reilly bs with no basis at all... if the anti-amnesty arguments were based solely on facts about crime and if its true that these illegals are taking the american jobs fine, but when they mix that stupid argument, the whole thing goes down.. its ridiculous

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You can look at the writings of our Founding Fathers all you like, but the best place to look for what matters is the Constitution.

And nowhere in it is there anything about the government having authority to close borders.

And nowhere in this discussion has anyone but you talked of closing the borders.

LOL....you're good Reinhard. That's one of the things I like about you.

You're right, no one else brought it up. But it's one of the issues with immigration, is it not?

Not really. Not an issue that needs serious debate anyway. Closing the borders is clearly undesirable and impossible. There's a huge difference between closing the border and controlling and regulating who gets to cross it and when, no? The government most certainly has the undisputed right - and maybe even so much as an obligation - to do the latter.

But it gets brought up. That's what the ridiculous fence is about.

And I do think there's a big difference between regulating migration of individuals because of security reasons vs. the fear of them 'invading' us by NOT eventually assimilating, taking over our economy, or some other hoo-haa-haa rhetoric.

I'm not, never have been nor ever will be a proponent of simply letting people in willy nilly. But I don't think our government has the right to keep anyone out for any reason other than they pose a potential security threat.

How's that going to work in practical terms? There's a billion or so people that want to come to this country. You don't think the government should decide who does and who doesn't get in? Then who decides? Or do we just welcome them all?

I know it's idealistic. But it's my opinion.

A billion people? Do you think that's a realistic number? I'm seriously asking because I don't know. I personally don't believe that as many people in foreign nations would like to live here as a lot of us think. We've got a higher opinion of ourselves than the rest of the world does, you know.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I look at people coming and going through the world as something governments shouldn't mess with unless there are security issues. I believe that economics (if it's not being interferred with also by the government) will naturally take care of the issues. When migrants came to this nation in the purer Ellis Island days, they sank or swam. And that's one reason they did eventually assimilate.

Plus there's hard data that proves the influx of immigrants to this nation won't crush our economy. The Bureau of Labor statistics has stated that within the next 30 years, there won't be enough native born americans to do all the work needed in this country. This is a result of another natural occurence - the baby boomers passing on and the new, smaller nuclear family.

I dunno. I say let them come. Legally. Give them a legal path. That's not the same as amnesty. I don't know what the solution is for those already here in the shadows. There's no way most will go back and there's no way the government can round them all up. But has it been right all along for our government to say that you can't come here by some legal means and have the opportunity to try and better yourself? I don't think so. In my opinion, the very fact that we have tried to limit the numbers, to 'pick and choose' our immigrants - that is what has caused the problem in the first place.

You know, I've read somewhere that there are that many people out there looking to make it to the US. Having been to one of the poorest countries in the world where there aren't many people that wouldn't pack and track if only they had a chance and knowing that billions worldwide live in similarly desperate settings, I don't have a hard time imagining that the number is that high. That said, many that come to the US from such places find themselves quite disappointed as the US is by far not what so many out there believe it to be - i.e. there is no money growing on trees here that one just needs to pick.

I completely agree that this country, just as well as any other developed country, needs immigrants. A good amount of immigrants. I have no problem with adjusting the number of immigrant visa that we make available on an annual basis and with re-engineering the criteria under which people can qualify for such visa. Along those lines, I think this country would do well if it embraces diversity via it's immigration policy - i.e. drawing immigrants from all corners of the globe and from all walks of life - and the latter is obviously not to be taken too literally. I believe that diversity fosters assimilation and I believe that assimilation needs to be a central focus of our immigration policy. I personally know well too many people that were naturalized without actually having sufficient command of the English language - clearly, the naturalization process leaves a lot to be desired.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

FYI, the pro-illegal crowd, as you call it, is enjoying that her fiancé is home and not working in Texas. Sorry to disappoint. I expect I'll post less as C. is around more.

But anyhow. Melting pot is a great idea, fearmongering on the basis that the brown Mexicans are going to overtake the white Protestant America blonde cheerleaders and make them celebrate Cinco de Mayo isn't. If you want people to assimilate, give them a path to legality. If you like your de facto apartheid situation, keep insisting on impossible solutions.

