(What if this was Al Qeda?)More Than 200 Illegal Haitian Migrants Run Ashore in Miami
JT
Arabic...............
More Than 200 Illegal Haitian Migrants Run Ashore in Miami
MIAMI -- More than 200 illegal Haitian immigrants jumped overboard,
waded ashore and rushed onto a major highway Tuesday after their
50-foot wooden freighter ran aground off Virginia Key.
The Coast Guard spotted the vessel about 2 p.m. and followed the
illegal immigrants, said Coast Guard spokesman Luis Diaz. They came
ashore near Hobie Beach on Rickenbacker Causeway leading to Key
Biscayne.
It was not immediately known if there were any injuries.
The migrants were lowered into the water and ran into the streets,
causing the six-lane Rickenbacker to be shut down.
Coast Guard personnel could be seen pulling migrants from the water
and throwing them life preservers. Children could be seen being
dropped from the edge of the boat to the waiting arms of people in the
water.
"They were all over the front of the boat, the top of the boat, the
back of the boat. They were all over it," said windsurfer Ovidio
DeLeon, who witnessed the scene. "Then they started jumping."
Seven helicopters and five Coast Guard boats searched for migrants who
may still be in the water.
A Miami Fire Rescue spokesman dispatcher said emergency crews were
treating several migrants and giving them water. They did not
immediately know how many migrants were being treated.
Virginia Key is located just southeast of Miami's downtown.
Border Patrol agents were en route to the causeway to begin
interviewing the migrants, said spokesman Carlos Roches. He said the
interview process will begin after agents determine if the migrants
are safe.
"If they claim political asylum, we will process them accordingly,"
Roches said.
Unlike Cubans who reach dry land, Haitian immigrants usually are
denied asylum in the United States and sent back to their homeland.
In December, a ship with 187 Haitian migrants grounded off Elliot Key.
Most of those migrants are still being detained by immigration
officials in South Florida.
The Bush administration changed its detention policy on Haitian
refugees in December to discourage a feared mass exodus from the
impoverished Caribbean nation. Immigration attorneys sued the
government in March, saying the new policy of detention was racially
biased.
Human rights advocates said the policy treats Haitians differently
than asylum seekers from other countries, who are generally freed
until their asylum requests are granted or denied.
"The cards are definitely stacked against the Haitian immigrants,"
said Cheryl Little of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center. "They'll
be taken in to detention as the moment that they're apprehended."
She said the men will most likely be brought to Krome immigrant
detention center west of Miami. The women will probably be sent to
Broward jails and unaccompanied children will likely be placed at Boys
Town in west Miami-Dade, she said.
"If they can convince an asylum officer that they have a credible fear
of persecution upon return to Haiti then, like virtually every group
in the Miami area, they should be quickly released so they can find an
attorney and have a fair opportunity to make their case for asylum,"
Little said. (AP)
Chris Williamson
> If it was, all the rednecks would be singing Dixie in
> Arabic...............
>
> More Than 200 Illegal Haitian Migrants Run Ashore in Miami
Hatians experience a terrible plight. A sad story indeed. I'm sure if
I were a Haitian I'd try to escape as well....
--
"We have a choice about how we behave, and that means we have the
choice to opt for civility and grace."
- Dwight Currie
Ghost Rider
>If it was, all the rednecks would be singing Dixie in
>Arabic...............
If rednecks were let loose to clean this up, there would have been
200 dead niggers on the beach.
--
Headlines: in the UK, black males are 6.7 times more
likely to be in jail than whites. When limited to UK
citizens, this rises to 8.9 times.
In a 1997 study into arrest rates by race, the UK Home
Office found that after controlling for the local
ethnic mix and the presence of arrestees from outside
the area, "the proportion of black detainees was
higher than the proportion in the local population".
Link to breakdown of the UK ethnic population (liberal
newspaper! ha!):-
http://media.guardian.co.uk/raceinmedia/image/0,12016,716840,00.html
Blacks were 34% of the UK's ethnic population of 6.7%,
i.e. 2.3% of the populace. Whites were 93.3%.
Link to UK govt's breakdown of the UK's prison
population:-
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/s95race00.pdf
Ethnics were 18% of the male prison population, 12% of
these being black males (19% of the female prison
population). "These proportions have remained
relatively constant in recent years" (Chapter 7, para
7.2).
Blacks: 12% / 2.3% = 5.2.
Whites: 72% / 93.3% = 0.77
5.2 / 0.77 = 6.7
Black males are 6.7 times more likely to be in prison.
Link to UK govt's stats for 1995 based on *British
nationals* only:-
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors173.pdf
See page 22, table 1.1: black males were 1.2% of the
general population but 9.7% of prisoners. Black
females were 1.5% of the population but 11% of the
prisoners.
White males were 87.1% of the prisoners but 95.4% of
the populace. Females were 86.1 and 95.3 respectively.
Black male incarceration rate: 9.7 / 1.2 = 8.1
Black female incarceration rate: 11 / 1.5 = 7.3
White male incarceration rate: 87.1 / 95.4 = 0.91
White female incarceration rate: 86.1 / 95.3 = 0.90
8.1 / 0.91 = 8.9
7.3 / 0.90 = 8.1
Black male UK citizens were 8.9 times more likely than
whites to be jailed in 1995. Black female UK citizens
were 8.1 times more likely to be jailed.
Link to a UK govt report on the ethnic breakdown of
4,000+ arrestees at 10 UK police stations, with local
population controlled for:-
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors185.pdf
"Whilst ethnic origin per se should not affect the
decision to arrest, other research and official
statistics have shown that black people are more
likely to be arrested than whites (Stevens and Willis,
1979; Smith and Gray, 1985; Home Office, 1989;
Fitzgerald and Sibbitt, 1997; Home Office, 1997b; c.f.
Jefferson and Walker, 1992)...At almost all stations
the proportion of black detainees was higher than the
proportion in the local population. The
disparity...was usually slightly more pronounced when
the comparison was restricted to detainees who lived
locally."
Link to 'Ethnic monitoring in police forces', 1997:-
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors173.pdf
"Where ethnic data are available, they confirm
research findings that (inasmuch as comparisons can be
made with population figures) black people are
over-represented in arrests" (page 10).
americankernel
news:3DBFAA5D...@erols.com...
> JT wrote:
>
> > If it was, all the rednecks would be singing Dixie in
> > Arabic...............
> >
> > More Than 200 Illegal Haitian Migrants Run Ashore in Miami
>
> Hatians experience a terrible plight. A sad story indeed. I'm sure if
> I were a Haitian I'd try to escape as well....
So, let me reinterpret what you're saying: When the going gets tough, lets
all go to America? Let's take all the low-paying jobs and artificially
distort pay levels to the detriment of the poorer people who are already
struggling to get by there. Let's not assimilate, and instead lets force
our language and our culture down their throats. In time, we can make
America just like our good-ole homelands...third world sewers.
Wow, our founding fathers must have been really stupid for taking a stand
and fighting. What a bunch of morons my ancestors were! They should have
just left if they didn't like the King's oppression.
If you'll look on the map, there are several hundred other islands CLOSER to
Haiti than the United States. But they don't have huge, expensive and (by
Haitian standards) luxurious social welfare programs. They don't offer
pregnant women a lifetime free ticket for popping out another
welfare-recipient anchor baby.
Our immigration policy is not only responsible for the ongoing and impending
ruination of our unique American culture, which by the way did not begin
with any such notion as "multiculturalism," it is responsible for continuing
the misery of a lot of other nations, like Cuba. Do you think for one
minute that Castro would still be in power if we hadn't been such fools by
allowing him to discharge his dissidents in a series of festering scourges
upon south Florida?
Haiti is another story in itself. From a strict social Darwinist
perspective, the whole island should be populated by corpses. The residents
of Haiti have picked their half of the island clean of anything useful. If
their neighbor, the Dominican Republic, had not long ago enacted strict
measures to secure the border they would have been screwed. So, we get to
be the "screwee" instead. Lovely.
I'm an American who is just simply tired of us allowing immigrants to harm
our culture and disrespect our heritage. We used to be the shining example
that patriots in other nations looked up to in fomenting their own
revolutions. Now we're just this huge "mother tit" for the all of the lazy,
stupid morons of the third-world who don't have the gumption or brains to
fix their own problems. And it is socially reconstructive, insipid opinions
like the one you just expressed that helps precipitate and perpetuate our
own decline as a great nation.
Disgusting.
--
The American Kernel
Ghost Rider
<cdw...@erols.com> wrote:
>JT wrote:
>
>> If it was, all the rednecks would be singing Dixie in
>> Arabic...............
>>
>> More Than 200 Illegal Haitian Migrants Run Ashore in Miami
>
>Hatians experience a terrible plight. A sad story indeed. I'm sure if
>I were a Haitian I'd try to escape as well....
Fuck em, their illegals what part of that doesn't sink in. If
they stay here half will be sucking up social services in a week.
Maybe you are happy to work your ass off so your taxes can pay for
this shit, but I'm not.
Patrick Finucane
> JT wrote:
>
> > If it was, all the rednecks would be singing Dixie in
> > Arabic...............
> >
> > More Than 200 Illegal Haitian Migrants Run Ashore in Miami
>
> Hatians experience a terrible plight. A sad story indeed. I'm sure if
> I were a Haitian I'd try to escape as well....
True enough. Too bad Reagan/bush propped up the dictator Baby Doc during
the 80s. Their lack of vision has consequences today.
Skip Gundlach
> So, let me reinterpret what you're saying: When the going gets
> tough, lets all go to America? Let's take all the low-paying jobs
and
> If you'll look on the map, there are several hundred other islands
> CLOSER to Haiti than the United States. But they don't have huge,
> expensive and (by Haitian standards) luxurious social welfare
> programs. They don't offer pregnant women a lifetime free ticket for
> popping out another welfare-recipient anchor baby.
These two statements are incongruent. Getting a job - at whatever pay is
offered - isn't welfare. Welfare reform has forced those who are long-term
off the rolls.
I'm not for having our culture abused, and very much against freebies for
those not in real need. But anyone who will take a job at a lower pay than
someone else isn't stealing the other's job. The other isn't willing to
work for that. It's been the same throughout our country's history. If it
wasn't the Irish, it was the Italians, or someone else from Europe. Then it
was the Chinese, and later, the southeast Asians, the Mexicans, and so on.
Let's not talk about all the Indians (not red ones) who 'took' all the tech
jobs...
I say let any otherwise law-abiding, improvement-motivated folks in. It's
how my ancestors got here; why not them?
And, PS, my ancestors (German, Dutch, English, Scottish, Italian,
Scandanavian and others) didn't demand that the US adopt their language, or
speak to them in their language. They learned English and contributed their
cultures to the mix of the US pastiche.
Bring them on...
L8R
Skip, still unemployed, but not by any immigrant, legal or not - PC,
perhaps, but not an immigrant
--
"Believe me, my young friend, there is *nothing*-absolutely
nothing-half so much worth doing as simply messing,
messing-about-in-boats; messing about in boats-or *with* boats. In or
out of 'em, it doesn't matter. Nothing seems really to matter, that's
the charm of it. Whether you get away, or whether you don't; whether
you arrive at your destination or whether you reach somewhere else, or
whether you never get anywhere at all, you're always busy, and you
never do anything in particular; and when you've done it there's always
something else to do, and you can do it if you like, but you'd much
better not."
americankernel
news:3QVv9.3727$Ik6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> americankernel wrote:
> > So, let me reinterpret what you're saying: When the going gets
> > tough, lets all go to America? Let's take all the low-paying jobs
>
> and
>
>
> > If you'll look on the map, there are several hundred other islands
> > CLOSER to Haiti than the United States. But they don't have huge,
> > expensive and (by Haitian standards) luxurious social welfare
> > programs. They don't offer pregnant women a lifetime free ticket for
> > popping out another welfare-recipient anchor baby.
>
> These two statements are incongruent. Getting a job - at whatever pay is
> offered - isn't welfare. Welfare reform has forced those who are
long-term
> off the rolls.
The statements are not incongruent when they are meant to cover the gamut of
issues uneducated, third-world illegal immigrants bring with them. The
point is: Haitians, and most third-worlders, aren't "fleeing" anything so
much as they are being opportunists taking advantage of the American social
systems. And having an "anchor baby" does just that, it serves as a legal
anchor that prevents deportation for their criminal act of illegal entry.
People who "flee" don't have a consistent destination, they scatter. These
people most certainly ARE NOT "fleeing."
> I'm not for having our culture abused, and very much against freebies for
> those not in real need. But anyone who will take a job at a lower pay
than
> someone else isn't stealing the other's job. The other isn't willing to
> work for that. It's been the same throughout our country's history. If
it
> wasn't the Irish, it was the Italians, or someone else from Europe. Then
it
> was the Chinese, and later, the southeast Asians, the Mexicans, and so on.
> Let's not talk about all the Indians (not red ones) who 'took' all the
tech
> jobs...
If you aren't FOR having our social systems abused, then you MUST
NECESSARILY be opposed to immigration at its current levels. You obviously
are seriously underinformed on the state of immigration in this nation today
or you wouldn't appear to be so niaive or ignorant. Immigration today bears
NO resemblance to the historical immigration patterns prior to the
immigration reform acts of 1965. These last 37 years constitute the longest
period of an unabated, constantly increasing and unwavering flood of
unassimilable masses this nation has ever seen. Today, the people hurt the
most by immigration, that you seem to trivialize, are the deserving
indigenous minorities, particularly American blacks. (I don't EVER use
hyphens before the word "American)
As I've said in API many times, our ancestors and forefathers recognized the
importance of promoting a single American culture, a single language and a
single set of common mores and customs. If you disagree, then Emma Lazarus
has infected your mind and you need to read the Federalist Papers.
Immigration has been historically small enough in number that this nation
has NEVER been a "nation of immigrants." It has always simply been a nation
of people who descended from immigrants. That makes us different from other
developed nations on this earth in only one respect: we're a young nation.
Now, whether by design, or just dumb luck, immigration rates have
historically led to a foreign born population that averaged 7%. Today, we
stand at 11% and will certainly hit an all-time high of 15% in the next five
to ten years if we do not change our policies today. Without change in
policy and enforcement of much stricter laws and iron-clad border control,
your grandchildren will live in an America that contains nothing but "poor,
tired, huddled masses" and while everyone may be "breathing free," it will
be the only respite from the abject misery of their daily lives. Our future
will most certainly be one of balkanization, hatred, strife as the seeds
that made us great are buried too deep to sprout through the muck. The
"melting pot" will become the "urinal."
This nation cannot sustain the estimated 500 Million people who will reside
her in 50 years; thus, the age of American greatness will have been lost due
to foolish decisions made today. Flippant comments like "bring them on" can
be made, given today's crisis, only by the most ignorant imbeciles or by
arrogant, pro-immigration assholes who, for whatever reason, have grown to
loathe the things that made this nation great.
Where do YOU fit in?
> I say let any otherwise law-abiding, improvement-motivated folks in. It's
> how my ancestors got here; why not them?
>
> And, PS, my ancestors (German, Dutch, English, Scottish, Italian,
> Scandanavian and others) didn't demand that the US adopt their language,
or
> speak to them in their language. They learned English and contributed
their
> cultures to the mix of the US pastiche.
> Bring them on...
Only if we're allowed to stand at the borders with firearms locked and
loaded.
--
The American Kernel
Skip Gundlach
> Skip Gundlach" <sk...@bae.uga.edu> wrote in message
> news:3QVv9.3727$Ik6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> americankernel wrote:
>>> So, let me reinterpret what you're saying: When the going gets
>>> tough, lets all go to America? Let's take all the low-paying jobs
>>
>> and
>>
>>
>>> If you'll look on the map, there are several hundred other islands
>>> CLOSER to Haiti than the United States. But they don't have huge,
>>> expensive and (by Haitian standards) luxurious social welfare
>>> programs. They don't offer pregnant women a lifetime free ticket
>>> for popping out another welfare-recipient anchor baby.
>>
>> These two statements are incongruent. Getting a job - at whatever
>> pay is offered - isn't welfare. Welfare reform has forced those who
>> are long-term off the rolls.
>
> The statements are not incongruent when they are meant to cover the
> gamut of issues uneducated, third-world illegal immigrants bring with
> them. The point is: Haitians, and most third-worlders, aren't
> "fleeing" anything so much as they are being opportunists taking
> advantage of the American social systems. And having an "anchor
> baby" does just that, it serves as a legal anchor that prevents
> deportation for their criminal act of illegal entry. People who
> "flee" don't have a consistent destination, they scatter. These
> people most certainly ARE NOT "fleeing."
A group of people can't flee together? And, I agree that the US has more
opportunity than other Caribbean islands. I further agree that illegal
immigration isn't good for the country. That said:
>
>> I'm not for having our culture abused, and very much against
>> freebies for those not in real need. But anyone who will take a job
>> at a lower pay than someone else isn't stealing the other's job.
