Are immigration "fears" racist, as opposed to ecenomic in nature?
allen...@my-deja.com
apprehensions towards immigration are racist in nature. I do not find
any real economic justification to close our doors to immigration. I
feel that the whole "idea" of America begins with our treatment &
assimilation of immigrants. I will admit while things are not perfect
racially in the U.S., we are much better off than the Kosovos & East
Timors of the world. I believe that our cultural diversity, and our
unity as Americans makes us superior to the rest of the screaming idiot
bigots on this planet. Anyone care to challenge these views?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
David Gleason
Tavita Manumaleuna <sam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990909235449...@ng-fy1.aol.com...
> <<We have treated and assimilated our immigrants quite well, thank you.
The
> record on that is clear.>>
>
> I challenge any faggot liberal to name me any other country that treates
its
> immigrants as well as the USA.
Australia.
Canada.
What did I win?
JBaker9217
>In my personal opinion, I believe that most, if not all
>apprehensions towards immigration are racist in nature.
If you really believe that, then you must be some kind of nut.
Good people from all walks of life want immigration reduced for a variety of
reasons. Try overpopulation, urban sprawl, congestion and destruction of our
environment.
And if wanting to protect our culture, our heritage and our values from a
never-ending onslaught of people makes us racist, then too bad.
>I
>feel that the whole "idea" of America begins with our treatment &
>assimilation of immigrants.
We have treated and assimilated our immigrants quite well, thank you. The
record on that is clear.
>I believe that our cultural diversity, and our
>unity as Americans makes us superior to the rest of the screaming idiot
>bigots on this planet.
Contrary to what the modern day professional racists say - supporting
reductions in immigration does not make someone a bigot. That's a fantasy
dreamed up in an attempt to frighten Americans into silence over this
immigration invasion. It won't work. There will be a debate. And immigration
will be reduced. The bile dripping from the lips of the National Council of La
Raza notwithstanding.
Tavita Manumaleuna
<<I believe that most, if not all
apprehensions towards immigration are racist in nature>>
really??? I happen to support Asian and Polynesian, as well as European,
immigration. But I am vehemently oppossed to Latin American immigration because
those motherfuckers hate the USA with a passion.
<<I do not find any real economic justification to close our doors to
immigration.>>
Not even the tens of billions of dollars that Latin Americans smuggle out of
the USA annually???
sau kisi la'u muli
Tavita Manumaleuna
record on that is clear.>>
I challenge any faggot liberal to name me any other country that treates its
immigrants as well as the USA.
rrcrumb
American nations.
~~~~~ ~~~~~
Illegal immigration exposed at:
http://americanpatrol.com
BEST CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE:
http://www.freerepublic.com
http://www.dallasnews.com/editorial/columnists/0827edit1estrad.htm
By Richard Estrada
08/27/99
"The argument that a colonia is a colony has its limits, to be sure.
But consider this: One of the most important elements of Mexican
foreign policy is to maximize the emigration of Mexican citizens
to the United States bylobbying on U.S. soil for high levels of
legal immigration and fighting or attenuating U.S. laws and strategies
designed to challenge illegal immigration. Mexican officials concerned
about a labor surplus in their country even have spoken openly about
creating an Israeli-type lobby for Mexico among people of Mexican
origin in the United States.
The liberal penchant for ignoring such infringements on national
sovereignty is well known. But even libertarian conservatives
in the business community are indifferent to the matter. They tend
to be fearful of any rhetoric or action that might impede the mass
influx of inexpensive foreign labor."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Gleason <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote in message
news:KK0C3.501$zk7....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
>
> Tavita Manumaleuna <sam...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19990909235449...@ng-fy1.aol.com...
Thomas Mohr
> Not even the tens of billions of dollars that Latin Americans smuggle out of
> the USA annually???
The usual question after Samoa's lies: Any *reliable* source to support
this crap ?
Thomas Mohr
> allen says:
> <<I believe that most, if not all
> apprehensions towards immigration are racist in nature>>
>
> really??? I happen to support Asian and Polynesian, as well as European,
> immigration. But I am vehemently oppossed to Latin American immigration because
> those motherfuckers hate the USA with a passion.
And exctly this makes you a racist. The joke is, quite a lot of Europeans think
that Americans come from a historyless and cultureless country, however, they are
too polite to openly say it. Same is true for Aisans and Polynesians.
JBaker9217
>its
>> immigrants as well as the USA.
>
>From: "David Gleason"
>Australia.
>
>Canada.
>
>What did I win?
>
Canada accepts about 225,000 immigrants per year and Australia less than
100,000. To compare that with America's over one million per year is
ludicrous.
(Also worth noting are the immigration reform movements in both Canada and
Australia which seek to prevent an American style immigration disaster from
happening there)
You know, I think it would be easier to find a male intern in the White House
than it would be for any of you America haters to say one goddamned good thing
about your country.
So in answer to your question - no you don't win anything. In fact, if you had
been a student with me in Mrs. Sherman's third grade class, you would now be
sitting in the corner with a big pointy cap on your head.
David Gleason
Please read a bit more carefully before flaming.
Both Canada and Australia treat their immigrants better than the US does.
However, jumping into your argument, it's important to note that 225
thousand immigrants to Canada or 100 thousand to Australia is a far bigger
percentage of the total population than 1 million is to the USA.