Because the reason my Italian, uneducated grandfather assimilated is that he was legal. Take away the ability for his daughter to get a job or go to school, and I'm pretty sure I'm waiting tables at the bodega. If you honestly want assimilation, you want a path to legal status

i know, im sick and tired of this argument.. that's just some rush limbaugh-o'reilly bs with no basis at all... if the anti-amnesty arguments were based solely on facts about crime and if its true that these illegals are taking the american jobs fine, but when they mix that stupid argument, the whole thing goes down.. its ridiculous

Funny, race and fearmongering has been brought into the discussions mostly by the pro-amnesty crowd by way of accusing the opposite site of racism and fearmongering without there actually having been any base to support such accusation. In other words, El Presidente, if you're so tired of this to be made a race issue, then don't make it one. I sure haven't because I don't think it's about race at all.

[Caladan 19]

When people keep sprinkling their anti-immigration screeds with 'mariachi band listening dope fiend fence jumper dirty HIV carrying Mexicans', it's hard to see where the rational argument begins and the prejudice ends.

Certainly, a post where the claim is, roughly, those dirty Mexicans aren't assimilating, we'll be overrun, is not a post that screams patient rational argument.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

When people keep sprinkling their anti-immigration screeds with 'mariachi band listening dope fiend fence jumper dirty HIV carrying Mexicans', it's hard to see where the rational argument begins and the prejudice ends.

Certainly, a post where the claim is, roughly, those dirty Mexicans aren't assimilating, we'll be overrun, is not a post that screams patient rational argument.

Who said it was Mexicans? Illegal immigrants can be from anywhere. Nice work closet racist.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

When people keep sprinkling their anti-immigration screeds with 'mariachi band listening dope fiend fence jumper dirty HIV carrying Mexicans', it's hard to see where the rational argument begins and the prejudice ends.

Certainly, a post where the claim is, roughly, those dirty Mexicans aren't assimilating, we'll be overrun, is not a post that screams patient rational argument.

What people? Who made that statement?

Edited July 9, 2007 by ET-US2004

[pedroh 21]

When people keep sprinkling their anti-immigration screeds with 'mariachi band listening dope fiend fence jumper dirty HIV carrying Mexicans', it's hard to see where the rational argument begins and the prejudice ends.

Certainly, a post where the claim is, roughly, those dirty Mexicans aren't assimilating, we'll be overrun, is not a post that screams patient rational argument.

What people? Who made that statement?

not from this specific post, but you know there are a lot of people here that whenever they refer to illegal immigrants its always 'They are ALL rapists, drugdealers, killers' thats a prejudiced statement, whenever they use that stupid generalization

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

When people keep sprinkling their anti-immigration screeds with 'mariachi band listening dope fiend fence jumper dirty HIV carrying Mexicans', it's hard to see where the rational argument begins and the prejudice ends.

Certainly, a post where the claim is, roughly, those dirty Mexicans aren't assimilating, we'll be overrun, is not a post that screams patient rational argument.

What people? Who made that statement?

not from this specific post, but you know there are a lot of people here that whenever they refer to illegal immigrants its always 'They are ALL rapists, drugdealers, killers' thats a prejudiced statement, whenever they use that stupid generalization

Who? I am aware of one poster than made remarks along those lines. One is not people. It's a person.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

When people keep sprinkling their anti-immigration screeds with 'mariachi band listening dope fiend fence jumper dirty HIV carrying Mexicans', it's hard to see where the rational argument begins and the prejudice ends.

Certainly, a post where the claim is, roughly, those dirty Mexicans aren't assimilating, we'll be overrun, is not a post that screams patient rational argument.

What people? Who made that statement?

not from this specific post, but you know there are a lot of people here that whenever they refer to illegal immigrants its always 'They are ALL rapists, drugdealers, killers' thats a prejudiced statement, whenever they use that stupid generalization

They are until they undergo a background check. I didn't get a secret clearance from the government until I got a background check.

[pedroh 21]

When people keep sprinkling their anti-immigration screeds with 'mariachi band listening dope fiend fence jumper dirty HIV carrying Mexicans', it's hard to see where the rational argument begins and the prejudice ends.

Certainly, a post where the claim is, roughly, those dirty Mexicans aren't assimilating, we'll be overrun, is not a post that screams patient rational argument.

What people? Who made that statement?

not from this specific post, but you know there are a lot of people here that whenever they refer to illegal immigrants its always 'They are ALL rapists, drugdealers, killers' thats a prejudiced statement, whenever they use that stupid generalization

They are until they undergo a background check. I didn't get a secret clearance from the government until I got a background check.

so everybody is not to trust by the government unless they get a clearance.. that's a lame argument, that way i can think my white neighbors are KKK members unless proven the other way, or that some other neighbor is a rapist unless a background check... that's a prejudiced generalization