>> The other isn't willing to work for that. It's been the same
>> throughout our country's history. If it wasn't the Irish, it was
>> the Italians, or someone else from Europe. Then it was the Chinese,
>> and later, the southeast Asians, the Mexicans, and so on. Let's not
>> talk about all the Indians (not red ones) who 'took' all the tech
>> jobs...
>
> If you aren't FOR having our social systems abused, then you MUST
> NECESSARILY be opposed to immigration at its current levels. You
> obviously are seriously underinformed on the state of immigration in
> this nation today or you wouldn't appear to be so niaive or ignorant.
Might well be :{)) I didn't see all the crossposts on this; I stumbled into
a bunch of political arenas when I thought I was participating in a general
discussion in Atlanta...
> Immigration today bears NO resemblance to the historical immigration
> patterns prior to the immigration reform acts of 1965. These last 37
> years constitute the longest period of an unabated, constantly
> increasing and unwavering flood of unassimilable masses this nation
Unassimilable? Why can't they assimilate? That they wish to preserve their
cultures and languages isn't anything new. Ever been to Little Italy?
Chinatown? Chicago (Little Poland)? Etc.? Yet, somehow, they manage to
assimilate. When I was a child, I lived in a community next to East
Rochester, NY. There were so many Italians there it was referred to by
outsiders as "East-a Roch" - and I know an awful lot of Italian slang,
because the entire area was like that (having a mother whose maiden name was
Adéle Mosca Bellevita deVitlalis didn't hurt!). They didn't abandon their
culture - but they didn't demand the rest of the area teach their kids in
Italian, put up signs in Italian, or the like, either.
> has ever seen. Today, the people hurt the most by immigration, that
> you seem to trivialize, are the deserving indigenous minorities,
> particularly American blacks. (I don't EVER use hyphens before the
> word "American)
We certainly agree on that. As a native American (well, I *was* born here)
it froths me nearly any time I hear about a hypen American. If they're so
hyphenated, they ought to go back (except rarely are they not native
Americans, so there's nothing to go back to!)... And, to an earlier part of
the above paragraph, what makes the "American black" - or any other
"indigenous minority" - any more deserving than anyone else? If there's no
hyphenated Americans, there's just _Americans_. Whether they have one or
another skin color or parentage shouldn't have any bearing on *anything* not
directly related to who and what they are by their own actions.
>
> As I've said in API many times, our ancestors and forefathers
> recognized the importance of promoting a single American culture, a
> single language and a single set of common mores and customs. If you
Ehhhh. See above. Our culture has evolved into what those who live here
want it to be. The founding fathers were nearly entirely (relatively) upper
class Brits or their descendants. If we had to make do in this country with
only descendants of Brits (I can claim part status) we'd be a pretty poor
country indeed.
> disagree, then Emma Lazarus has infected your mind and you need to
> read the Federalist Papers. Immigration has been historically small
> enough in number that this nation has NEVER been a "nation of
> immigrants." It has always simply been a nation of people who
> descended from immigrants. That makes us different from other
> developed nations on this earth in only one respect: we're a young
> nation.
Hm. So, if you go back to the time of the first immigrants (of record,
anyway), at what point do they exceed your magical panic-button number below
relative to the proportion to the original occupants of the country? (Not
counting the genocide, of course, to lower those numbers...) Not being in
any way (one of your earlier points) an immigration scholar, I can't say -
but I'd bet it was well before the Declaration of Independence, the point at
which it can reasonably be argued that the country actually existed as a
political entity. Are you afraid the rest of the world might do to us what
we did to the indigenous population when the first waves of Europeans hit
our shores?
>
> Now, whether by design, or just dumb luck, immigration rates have
> historically led to a foreign born population that averaged 7%.
> Today, we stand at 11% and will certainly hit an all-time high of 15%
> in the next five to ten years if we do not change our policies today.
> Without change in policy and enforcement of much stricter laws and
> iron-clad border control, your grandchildren will live in an America
Are you suggesting that we make it more difficult to immigrate legally? In
what way? I fully agree that we shouldn't allow illegal immigration - but
that was never my suggestion; rather, I see the people who *legally*
immigrate and take the scutwork that none of the hyphenated or other folks
who seem to take the most of our social energy to deal with them are willing
to do are good for the country.
> that contains nothing but "poor, tired, huddled masses" and while
> everyone may be "breathing free," it will be the only respite from
> the abject misery of their daily lives. Our future will most
> certainly be one of balkanization, hatred, strife as the seeds that
Like the Little Italys, Chinatowns, and the like balkanized our country a
century ago?
> made us great are buried too deep to sprout through the muck. The
> "melting pot" will become the "urinal."
>
> This nation cannot sustain the estimated 500 Million people who will
> reside her in 50 years; thus, the age of American greatness will have
Hm. Not that I necessarily expect that many, but for sake of argument, tell
me why not? If it's a place to live (physical) we've vast open spaces that
most of the rest of the world seems to manage without. If it's the ability
to feed them, we used to be the world's greengrocer. Have we stopped
shipping a majority of our food out? And, we're continuing to get better at
producing it. Hmm?
> been lost due to foolish decisions made today. Flippant comments
> like "bring them on" can be made, given today's crisis, only by the
> most ignorant imbeciles or by arrogant, pro-immigration assholes who,
> for whatever reason, have grown to loathe the things that made this
> nation great.
>
> Where do YOU fit in?
What position does your wife play on the Michigan football team? :{))
>
>> I say let any otherwise law-abiding, improvement-motivated folks in.
>> It's how my ancestors got here; why not them?
>>
>> And, PS, my ancestors (German, Dutch, English, Scottish, Italian,
>> Scandanavian and others) didn't demand that the US adopt their
>> language, or speak to them in their language. They learned English
>> and contributed their cultures to the mix of the US pastiche.
>
>> Bring them on...
>
> Only if we're allowed to stand at the borders with firearms locked and
> loaded.
Ah... I didn't get that this was a discussion about legal or illegal, or
exclusion. My mistake.
To reiterate, lawabiding (read: including legal entry) improvement-motivated
folks are welcome in my neighborhood. But I don't give handouts to anyone,
of any stripe, who isn't legal and in legitimate need.
If that makes me an ignorant imbecile or an arrogant asshole, you'll have to
make your own choice as to which iteration to revile. I'm in favor of legal
immigration - not adopting the worlds miscreants or wannabe Democrats (you
know, the ones who think we owe them everything and they're always a victim
and have no personal responsibility).
L8R
Skip
americankernel
Sure a group can flee together, but when several hundred large groups leave
one "point a" for the exact same "point b" over 20 years it amounts to an
invasion, not "serial fleeing."
They cannot assimilate because they colonize. They do not disperse and and
adapt to the culture of the place they invade. Have you ever been to Miami?
It is not an "American" city in any sense other than it is attached, remora
like, to the United States' and Florida's tax base. When an entire county,
especially one the size of Miami-Dade, becomes majority foreign born, tell
me, where is the incentive to care about the country that has been too
gracious a host? There is none. And I see it, live it and smell it on a
daily basis. The place I grew up in was an American region, but it is no
longer.
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, only 3 million total Italians
came to America as immigrants. Today, we get that number of legal and
illegal Mexicans every twenty months (and that's only if you believe the
Census Bureau).
> > has ever seen. Today, the people hurt the most by immigration, that
> > you seem to trivialize, are the deserving indigenous minorities,
> > particularly American blacks. (I don't EVER use hyphens before the
> > word "American)
>
> We certainly agree on that. As a native American (well, I *was* born
here)
> it froths me nearly any time I hear about a hypen American. If they're so
> hyphenated, they ought to go back (except rarely are they not native
> Americans, so there's nothing to go back to!)... And, to an earlier part
of
> the above paragraph, what makes the "American black" - or any other
> "indigenous minority" - any more deserving than anyone else? If there's
no
> hyphenated Americans, there's just _Americans_. Whether they have one or
> another skin color or parentage shouldn't have any bearing on *anything*
not
> directly related to who and what they are by their own actions.
You remind me of another difference in immigration today vs. immigration
historically. Prior to the 1965 act that reopened immigration portals that
had been legislatively closed since the 1920's, more than 1/3 of all people
who immigrated here left. Either they could not make it or would not
assimilate. Now, with the huge social welfare net we've constructed and
allowed them to plug into, the historical pattern has been reversed.
> > As I've said in API many times, our ancestors and forefathers
> > recognized the importance of promoting a single American culture, a
> > single language and a single set of common mores and customs. If you
>
> Ehhhh. See above. Our culture has evolved into what those who live here
> want it to be. The founding fathers were nearly entirely (relatively)
upper
> class Brits or their descendants. If we had to make do in this country
with
> only descendants of Brits (I can claim part status) we'd be a pretty poor
> country indeed.
It has nothing to do with country of origin. The founders and patriots who
fought for our freedom 150 years after the colonists were generally third,
fourth, fifth and even sixth generation AMERICANS and knew little if
anything about the ways of the Brits. That's basically indisputable. For
instance:
Benjamin Franklin - 3rd Generation American
John Adams - 4th Generation American
John Quincy Adams - Fifth Generation American
George Washington - 4th Generation American
Thomas Jefferson - 4th Generation American
Our founders envisioned a country made up of people, no matter their place
of origin, with a common language, culture, mores and standards. They
feared what we refer to today as "diversity" or "multiculturalism." Had
they not feared this, they would not have worked so hard to get us to
abandon the Articles of Confederation and adopt the Constitution. The
former document, John Jay feared, would lead to what we call
"Balkanization," while the latter document gave us a better chance, if
gifted by "Providence," of building a great nation out of a grand
experiment.
One cannot read the Federalist Papers, with an eye toward historical
context, without getting the feeling that we took a wrong turn with our
attitudes about culture sometime in the recent past. Anyone educated about
or imbued with a sense of the KERNEL that must be maintained to keep America
great cannot read Emma Lazarus without becoming nauseated.
> > disagree, then Emma Lazarus has infected your mind and you need to
> > read the Federalist Papers. Immigration has been historically small
> > enough in number that this nation has NEVER been a "nation of
> > immigrants." It has always simply been a nation of people who
> > descended from immigrants. That makes us different from other
> > developed nations on this earth in only one respect: we're a young
> > nation.
>
> Hm. So, if you go back to the time of the first immigrants (of record,
> anyway), at what point do they exceed your magical panic-button number
below
> relative to the proportion to the original occupants of the country? (Not
> counting the genocide, of course, to lower those numbers...) Not being in
> any way (one of your earlier points) an immigration scholar, I can't say -
> but I'd bet it was well before the Declaration of Independence, the point
at
> which it can reasonably be argued that the country actually existed as a
> political entity. Are you afraid the rest of the world might do to us
what
> we did to the indigenous population when the first waves of Europeans hit
> our shores?
Yes. And why shouldn't I be? In the course of human social evolution,
tribalism has been almost completely supplanted by nationalism. In
addition, it is an almost 100% certainty that the people to whom we refer as
"Native Americans" were probably just the disparate tribes that happend to
be here in that particular moment of the 30 thousand year history of humans
in the Americas. OUR ancestors were the first to found a NATION here.
Thus, neither being somehow repentant for what happened to tribes after my
ancestors arrived in 1628 nor accepting of a flood of opportunist foreigners
who disrespect and denigrate our culture are things it is in my nature to
do.
The unique American culture equally or more responsible than the Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution for our unprecedented success as a
nation. We have the right, as Americans, to choose whether or not we allow
ANY immigrants to reach our shores or cross our borders. Historically, we
have shut the door when groups started to show tendencies to resist
assimilation; thus, we had a near complete cut-off in the 1920's. We can,
and should do the same...immediately. It is imperative to our future
success as a nation.
If you feel comfortable having your grandchildren living in a nation, only
50 years from now, packed with 500 thousand balkanized and disloyal people
packed into countless subcultures and enduring third-world lifestyles,
continue to think the way in which you do. As a first time father of a
seven week old baby girl, I'm more than concerned, I'm pissed. I want the
best for her and our immigration policy is ruining her chances of living the
American dream.
> > Now, whether by design, or just dumb luck, immigration rates have
> > historically led to a foreign born population that averaged 7%.
> > Today, we stand at 11% and will certainly hit an all-time high of 15%
> > in the next five to ten years if we do not change our policies today.
> > Without change in policy and enforcement of much stricter laws and
> > iron-clad border control, your grandchildren will live in an America
>
> Are you suggesting that we make it more difficult to immigrate legally?
In
> what way? I fully agree that we shouldn't allow illegal immigration - but
> that was never my suggestion; rather, I see the people who *legally*
> immigrate and take the scutwork that none of the hyphenated or other folks
> who seem to take the most of our social energy to deal with them are
willing
> to do are good for the country.
Historically, the immigration "faucet" has been turned on and off several
times, either legislatively or economically. The period between 1965 and
today already is the longest sustained period of immigration in our nation's
history. If you take only the time since the founding of the nation, the
average annual number of immigrants is fewer than 200 thousand with only a
two-thirds "retention rate." The rest left. Last year, we took in 1.7
million, with 700 thousand of those being illegals. The cost to our
infrastructure, our environment, our educational system, our health care
system, to goverment and to all social service programs is astounding. It
is patently unfair to expect for us to bear the burden of people who show a
strong propensity to hate us to begin with. There are very few who come
here to become "American" any more; the vast majority are greedy, arrogant,
disrespectful and culturally indegestible opportunists.
> > that contains nothing but "poor, tired, huddled masses" and while
> > everyone may be "breathing free," it will be the only respite from
> > the abject misery of their daily lives. Our future will most
> > certainly be one of balkanization, hatred, strife as the seeds that
>
> Like the Little Italys, Chinatowns, and the like balkanized our country a
> century ago?
No. Your examples are merely "jaywalking" compared to the "daily 9/11" our
future goes through based on existing policy, law and enforcement.
> > made us great are buried too deep to sprout through the muck. The
> > "melting pot" will become the "urinal."
> >
> > This nation cannot sustain the estimated 500 Million people who will
> > reside her in 50 years; thus, the age of American greatness will have
>
> Hm. Not that I necessarily expect that many, but for sake of argument,
tell
> me why not? If it's a place to live (physical) we've vast open spaces that
> most of the rest of the world seems to manage without. If it's the
ability
> to feed them, we used to be the world's greengrocer. Have we stopped
> shipping a majority of our food out? And, we're continuing to get better
at
> producing it. Hmm?
Once again, that 500 Million figure comes from the Census bureau. You need
to read more about what the numbers really look like and what they may mean
to this nation's future. Your comments indicate a huge dose of niaivety,
which is typical for the average, everyday, media-opiated American majority.
> > been lost due to foolish decisions made today. Flippant comments
> > like "bring them on" can be made, given today's crisis, only by the
> > most ignorant imbeciles or by arrogant, pro-immigration assholes who,
> > for whatever reason, have grown to loathe the things that made this
> > nation great.
> >
> > Where do YOU fit in?
>
> What position does your wife play on the Michigan football team? :{))
Now, seeing that she just gave birth, I'd probably be dead if I let her read
that.
> >> I say let any otherwise law-abiding, improvement-motivated folks in.
> >> It's how my ancestors got here; why not them?
> >>
> >> And, PS, my ancestors (German, Dutch, English, Scottish, Italian,
> >> Scandanavian and others) didn't demand that the US adopt their
> >> language, or speak to them in their language. They learned English
> >> and contributed their cultures to the mix of the US pastiche.
> >
> >> Bring them on...
> >
> > Only if we're allowed to stand at the borders with firearms locked and
> > loaded.
>
> Ah... I didn't get that this was a discussion about legal or illegal, or
> exclusion. My mistake.
> To reiterate, lawabiding (read: including legal entry)
improvement-motivated
> folks are welcome in my neighborhood. But I don't give handouts to
anyone,
> of any stripe, who isn't legal and in legitimate need.
>
> If that makes me an ignorant imbecile or an arrogant asshole, you'll have
to
> make your own choice as to which iteration to revile. I'm in favor of
legal
> immigration - not adopting the worlds miscreants or wannabe Democrats (you
> know, the ones who think we owe them everything and they're always a
victim
> and have no personal responsibility).
I'd strongly suggest that you visit a few sites and get a better fix on the
problem before you give a blanket blessing to any immigration. Things
aren't as "hunky dory" as you might think. Try visiting
http://www.fairus.org and http://www.numbersusa.com and reading some of
their stuff. Then come back and tell me some more stories. I'll bet they
change.
Later,
--
The American Kernel
Skip Gundlach
party late will have the immediacy of the prior posts, I'm trimming a lot
here, which may result in incoherency beyond that characterized by my
correspondent :{)) but is merely intended to minimize the clutter.
americankernel wrote:
> "Skip Gundlach" <sk...@bae.uga.edu> wrote in message
People who
>>> "flee" don't have a consistent destination, they scatter. These
>>> people most certainly ARE NOT "fleeing."