And, as a point of reference, in every decade of our nation's history from
founding to 1950 there was a higher percentage of foreign born in the USA
than there are today. That "immigration disaster" you speak of allowed the
Italians, Germans, Poles, Irish and many others in in very significant
percentages.
Having pride in a country does not mean blindly accepting everything,a nd it
certainly does not mean blindly accepting your postings as fact.
As to third grade... the one in the corner should be you. "treat" and "take"
are very different words, even to a 10 year old.
JBaker9217 <jbake...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990910142015...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
JBaker9217
>The question had the word "treats" and not the word "takes."\
Hunh?
>Both Canada and Australia treat their immigrants better than the US does.
Assuming this statement is true, (a big leap) why not advise all your friends
south of the border to immigrate to either one of those two countries.
>However, jumping into your argument, it's important to note that 225
>thousand immigrants to Canada or 100 thousand to Australia is a far bigger
>percentage of the total population than 1 million is to the USA.
Which is exactly why the immigration reform movement is growing.
>That "immigration disaster" you speak of allowed the
>Italians, Germans, Poles, Irish and many others in in very significant
>percentages.
The immigration disaster I am referring to is the one occurring right now.
However, jumping into your argument, if the immigration of Italians, Germans,
Poles, Irish and many others has been good for America in the past, then it
ought to be good today. But very few of the people you mention can get in
today. United States immigration policy is discriminatory aginst anyone who is
not Latino or Asian. Funny how those who prattle on about diversity support a
policy which has all of our immigrants coming from the same place.
>As to third grade... the one in the corner should be you. "treat" and "take"
>are very different words, even to a 10 year old.
Still don't know what you're talking about here.
David Gleason
> >From: "David Gleason"
>
> >The question had the word "treats" and not the word "takes."\
>
> Hunh?
Oh, what the heck, I'll try again.
Here is your the original reply................
==========================
>Canada accepts about 225,000 immigrants per year and Australia less than
>100,000. To compare that with America's over one million per year is
>ludicrous.
>(Also worth noting are the immigration reform movements in both Canada and
>Australia which seek to prevent an American style immigration disaster from
>happening there)
===========================
I had responded to Mamaleuna's comment that (paraphrase) "no country treats
immmigrants better than the US." by indicating that there are several that
do, in fact, treat, as a nation, thier immigrants better than we do.
You replied by taling about how many immigrants we take, or accept, rather
th;an addressing the nature of treatment those immigrants that are let in
are afforded.
"Take" means to accept. In the case of immmigrants, it reflects the number
of immigrants admitted.
"Treat" indicates in what fashion the immigrants, once in a country, are
dealt with by the populace and the government and the institutions of the
new home country.
>
> >Both Canada and Australia treat their immigrants better than the US does.
>
> Assuming this statement is true, (a big leap) why not advise all your
friends
> south of the border to immigrate to either one of those two countries.
>
Why should I? Most of my friends in Latin America are much better off where
they are, and wouldn't think of coming here to receive the type of second
class treatment that your attitudes reflect.
>
> >However, jumping into your argument, it's important to note that 225
> >thousand immigrants to Canada or 100 thousand to Australia is a far
bigger
> >percentage of the total population than 1 million is to the USA.
>
> Which is exactly why the immigration reform movement is growing.
Legal reform by the will of the people is perfectly commendable. As long as
it is in accordance with each country's legal system. Attempts like Prop 187
don't fit this conformity with the legal system.
>
> >That "immigration disaster" you speak of allowed the
> >Italians, Germans, Poles, Irish and many others in in very significant
> >percentages.
>
> The immigration disaster I am referring to is the one occurring right now.
And how is one different from another? The percentage of Irish coming here
in the 1846-1850 period far exceeded, in percentage, the Hispanic
immigration of today. And the Iris were treated as a separate race, signs of
"no Irish allowed" and all the other trappings of bigotry, prevailed. As I
said, what is so different?
>
> However, jumping into your argument, if the immigration of Italians,
Germans,
> Poles, Irish and many others has been good for America in the past, then
it
> ought to be good today. But very few of the people you mention can get in
> today. United States immigration policy is discriminatory aginst anyone
who is
> not Latino or Asian. Funny how those who prattle on about diversity
support a
> policy which has all of our immigrants coming from the same place.
Maybe because large immigrant waves are generally caused by poverty, famine
and political unreast or turmoil. Italy, Poland, Ireland, etc. had
conditions in the 1800's that promoted immigration. Europeans now live
better, more safely and in a better educated environment than we do in the
US. Why would they want to come here unless they are form Bosnia, the
former Russian Republics or from Mother Russia itself/herself?
>
> >As to third grade... the one in the corner should be you. "treat" and
"take"
> >are very different words, even to a 10 year old.
>
> Still don't know what you're talking about here.
I explained it a second time. Capiche?
rrcrumb
JBaker9217 <jbake...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990910163842...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
> >From: "David Gleason"
>
> >The question had the word "treats" and not the word "takes."\
>
> Hunh?
>
> >Both Canada and Australia treat their immigrants better than the US does.
>
> Assuming this statement is true, (a big leap) why not advise all your
friends
> south of the border to immigrate to either one of those two countries.
>
>
> >However, jumping into your argument, it's important to note that 225
> >thousand immigrants to Canada or 100 thousand to Australia is a far
bigger
> >percentage of the total population than 1 million is to the USA.
>
> Which is exactly why the immigration reform movement is growing.