>>
>> A group of people can't flee together?
>
> Sure a group can flee together, but when several hundred large groups
> leave one "point a" for the exact same "point b" over 20 years it
> amounts to an invasion, not "serial fleeing."
Or, serial immigration :{)) The US has been a magnet for well over a
hundred years, and her *borders* have only recently been tightened (in
historical terms). Nothing has materially changed, I don't think - other
than our apparent agreement that liberal thinking (and government) has
gotten us in trouble...
>>> Immigration today bears NO resemblance to the historical immigration
>>> patterns prior to the immigration reform acts of 1965. These last
>>> 37 years constitute the longest period of an unabated, constantly
>>> increasing and unwavering flood of unassimilable masses this nation
>
>> Unassimilable? Why can't they assimilate? That they wish to
>> preserve their cultures and languages isn't anything new. Ever been
>> to Little Italy? Chinatown? Chicago (Little Poland)? Etc.? Yet,
>> somehow, they manage to assimilate. When I was a child, I lived in a
>> community next to East Rochester, NY. There were so many Italians
>> there it was referred to by outsiders as "East-a Roch" - and I know
>> an awful lot of Italian slang, because the entire area was like that
>> (having a mother whose maiden name was Adéle Mosca Bellevita
>> deVitlalis didn't hurt!). They didn't abandon their culture - but
>> they didn't demand the rest of the area teach their kids in Italian,
>> put up signs in Italian, or the like, either.
>
> They cannot assimilate because they colonize. They do not disperse
> and and adapt to the culture of the place they invade.
You could have said the same thing about all the various colonies around the
country a hundred years ago...
> Have you ever
> been to Miami? It is not an "American" city in any sense other than
> it is attached, remora like, to the United States' and Florida's tax
> base. When an entire county, especially one the size of Miami-Dade,
> becomes majority foreign born, tell me, where is the incentive to
> care about the country that has been too gracious a host? There is
> none. And I see it, live it and smell it on a daily basis. The
> place I grew up in was an American region, but it is no longer.
Well, yes, I have been to Miami, though not immediately recently. I hold
that it's a special case, being so close to Cuba (that is the majority to
which you refer, I presume? Not the French from Haiti nor other populations
from other islands or countries?). Granted, it's become something different
than it was - but I thought this (discussion) started with a boatload of
Haitians, rather than a 40-year assimilation of another culture and
population. I've also been to Puerto Rico, also part of the US, and the
Virgin Islands, likewise. One speaks English, the other Spanish, and both
are pretty culturally and otherwise separate from the rest of the country.
Yet, somehow, all three still manage to attract tourists. Howzat?
>
> During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, only 3 million total
> Italians came to America as immigrants. Today, we get that number of
> legal and illegal Mexicans every twenty months (and that's only if
> you believe the Census Bureau).
Heh. No particular reason to or to not - either way could be wrong. But,
to your assertions, which seem to be about Mexicans and/or illegal
immigration, how does that compare in population terms? And, as long as the
headers read politics and other things nearly always inflammatory :{)), is
the problem immigration, or liberal giveaways? If every one of the
immigrants last year of which there are so many (over a million Mexicans,
apparently?) were legal, and the liberal policies (where's Lloyd in this
discussion, holding up the right of everyone to get a free home, utilities,
food and spending money??) hadn't been passed in the great society, would
there be the problem we're talking about?
And while I'm on that subject, I've clipped it, below, but you never
addressed what makes someone 'deserving' ("deserving indigenous minorities,
particularly American blacks") and how they are hurt by someone (one of the
current crop of immigrants) willing to work for less.
> You remind me of another difference in immigration today vs.
> immigration historically. Prior to the 1965 act that reopened
> immigration portals that had been legislatively closed since the
> 1920's, more than 1/3 of all people who immigrated here left. Either
> they could not make it or would not assimilate. Now, with the huge
> social welfare net we've constructed and allowed them to plug into,
> the historical pattern has been reversed.
Ah. So, at once, the social net is responsible for lousy immigration *and*
not taking care of the 'deserving' minorities who were here first? I'm
interested in the 1/3 re-emigration; I'd not known that (I admitted my
immigration ignorance in an earlier post) - but it seems that the ones who
are staying this time around must like it better or do better at making it?
> It has nothing to do with country of origin. The founders and
Ah. So, it could be Haitian, Mexican, or Martian; it wouldn't make any
difference. Now we're getting somewhere.
> patriots who fought for our freedom 150 years after the colonists
> were generally third, fourth, fifth and even sixth generation
> AMERICANS and knew little if anything about the ways of the Brits.
> That's basically indisputable. For instance:
(citations of 3-5th generation founders)
And, since the opening of the gates was 37 years ago by your count, we can
reasonably expect that we have at least second, and some third generation
immigrants who are now part of our society (adult on entry, child,
grandchild by 30+ y.o., e.g.)? What's different? We've got governors
married to Mexican immigrant descendants, umpteen legislators of Mexican
heritage, and the same of Cubans, etc., etc. How is that not assimilating?
>> Are you afraid the rest of the world might do to
>> us what we did to the indigenous population when the first waves of
>> Europeans hit our shores?
>
> Yes. And why shouldn't I be? In the course of human social
> evolution, tribalism has been almost completely supplanted by
> nationalism. In addition, it is an almost 100% certainty that the
> people to whom we refer as "Native Americans" were probably just the
> disparate tribes that happend to be here in that particular moment of
> the 30 thousand year history of humans in the Americas. OUR
> ancestors were the first to found a NATION here. Thus, neither being
> somehow repentant for what happened to tribes after my ancestors
> arrived in 1628 nor accepting of a flood of opportunist foreigners
> who disrespect and denigrate our culture are things it is in my
> nature to do.
Kate and Edith come to mind :{))
And, FWIW, Americans are nothing if not opportunists. It's the capitalist
way...
>
> The unique American culture equally or more responsible than the
> Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for our
> unprecedented success as a nation. We have the right, as Americans,
> to choose whether or not we allow ANY immigrants to reach our shores
Agreed. The techies had to do some pretty heavy whining to let more Indians
in, however temporarily - that suggests, at least to me, that immigration
policies were being enforced, i.e. no more Indians...
> or cross our borders. Historically, we have shut the door when
> groups started to show tendencies to resist assimilation; thus, we
> had a near complete cut-off in the 1920's. We can, and should do the
> same...immediately. It is imperative to our future success as a
> nation.
Stop allowing anyone not born here to come here??
>
> If you feel comfortable having your grandchildren living in a nation,
> only 50 years from now, packed with 500 thousand balkanized and
> disloyal people packed into countless subcultures and enduring
> third-world lifestyles, continue to think the way in which you do.
Heh. My grandchildren are already here. And immigrants are only one of the
huge population of those with their hands out. I forget the ancient Greek
who said, in effect, "A Republic will stand only until the public has access
to the treasury, after which it will fall." Effectively, the Great Society
opened the treasury to the public, and we grow more socialistic each day,
along with those with their hands out continuously electing those who
promise to put stuff in them...
> As a first time father of a seven week old baby girl, I'm more than
Congratulations :{))
> concerned, I'm pissed. I want the best for her and our immigration
> policy is ruining her chances of living the American dream.
Well, it's evident you've got immigration on the mind. It's considerably
more than that, as alluded to above. My (of course, you've gotten a flavor
of that) position is that it's not the immigrants, it's the social policy.
Immigrants, legal and otherwise, are more symptom than disease.
> The cost to our infrastructure, our
> environment, our educational system, our health care system, to
> goverment and to all social service programs is astounding. It is
> patently unfair to expect for us to bear the burden of people who
> show a strong propensity to hate us to begin with.
Hate us? Why bother coming here, then? Or, are you referring to the macro
'us' instead of the US?
> There are very
> few who come here to become "American" any more; the vast majority
> are greedy, arrogant, disrespectful and culturally indegestible
> opportunists.
Well, at the risk of sounding nation-building-ist, isn't that how it works?
They get here, get jobs, get some personal property, and then real property,
and suddenly, they can't fight the system because to do so would ruin what
they'd worked for. As Pogo said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us"...
Aside fromi multi-generation welfare families (largely that other minority
you mentioned early on), I don't think multiple-generation immigrants fit
the profile you've presented. Can you cite (group) instances to support
that?
>
>>> Our future will most
>>> certainly be one of balkanization, hatred, strife as the seeds that
>>
>> Like the Little Italys, Chinatowns, and the like balkanized our
>> country a century ago?
>
> No. Your examples are merely "jaywalking" compared to the "daily
> 9/11" our future goes through based on existing policy, law and
> enforcement.
So, how would you do the enforcement bit? Build a Great Wall of US?
>>> This nation cannot sustain the estimated 500 Million people who will
>>> reside her in 50 years; thus, the age of American greatness will
>>> have
>>
>> Hm. Not that I necessarily expect that many, but for sake of
>> argument, tell me why not? If it's a place to live (physical) we've
>> vast open spaces that most of the rest of the world seems to manage
>> without. If it's the ability to feed them, we used to be the
>> world's greengrocer. Have we stopped shipping a majority of our
>> food out? And, we're continuing to get better at producing it. Hmm?
>
> Once again, that 500 Million figure comes from the Census bureau.
> You need to read more about what the numbers really look like and
> what they may mean to this nation's future. Your comments indicate a
> huge dose of niaivety, which is typical for the average, everyday,
> media-opiated American majority.
Heh. I don't know that I fit the profile. Television and radio don't
happen in my home - but I do read rather widely, albeit not focusing on
immigration, so there's much I might be missing, but I can tell you that I
read the liberal stuff just to see what they're saying - not to consume it.
I'm probably more conservative than most people you know, so I'm not
spouting a liberal bring-all-comers line. I have somewhat the same feelings
about gun control (yes, I know, this isn't titled that way) - there's plenty
on the books already; we need to enforce what's there rather than make new
restrictions. No, I don't, nor have I ever, owned a gun - but I never saw a
gun which pulled its own trigger, nor even aimed itself. Getting those who
*use* them wrongly off the streets, and/or dead, is the issue. (Yes, this
*is* connected...) Getting what's there enforced would go a long way toward
fixing what you have as the immigration problem Fixing social policy
(almost certainly too late - the public has the keys to the treasury) would
take care of a great deal of the rest of it.
>>> been lost due to foolish decisions made today. Flippant comments
>>> like "bring them on" can be made, given today's crisis, only by the
>>> most ignorant imbeciles or by arrogant, pro-immigration assholes
>>> who, for whatever reason, have grown to loathe the things that made
>>> this nation great.
>>>
>>> Where do YOU fit in?
>>
>> What position does your wife play on the Michigan football team? :{))
>
> Now, seeing that she just gave birth, I'd probably be dead if I let
> her read that.
I presume you got the old-joke reference? :{))
>> I'm
>> in favor of legal immigration - not adopting the worlds miscreants
>> or wannabe Democrats (you know, the ones who think we owe them
>> everything and they're always a victim and have no personal
>> responsibility).
>
> I'd strongly suggest that you visit a few sites and get a better fix
> on the problem before you give a blanket blessing to any immigration.
By that you mean you want to cut off *all* immigration ("blessing to 'any'
immigration")? I think I've qualified, strongly, what I support in
immigration; it's hardly 'any' (read: all).
> Things aren't as "hunky dory" as you might think. Try visiting
> http://www.fairus.org and http://www.numbersusa.com and reading some
> of their stuff. Then come back and tell me some more stories. I'll
> bet they change.
Nah - this isn't a passion, merely an observation. You don't want to get me
going on a passion :{))
> Later,
L8R, dood.
americankernel
First off...we're going to kick a little doggie butt this Saturday. I HAD
to mention it when I noticed the origin of your posts.
>
> americankernel wrote:
> > "Skip Gundlach" <sk...@bae.uga.edu> wrote in message
> People who
> >>> "flee" don't have a consistent destination, they scatter. These
> >>> people most certainly ARE NOT "fleeing."
> >>
> >> A group of people can't flee together?
> >
> > Sure a group can flee together, but when several hundred large groups
> > leave one "point a" for the exact same "point b" over 20 years it
> > amounts to an invasion, not "serial fleeing."
>
> Or, serial immigration :{)) The US has been a magnet for well over a
> hundred years, and her *borders* have only recently been tightened (in
> historical terms). Nothing has materially changed, I don't think - other
> than our apparent agreement that liberal thinking (and government) has
> gotten us in trouble...
Us immigration from the late 1800's to 1920 saw, at the time, the largest
waves of immigrants ever. Their points of origin were many and the total
numbers that settled in any one area, for the most part, were few. But New
York, Chicago and Boston saw large groups that did resist assimilation.
Public outcry caused Congress to clamp down on immigration starting in the
early 1920's. Between 1924 and 1965, there no years of significant
immigration, and it is believed that in some years emmigration from America
outpaced immigration to America.
Here's a chart:
http://www.migrationinformation.org/GlobalData/charts/final.immigbyyear.shtm
l
And here's the best concise article I've read that covers the complete
history of immigration to America:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2770
> >>> Immigration today bears NO resemblance to the historical immigration
> >>> patterns prior to the immigration reform acts of 1965. These last
> >>> 37 years constitute the longest period of an unabated, constantly
> >>> increasing and unwavering flood of unassimilable masses this nation
> >
> >> Unassimilable? Why can't they assimilate? That they wish to
> >> preserve their cultures and languages isn't anything new. Ever been
> >> to Little Italy? Chinatown? Chicago (Little Poland)? Etc.? Yet,
> >> somehow, they manage to assimilate. When I was a child, I lived in a
> >> community next to East Rochester, NY. There were so many Italians
> >> there it was referred to by outsiders as "East-a Roch" - and I know
> >> an awful lot of Italian slang, because the entire area was like that
> >> (having a mother whose maiden name was Adéle Mosca Bellevita
> >> deVitlalis didn't hurt!). They didn't abandon their culture - but
> >> they didn't demand the rest of the area teach their kids in Italian,
> >> put up signs in Italian, or the like, either.
> >
> > They cannot assimilate because they colonize. They do not disperse
> > and and adapt to the culture of the place they invade.
>
> You could have said the same thing about all the various colonies around
the
> country a hundred years ago...
True to a point. Assimilation was, in a defacto fashion, forced upon
immigrants by Congress after the mid-1920's. Once the flow of new
immigrants was turned off, the next generations became "Americanized."
Today, when there are numerous places in which an immigrant can conceivably
live their entire lifetime never learning a word of english, it appears that
the grand formula, the "Melting Pot," so to speak, has cracked. I don't
know if there is a "magic percentage" of foreign born people this nation can
handle at one time and still maintain the development of a single, unique
culture (with various flavors in each savory bite!), but since the historic
average of foreign born has been 7% and the historic high was 14%,
predictions by the census bureau that we're going to hit 15% in five years
or so is a grave concern for me.
There is a different "feel" to the immigrant populations we're now allowing
in. Most of us who have become very vehemently in favor of a complete
moratorium on immigration sense that there is a distinct antipathy toward
American culture, mores and language on the part of far too large a
percentage of today's foreign born population. It may not have affected you
where you live yet, but I can guarantee you that it will if we don't do
something...and soon!
> > Have you ever
> > been to Miami? It is not an "American" city in any sense other than
> > it is attached, remora like, to the United States' and Florida's tax
> > base. When an entire county, especially one the size of Miami-Dade,
> > becomes majority foreign born, tell me, where is the incentive to
> > care about the country that has been too gracious a host? There is
> > none. And I see it, live it and smell it on a daily basis. The
> > place I grew up in was an American region, but it is no longer.
>
> Well, yes, I have been to Miami, though not immediately recently. I hold
> that it's a special case, being so close to Cuba (that is the majority to
> which you refer, I presume? Not the French from Haiti nor other
populations
> from other islands or countries?). Granted, it's become something
different
> than it was - but I thought this (discussion) started with a boatload of
> Haitians, rather than a 40-year assimilation of another culture and
> population. I've also been to Puerto Rico, also part of the US, and the
> Virgin Islands, likewise. One speaks English, the other Spanish, and both
> are pretty culturally and otherwise separate from the rest of the country.
> Yet, somehow, all three still manage to attract tourists. Howzat?
A lot of people still think that Miami is a special case. But it is
beginning to look far more like the "model case" for immigrants of all
origins. As such, it alarms me that the level of enmity between the various
subcultures looks an awful lot like an impending full-blown balkanization,
with the Haitians, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Argentines, Brazilians and
Columbians, etc. huddled into their own insular corners, all the while
deeply disliking each other, the indigenous blacks with whom they compete
for jobs and, first and foremost, freely expressing disdain and contempt for
anyone who appears to be simply "American" without a hyphen.
> > During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, only 3 million total
> > Italians came to America as immigrants. Today, we get that number of
> > legal and illegal Mexicans every twenty months (and that's only if
> > you believe the Census Bureau).
>
> Heh. No particular reason to or to not - either way could be wrong. But,
> to your assertions, which seem to be about Mexicans and/or illegal
> immigration, how does that compare in population terms? And, as long as
the
> headers read politics and other things nearly always inflammatory :{)), is
> the problem immigration, or liberal giveaways? If every one of the
> immigrants last year of which there are so many (over a million Mexicans,
> apparently?) were legal, and the liberal policies (where's Lloyd in this
> discussion, holding up the right of everyone to get a free home,
utilities,
> food and spending money??) hadn't been passed in the great society, would
> there be the problem we're talking about?
If we NEVER HAD this HUGE social net created by the great society, I think
that a lot of my concern would be moot. The big fat government tit we've
built does serve as a magnet for a lower class of people with far less
motivation to succeed than the generations of immigrants that came before
them.
> And while I'm on that subject, I've clipped it, below, but you never
> addressed what makes someone 'deserving' ("deserving indigenous
minorities,
> particularly American blacks") and how they are hurt by someone (one of
the
> current crop of immigrants) willing to work for less.
They are deserving simply in the fact that they were here first. Many
blacks today have their lives turned upside down when large immigrant waves
spash into their communities. Wages become immediately depressed. For a
black person who has built a life, owns a home and needs to maintain a
certain level of income in order to just stay above water, the effect can
be, and is, devastating. Why should our policies allow for any immigrant to
supplant any single hard-working American at any level in the socioeconomic
strata? That smacks of an level of unfairness based on ignorance that
Americans should not tolerate.
In fact, from where I sit at this very moment, in a high rise, I can see a
community not far from me that five years ago was almost 100% black. The
houses, while not the greatest, are nice. Most of the homes were owned by
the residents. Today that part of the community is about 80% Mexican.
Opportunistic investors have purchased many of the homes and now rent them
to Mexicans. The neighborhood just doesn't look as nice and clean and
quaint as it did before. The blacks who held the jobs at a lot of the
businesses I used to patronize are nowhere to be found.
I don't even want to THINK about what this means to my daughter if I am
unable to send her to private school. The reallocation of funds for ESOL
alone, not to mention the growing impediment of "alingualism" that many of
these children will bring with them to school, bodes poorly for my
daughter's chances at getting even a decent classroom portion of her
education.
> > You remind me of another difference in immigration today vs.
> > immigration historically. Prior to the 1965 act that reopened
> > immigration portals that had been legislatively closed since the
> > 1920's, more than 1/3 of all people who immigrated here left. Either
> > they could not make it or would not assimilate. Now, with the huge
> > social welfare net we've constructed and allowed them to plug into,
> > the historical pattern has been reversed.
>
> Ah. So, at once, the social net is responsible for lousy immigration
*and*
> not taking care of the 'deserving' minorities who were here first? I'm
> interested in the 1/3 re-emigration; I'd not known that (I admitted my
> immigration ignorance in an earlier post) - but it seems that the ones who
> are staying this time around must like it better or do better at making
it?
No, the big government tit is there to save those who in the past would have
either failed to assimilate, failed to thrive or otherwise failed to
succeed. Those immigrants who previously would have been forced to leave,
find their way to the public trough and dive in. Don't get me started about
the indigenous trough feeders.
> > It has nothing to do with country of origin. The founders and
>
> Ah. So, it could be Haitian, Mexican, or Martian; it wouldn't make any
> difference. Now we're getting somewhere.
>
> > patriots who fought for our freedom 150 years after the colonists
> > were generally third, fourth, fifth and even sixth generation
> > AMERICANS and knew little if anything about the ways of the Brits.
> > That's basically indisputable. For instance:
> (citations of 3-5th generation founders)
>
> And, since the opening of the gates was 37 years ago by your count, we can
> reasonably expect that we have at least second, and some third generation
> immigrants who are now part of our society (adult on entry, child,
> grandchild by 30+ y.o., e.g.)? What's different? We've got governors
> married to Mexican immigrant descendants, umpteen legislators of Mexican
> heritage, and the same of Cubans, etc., etc. How is that not
assimilating?
>
What's different? Well, for starters, you have to "push one for english,
two for spanish" almost every time you call a business or government. The
Cubans in Congress are, literally, the grandchildren of some of Batista's
nasty elites; they are not American and do not put America first. Their
first allegiance is to the corrupt remnants of Batista's regime who really
do run Miami and most of Dade County. Really! And as far as truly
assimilating is concerned, it just isn't happening CONSISTENTLY. There are
now third generation families in Dade in which english is STILL the second
language and hispanic language media is the fastest growing segement of the
entire media market.
When schools in a community teach about Jose Marti before they teach about
the founding fathers of THIS nation, there's a just something wrong.
>
> >> Are you afraid the rest of the world might do to
> >> us what we did to the indigenous population when the first waves of
> >> Europeans hit our shores?
> >
> > Yes. And why shouldn't I be? In the course of human social
> > evolution, tribalism has been almost completely supplanted by
> > nationalism. In addition, it is an almost 100% certainty that the
> > people to whom we refer as "Native Americans" were probably just the
> > disparate tribes that happend to be here in that particular moment of
> > the 30 thousand year history of humans in the Americas. OUR
> > ancestors were the first to found a NATION here. Thus, neither being
> > somehow repentant for what happened to tribes after my ancestors
> > arrived in 1628 nor accepting of a flood of opportunist foreigners
> > who disrespect and denigrate our culture are things it is in my
> > nature to do.
>
> Kate and Edith come to mind :{))
Who are Kate and Edith?
> And, FWIW, Americans are nothing if not opportunists. It's the capitalist
> way...
>
> >
> > The unique American culture equally or more responsible than the
> > Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for our
> > unprecedented success as a nation. We have the right, as Americans,
> > to choose whether or not we allow ANY immigrants to reach our shores
>
> Agreed. The techies had to do some pretty heavy whining to let more
Indians
> in, however temporarily - that suggests, at least to me, that immigration
> policies were being enforced, i.e. no more Indians...
The H1B visa issue still sticks in my craw. We had an expertise shortage in
a key industry, and thousands of earnest Americans rushed to get technical
certifications to fill the void while Congress simultaneously screwed them
with visa loopholes. Last summer there were thousands of Americans
unwittingly engaged in training their foreign born REPLACEMENTS who would
work for a lower wage as the tech industry sank. My MCSE isn't worth a lot
more than the paper its printed on any more.
> > or cross our borders. Historically, we have shut the door when
> > groups started to show tendencies to resist assimilation; thus, we
> > had a near complete cut-off in the 1920's. We can, and should do the
> > same...immediately. It is imperative to our future success as a
> > nation.
>
> Stop allowing anyone not born here to come here??
Yes, a moratorium. Temporary. Just until the percentage of foreign-born
begins to fall and the INS gets its act together. Then, I'm fine with
immigration resuming as long as it never exceeds a rate more than the
historic average or in which the INS can scrutinize each visa applicant
without there being a single person stuck in a "backlog." As they say,
"better safe than sorry."
> > If you feel comfortable having your grandchildren living in a nation,
> > only 50 years from now, packed with 500 thousand balkanized and
> > disloyal people packed into countless subcultures and enduring
> > third-world lifestyles, continue to think the way in which you do.
>
> Heh. My grandchildren are already here. And immigrants are only one of
the
> huge population of those with their hands out. I forget the ancient Greek
> who said, in effect, "A Republic will stand only until the public has
access
> to the treasury, after which it will fall." Effectively, the Great
Society
> opened the treasury to the public, and we grow more socialistic each day,
> along with those with their hands out continuously electing those who
> promise to put stuff in them...
Wouldn't Lyndon Johnson be PROUD!
> > As a first time father of a seven week old baby girl, I'm more than
>
> Congratulations :{))
Thank you!
> concerned, I'm pissed. I want the best for her and our immigration
> > policy is ruining her chances of living the American dream.
>
> Well, it's evident you've got immigration on the mind. It's considerably
> more than that, as alluded to above. My (of course, you've gotten a
flavor
> of that) position is that it's not the immigrants, it's the social policy.
> Immigrants, legal and otherwise, are more symptom than disease.
Yes, true. But, you see, I'm a 13th generation American, descended from the
first Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony. My ancestors passed down
stories and values to me that my parents instilled. Yes, I'm a Son of the
American Revolution. And I think that we've strayed too far as a culture.
Immigration is but a symptom, but sometimes you have to treat the symptom
before you can address the disease. In this case, the disease is
"multiculturalism."
>
>
> > The cost to our infrastructure, our
> > environment, our educational system, our health care system, to
> > goverment and to all social service programs is astounding. It is
> > patently unfair to expect for us to bear the burden of people who
> > show a strong propensity to hate us to begin with.
>
> Hate us? Why bother coming here, then? Or, are you referring to the macro
> 'us' instead of the US?
No, they hate the United States. They hate our culture. But they sure do
like our opportunity. There's a "new world order" and "globalist" feel to
what is happening. Yecchhh!
> > There are very
> > few who come here to become "American" any more; the vast majority
> > are greedy, arrogant, disrespectful and culturally indegestible
> > opportunists.
>
> Well, at the risk of sounding nation-building-ist, isn't that how it
works?
> They get here, get jobs, get some personal property, and then real
property,
> and suddenly, they can't fight the system because to do so would ruin what
> they'd worked for. As Pogo said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us"...
>
> Aside fromi multi-generation welfare families (largely that other minority
> you mentioned early on), I don't think multiple-generation immigrants fit
> the profile you've presented. Can you cite (group) instances to support
> that?
From the time I spent living in Miami, I can assure you that this is the
case. And don't get me started about Mexican immigrant birth rates and
their incompatibility with thriving in the socioeconomic framework we've
built. THAT'S an impossibility.
> >>> Our future will most
> >>> certainly be one of balkanization, hatred, strife as the seeds that
> >>
> >> Like the Little Italys, Chinatowns, and the like balkanized our
> >> country a century ago?
> >
> > No. Your examples are merely "jaywalking" compared to the "daily
> > 9/11" our future goes through based on existing policy, law and
> > enforcement.
>
> So, how would you do the enforcement bit? Build a Great Wall of US?
First, cut legal immigration off temporarily. Then, allow it only at the
historic average of 200 thousand per year. Ignore the gloom and doom
fortune tellers who say that we NEED these immigrant to fill jobs;
Americans are smart enough to figure out solutions to manpower shortages
that don't include policies that are ruining our nation. Finally, nail
employers who hire illegals to the wall...HARD.
Isn't it amazing how so many of our problems come from lack of law
enforcement? Isn't it equally amazing how liberals think that we need more
laws, or different policies or other such drivel INSTEAD of more effective
enforcement?
> >>> been lost due to foolish decisions made today. Flippant comments
> >>> like "bring them on" can be made, given today's crisis, only by the
> >>> most ignorant imbeciles or by arrogant, pro-immigration assholes
> >>> who, for whatever reason, have grown to loathe the things that made
> >>> this nation great.
> >>>
> >>> Where do YOU fit in?
> >>
> >> What position does your wife play on the Michigan football team? :{))
> >
> > Now, seeing that she just gave birth, I'd probably be dead if I let
> > her read that.
>
> I presume you got the old-joke reference? :{))
Nope, I'm a dumb Gator. Whazzat mean?
> >> I'm
> >> in favor of legal immigration - not adopting the worlds miscreants
> >> or wannabe Democrats (you know, the ones who think we owe them
> >> everything and they're always a victim and have no personal
> >> responsibility).
> >
> > I'd strongly suggest that you visit a few sites and get a better fix
> > on the problem before you give a blanket blessing to any immigration.
>
> By that you mean you want to cut off *all* immigration ("blessing to 'any'
> immigration")? I think I've qualified, strongly, what I support in
> immigration; it's hardly 'any' (read: all).
I think you know what I mean if you've read this far.
> > Things aren't as "hunky dory" as you might think. Try visiting
> > http://www.fairus.org and http://www.numbersusa.com and reading some
> > of their stuff. Then come back and tell me some more stories. I'll
> > bet they change.
>
> Nah - this isn't a passion, merely an observation. You don't want to get
me
> going on a passion :{))
Oh come one, passion is cool!
Later, Dawg Dude!
--
The American Gator...er...Kernel
Jim Patterson
>There is a different "feel" to the immigrant populations we're now allowing
>in. Most of us who have become very vehemently in favor of a complete
>moratorium on immigration sense that there is a distinct antipathy toward
>American culture, mores and language on the part of far too large a
>percentage of today's foreign born population. It may not have affected you
>where you live yet, but I can guarantee you that it will if we don't do
>something...and soon!
It affects us silently. We don't really notice it because we get used to it
after a while, and that is dangerous. All official sources tell us how
wonderful diversity and multi-culturalism is.
Sometimes we turn around and notice that there are places in our own
neighborhood that we just don't go into at night anymore.
Down in the nearby little town are signs for meetings at the 'Somali Community
Center'.
The local grocer suddenly clears out half of the meat cooler and replaces the
area with goat, a valid foodstuff, yes, but one that did not exist there a
year ago.
You turn through the AM dial on the radio and find that near 1/2 the stations
are in a foreign language. And it's local.
Suddenly we notice that local elections are being swayed by ethnic bloc voting
and that any culture may be publicly celebrated....except our own.
Then there are the strange 'accidents'. A Fedex truck blows up in St. Louis
and the driver says he was jus driving down the highway. The lone picture
shows that the explosion tore out the back of the semi. Yet the official
story is that there was an impact and the fuel tanks sitting right behind the
cab caught fire.
And how many people believe the official story?
It musta been that middle fuel tank.
jim
Lets Roll
"Jim Patterson" <jrp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2oo2su4uq1a3i22g2...@4ax.com...
The FedEx truck was just another "isolated incident." Don't look at the "T"
word. Look over there...at the Somalis having their community meeting and
how lovely they are in their native garb.
--
To the People of Texas and All Americans in the World--
Fellow Citizens and Compatriots
I am besieged with a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I
have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have
not lost a man. The enemy has demanded surrender at discretion, otherwise,
the garrison is to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have
answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly
over the wall. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in
the name of Liberty, of patriotism, of everything dear to the American
character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving
reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in
four or five days. If this call is neglected I am determined to sustain
myself as long as possible and die like a solder who never forgets what is
due his honor and that of his country.
VICTORY OR DEATH
William Barret Travis
Lt. Col. Comd't
Lets Roll
the most injured class of Americans by the massive immigration levels
because they are at the lower rungs of the ladder in wages and education.
The caliber of immigrants we are receiving by far are peasants and people
with no skills nor education, which puts them into direct competition with
the people most dependent on the jobs that reqiure fewer skills and
education.
To the People of Texas and All Americans in the World--
Fellow Citizens and Compatriots
I am besieged with a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I
have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have
not lost a man. The enemy has demanded surrender at discretion, otherwise,
the garrison is to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have
answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly
over the wall. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in
the name of Liberty, of patriotism, of everything dear to the American
character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving
reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in
four or five days. If this call is neglected I am determined to sustain
myself as long as possible and die like a solder who never forgets what is
due his honor and that of his country.
VICTORY OR DEATH
William Barret Travis
Lt. Col. Comd't
> >
Lets Roll
>
> > If it was, all the rednecks would be singing Dixie in
> > Arabic...............
> >
> > More Than 200 Illegal Haitian Migrants Run Ashore in Miami
>
> Hatians experience a terrible plight. A sad story indeed. I'm sure if
> I were a Haitian I'd try to escape as well....
>
Financial distress never has been and never will be a valid reason for
asylum.
If that were true we could and would have most of Africa, the middle east
and the far east living in our living rooms as refugees.
--
To the People of Texas and All Americans in the World--
Fellow Citizens and Compatriots
I am besieged with a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I
have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have
not lost a man. The enemy has demanded surrender at discretion, otherwise,
the garrison is to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have
answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly
over the wall. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in
the name of Liberty, of patriotism, of everything dear to the American
character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving
reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in
four or five days. If this call is neglected I am determined to sustain
myself as long as possible and die like a solder who never forgets what is
due his honor and that of his country.
VICTORY OR DEATH
William Barret Travis
Lt. Col. Comd't
> --
Lets Roll
becomes a problem - _a serious problem_ - when they preserve that language
and culture to the _exclusion_ of adopting any part of American culture or
language, with the sole exception of the social welfare benefits provided
through American culture. We are looking at _second and third_ generations
of "immigrants" who are _still_ incapable of speaking English. What we are
seeing today is not _areas_ such as East Rochester, we are seeing entire
_states_ that have become totally different civilizations that do not even
_resemble_ the United States, such as CA, the "Illegal Alien State." We are
most definitely seeing aliens demanding that we change _our_ language and
culture to accomodate _them_. Much of this is brought on by the daisy chain
of immigration which our fearless leaders refer to as family unity. Each
and every time an alien takes an oath of citizenship, they can then qualify
to sponsor their mother, their father, all 15 of their brothers and sisters,
their aunts and uncles and cousins and once all of those people attain
citizenship the daisy chain continues. Our immigration policy beats the
K-Mart Blue Light Special by a _long_ shot: Buy one - get 150 free.