>
> >That "immigration disaster" you speak of allowed the
> >Italians, Germans, Poles, Irish and many others in in very significant
> >percentages.
>
> The immigration disaster I am referring to is the one occurring right now.
>
> However, jumping into your argument, if the immigration of Italians,
Germans,
> Poles, Irish and many others has been good for America in the past, then
it
> ought to be good today. But very few of the people you mention can get in
> today. United States immigration policy is discriminatory aginst anyone
who is
> not Latino or Asian. Funny how those who prattle on about diversity
support a
> policy which has all of our immigrants coming from the same place.
>
JBaker9217
>I had responded to Mamaleuna's comment that (paraphrase) "no country treats
>immmigrants better than the US." by indicating that there are several that
>do, in fact, treat, as a nation, thier immigrants better than we do.
>You replied by taling about how many immigrants we take, or accept, rather
>th;an addressing the nature of treatment those immigrants that are let in
>are afforded.
After reading your explanation, it becomes clear that it was you who missed the
point.
My response which focused on the number of immigrants admitted rather than the
way they are treated was deliberate. That is because I believe there is a
direct relationship between the number admitted and the reception they receive
after arriving.
It stands to reason that 100,000 immigrants are going to be welcomed,
assimilated and generally treated better than say, one million. Too many are
coming, they are coming too fast and they are all coming from the same place.
If there are problems, this is why.
>Why should I? Most of my friends in Latin America are much better off where
>they are, and wouldn't think of coming here to receive the type of second
>class treatment that your attitudes reflect.
This is just plain silly.
Immigration reform by its very definition affects those who have yet to arrive.
It has nothing to do with "second class treatment" of those who are already
here.
Questioning the motives of someone with whom you disagree is a favorite tactic
of the America haters. It's a ploy to frighten people into silence by calling
them evil names. If that doesn't work, you question their humanity. You ought
to be better than that.
>Legal reform by the will of the people is perfectly commendable.
Great.
The American people and only the American people should determine what our
nation's immigration policy should be. I hope you'll respect their wishes,
even when they conflict with your own. (As they most surely will)
>And how is one different from another? The percentage of Irish coming here
>in the 1846-1850 period far exceeded, in percentage, the Hispanic
>immigration of today. And the Iris
>were treated as a separate race, signs of
>"no Irish allowed" and all the other trappings of bigotry, prevailed. As I
>said, what is so different?
Funny, I haven't seen many "No Hispanics" signs lately.
In any case, the people have the right to determine who comes, where they come
from and how often they come. You might not like it, but that's the way it is.
>Europeans now live
>better, more safely and in a better educated environment than we do in the
>US. Why would they want to come here unless they are form Bosnia, the
>former Russian Republics or from Mother Russia itself/herself?
Why they might want to come is not the issue. The fact that immigration policy
is stacked against them is.
I can't get over how you people squawk and carry on when some group you favor
is discriminated against. Yet everyone in the world who is not Latino or Asian
is the victim of a discriminatory U.S. immigration policy and there isn't a
peep out of any of you.
Why do you support an immigration policy which brings two-thirds of all our
immigrants from the same two places??
David Gleason
> >From: "David Gleason"
>
> >I had responded to Mamaleuna's comment that (paraphrase) "no country
treats
> >immmigrants better than the US." by indicating that there are several
that
> >do, in fact, treat, as a nation, thier immigrants better than we do.
>
> >You replied by taling about how many immigrants we take, or accept,
rather
> >th;an addressing the nature of treatment those immigrants that are let
in
> >are afforded.
>
> After reading your explanation, it becomes clear that it was you who
missed the
> point.
The pint? The friggin point? You were the one who responded to my post to
Mamaleuna with a totally incorrect interpretation.
I'll simplify even more.
Mamaleuna wanted anyone to name a country where immigrants are treated
better than they USA.
I responded by naming two.
You came in with a discussion of quotas, numbers and such.
The discussion was about "treatment" and not about "how many."
Then, you said to tell "my friends in Latin America to go to Canada and
Australia...
And I said,
> >Why should I? Most of my friends in Latin America are much better off
where
> >they are, and wouldn't think of coming here to receive the type of second
> >class treatment that your attitudes reflect.
>
> This is just plain silly.
> Immigration reform by its very definition affects those who have yet to
arrive.
> It has nothing to do with "second class treatment" of those who are
already
> here.
My response, which you don't seem to understand, was meant to indicate that
the folks I know and associate with are very content, happy and well
employed where they are. Why would they want to come to the USA?
> Questioning the motives of someone with whom you disagree is a favorite
tactic
> of the America haters. It's a ploy to frighten people into silence by
calling
> them evil names. If that doesn't work, you question their humanity. You
ought
> to be better than that.
And who, pray tell, did this? Oh, I see. By saying that there is substantial
discrimination against certain ethnic groups and racial minorities, I have
tarnished the "America right or wrong" image you seem to be polishing the
brass on. So sorry. But no nation is perfect. In fact, the US was founded on
the precept that citizens have the right and even the obligation to keep the
ship of state on the right course.
>
> >Legal reform by the will of the people is perfectly commendable.
>
> Great.
> The American people and only the American people should determine what our
> nation's immigration policy should be. I hope you'll respect their
wishes,
> even when they conflict with your own. (As they most surely will)
Since I'll be voting too, my opinion will count as much as yours. And you
have no idea where I stand on immigration, obviously, or you would not imply
that I'm for an open gate policy. Which I'm not.
> >And how is one different from another? The percentage of Irish coming
here
> >in the 1846-1850 period far exceeded, in percentage, the Hispanic
> >immigration of today. And the Iris
> >were treated as a separate race, signs of
> >"no Irish allowed" and all the other trappings of bigotry, prevailed. As
I
> >said, what is so different?
>
> Funny, I haven't seen many "No Hispanics" signs lately.
> In any case, the people have the right to determine who comes, where they
come
> from and how often they come. You might not like it, but that's the way
it is.
Did I say that? You really have to take a reading comprehension course. I
used the Irish as an example of a group that is now fully assimilated and
accepted and is a valuable and rich contributor to American society (yeah,
I'm part Irish...) yet which was hugely and magnificently discriminated
against at the time that the Emerald Isle virtually emptied its rural poor
into America. The similarities are just too strong to put aside this
comparison.
>
>
> >Europeans now live
> >better, more safely and in a better educated environment than we do in
the
> >US. Why would they want to come here unless they are form Bosnia, the
> >former Russian Republics or from Mother Russia itself/herself?
>
> Why they might want to come is not the issue. The fact that immigration
policy
> is stacked against them is.
Again, you are missing the point. Immigration quotas are reassessed over
time and adjusted for demand and desirability. The fact that European quotas
have been reduced has mostly to do with the lack of interest in migrating
form most of Europe to the USA.
> I can't get over how you people squawk and carry on when some group you
favor
> is discriminated against.
I was waiting for the "you people" phrase.
Oh, boy, will you get me a julep?
"You People" is a racist, bigoted phrase. It does not deserve an answer or,
perhaps, even a retort.
>Yet everyone in the world who is not Latino or Asian
> is the victim of a discriminatory U.S. immigration policy and there isn't
a
> peep out of any of you.
If you find the policies discriminatory against, let's say, Sudanese or
Liberians or whatever, then start a grassroots movement in their defense or
to their benefit. That is what the American system is about.
> Why do you support an immigration policy which brings two-thirds of all
our
> immigrants from the same two places??
And which places would those be? I guess you mean the border and neighbor
nation of Mexico as one, but I can't even guess which you mean as the second
of the two. I'm waiting, like Ghandi, for enlightenment.
David Gleason
Gringo <Gri...@Chinga.com> wrote in message
news:rtjci5...@news.supernews.com...
> The "idea" of America is based on our Constitutional Democracy. Many new
> immigrants have no experience with democratic government.
>
And Ireland in 1846 was democratic? Or "Italy" later in that century? Or
Germany (really, like Italy, the collection of quasi-feudal fiefdoms that
made up Germany 100 years ago) or England? How about Poland? Czechoslovakia?
Armenia? Greece? And all the other monarchies and non-democratic places most
Americans can trace their heritage to.
At least the folks arriving today have seen a ballot box and cast a vote,
even if the democracy they came form is, to say the least, defective.
David Gleason
> Kurdt says:
> <<Some people in this group adamantly state that they are not racists,
while
> they simultaneously propose killing people who speak Spanish.>>
>
> I have no problem with you saying I hate Latin Americans of Spansih
ancesty,
> because I do. But to call me a racist, which implies I hate ALL non-white
> ethnicities, would be totally false.
My cat is capable of more advanced logical thinking than that.
Since "Hispanic" is not a race, I guess you are a bigot by default.
David Gleason
Gringo <Gri...@Chinga.com> wrote in message
> In article <tViC3.539$9q1....@typhoon01.swbell.net>, "David Gleason"
much
> experience with democracy do immigrants from Nicaragua, Guatamala, El
Salvador
> or Mexico have with democracy? How about West African immigrants?
Considering that there is not a significant number of West Africans inthe
US, let's put that aside for a moment.
Mexico has been a functioning democracy since before 1920. Whether it runs
as nicely as the US is not the issue. The people do understand voting, have
had a constitution with certain civil rights, etc. Nicaragua kicked out
Somoza, and was socialist for about a decade. The nation is democratic now,
as are El Salvador and Guatemala.
In the case of the Central American republics, it is fairly significant to
note that the non-democratic regimes, with the exception of Daniel Ortega,
were all supported and, in many cases, installed, by the US or its agents.
It is a bit on the amusing side to call the democracy issue in the
hemisphere into question when the USA has intervened to protect its supposed
interests in every nation in Central America several times... at least.
Oh, and as to Mexico, the current system is the direct result of the
overthrow of the Porfirio Diaz regime prior to 1910. That regime was
supported by the US government and financed by US and other foreign
corporations which owned the lion's share of the railroads and industry and
natural resources of Mexico. Again, cause and effect. We are simply reaping
now what we sowed politically nearly a century ago.
David Gleason
> Davo says:
> <<Attempts like Prop 187 don't fit this conformity with the legal
system.>>
>
It was not constitutional, but other than that it was just wonderful.
Kurdt
allen...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In my personal opinion, I believe that most, if not all
> apprehensions towards immigration are racist in nature.
If you'd like more proof, look no farther than this newsgroup. Some
people in this group adamantly state that they are not racists, while
they simultaneously propose killing people who speak Spanish.
>I do not find
> any real economic justification to close our doors to immigration.
That's because there is no economic justification for ending
immigration. Countries that encourage freedom (free trade, free
movement, low taxes etc.) enjoy economic prosperity.