Because we have allowed them into our country in such volume they are
willing and able to create and dominate our society through their own
enclaves where there is a comfort level that requires them or the new comers
trailing on their heels _never_ to assimilate into American culuture.
--
To the People of Texas and All Americans in the World--
Fellow Citizens and Compatriots
I am besieged with a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I
have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have
not lost a man. The enemy has demanded surrender at discretion, otherwise,
the garrison is to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have
answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly
over the wall. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in
the name of Liberty, of patriotism, of everything dear to the American
character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving
reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in
four or five days. If this call is neglected I am determined to sustain
myself as long as possible and die like a solder who never forgets what is
due his honor and that of his country.
VICTORY OR DEATH
William Barret Travis
Lt. Col. Comd't
> > Have you ever
Skip Gundlach
neutral stuff :{))
americankernel wrote:
> "Skip Gundlach" <sk...@bae.uga.edu> wrote in message
> news:Km1w9.4619$Ik6.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> First off...we're going to kick a little doggie butt this Saturday.
> I HAD to mention it when I noticed the origin of your posts.
Heh. Ironically, I'd forgotten to change that, noting that now it *is*
changed. I've never been a GA student or employee - just a parent of three
students, the first of which about 16 years ago, got all of us guest
accounts. Since I'd had long correspondence history over the net as it
existed at that time, I'd retained that address so people could find me in
the future.
However, that machine no longer is a mail server, and UGA discontinued not
only their guest accounts, but their forwarding privilege - which is what I
was taking advantage of - as well. So, that one bit the dust.
However, I noted that UGA also did that on Saturday. No loyalties either
way, and didn't watch or listen to the game. Congratulations to your crew
:{))
>>> During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, only 3 million total
>>> Italians came to America as immigrants. Today, we get that number
>>> of legal and illegal Mexicans every twenty months (and that's only
>>> if you believe the Census Bureau).
>>
>> Heh. No particular reason to or to not - either way could be wrong.
>> But, to your assertions, which seem to be about Mexicans and/or
>> illegal immigration, how does that compare in population terms?
>> And, as long as the headers read politics and other things nearly
>> always inflammatory :{)), is the problem immigration, or liberal
>> giveaways? If every one of the immigrants last year of which there
>> are so many (over a million Mexicans, apparently?) were legal, and
>> the liberal policies (where's Lloyd in this discussion, holding up
>> the right of everyone to get a free home, utilities, food and
>> spending money??) hadn't been passed in the great society, would
>> there be the problem we're talking about?
>
> If we NEVER HAD this HUGE social net created by the great society, I
> think that a lot of my concern would be moot. The big fat government
> tit we've built does serve as a magnet for a lower class of people
> with far less motivation to succeed than the generations of
> immigrants that came before them.
I'll readily agree to that. However, I also believe that there's a huge
majority of immigrants (legal or otherwise) who are here because of the
better possibilities for them and their families. There's another thread
going in atl.general about the preponderance of Mexicans in Gainesville, GA
these days. One of the obervations was that they are paid bird feed, work
at rates that are considerably lower than others of any color or persuasion
seem willing to accept, and, along the way, somehow manage to send money
home.
If they didn't do the work at the wages they do, we'd pay more for our
chicken (the largest employer in the area being chicken processing) and a
host of other services or products. Meanwhile, they seem willing to live in
great concentration (old jokes from my Rochester area upbringing: how can
you tell how many Italians live in a home? Count the basement windows and
multiply by 10 - since many of them lived in basement apartments; Why are
there so few Italian suicides? It's hard to kill yourself jumping from a
basement window...) in order to be economical, and nobody notices that 8
people working at minimum wage, never mind any overtime, are making 80K a
year, and so can afford to have money left over after paying the slumlord
and other living costs.
>> And while I'm on that subject, I've clipped it, below, but you never
>> addressed what makes someone 'deserving' ("deserving indigenous
>> minorities, particularly American blacks") and how they are hurt by
>> someone (one of the current crop of immigrants) willing to work for
>> less.
>
> They are deserving simply in the fact that they were here first. Many
> blacks today have their lives turned upside down when large immigrant
> waves spash into their communities. Wages become immediately
> depressed. For a black person who has built a life, owns a home and
> needs to maintain a certain level of income in order to just stay
> above water, the effect can be, and is, devastating. Why should our
> policies allow for any immigrant to supplant any single hard-working
> American at any level in the socioeconomic strata? That smacks of an
> level of unfairness based on ignorance that Americans should not
> tolerate.
>
> In fact, from where I sit at this very moment, in a high rise, I can
> see a community not far from me that five years ago was almost 100%
> black. The houses, while not the greatest, are nice. Most of the
> homes were owned by the residents. Today that part of the community
> is about 80% Mexican. Opportunistic investors have purchased many of
> the homes and now rent them to Mexicans. The neighborhood just
> doesn't look as nice and clean and quaint as it did before. The
> blacks who held the jobs at a lot of the businesses I used to
> patronize are nowhere to be found.
As a landlord (real estate investor) I nearly choked at this. If you think
*my* views on _immigration_ are naieve, bring that statement over to the
landlord's group some time. Investors don't force anyone to sell, and they
*especially* don't buy stuff which won't either turn a profit, or provide
positive cash flow, or both. Those who sold weren't pushed and the
investors were merely responding to market opportunities. For what it's
worth, I live in the county next to the one housing Gainesville, GA, and
wouldn't invest there - not because of the Mexican element, but because I
couldn't meet the parameters above. As a general statement, you can't
(currently - used to be able ,which is how I got into it) do that in this
area - prices are too high in relation to the rents achievable.
>> Ah. So, at once, the social net is responsible for lousy
>> immigration *and* not taking care of the 'deserving' minorities who
>> were here first? I'm interested in the 1/3 re-emigration; I'd not
>> known that (I admitted my immigration ignorance in an earlier post)
>> - but it seems that the ones who are staying this time around must
>> like it better or do better at making it?
>
> No, the big government tit is there to save those who in the past
> would have either failed to assimilate, failed to thrive or otherwise
> failed to succeed. Those immigrants who previously would have been
> forced to leave, find their way to the public trough and dive in.
> Don't get me started about the indigenous trough feeders.
Heh. You and I are on the same page on that...
> What's different? Well, for starters, you have to "push one for
> english, two for spanish" almost every time you call a business or
If I were in a business which sold to those, I'd do it, too. It's not that
you *have* to - and, note that it's *one* for English - it's that the
responders to the call find it in their interests to accomodate.
> government. The Cubans in Congress are, literally, the grandchildren
> of some of Batista's nasty elites; they are not American and do not
> put America first. Their first allegiance is to the corrupt remnants
> of Batista's regime who really do run Miami and most of Dade County.
> Really! And as far as truly assimilating is concerned, it just isn't
> happening CONSISTENTLY. There are now third generation families in
> Dade in which english is STILL the second language and hispanic
> language media is the fastest growing segement of the entire media
> market.
>
> When schools in a community teach about Jose Marti before they teach
> about the founding fathers of THIS nation, there's a just something
> wrong.
No argument here, either.
>>>> Are you afraid the rest of the world might do to
>>>> us what we did to the indigenous population when the first waves of
>>>> Europeans hit our shores?
>>>
>>> Yes. And why shouldn't I be? In the course of human social
>>> evolution, tribalism has been almost completely supplanted by
>>> nationalism. In addition, it is an almost 100% certainty that the
>>> people to whom we refer as "Native Americans" were probably just the
>>> disparate tribes that happend to be here in that particular moment
>>> of the 30 thousand year history of humans in the Americas. OUR
>>> ancestors were the first to found a NATION here. Thus, neither being
>>> somehow repentant for what happened to tribes after my ancestors
>>> arrived in 1628 nor accepting of a flood of opportunist foreigners
>>> who disrespect and denigrate our culture are things it is in my
>>> nature to do.
>>
>> Kate and Edith come to mind :{))
>
> Who are Kate and Edith?
Ah, the new joke possibilities of the young (everything's new the first time
you hear it): Simplified; a guy is dating two girls who find out about the
other and both dump him. Just proves that you can't have your Kate and
Edith too...
>> So, how would you do the enforcement bit? Build a Great Wall of US?
>
> First, cut legal immigration off temporarily. Then, allow it only at
> the historic average of 200 thousand per year. Ignore the gloom and
> doom fortune tellers who say that we NEED these immigrant to fill
> jobs; Americans are smart enough to figure out solutions to manpower
> shortages that don't include policies that are ruining our nation.
> Finally, nail employers who hire illegals to the wall...HARD.
I don't have any real problem with that - other than to realize that the
employer is not usually at fault, but a victim. It's too easy to fake it,
assuming that they even try to monitor for legality. I had a group of
Mexicans who wanted to rent a property from me and they thought that
flashing money would do the trick. I told them that they'd have to come up
with their social security numbers and employers info, etc. Surprise - most
of the SSNs were cribbed from some dead folks (20-something Mexican's don't
have SSNs matching someone whose SSN was issued in Minnesota in 1956) and
others didn't exist at all. Now - these folks claimed to be working for a
very reputable company, and my conversation with their putative supervisor
(after I was finally able to track her down) confirmed that. However, it
turns out they were employed by a consulting company on contract from that
company, not employees of same. Not the job of the company paying the bill
to check them out, since it was the contractor who was the employer - and,
yet, there they all were, drawing paychecks for work apparently well done.
Who's guilty here? How do you effectively prosecute? Certainly, the
company where they reported every night would not be the one to chase - or,
would it? As a businessman, I get the willies every time I think of being
in a business which would require me - at some huge penalty - to be
absolutely certain that those I hired were legal.
Understand, if I'm actively subverting the law, and knowingly employing
illegals, that's another story entirely.
>>>>> been lost due to foolish decisions made today. Flippant comments
>>>>> like "bring them on" can be made, given today's crisis, only by
>>>>> the most ignorant imbeciles or by arrogant, pro-immigration
>>>>> assholes who, for whatever reason, have grown to loathe the
>>>>> things that made this nation great.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do YOU fit in?
>>>>
>>>> What position does your wife play on the Michigan football team?
>>>> :{))
>>>
>>> Now, seeing that she just gave birth, I'd probably be dead if I let
>>> her read that.
>>
>> I presume you got the old-joke reference? :{))
>
> Nope, I'm a dumb Gator. Whazzat mean?
I had the specific reference (a much longer joke) show up in my mailbox just
before I saw this, and deleted it, so for the sake of brevity:
A guy hears that his boss has just left Michigan cuz he didn't like it. He
sez I don't blame you - all they have up there are whores and football
players. Boss sez "Hey!! My wife graduated from Michigan!!"
Bada Bing, Bada Boom :{))
It had to do with your earlier castigation of me as one of two undesirables,
which I didn't take offense in seeing but rather saw the humor...
>>> Things aren't as "hunky dory" as you might think. Try visiting
>>> http://www.fairus.org and http://www.numbersusa.com and reading some
>>> of their stuff. Then come back and tell me some more stories. I'll
>>> bet they change.
>>
>> Nah - this isn't a passion, merely an observation. You don't want
>> to get me going on a passion :{))
>
> Oh come one, passion is cool!
:{)) I know - but this isn't one of mine
> Later, Dawg Dude!
L8R, Gator (no doubt you aren't old enough to have that reference, either -
but that's ok, too!)
Skip
Oh, all right. In the fifties, there was a popular song which had the line,
"See you later, Alligator; After a while, Crocodile." That was originally
part of the Beat Generation lexicon (see you later, alligator), and then the
hippies shortened it to merely 'later' on departure. Since I'm a punster,
L8R is shorthand for that, which, despite my never having even *thought* -
much less acted or dressed - like a hippie, is a standard departure phrase
for me in RL.
americankernel
news:8RVx9.2290$fn6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> This thread seems to have died a natural death, so I'll respond to the
more
> neutral stuff :{))
>
> americankernel wrote:
> > "Skip Gundlach" <sk...@bae.uga.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Km1w9.4619$Ik6.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > First off...we're going to kick a little doggie butt this Saturday.
> > I HAD to mention it when I noticed the origin of your posts.
>
> Heh. Ironically, I'd forgotten to change that, noting that now it *is*
> changed. I've never been a GA student or employee - just a parent of
three
> students, the first of which about 16 years ago, got all of us guest
> accounts. Since I'd had long correspondence history over the net as it
> existed at that time, I'd retained that address so people could find me in
> the future.
>
> However, that machine no longer is a mail server, and UGA discontinued not
> only their guest accounts, but their forwarding privilege - which is what
I
> was taking advantage of - as well. So, that one bit the dust.
>
> However, I noted that UGA also did that on Saturday. No loyalties either
> way, and didn't watch or listen to the game. Congratulations to your crew
> :{))
Thank you. Could you please arrange for the Doggies to lose one more. I'd
like to plan a trip to Atlanta for early December.
It takes more than seeking better opportunites in my book to validate one's
presence in America. Historically, the vast majority came here with at
least the inkling that they were expected to become AMERICANS, then to set
out to reach for "the American Dream. I see none of this with far too many
immigrants, both legal and illegal. Check out the huge Somali mass influx
into Lewiston, Maine...yes, MAINE, over the past year. They are ruining the
ability of this town to maintain its social infrastructure and they have no
intentions of assimilating; their re-migration from just about every corner
of the nation was done specifically with the intent of creating a distinct
cultural enclave in which they don't have to bother with such trivialities
as becoming Americanized.
There are Chinese enclaves in numerous communities, particularly in the
Northwest, that exhibit the same tendencies as the Maine Somalis; I have a
subcontractor and good friend who is a Chinese immigrant and he thinks it is
appalling that there are factions of his countrymen who refuse to become
part of our culture and only want to serve themselves. He's got it right
and they've got it wrong.
You mention Mexicans in Georgia. There are similar situations involving
every single third-world or emerging economy from Central America, South
America and the Carribean Basin taking place throughout this nation. NAFTA
cannot ever work work to the United States overall advantage, or even
parity: this hemisphere bears no resemblance to the EU. NAFTA only can
create the costly degradation of our culture and decline in our standard of
living we are merely begining to see today. I'm not willing to give up my
nation to save fifteen cents on a pound of chicken. I'm not willing to have
wage-deflating lawbreakers enter the job market; the people they crowd out
of jobs end up being taxpayer burdens, so we end up paying more toward
bureaucracy in exchange for cheaper chicken.
Chickens, at $.15 or even $.50 more per pound, are a better value than
bureaucrats can ever hope to be. Bureaucrats produce things more akin to
the stuff that comes out of chickens' butts. How can it possibly make sense
to allow an immigration policy that saves a little in the free market, but
adds layers of far less cost effective bureaucracy through our having to
widen the social service net to catch the American citizens this policy
displaces?
Please explain to me why the exodus of the blacks in my nearby community so
directly corresponded with all of the advertisements and billboards for some
company that simply said "We buy ugly homes." From what I can glean, the
hundreds of homes they purchased ended up in the hands of landlords who, in
turn, rented them to Mexicans. In addition, the word I got from some
friends who are involved in public housing projects is that a lot of the
black residents were motivated to sell because they were being displaced at
work and looking to get out of mortgages rather than face foreclosure.
Thus, the waiting lists for public housing in my community have nearly
doubled in the past three years. There is a severe housing shortage in my
area, so rents are incredibly high. It appears to me that there is a much
higher population density in that neighborhood now, so I'm assuming there
are far more people per residence than there were before. Illegal Mexicans
can't buy homes here; hopefully, our banks will not start accepting the
Matricula Consular ID cards that banks in other cities have started
accepting. If someone cannot open a bank account because of their immigrant
status, it isn't likely that they will be able to get a mortgage.
<snip>
> > What's different? Well, for starters, you have to "push one for
> > english, two for spanish" almost every time you call a business or
>
> If I were in a business which sold to those, I'd do it, too. It's not
that
> you *have* to - and, note that it's *one* for English - it's that the
> responders to the call find it in their interests to accomodate.
The mere fact that this has become standard says that balkanization is well
under way. To me, people and companies that sell the systems that
facilitate this are lower on the ethics scale than most lawyers.
<snip>
There needs to be, in law, policy and enforcement, a clear and simple
pathway for certain "high risk" classes of employers to follow that would
compel them to make sure that100% of their hires are legal. We're unable to
get a grasp on illegal immigration in part because Federal employment rules
do not make distinctions between the majority of businesses that do not need
to hire for the types of work that attracts illegals and those that do. We
would not need to significantly increase the overall level of bureaucratic
red-tape and cost if our policy put a focus on business classes that are
predisposed to hiring illegals. Plus, I'd be willing to bet the farm that
most of the cost would be short-term, which is much more palatable to me
than the long term care of workers displaced by illegals willing to work for
lower wages.