> I
> feel that the whole "idea" of America begins with our treatment &
> assimilation of immigrants.
Exactly. America was built by immigrants. To argue otherwise is
ridiculous.
>I will admit while things are not perfect
> racially in the U.S., we are much better off than the Kosovos & East
> Timors of the world.
After 2 centuries of importing poor people with vastly different
cultures and languages, we have yet to see the "balkanization" of
America. The racial separatists in this newsgroup still enjoy their
fantasies however...
>I believe that our cultural diversity, and our
> unity as Americans makes us superior to the rest of the screaming idiot
> bigots on this planet.
You mean people can come from different cultures, yet still share a
common identity? Wow, what a novel concept!
-Kurdt
Tavita Manumaleuna
<<Some people in this group adamantly state that they are not racists, while
they simultaneously propose killing people who speak Spanish.>>
I have no problem with you saying I hate Latin Americans of Spansih ancesty,
because I do. But to call me a racist, which implies I hate ALL non-white
ethnicities, would be totally false.
JBaker9217
>The discussion was about "treatment" and not about "how many."
The two are inseparable.
>My response, which you don't seem to understand, was meant to indicate that
>the folks I know and associate with are very content, happy and well
>employed where they are. Why would they want to come to the USA?
I'm happy that the folks you know and associate with are content where they
are. But there are a few million who aren't. Those are the ones I'm
concerned about.
>By saying that there is substantial
>discrimination against certain ethnic groups and racial minorities, I have
>tarnished the "America right or wrong" image you seem to be polishing the
>brass on.
Oh for Christ's sake, there's been discrimination against one group or another
since the beginning of time. Everyone (including yourself) discriminates at
some point. For God's sake the minorities discriminate against each other.
How long are you going to beat that dead horse? As far as immigration is
concerned, the only people being discriminated against are those who are not
ASIAN or LATINO. How about a press release on that?
>And you
>have no idea where I stand on immigration, obviously, or you would not imply
>that I'm for an open gate policy. Which I'm not.
If you support current immigration policy - and I haven't heard you condemn it
- then you support the closest thing America has ever had to an "open gate"
policy.
>I
>used the Irish as an example of a group that is now fully assimilated and
>accepted and is a valuable and rich contributor to American society
I agree completely. The Irish assimilated to America, they didn't expect us to
assimilate to them.
> The fact that European quotas
>have been reduced has mostly to do with the lack of interest in migrating
>form most of Europe to the USA.
Horseshit.
Of all the lies floating around in this newsgroup, this has got to be the
biggest.
The European quotas were reduced in 1965 so those pigs Ted and Robert Kennedy
and their rich cronies in Congress could increase the power base of the
democrat party. (little d) They didn't say that of course. We were assured at
the time by each speaker who rose to the podium that these changes would not
alter the ethnic makeup of America nor saddle us with an out of control
population explosion.
They were liars then and they're liars now. Ted Kennedy spends his time at the
family compound on the cape. Governor Bush spends his free time at his
family's lush estate on the coast of Maine. The President and his wife spend 2
million dollars to seclude themselves at the end of a quiet little cul de sac.
But none of them think twice about dumping a million immigrants a year on the
rest of us. Those bastards don't have to live with the consequences of the
decisions they force on the rest of us. And for that I hope there is a special
place in hell reserved for all of them.
You statement that European quotas were reduced because of a lack of interest
is assanine.
>"You People" is a racist, bigoted phrase.
Only in the mind of someone who makes a career out of calling everyone . . .
well . . . racists . . . . . . and, oh yes . . . .bigots.
>If you find the policies discriminatory against, let's say, Sudanese or
>Liberians or whatever, then start a grassroots movement in their defense or
>to their benefit. That is what the American system is about.
>
That's exactly what the immigration reform movement is doing - mobilizing the
grassroots to take back our country from the corrupt politicians who have
stolen it. The job would be a lot easier if the professional racists would
stop questioning the humanity of those who want immigration returned to
traditional levels. Yes, that's you.
>And which places would those be? I guess you mean the border and neighbor
>nation of Mexico as one, but I can't even guess which you mean as the second
>of the two.
Two-thirds of our immigrants come from below the southern border of the United
States and from Asia. Getting me to say it over and over isn't going to make
it less so.
Gringo
> In my personal opinion, I believe that most, if not all
>apprehensions towards immigration are racist in nature.
The pro-immigrant forces are oh so eager to accuse their foes of being racist.
In fact, a racist is a person who believes one or more races are superior to
others. Since most Latin American immigrants are caucasian it's silly to
refer to Anglos who oppose Latin immigration as racists.
I do not find
>any real economic justification to close our doors to immigration.
You may not find any economic justification to halt immigration but there is a
growing body of literature that supports the anti-immigrant position.
I
>feel that the whole "idea" of America begins with our treatment &
>assimilation of immigrants.
The "idea" of America is based on our Constitutional Democracy. Many new
immigrants have no experience with democratic government.
> I will admit while things are not perfect
>racially in the U.S., we are much better off than the Kosovos & East
>Timors of the world. I believe that our cultural diversity, and our
>unity as Americans makes us superior to the rest of the screaming idiot
>bigots on this planet.
How about Germany and Japan which are more or less mono-ethnic?
DKL
>allen...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> In my personal opinion, I believe that most, if not all
>> apprehensions towards immigration are racist in nature.
>If you'd like more proof, look no farther than this newsgroup. Some
>people in this group adamantly state that they are not racists, while
>they simultaneously propose killing people who speak Spanish.
>>I do not find
>> any real economic justification to close our doors to immigration.
>
>That's because there is no economic justification for ending
>immigration. Countries that encourage freedom (free trade, free
>movement, low taxes etc.) enjoy economic prosperity.
Certainly economic justification exists. Read some GAO
reports on the costs of immigration. Read Dr. Huddle. Read *Alien
Nation*. Evidently, read anything.
>> feel that the whole "idea" of America begins with our treatment &
>> assimilation of immigrants.
>Exactly. America was built by immigrants. To argue otherwise is
>ridiculous.
America wasn't *built* by immigrants. It was *built* by
Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom were born in this
country. What is this myth about American being built by immigrants?
>>I will admit while things are not perfect
>> racially in the U.S., we are much better off than the Kosovos & East
>> Timors of the world.
>After 2 centuries of importing poor people with vastly different
>cultures and languages, we have yet to see the "balkanization" of
>America.
Immigration to this country until 1965 was limited almost
entirely to people from Europe. The cultures of Europe aren't
*vastly* different, as those cultures are in the Western Tradition.
Today's immigrants actually are *vastly* different in culture and
language from Americans and from immigrants of the past. That, to
most thoughtful people, is significant, especially in view of Kosovo
and East Timor.
> The racial separatists in this newsgroup still enjoy their
>fantasies however...
For most the issue isn't race; it's culture.
>>I believe that our cultural diversity, and our
>> unity as Americans makes us superior to the rest of the screaming idiot
>> bigots on this planet.
That's an interesting statement for its contradiction in
terms: "...our cultural diversity ... and our unity." You can't have
it both ways. Pick one.
>You mean people can come from different cultures, yet still share a
>common identity? Wow, what a novel concept!
Not just novel, but impossible. People of different cultures
do *not* share a common identity, by definition of the word *culture*.
Gringo
>
>Gringo <Gri...@Chinga.com> wrote in message
>news:rtjci5...@news.supernews.com...
>> immigrants have no experience with democratic government.
>>
Tavita Manumaleuna
Canada>>
Funny how you would mention two ANGLO founded countries as places where
immigrants go to and are treated well. What do they give their immigrants that
the USA does not?
Tavita Manumaleuna
<<Canada accepts about 225,000 immigrants per year and Australia less than
100,000.>>
those countries are very smart. They bring in lots of Chinese and no Latin
Americans. Obviously they are on to something that the faggot libearls will
never admit, and that is Chinese and European immigration = prosperity while
Latin American immigration = poverty and despair.
Tavita Manumaleuna
<<That "immigration disaster" you speak of allowed the Italians, Germans,
Poles, Irish and many others in in very significant
percentages.>>
I got no problem with those immigrants, we got problems with Latin Americans of
Spansih ancestry.
Tavita Manumaleuna
<<Attempts like Prop 187 don't fit this conformity with the legal system.>>
why not? It's the will of the people.
Jnlwriter
overwhelming majority of whom were born in this country. What is this myth
about American being built by immigrants?">>>
The only real Americans are Native Americans. My family came over on the
Mayflower. Call them pilgrims, call them settlers, but they were immigrants,
and they were invading Indian land, and Indian culture is not even remotely
close to Western culture. "We" the anglos, have been here for a very, very
short time by all global standards. Furthermore, California and most of the
west coast BELONGED to Mexico. They were here first and we bamboozled their
land away from them. Look, I HATE sitting in traffic and standing in crowds and
I know that population and cultural differences cause problems in *some*
areas... but no one in these arguments seems able to admit to anything true
that might weaken their stand...
Above and beyond the Native American argument, you would probably be astonished
to learn how many "great Americans" were immigrants. A majority of them were,
or at the very least their parents were. And DEFINITELY a majority of builders,
miners, stone setters and so on were immigrants - immigrant sweat is in the
morter of your house, I can almost guarantee it. I say "almost" just in case
you live somewhere that is not a heavy immigration point.
Just a personal observation: people are more eager to listen to what you say if
you are balanced.
DKL
<da...@davidgleason.com> wrote:
>Mexico has been a functioning democracy since before 1920.
Mexico has been a *disfunctioning* democracy since... when?
1910? In fact, its disfunctioning has been so extreme that to call it
a democracy rather than a a kleptocracy of the oligarchy - a
plutocracy - is to misapprehend the nature of Mexican political
reality.
> Whether it runs
>as nicely as the US is not the issue. The people do understand voting, have
>had a constitution with certain civil rights, etc. Nicaragua kicked out
>Somoza, and was socialist for about a decade. The nation is democratic now,
>as are El Salvador and Guatemala.
Salvador, Guat, and Nicaragua are democracies in name only as
the term *democracy* is understood in this country. A Cuban friend
remarked to me, and I tend to agree, that Latin Americans are
tempermentally incapable of democracy. What they end up with is
strife, chaos, and states of siege.
>In the case of the Central American republics, it is fairly significant to
>note that the non-democratic regimes, with the exception of Daniel Ortega,
>were all supported and, in many cases, installed, by the US or its agents.
>It is a bit on the amusing side to call the democracy issue in the
>hemisphere into question when the USA has intervened to protect its supposed
>interests in every nation in Central America several times... at least.