<snip>
> L8R, Gator (no doubt you aren't old enough to have that reference,
either -
> but that's ok, too!)
>
> Skip
>
> Oh, all right. In the fifties, there was a popular song which had the
line,
> "See you later, Alligator; After a while, Crocodile." That was originally
> part of the Beat Generation lexicon (see you later, alligator), and then
the
> hippies shortened it to merely 'later' on departure. Since I'm a punster,
> L8R is shorthand for that, which, despite my never having even *thought* -
> much less acted or dressed - like a hippie, is a standard departure phrase
> for me in RL.
Yeah, I got that one. I'm 43, but my father would be 101 this year and my
mother would be 83. I know a lot of old sayings and jokes. It makes my
30-year-old-wife crazy sometimes because she doesn't understand me.
--
The American Kernel
Skip Gundlach
> "Skip Gundlach" <sk...@engr.uga.edu> wrote in message
> news:8RVx9.2290$fn6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> However, I noted that UGA also did that on Saturday. No loyalties
>> either way, and didn't watch or listen to the game. Congratulations
>> to your crew :{))
>
> Thank you. Could you please arrange for the Doggies to lose one
> more. I'd like to plan a trip to Atlanta for early December.
Sorry - I have even less influence on the athletics than I do the computer
science departments in UGA - they'll have to do that on their own :{))
>> I'll readily agree to that. However, I also believe that there's a
>> huge majority of immigrants (legal or otherwise) who are here
>> because of the better possibilities for them and their families.
>> There's another thread going in atl.general about the preponderance
>> of Mexicans in Gainesville, GA these days. One of the obervations
>> was that they are paid bird feed, work at rates that are
>> considerably lower than others of any color or persuasion seem
>> willing to accept, and, along the way, somehow manage to send money
>> home.
>
> It takes more than seeking better opportunites in my book to validate
> one's presence in America. Historically, the vast majority came here
> with at least the inkling that they were expected to become
> AMERICANS, then to set out to reach for "the American Dream. I see
> none of this with far too many immigrants, both legal and illegal.
> Check out the huge Somali mass influx into Lewiston, Maine...yes,
> MAINE, over the past year. They are ruining the ability of this town
> to maintain its social infrastructure and they have no intentions of
> assimilating; their re-migration from just about every corner of the
> nation was done specifically with the intent of creating a distinct
> cultural enclave in which they don't have to bother with such
> trivialities as becoming Americanized.
I did note that with some bemusement - however, I was under the impression
that the location there, at least initially, was somehow an official act, vs
a Somali conspiracy (?)...
>
> There are Chinese enclaves in numerous communities, particularly in
> the Northwest, that exhibit the same tendencies as the Maine Somalis;
> I have a subcontractor and good friend who is a Chinese immigrant and
> he thinks it is appalling that there are factions of his countrymen
> who refuse to become part of our culture and only want to serve
> themselves. He's got it right and they've got it wrong.
Well, he's appalled - how come the rest of them aren't?
> Chickens, at $.15 or even $.50 more per pound, are a better value than
> bureaucrats can ever hope to be. Bureaucrats produce things more
> akin to the stuff that comes out of chickens' butts. How can it
Agreed :{)) - but someone's got to run the infrastructure of the country.
> possibly make sense to allow an immigration policy that saves a
> little in the free market, but adds layers of far less cost effective
> bureaucracy through our having to widen the social service net to
> catch the American citizens this policy displaces?
You gotta talk to the Democrats on that one - perhaps the most recent
election results will have some effect?
>> As a landlord (real estate investor) I nearly choked at this. If
>> you think *my* views on _immigration_ are naieve, bring that
>> statement over to the landlord's group some time. Investors don't
>> force anyone to sell, and they *especially* don't buy stuff which
>> won't either turn a profit, or provide positive cash flow, or both.
>> Those who sold weren't pushed and the investors were merely
>> responding to market opportunities. For what it's worth, I live in
>> the county next to the one housing Gainesville, GA, and wouldn't
>> invest there - not because of the Mexican element, but because I
>> couldn't meet the parameters above. As a general statement, you
>> can't (currently - used to be able ,which is how I got into it) do
>> that in this area - prices are too high in relation to the rents
>> achievable.
>
> Please explain to me why the exodus of the blacks in my nearby
> community so directly corresponded with all of the advertisements and
> billboards for some company that simply said "We buy ugly homes."
Those investors are making it possible - as you point out later - for some
who don't take care of their homes (not attractive, more than 'handyman
specials') to get out of them when the free market has no buyers for them in
that condition. An investor can buy that home, spend the money the prior
occupant didn't have - and perhaps couldn't get due to bad credit, or lack
of enthusiasm for the task - and then rent it to whomever may be
creditworthy to occupy it later. Or, sell it on the open market which will
respond to a fixed-up home (called flipping - and more likely than renting,
as it turns an immediate profit - another entirely appropriate real estate
investment strategy; some folks buy them to live in and then sell them at a
profit which, if they've been there for at least 2 years, under current tax
law, is free from taxes), where it ignored the run-down home.
> From what I can glean, the hundreds of homes they purchased ended up
> in the hands of landlords who, in turn, rented them to Mexicans. In
Or whoever came along and was ready, willing and able. Unless there's a
Mexican owner who somehow wants to do something to give back to his
countrymen, I can guarantee you that market, not social, forces are at work.
If it's Mexicans who are available and wanting to live there, that's who'll
rent it.
> addition, the word I got from some friends who are involved in public
> housing projects is that a lot of the black residents were motivated
> to sell because they were being displaced at work and looking to get
> out of mortgages rather than face foreclosure. Thus, the waiting
As above. Do we wring our hands at the steel companies' towns that went
through that many years ago? Detroit when the foreign companies beat them
at their own game? Etc.? The market is the market. If they're being
displaced by those who will do only the most menial jobs that others won't,
it's the way the world works. If they're being displaced by more skilled
workers, perhaps they need to get more skills. If it's a matter of economy
(United Airlines pilots gave back huge wage concessions some years ago,
e.g.) they can take a cut in pay to remain competitive.
I'm among the dotbomb displaced. My son (the one who got me the UGA address)
is, sort of, too, but he had a 4-month contract (that ended in July), which
is more than I. The last time I was employed was over two years ago. My
extended unemployment benefits ran out a year ago. Who can I blame for
that? Who can I rail against as being responsible for my condition? Who
can I send home in order to free up jobs that will make it possible for me
to work again?
(Can you tell I'm not buying?) :{))
> lists for public housing in my community have nearly doubled in the
> past three years. There is a severe housing shortage in my area, so
> rents are incredibly high. It appears to me that there is a much
> higher population density in that neighborhood now, so I'm assuming
> there are far more people per residence than there were before.
Shortages invariably work themselves out - demand abhors a vacuum. A few
years ago (here, in my market), you couldn't have a home vacant (rental) for
more than a couple of weeks - at least if you even put up a sign or did an
ad - because the area was growing so much. Several years before that, in
the last recession, you coudn't *give* a home away - there weren't any
renters, at any price, due to the employment situation. Today, with the
interest rates as they are, about the only renters available are short-term
transients and those with horrible credit, because anyone with halfway
decent credit can buy cheaper than one can rent to them - and so does that,
rather than rent. If the demand is so high in your area, the pricing will
eventually make it so that rents are not attractive (they'll sell at prices
which rents won't support, and the rental housing will contract further,
driving the prices up again - see above), and the problem will abate of its
own accord - unless, somehow, the socialists get in the middle of it and
start handing out free living space in which case all bets are off...
> Illegal Mexicans can't buy homes here; hopefully, our banks will not
> start accepting the Matricula Consular ID cards that banks in other
> cities have started accepting. If someone cannot open a bank account
> because of their immigrant status, it isn't likely that they will be
> able to get a mortgage.
:{)) No kidding. Actually, the majority of lenders for real estate will
not lend to anyone they think has *any* possibility of defaulting, unless
there's a *huge* equity contribution. I did a contract for deed recently
like that - but it was at much higher interest, and with a 1/3 down payment
in cash; they're unlikely to default (and, no, it wasn't immigrants).
>>> What's different? Well, for starters, you have to "push one for
>>> english, two for spanish" almost every time you call a business or
>>
>> If I were in a business which sold to those, I'd do it, too. It's
>> not that you *have* to - and, note that it's *one* for English -
>> it's that the responders to the call find it in their interests to
>> accomodate.
>
> The mere fact that this has become standard says that balkanization
> is well under way. To me, people and companies that sell the systems
> that facilitate this are lower on the ethics scale than most lawyers.
Nah. Just responding to market forces. Any menu-driven response, whether
it's to allow language, or merely info seeking, choice, will be done by the
same hardware and software. You'd have to dis every telecom provider in the
world.
Isn't there already? Seems to me it's enforcement, not creation of another
law...
And compulsion isn't the only issue - there's too many ways to subvert the
system, which will allow illegals to continue. The one who comes up with a
simple, reliable, means of making *that* (inalterable, incorruptible
documentation, easily done on entry) work should be rich very quickly...
> We're unable to get a grasp on illegal immigration in part because
> Federal employment rules do not make distinctions between the
> majority of businesses that do not need to hire for the types of work
> that attracts illegals and those that do. We would not need to
Who/which would that be ?
> significantly increase the overall level of bureaucratic red-tape and
> cost if our policy put a focus on business classes that are
> predisposed to hiring illegals. Plus, I'd be willing to bet the farm
Which would be those which had basic labor, or service industries (major
hotel chains for cleaning personnel, for example)?
> that most of the cost would be short-term, which is much more
> palatable to me than the long term care of workers displaced by
> illegals willing to work for lower wages.
I like short term costs, too :{)) - but see my comments above about wage
displacement.
>
> <snip>
>> L8R, Gator (no doubt you aren't old enough to have that reference,
> either -
>> but that's ok, too!)
> Yeah, I got that one. I'm 43, but my father would be 101 this year
> and my mother would be 83. I know a lot of old sayings and jokes.
> It makes my 30-year-old-wife crazy sometimes because she doesn't
> understand me.
Heh. looks like - with your family history - your daughter might marry
someone your age. My future mother in law did just that - her husband was
the same age as her father (though she wasn't born when he was 43, so
perhaps you're safe); it took a couple of years for him to accept that and
in the end they became great buddies.
L8R, Gator :{))
Skip
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> "Skip Gundlach" <sk...@engr.uga.edu> wrote in message
> news:8RVx9.2290$fn6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > This thread seems to have died a natural death, so I'll respond to the
> more
> > neutral stuff :{))
> >
> > americankernel wrote:
> > > "Skip Gundlach" <sk...@bae.uga.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:Km1w9.4619$Ik6.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Hi, I'd like to add something
that will hopefully provide some insight.
First, due to a combination of factors,
primarily the anti-Sprawl measures which are
being enacted in many major metropolitan areas,
there is little new housing being built which isn't "McMansions",
and these are generally built far enough out in the countryside
so as to be outside of commuting range. There isn't really a housing shortage,
there is a shortage of affordable housing
for people with more than one or two children.
As for illegal aliens not being able to buy a house,
so far as I know, in most places
there is no law restricting purchases
of real property to citizens or Permanent Resident Aliens ("PRA").
In my own area -- suburbs of Washington DC -- recently we had a scandal.
Some Latino real-estate brokers would seek out foreign nationals
who were of questionable status, generally "temporary protected refugee".
They would tell these clients that they had a house for sale,
that the clients were eligible for a variety of Federal loan-guarantees
and other programs for first-time home-buyers, etc.,
and they assisted the clients to apply for these programs and grants
and then used these programs and grants to pay for the real-estate
which was sold to these foreigners for highly inflated prices.
As word of the prices got around,
even legitimate brokers raised asking prices.
Prices rose, but not because the houses were really worth that much more.
But, since those houses sold for that price,
the houses next door had the same asking price.
This is a price-bubble based on fraud being thought of as legitimate.
What are these houses really worth? All I can tell you is,
now is _not_ the time to buy a house.
These foreigners flooded the US when it was a boom economy.
But like the housing-prices bubble,
that economy was based on a sham
and the sham has been exposed,
and while many of the offenders will remain in business
the stockholders will pay the price for the next dozen years.
These foreigners are going to face very rough times
and even now, the mortgage-foreclosure rate is the highest ever
and all that's really happening is that a lot of banks
are increasing their stock in housing.
Another factor to consider is this:
many black first-time home-buyers don't have very good credit ratings.
Many of the foreigners don't have bad credit ratings,
they only got into the country
and during the boom years, had no trouble paying off any loans.
In very many instances, the jobs they held
would have been held by blacks if the foreigners hadn't come.
So, you have a lot of foreigners
who made a lot of money and have great credit,
buying up houses at grossly inflated prices
with help from fraud against Federal home-loan programs.
You have a lot of blacks who couldn't get work
because of all of the foreigners and
have little savings and bad credit.
You have banks owning more homes than ever,
and making lots of money from selling overpriced houses
and foreclosing on them in this economic decline.
What you will see is more homes being available only through banks
and less blacks will have access to them
since the banks really only care about your credit and down-payment.
As the foreigners are forced to depart by the lack of work
and the increasing scrutiny of them as part of Homeland Security,
more and more housing will come on the market
and prices will be driven down,
at least in the non-bank real-estate markets.
That would be the time to buy, not now.
Of course, so many people will have lost their ass
when this housing-price bubble collapses
the economic costs to industry will probably
make the Great Depression look like a picnic
and nobody will have the money to buy lunch
much less invest in home-ownership.
I thought I would also point out
not far from me are some very nice houses.
They cost about half to 3/4-millions.
They're just about as big as a modest apartment building.
They are single family homes, on approximately 1.5 to 2.5 acres.
They have nice lawns. The zoning code is "single-family detached".
There are about 200 of them, probably housing maybe 800 people.
They are right across the highway from major bus-lines, etc.
Each of these houses could very easily be converted
into eight nice luxury 2-bedroom condos
or maybe four very comfortable 3-bedroom-with-loft suites.
All you'd really have to do would be to put
better locks on the bedroom-suite doors
and remodel a nice kitchenette into each subdivided area.
Maybe $20,000 per unit and a change in the zoning laws,
and the 200 units housing maybe 800 people will become
maybe 1600 units housing maybe 8000 - 10,000 people
and those nice lawns will become nice parking lots.
And about 20 years from now,
when they're done building the new interstate
the InterCounty Connector
that is exactly what will happen.
If they had built 1200 single-family detached homes on the same space,
they would have been modest homes for modest families of modest means.
Not easily subdivided and octuply-densified and
turned into instant ghetto at high profit
with a mere change in the zoning laws.
Keep that in mind as you look at the apartments
that are suddenly and inexplicably full of
more foreigners than you thought could fit.
Then go take a look at the local zoning laws
and see what got changed when, by whom, and for how much.
Sorry to ramble on and on,
but I thought you might like to think about this.
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/
Brett
< 150 lines of junk >
| Sorry to ramble on and on,
| but I thought you might like to think about this.
You didn't post anything worth thinking about.
americankernel
news:3DC9A216...@earthops.net...
You've never been in S. Florida. There IS NOWHERE else to build. The
Everglades are to our west, the Atlantic to our east and we reached total
build-out almost five years ago. Thus, we have a shortage of
housing...PERIOD. And it will remain that way until zoning laws and regs
change to allow for greater density housing. Right now, there is a lot of
opposition to it. Heck, my condo has DOUBLED in value in three years, so
has most other property in nice neighborhoods.
So, to make a blanket statement claiming that there isn't a housing shortage
in any community without examining all the the facts is just silly. We
don't even have any "countryside." Every "McMansion" is built on the water
and gets torn down and rebuilt with a smaller yard and an extra floor every
10 to 15 years.
>
> As for illegal aliens not being able to buy a house,
> so far as I know, in most places
> there is no law restricting purchases
> of real property to citizens or Permanent Resident Aliens ("PRA").
No, but if the market won't accept their Mexican ID's, they cannot do
banking. What bank wants to make a loan to someone who they know may be
subject to deportation and forfeiture at any time?
> In my own area -- suburbs of Washington DC -- recently we had a scandal.
> Some Latino real-estate brokers would seek out foreign nationals
> who were of questionable status, generally "temporary protected refugee".
> They would tell these clients that they had a house for sale,
> that the clients were eligible for a variety of Federal loan-guarantees
> and other programs for first-time home-buyers, etc.,
> and they assisted the clients to apply for these programs and grants
> and then used these programs and grants to pay for the real-estate
> which was sold to these foreigners for highly inflated prices.
> As word of the prices got around,
> even legitimate brokers raised asking prices.
There's a difference between a "wetback" and a "protected political
refugee."
I appreciate the intention, but the south Florida real estate market is
geographically limited to a point in which it is unique. The standard
thinking just does not apply.
americankernel
> americankernel wrote:
> > "Skip Gundlach" <sk...@engr.uga.edu> wrote in message
> > news:8RVx9.2290$fn6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
<snip>
> I did note that with some bemusement - however, I was under the impression
> that the location there, at least initially, was somehow an official act,
vs
> a Somali conspiracy (?)...
Let me direct you to one of the earliest articles about their resettlement I
could find. It has always seemed to me that the Somalis did this on their
own and spread the news through their caste-like grapevines:
http://www.portland.com/news/immigration/020428lewiston.shtml
> > There are Chinese enclaves in numerous communities, particularly in
> > the Northwest, that exhibit the same tendencies as the Maine Somalis;
> > I have a subcontractor and good friend who is a Chinese immigrant and
> > he thinks it is appalling that there are factions of his countrymen
> > who refuse to become part of our culture and only want to serve
> > themselves. He's got it right and they've got it wrong.
>
> Well, he's appalled - how come the rest of them aren't?
Because our government no longer places a premium on the time-tested values
of assimilation with each new subculture contributing a bit of its culture
in the formation of a unique American culture. Instead, our government has
become the biggest cheerleader for diversity and multiculturalism that there
is in the US.
> > Chickens, at $.15 or even $.50 more per pound, are a better value than
> > bureaucrats can ever hope to be. Bureaucrats produce things more
> > akin to the stuff that comes out of chickens' butts. How can it
>
> Agreed :{)) - but someone's got to run the infrastructure of the country.
America ran quite well before the industrial age came along and
compartmentalized business and manufacturing practices into what we now call
"bureaucracy." Government simply copied the format...to an absurd extreme.
Eventually, business will move away from compartmentalized structure as new,
more efficient structures evolve in the "technological age." Government
will lag behind, but eventually come to resemble whatever that structure may
be. Until then, we're stuck with outmoded ways of doing things. Ever
wonder why our educational system structures still resemble those that
turned out factory workers?
> > possibly make sense to allow an immigration policy that saves a
> > little in the free market, but adds layers of far less cost effective
> > bureaucracy through our having to widen the social service net to
> > catch the American citizens this policy displaces?
>
> You gotta talk to the Democrats on that one - perhaps the most recent
> election results will have some effect?
We can only hope.
<snip>
>
> > From what I can glean, the hundreds of homes they purchased ended up
> > in the hands of landlords who, in turn, rented them to Mexicans. In
>
> Or whoever came along and was ready, willing and able. Unless there's a
> Mexican owner who somehow wants to do something to give back to his
> countrymen, I can guarantee you that market, not social, forces are at
work.
> If it's Mexicans who are available and wanting to live there, that's
who'll
> rent it.
You're about to go "chicken and egg" on me. Of course it is market forces
at work: wage deflation is as much a market force as it is a social force.
Which came first? Well, somebody had to be the first willing to work under
the table for a greatly reduced wage. I'm betting it wasn't some middle
class black guy who already had the job.
> > addition, the word I got from some friends who are involved in public
> > housing projects is that a lot of the black residents were motivated
> > to sell because they were being displaced at work and looking to get
> > out of mortgages rather than face foreclosure. Thus, the waiting
>
> As above. Do we wring our hands at the steel companies' towns that went
> through that many years ago? Detroit when the foreign companies beat them
> at their own game? Etc.? The market is the market. If they're being
> displaced by those who will do only the most menial jobs that others
won't,
> it's the way the world works. If they're being displaced by more skilled
> workers, perhaps they need to get more skills. If it's a matter of
economy
> (United Airlines pilots gave back huge wage concessions some years ago,
> e.g.) they can take a cut in pay to remain competitive.
>
> I'm among the dotbomb displaced. My son (the one who got me the UGA
address)
> is, sort of, too, but he had a 4-month contract (that ended in July),
which
> is more than I. The last time I was employed was over two years ago. My
> extended unemployment benefits ran out a year ago. Who can I blame for
> that? Who can I rail against as being responsible for my condition? Who
> can I send home in order to free up jobs that will make it possible for me
> to work again?
>
> (Can you tell I'm not buying?) :{))
Yes, I can. And I'd agree with you if the comparison did not involve a
large group of lawbreakers serving as the impetus for the market change.
I'm fine with social Darwinism as long as the playing field is level and
inhabited by people who have a right to be there.
I had a one-year-old, successful computer company in the summer of 2001, so
I know about being displaced by the economics of technology. If it weren't
for my ability to do marketing plans, write, and assist businesses in other
ways, I'd be broke. I'm still looking for a full-time job, but I do fine
with the creatively oriented contracts I've been able to drum up. The tech
side of my business is dead.
I know I'll never have to compete with an illegal Mexican for work, but it
does piss me off to see so many damned jobs for which I am fully qualified
advertised with "bilingual" provisions. It is my understanding that the
majority of those jobs posted with that stipulation here in S. Florida
(outside Miami) are not truly in need of people with bilingual abilities.
I've had headhunters tell me this is factual: It is the damned professional
organizations to which the ignorant HR directors belong that are mucking
things up. I'm betting that the ACLU gives too much guidance to HR
organizations that is passed down and becomes corporate policy to the
detriment of the majority.
<snip>
> >
> > <snip>
> >> L8R, Gator (no doubt you aren't old enough to have that reference,
> > either -
> >> but that's ok, too!)
> > Yeah, I got that one. I'm 43, but my father would be 101 this year
> > and my mother would be 83. I know a lot of old sayings and jokes.
> > It makes my 30-year-old-wife crazy sometimes because she doesn't
> > understand me.
>
> Heh. looks like - with your family history - your daughter might marry
> someone your age. My future mother in law did just that - her husband was
> the same age as her father (though she wasn't born when he was 43, so
> perhaps you're safe); it took a couple of years for him to accept that and
> in the end they became great buddies.
My mating preferences may be genetic. I'm only the 13th generation in
America since 1628. It would seem that, given the time and mathematical
probabilities involved, I should be at least the16th generation.
--
The American Kernel
Skip Gundlach
> "Skip Gundlach" <sk...@engr.uga.edu> wrote in message
> news:9iey9.459$NI6....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> americankernel wrote:
>>> "Skip Gundlach" <sk...@engr.uga.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:8RVx9.2290$fn6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> <snip>
>
>> I did note that with some bemusement - however, I was under the
>> impression that the location there, at least initially, was somehow
>> an official act, vs a Somali conspiracy (?)...
>
> Let me direct you to one of the earliest articles about their
> resettlement I could find. It has always seemed to me that the
> Somalis did this on their own and spread the news through their
> caste-like grapevines:
>
> http://www.portland.com/news/immigration/020428lewiston.shtml
Nice article - very evenly balanced, I thought. I was also amused to find
that most of the new folks came from Atlanta, where I am. However, reading
the article gives much the same argument I propose: It's been this way
forever; they want to work, are castigated for keeping their ways, and,
eventually, they fit in. Lewiston's prior invasion (various sources,
including French Canadian) had their trials - and now they're inviting
(landlords calling state headquarters, for example, due to huge vacancies)
other folks looking for a better way of life. The chief motivation in this
particular migration seems to have been a way of life (better security from
crime) rather than some other particular attraction. Certainly, from a
climatalogical view, they'd rather be in Atlanta. It's COLD in Lewiston!
:{))
But, back to your assertion, yes, they have a well-developed social order
('grapevine') - which spread the word about opportunities or better
conditions. Those of us in the old school would have called it either
networking or the good-ol-boy club.
But, more to the point, the majority of these seem to be migrants, rather
than immigrants. That is, they're already here, legally (well, the vast
majority, anyway), and simply moving to a place where they can have a better
life. Like most population clusters, there are those who are going to
college, employed nearly immediately on arrival, unemployed, illiterate, and
the spectrum of human condition. If their presence in the country is a
problem it's more than just a local issue, because most of the Somalis are
in the US as part of a formal effort on a variety of agencies' parts (it's
not like lashing some boards to innertubes and rowing over, or a couple-day
jaunt in an overcrowded boat). Lewiston's (at least from the article)
dealing with the changes and pressures, it seems...
>>> There are Chinese enclaves in numerous communities, particularly in
>>> the Northwest, that exhibit the same tendencies as the Maine
>>> Somalis; I have a subcontractor and good friend who is a Chinese
>>> immigrant and he thinks it is appalling that there are factions of
>>> his countrymen who refuse to become part of our culture and only
>>> want to serve themselves. He's got it right and they've got it
>>> wrong.
>>
>> Well, he's appalled - how come the rest of them aren't?
>
> Because our government no longer places a premium on the time-tested
> values of assimilation with each new subculture contributing a bit of
> its culture in the formation of a unique American culture. Instead,
> our government has become the biggest cheerleader for diversity and
> multiculturalism that there is in the US.
I'd have to agree. Now that there seems to be some popular sentiment toward
returning to our historical values (saw recently that one of the first is a
sea-change toward encouraging black and other single parent families to
marry, but still have the other supports that were previously only available
to single mothers, e.g.) via Republican dominance, that might swing back
toward the center. Certainly, I don't mind diversity and multiculturalism -
but I don't want it shoved down my throat. Case in point, here in ATL, is
the public radio station doing hours of programming every day in February
related to Black History Month - which, of course, is hot on the heels of
Martin Luther King day. WHY do I have to listen to that (instead of the
classical music that I tune there to hear) - and where's my Hispanic or
Latino (the other huge population concentration in Atlanta) History Month,
or, for that matter, my
English/German/Irish/Scottish/Chinese/Vietnamese/etc.etc. History Month???
</rant> (Sorry about that - it's connected to my abhorrence, long ago in
this thread, if we still have any readers other than us, to hyphenated
Americans, and secondarily, to entitlement programs of many sorts.)
>>> From what I can glean, the hundreds of homes they purchased ended up
>>> in the hands of landlords who, in turn, rented them to Mexicans. In
>>
>> Or whoever came along and was ready, willing and able. Unless
>> there's a Mexican owner who somehow wants to do something to give
>> back to his countrymen, I can guarantee you that market, not social,
>> forces are at work. If it's Mexicans who are available and wanting
>> to live there, that's who'll rent it.
>
> You're about to go "chicken and egg" on me. Of course it is market
Heh. It's that way - sorry. Sometimes the chicken, sometimes the egg...
> forces at work: wage deflation is as much a market force as it is a
> social force. Which came first? Well, somebody had to be the first
> willing to work under the table for a greatly reduced wage. I'm
> betting it wasn't some middle class black guy who already had the job.
Well, no, nor, in the case of the white textile worker here in the south -
but the manufacturers took it overseas, because it couldn't be done as well
or as cheaply here - it wasn't an immigration issue, but a market issue.
Now, as to the under-the-table bit, that's a matter for regulation and
enforcement, not immigration...
>> I'm among the dotbomb displaced. My son (the one who got me the UGA
>> address) is, sort of, too, but he had a 4-month contract (that ended
>> in July), which is more than I. The last time I was employed was
>> over two years ago. My extended unemployment benefits ran out a
>> year ago. Who can I blame for that? Who can I rail against as
>> being responsible for my condition? Who can I send home in order to
>> free up jobs that will make it possible for me to work again?
>>
>> (Can you tell I'm not buying?) :{))
>
> Yes, I can. And I'd agree with you if the comparison did not involve
> a large group of lawbreakers serving as the impetus for the market
> change. I'm fine with social Darwinism as long as the playing field
> is level and inhabited by people who have a right to be there.
Now, we're back to illegal, vs legal, immigration. I've never said bring
all comers. I said bring all *legal* comers - and that only includes ones
who stay legal while they're here.
> I know I'll never have to compete with an illegal Mexican for work,
> but it does piss me off to see so many damned jobs for which I am
> fully qualified advertised with "bilingual" provisions. It is my
> understanding that the majority of those jobs posted with that
> stipulation here in S. Florida (outside Miami) are not truly in need
> of people with bilingual abilities. I've had headhunters tell me this
> is factual: It is the damned professional organizations to which the
> ignorant HR directors belong that are mucking things up. I'm betting
> that the ACLU gives too much guidance to HR organizations that is
> passed down and becomes corporate policy to the detriment of the
> majority.
Well, "need" vs "feature" (as in, does more) is a valid means of screening,
I think. If I have something which can make me more valuable to the company
I work for, and there are more applicants than I need in order to fill my
slots, the company's going to hire the one who can bring the most to the
business. Certainly, in a market that has (you said?) a majority
Spanish-speaking population, having that skill would make you more valuable
than me, because I don't...
>> Heh. looks like - with your family history - your daughter might
>> marry someone your age. My future mother in law did just that - her
>> husband was the same age as her father (though she wasn't born when
>> he was 43, so perhaps you're safe); it took a couple of years for
>> him to accept that and in the end they became great buddies.
>
> My mating preferences may be genetic. I'm only the 13th generation in
> America since 1628. It would seem that, given the time and
> mathematical probabilities involved, I should be at least the16th
> generation.
:{)) Fine by me - my second wife and current fiancée was/is 9 years younger
than me...
L8R
Skip Gundlach
> that will hopefully provide some insight.
>
> First, due to a combination of factors,
> primarily the anti-Sprawl measures which are
> being enacted in many major metropolitan areas,
> there is little new housing being built which isn't "McMansions",
> and these are generally built far enough out in the countryside
> so as to be outside of commuting range. There isn't really a housing
shortage,
> there is a shortage of affordable housing
> for people with more than one or two children.
True in many areas - or for anyone with a household income under 60K
(clip)
> These foreigners flooded the US when it was a boom economy.
> But like the housing-prices bubble,
> that economy was based on a sham
> and the sham has been exposed,
> and while many of the offenders will remain in business
> the stockholders will pay the price for the next dozen years.
> These foreigners are going to face very rough times
> and even now, the mortgage-foreclosure rate is the highest ever
> and all that's really happening is that a lot of banks
> are increasing their stock in housing.
Not because they want to. REO (real estate owned) is an area that no bank
wants to see expand. It *is*, however, a fair mining area for investors,
if, in fact, they don't sell quickly (see below).
(clip again)
>
> You have banks owning more homes than ever,
> and making lots of money from selling overpriced houses
> and foreclosing on them in this economic decline.
Sorry, but banks are not in the real estate business. They *hate* owning
real estate they don't directly occupy - and even at that, many prefer to
rent their space.
First, they didn't sell the overpriced houses. They financed them. Those
being financed - if they didn't pay their mortgage, and weren't able to use
any form of credit protections such as bankruptcy or workouts or
deed-in-lieu - sometimes were foreclosed. The foreclosed property then
became part of the REO of the bank. Banks are *very* anxious to get rid of
REO. That's because it's a non-performing asset (doesn't provide a return
on investment) and the government won't let them count it in their assets.
So, every piece of REO minimizes their ability to get more money to turn
around and make more money.
If you're in the market for a home, call the banks in your area and ask to
speak to the REO officer. They'll be *very* anxious to make you a deal on
any they may have, even to the point, if the market won't support the
foreclosed amount, of taking a loss.
>
> What you will see is more homes being available only through banks
> and less blacks will have access to them
> since the banks really only care about your credit and down-payment.
With good reason. If you have the funds to make a down payment, it shows
conservative financial management. If you have a good credit rating, the
odds are good that you'll pay your bills, including theirs. The reverse, in
both instances, is also true. Been there, done that, made judgment calls to
allow less-than-spiffy cases into a home. *Never* was rewarded with
anything less than a month's lost income, usually much more, as well as a
rehab needed in most cases.
>
> As the foreigners are forced to depart by the lack of work
> and the increasing scrutiny of them as part of Homeland Security,
> more and more housing will come on the market
> and prices will be driven down,
> at least in the non-bank real-estate markets.
Unless every home in the area has been foreclosed, there are no 'bank' real
estate markets.
> That would be the time to buy, not now.
When prices are lower than historically shown, it's the best time to buy -
unless there's some great change going on which will make the area a ghost
town (which in nearly any metropolitan area, is unlikely).
>
> Of course, so many people will have lost their ass
> when this housing-price bubble collapses
> the economic costs to industry will probably
> make the Great Depression look like a picnic
> and nobody will have the money to buy lunch
> much less invest in home-ownership.
That's been threatened for the last 50 years. California was supposed to
fall off the real estate map, because it was impossible that such sales
prices could be supported. So far, with only minor backsliding, which has
recovered shortly (in historic scale), that's not been the case - and each
"ridiculously priced" home is wondered and marveled over for how much a
bargain it was only (name your number) years ago, at any point in time over
that 50 years.
>
> I thought I would also point out
> not far from me are some very nice houses.
> They cost about half to 3/4-millions.
> They're just about as big as a modest apartment building.
> They are single family homes, on approximately 1.5 to 2.5 acres.
> They have nice lawns. The zoning code is "single-family detached".
> There are about 200 of them, probably housing maybe 800 people.
>
> They are right across the highway from major bus-lines, etc.