Right. The US has supported certain members of local
oligarchies over other members of local oligarchies, and in the end
the difference to conditions for people in the country were likely to
be uneffected as, no matter what, the oligarchy would run the show.
>Oh, and as to Mexico, the current system is the direct result of the
>overthrow of the Porfirio Diaz regime prior to 1910. That regime was
>supported by the US government and financed by US and other foreign
>corporations which owned the lion's share of the railroads and industry and
>natural resources of Mexico. Again, cause and effect. We are simply reaping
>now what we sowed politically nearly a century ago.
With or without US intervention, Mexico would be a disaster.
Mexican culture and nothing else created and perpetuates Mexico.
Tavita Manumaleuna
<<Furthermore, California and most of the
west coast BELONGED to Mexico. They were here first and we bamboozled their
land away from them.>>
how can you have the nerve to say that after you just wrote the following?
**The only real Americans are Native Americans. My family came over on the
Mayflower. Call them pilgrims, call them settlers, but they were immigrants,
and they were invading Indian land**
Didn't Mexico steal that same land from the Natives, Senyor???? Weren't the
Native Americans in California before the Mexicans? And are you trying to say
that all Mexicans now in California are descended from those original
settlers???
DKL
<da...@davidgleason.com> wrote:
>
>Tavita Manumaleuna <sam...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:19990910234901...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
>> Davo says:
>> <<Attempts like Prop 187 don't fit this conformity with the legal
>system.>>
>>
>> why not? It's the will of the people.
>
>It was not constitutional, but other than that it was just wonderful.
*One* doctrinaire judge declared that sections of it weren't
Constitutional. A proper appeal to higher courts would have been
interesting, and those courts might have found some merit to "the will
of the people," and not only in the spirit but also in the letter of
the Constitution.
DKL
>>>>"America wasn't *built* by immigrants. It was *built* by Americans, the
>overwhelming majority of whom were born in this country. What is this myth
>about American being built by immigrants?">>>
>
>The only real Americans are Native Americans.
I'm a Native American. I was born in San Francisco,
California. A couple of hundred million Americans are also Native
Americans.
> My family came over on the
>Mayflower. Call them pilgrims, call them settlers, but they were immigrants,
>and they were invading Indian land, and Indian culture is not even remotely
>close to Western culture. "We" the anglos, have been here for a very, very
>short time by all global standards.
Okay. The Pilgrims were immigrants. They invaded Indian
land. Indian culture is nothing like Western culture. And Anglos
have been here a short time. Pardon me if your point escapes me, but
your logic adds up to nothing but isolated facts.
> Furthermore, California and most of the
>west coast BELONGED to Mexico.
Now you have your facts wrong. California never *belonged* to
Mexico. It belonged to the Californios, who considered themselves
Spaniards and despised Mexico sufficiently to run out of the territory
several Mexican governors. The rest of the West Coast was never
claimed by Mexico.
> They were here first and we bamboozled their
>land away from them.
No, we didn't bamboozle them. We fought a war over the land,
and after we won the war, we paid Mexico 17.5 million dollars in gold
as compensation for what we won in the war. If I were leading the
country then, I'd have kept the 17.5 million in our own treasury. I
mean, after all, we won the damn war, didn't we.
> Look, I HATE sitting in traffic and standing in crowds and
>I know that population and cultural differences cause problems in *some*
>areas... but no one in these arguments seems able to admit to anything true
>that might weaken their stand...
I'm willing to read whatever you might provide on the subject.
But you'll have to indulge my compulsion to correct errors in fact and
logic.
>Above and beyond the Native American argument, you would probably be astonished
>to learn how many "great Americans" were immigrants. A majority of them were,
Oh my. Really? A majority? No president ever was an
immigrant. Andrew Carnegie was Scottish, but which of the other
captains of the Industrial Revolution in this country were immigrants?
Which great American literary figures were immigrants? No Americans
generals come to mind as being immigrants. Could you name some of the
"majority" of great Americans who were immigrants?
>or at the very least their parents were.
Maybe you could name some of the great children of immigrants.
> And DEFINITELY a majority of builders,
>miners, stone setters and so on were immigrants - immigrant sweat is in the
>morter of your house,
No, it isn't. Certainly the Irish did a lot of construction
work in the late 1800s and early 1900s. A lot of immigrants worked in
steel mills then too. But miners tended to live near the mines, that
is in Appalachia, and those people are descended from Scots-Irish who
arrived in the 1700s.
> I can almost guarantee it. I say "almost" just in case
>you live somewhere that is not a heavy immigration point.
I live in Texas, and these days we're more and more overrun by
Mexicans. When the economy goes as sour as it has been sweet, as is
the rule in economic cycles, I suspect we'll have another little war
on our hands down here.
>Just a personal observation: people are more eager to listen to what you say if
>you are balanced.
Let me jot that down.
rrcrumb
DKL <DKL...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37d9fb18...@news.mindspring.com...
DKL SAID:
Salvador, Guat, and Nicaragua are democracies in name only as
the term *democracy* is understood in this country. A Cuban friend
remarked to me, and I tend to agree, that Latin Americans are
tempermentally incapable of democracy. What they end up with is
strife, chaos, and states of siege.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't it the truth DKL.
I have been saying the same thing for a long time.
Now to be fair, I believe the La Plata nations (Argentina
Chile, Uruguay) are not too bad and are fairly livable,
the rest of the Hispanic nations are abject ****holes where
these much vaunted Hispanic family values and *rich* culture
don't mean a damn.