>
> Each of these houses could very easily be converted
> into eight nice luxury 2-bedroom condos
> or maybe four very comfortable 3-bedroom-with-loft suites.
> All you'd really have to do would be to put
> better locks on the bedroom-suite doors
> and remodel a nice kitchenette into each subdivided area.
What are you smoking? Or, better yet, where do you live? Houses of that
price range and ground aren't likely to be 12,000 square feet, which is
about what you'd need to make 8 internal separate condos from a single
residence. A rooming house, maybe (that's been done with some old Victorian
homes in many areas) - but then you're renting, not buying, and certainly
not a complete home or apartment. I'm not even going to address the fallacy
of conversion of bedrooms vs raw square footage and the associated costs to
do so in order to achieve your proposal.
> Sorry to ramble on and on,
> but I thought you might like to think about this.
I did...
L8R
Skip, trying to fill a 3-4 bedroom on an acre for less than 900
Tiny Human Ferret
I don't believe that I suggested that the banks _wanted_ to be in the
real-estate business.
>
> First, they didn't sell the overpriced houses. They financed them. Those
> being financed - if they didn't pay their mortgage, and weren't able to use
> any form of credit protections such as bankruptcy or workouts or
> deed-in-lieu - sometimes were foreclosed. The foreclosed property then
> became part of the REO of the bank. Banks are *very* anxious to get rid of
> REO. That's because it's a non-performing asset (doesn't provide a return
> on investment) and the government won't let them count it in their assets.
> So, every piece of REO minimizes their ability to get more money to turn
> around and make more money.
Well then, that would be all the more reason to roll the properties back onto
the market, making it someone else's problem? Assuming of course that the
banks can arrange -- possibly with as few questions-asked as possible -- to
unload it onto someone they can convince themselves will actually pay?
>
> If you're in the market for a home, call the banks in your area and ask to
> speak to the REO officer. They'll be *very* anxious to make you a deal on
> any they may have, even to the point, if the market won't support the
> foreclosed amount, of taking a loss.
Riiiight. And what, I would ask, would prevent shady realtors from working a
deal whereby REO properties were lined up -- with a substantial profit margin
for the shady realtors, of course -- with "deserving" immigrants, who were
"deserving" only because the shady realtors helped them fraudulently apply for
assistance programs for which they wouldn't legitimately qualify?
Really, I am not trying to be argumentative, you seem to have some greater
knowledge of this than I may.
It seems to me that if the banks have a motivation to roll the properties over
from their REO column into their "accounts receivable (mortgage pmts)" column,
and if shady realtors have a profit motive, and if immigrants (of questionable
legal status) have a motive of getting more floor space and lesser monthly
housing payments per occupant (more or less), why shouldn't everyone be happy
with this sort of arrangement, even if it's of dubious legality or ethics?
>
> >
> > What you will see is more homes being available only through banks
> > and less blacks will have access to them
> > since the banks really only care about your credit and down-payment.
>
> With good reason. If you have the funds to make a down payment, it shows
> conservative financial management.
Heh, or maybe someone is in receipt of payments for delivering a large amount
of contraband. Remember, the present context for my posting was that of
immigrants of dubious legal status, and unethical real-estate agents.
Which tends to shore up my theory. After all, the reason that California's
real-estate prices have continued to climb so much is the increasing
population. Whatever their origins, people have continued to migrate to
California in droves. It's supply and demand. So, what happens if the increase
in population hits a plateau (and perhaps even begins to decline)? Demand
would be decreasing, and prices would probably follow.
>
> >
> > I thought I would also point out
> > not far from me are some very nice houses.
> > They cost about half to 3/4-millions.
> > They're just about as big as a modest apartment building.
> > They are single family homes, on approximately 1.5 to 2.5 acres.
> > They have nice lawns. The zoning code is "single-family detached".
> > There are about 200 of them, probably housing maybe 800 people.
> >
> > They are right across the highway from major bus-lines, etc.
> >
> > Each of these houses could very easily be converted
> > into eight nice luxury 2-bedroom condos
> > or maybe four very comfortable 3-bedroom-with-loft suites.
> > All you'd really have to do would be to put
> > better locks on the bedroom-suite doors
> > and remodel a nice kitchenette into each subdivided area.
>
> What are you smoking? Or, better yet, where do you live?
Suburbs of Washington DC. The general type is discussed in a _Washington Post_
article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51247-2002Nov13.html
though it's difficult to discern the scale from the online images. The homes
in the article are priced at $1.2-millions. Another example is to be found at
http://www.mitchellbesthomes.com/media/sho-ext1.jpg
> Houses of that
> price range and ground aren't likely to be 12,000 square feet, which is
> about what you'd need to make 8 internal separate condos from a single
> residence.
See above. A probably more applicable example is at
http://www.mitchellbesthomes.com/media/sho-ext4.jpg
> A rooming house, maybe (that's been done with some old Victorian
> homes in many areas) - but then you're renting, not buying, and certainly
> not a complete home or apartment.
You'd be amazed what some people would buy as a condo. You would also be
amazed under what conditions some people will live.
> I'm not even going to address the fallacy
> of conversion of bedrooms vs raw square footage and the associated costs to
> do so in order to achieve your proposal.
A mis-estimation of costs is not fallacious, it's just wrong. So my estimates
are a bit off... but not by much. Supply me with the correct figures, and
let's see how that changes my arguments.
>
> > Sorry to ramble on and on,
> > but I thought you might like to think about this.
>
> I did...
>
> L8R
> Skip, trying to fill a 3-4 bedroom on an acre for less than 900
--
Skip Gundlach
"Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message
news:3DD3989D...@earthops.net...
> Skip Gundlach wrote:
> >
> > > You have banks owning more homes than ever,
> > > and making lots of money from selling overpriced houses
> > > and foreclosing on them in this economic decline.
> >
> > Sorry, but banks are not in the real estate business. They *hate*
owning
> > real estate they don't directly occupy - and even at that, many prefer
to
> > rent their space.
>
> I don't believe that I suggested that the banks _wanted_ to be in the
> real-estate business.
They aren't, really - the normal way for banks to relieve themselves of
unwanted real estate is to list it with a broker at whatever the market will
support as a sales price, including that it may need some repair or rehab
(more on market value below), and including that they may take a loss on it.
Foreclosures happen by auction; the only reason a bank owns it is that no
one would bid as much as the amount owed, which is their opening bid. If
it's a great bargain at the amount owed, usually there's some foreclosure
specialist investor who will buy it, and the bank is out of the picture.
That they *don't* illustrates the over-valued amount owed, which is why the
bank may wind up taking a loss on it when it does eventually sell.
>
> >
> > First, they didn't sell the overpriced houses. They financed them.
Those
> > being financed - if they didn't pay their mortgage, and weren't able to
use
> > any form of credit protections such as bankruptcy or workouts or
> > deed-in-lieu - sometimes were foreclosed. The foreclosed property then
> > became part of the REO of the bank. Banks are *very* anxious to get rid
of
> > REO. That's because it's a non-performing asset (doesn't provide a
return
> > on investment) and the government won't let them count it in their
assets.
> > So, every piece of REO minimizes their ability to get more money to turn
> > around and make more money.
>
> Well then, that would be all the more reason to roll the properties back
onto
> the market, making it someone else's problem? Assuming of course that the
> banks can arrange -- possibly with as few questions-asked as possible --
to
> unload it onto someone they can convince themselves will actually pay?
That's the case in any (not just bank REO) sale. Actually, unless the buyer
is unusually qualified, or already a customer of the bank, the bank usually
won't finance their REO when it's sold.
>
> >
> > If you're in the market for a home, call the banks in your area and ask
to
> > speak to the REO officer. They'll be *very* anxious to make you a deal
on
> > any they may have, even to the point, if the market won't support the
> > foreclosed amount, of taking a loss.
>
> Riiiight. And what, I would ask, would prevent shady realtors from working
a
> deal whereby REO properties were lined up -- with a substantial profit
margin
> for the shady realtors, of course -- with "deserving" immigrants, who were
> "deserving" only because the shady realtors helped them fraudulently apply
for
> assistance programs for which they wouldn't legitimately qualify?
You're confusing realtors with investors. Some realtors may be investors -
but not (usually, any way) in the name of the company/realtor (by the way,
Realtor is a designation, not a class of people, and is earned rather than
assumed - but normally one considers anyone who sells real estate as a
realtor with a small r, but actually they are only real estate sales
people). The bank isn't going to do partnerships with anyone on their REO.
True, if an investor can buy an REO at a bargain price, and do whatever's
needed to make it attractive, they can sell it to anyone - not just
immigrants. Fraud in mortgage applications occurs every day. That's a
problem for regulators and enforcers, not the marketplace. The same applies
to fraud in 'entitlement' programs, which I'm not much in favor of,
fraudulent or not...
> Really, I am not trying to be argumentative, you seem to have some greater
> knowledge of this than I may.
Heh. No problem. There's lots of areas I don't know much about, either
:{))
>
> It seems to me that if the banks have a motivation to roll the properties
over
> from their REO column into their "accounts receivable (mortgage pmts)"
column,
> and if shady realtors have a profit motive, and if immigrants (of
questionable
> legal status) have a motive of getting more floor space and lesser monthly
> housing payments per occupant (more or less), why shouldn't everyone be
happy
> with this sort of arrangement, even if it's of dubious legality or ethics?
Not saying they aren't - but as above, the banks normally won't sell REO on
a financed basis. They want it out of their portfolio altogether. Then,
too, when you think about it, most real estate sales are 'cash' - that is,
the seller doesn't carry paper to make it happen. So, the fact of the bank
not being willing to finance their REO isn't of much import in the end. If
the property's worth it, and the buyer is credit worthy, lots of
institutions will make them the loan.
> > > What you will see is more homes being available only through banks
> > > and less blacks will have access to them
> > > since the banks really only care about your credit and down-payment.
> >
> > With good reason. If you have the funds to make a down payment, it
shows
> > conservative financial management.
>
> Heh, or maybe someone is in receipt of payments for delivering a large
amount
> of contraband. Remember, the present context for my posting was that of
> immigrants of dubious legal status, and unethical real-estate agents.
Heh. If they are like that, most likely they can buy the illustrated houses
below on a cash basis...
> > > Of course, so many people will have lost their ass
> > > when this housing-price bubble collapses
> > > the economic costs to industry will probably
> > > make the Great Depression look like a picnic
> > > and nobody will have the money to buy lunch
> > > much less invest in home-ownership.
> >
> > That's been threatened for the last 50 years. California was supposed
to
> > fall off the real estate map, because it was impossible that such sales
> > prices could be supported. So far, with only minor backsliding, which
has
> > recovered shortly (in historic scale), that's not been the case - and
each
> > "ridiculously priced" home is wondered and marveled over for how much a
> > bargain it was only (name your number) years ago, at any point in time
over
> > that 50 years.
>
> Which tends to shore up my theory. After all, the reason that California's
> real-estate prices have continued to climb so much is the increasing
> population. Whatever their origins, people have continued to migrate to
> California in droves. It's supply and demand. So, what happens if the
increase
> in population hits a plateau (and perhaps even begins to decline)? Demand
> would be decreasing, and prices would probably follow.
Except that if you look into the California market, many areas are losing
population (for many reasons, most of which have to do with - in one way or
another - quality of life). In general, prices have continued to rise. But
to your market, I don't see the area likely to decrease in population - so,
you are likely to have continuing rise in prices. FWIW, I thought I'd caught
that you were in the DC area. Part of what was surprising to me about the
pricing you (originally) quoted was my knowledge of how expensive real
estate in the DC metro area is...
> > > I thought I would also point out
> > > not far from me are some very nice houses.
> > > They cost about half to 3/4-millions.
This is what got me. Turns out that they actually are more in the 1.2
minimum, and up, price range.
> > > They're just about as big as a modest apartment building.
Size is comparable to well-to-do neighborhoods in the Atlanta suburbs...
> > > They are single family homes, on approximately 1.5 to 2.5 acres.
Except that the article you cite speaks to ever decreasing lot sizes. From
the article and the pictures, I'd expect that most, if not all, were under
an acre. Typical in this area is as little as 1/4 acre. *I* wouldn't want
to live in that density, particularly if I'm spending that kind of money on
my housing.
> > > Each of these houses could very easily be converted
> > > into eight nice luxury 2-bedroom condos
> > > or maybe four very comfortable 3-bedroom-with-loft suites.
> > > All you'd really have to do would be to put
> > > better locks on the bedroom-suite doors
> > > and remodel a nice kitchenette into each subdivided area.
> >
> > What are you smoking? Or, better yet, where do you live?
>
> Suburbs of Washington DC. The general type is discussed in a _Washington
Post_
> article at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51247-2002Nov13.html
> though it's difficult to discern the scale from the online images. The
homes
> in the article are priced at $1.2-millions. Another example is to be found
at
> http://www.mitchellbesthomes.com/media/sho-ext1.jpg
>
> > Houses of that
> > price range and ground aren't likely to be 12,000 square feet, which is
> > about what you'd need to make 8 internal separate condos from a single
> > residence.
>
> See above. A probably more applicable example is at
> http://www.mitchellbesthomes.com/media/sho-ext4.jpg
Looked at both of the examples, and read the article. They support my
position. Unless (since there was no text with them) there's much more
depth than front, I'd expect those to be 4-6kSF at most. Very sizeable
houses by most folks' standards, but not big enough to do what you
propose...
>
> > A rooming house, maybe (that's been done with some old Victorian
> > homes in many areas) - but then you're renting, not buying, and
certainly
> > not a complete home or apartment.
>
> You'd be amazed what some people would buy as a condo. You would also be
> amazed under what conditions some people will live.
Heh. No, I wouldn't - being a real estate investor has allowed me to see
stuff most folks would't believe. Since I limit myself to single family
housing, and not more than 1.5 people per bedroom - but the norm is less
than that - I don't have the kind of situation you infer. But, you're
right - there are instances of huge crowding (see my Italian jokes in the
other side of this thread) to make it work.
>
> > I'm not even going to address the fallacy
> > of conversion of bedrooms vs raw square footage and the associated costs
to
> > do so in order to achieve your proposal.
>
> A mis-estimation of costs is not fallacious, it's just wrong. So my
estimates
> are a bit off... but not by much. Supply me with the correct figures, and
> let's see how that changes my arguments.
The problem with that is that it can't be done on a practical level. First,
the value of the real estate you illustrate is too high to support the use
you have in mind. Secondly, to try to make a home with space already
allocated into something else would involve virtual demolition. Just adding
a bathroom and a kitchen isn't the only issue - you have to plumb and wire
it, which will involve demolition to a certain degree to get to being
allowed (physically) to run those. Then, you've got all the space which
isn't suited to change (a large living room, for example, isn't likely to be
enough to convert to a living space, never mind the challenges present in
trying to make a bedroom with a walk-in closet and walk-in shower
(illustration of the size of the bathroom) into an apartment. Effectively,
you'd have to destroy the bathroom to do something else with it, e.g.
However, if you have a shell you can (and don't mind doing that) gut, such
as the older victorian homes that (also, like these new ones probably do)
have 10-12 foot ceilings, so long as you put up the new partitions first (to
allow support of each level) before tearing out the old ones, you can do it.
However, rehab is worse than building, straight out, because there's the
demolition costs involved. So, if you're going to build to, lets say, an
$80/SF cost (likely very low in your area), you've also got to allow about
20 or more for demo/hauloff. So, to build a 1,000SF space, you're talking
about 100K. Since it's one of many, you have to be able to access it from
inside, and also have stairs for the separate levels. That means you've got
common areas which don't count in the saleable SF - usually about 20%. Then
you've got the original acqiusition costs, which, in the examples shown, are
upwards of a million.
So, assuming the best (1.2m) acquistion cost, and that you *could* find the
10000SF minimum at that price, and made 8 condos, you'd have a total of 2.0m
(100k per unit building/change cost) in it - which is before the zoning and
other costs, not to mention the change in the grounds to support, say, 16
cars. Conservatively another 100k. Round up cuz it's always short, and
you're at about 300k per 2-bedroom, moderate quality, construction unit.
Will your area support those costs (and land use changes)? If so, line up
some investors and go for it...
Nature abhors a vacuum - and so does the market. The folks in the article
that you referenced aren't illegal immigrants - they're wealthy (or at least
very prosperous) something-else, with mortgage and tax and insurance costs
in the 5-figures monthly. If making multi-unit condos was effective in the
market in that area, it's much cheaper to build them from the ground up. If
it were a viable business proposition, it likely would be happening (the
market abhors a vacuum) already. OTOH, perhaps you could be the one to make
it happen. Find a large tract of land, go to the local commissioners and
get it zoned multi-family, buy it, and build away :{))
This is a long way from illegal immigration; it ain't gonna happen to their
benefit even if it were feasible on other market values...
L8R
Skip (if you'd like to see what under 900 a month will get you in my market,
cruise on over to www.justpickone.com/rental)