There is something primitive in the Hispanic mind that prefers the
Padrone system with the upper classes always getting wealthier
and the commoners/serfs who tolerate being ground into the dirt.
Illegal immigration exposed at:
http://americanpatrol.com
BEST CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE:
http://www.freerepublic.com
http://www.dallasnews.com/editorial/columnists/0827edit1estrad.htm
By Richard Estrada
08/27/99
"The argument that a colonia is a colony has its limits, to be sure.
But consider this: One of the most important elements of Mexican
foreign policy is to maximize the emigration of Mexican citizens
to the United States bylobbying on U.S. soil for high levels of
legal immigration and fighting or attenuating U.S. laws and strategies
designed to challenge illegal immigration. Mexican officials concerned
about a labor surplus in their country even have spoken openly about
creating an Israeli-type lobby for Mexico among people of Mexican
origin in the United States.
The liberal penchant for ignoring such infringements on national
sovereignty is well known. But even libertarian conservatives
in the business community are indifferent to the matter. They tend
to be fearful of any rhetoric or action that might impede the mass
influx of inexpensive foreign labor."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tavita Manumaleuna
<<Now to be fair, I believe the La Plata nations (Argentina Chili, Yuruguay)
are not too bad>>
Of course, they have the most non-Spanish Europeans.
rrcrumb
**** Bwahahhahahhahahhah !!!!!! Bwawaahahahhahah
***Just ask that that guy who died due to an accident in that
abject ****hole. You know......the one who was not allowed
to be flown to a USA hospital
Whether it runs
> as nicely as the US is not the issue. The people do understand voting,
have
> had a constitution with certain civil rights, etc.
***** Emphasis on the word certain.
Nicaragua kicked out
> Somoza, and was socialist for about a decade. The nation is democratic
now,
> as are El Salvador and Guatemala.
***** Utter bullshit! All those nations are run by greedy,
kleptomaniac oligarchies. Life for the average Hispanic
there SUCKS and you know it.
> In the case of the Central American republics, it is fairly significant to
> note that the non-democratic regimes, with the exception of Daniel Ortega,
> were all supported and, in many cases, installed, by the US or its agents.
***** Trala la la la .....it's blame the USA time again.
When are your brave Hispanic people going to take care of
your own business? When your Hispanic nations start disintegrating
you all seek asylum in the USA. Then you scam the asylum system
with your scummy lawyers. You really must be gusanos and
cowards to think that the USA controls your fate.
Stand on your own two feet and stop imposing on us.
If the USA was Hispanic we would still be bitching and moaning
about the nasty British taxes. But we aren't because we had a friggin'
revolution
> It is a bit on the amusing side to call the democracy issue in the
> hemisphere into question when the USA has intervened
***** Trala la la la .....it's blame the USA time again.
to protect its supposed
> interests in every nation in Central America several times... at least.
>
> Oh, and as to Mexico, the current system is the direct result of the
> overthrow of the Porfirio Diaz regime prior to 1910. That regime was
> supported by the US government and financed by US
***** Trala la la la .....it's blame the USA time again.
and other foreign
> corporations which owned the lion's share of the railroads and industry
and
> natural resources of Mexico. Again, cause and effect. We are simply
reaping
> now what we sowed politically nearly a century ago.
David Gleason <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote in message
news:k2kC3.706$9q1....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
rrcrumb
Just give 400,000 Philippines, Bangladesh and Thai people
$1000 airplane tickets and they will come here....
...do the work....be very thankful.....and return home.
We need an Asian guest worker program not a Mexican
one. We have allowed far too many Hispanics into this nation
and since this is a global economy, it is only fair to give
other people the chance to make the big money here in the USA
Illegal immigration exposed at:
http://americanpatrol.com
BEST CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE:
http://www.freerepublic.com
http://www.dallasnews.com/editorial/columnists/0827edit1estrad.htm
By Richard Estrada
08/27/99
"The argument that a colonia is a colony has its limits, to be sure.
But consider this: One of the most important elements of Mexican
foreign policy is to maximize the emigration of Mexican citizens
to the United States bylobbying on U.S. soil for high levels of
legal immigration and fighting or attenuating U.S. laws and strategies
designed to challenge illegal immigration. Mexican officials concerned
about a labor surplus in their country even have spoken openly about
creating an Israeli-type lobby for Mexico among people of Mexican
origin in the United States.
The liberal penchant for ignoring such infringements on national
sovereignty is well known. But even libertarian conservatives
in the business community are indifferent to the matter. They tend
to be fearful of any rhetoric or action that might impede the mass
influx of inexpensive foreign labor."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tavita Manumaleuna <sam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990910234501...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
Thomas Mohr
A better medical insurance for instance.
Thomas Mohr
>
> Kurdt says:
> <<Some people in this group adamantly state that they are not racists, while
> they simultaneously propose killing people who speak Spanish.>>
>
> because I do. But to call me a racist, which implies I hate ALL non-white
No. This is wrong as all your claims. Racism implies that you hate based
on race and this is exactly what you do.
> ethnicities, would be totally false.
You *are* a racist. Let me lecture you about your own langauge, English:
a "racist" is - sloppy expressed - somebody who hates people because
they belong to a certain race. You, Sir, claim
a) That hispanics are a race.
b) you hate them because they are hispanics.
Thomas Mohr
No. You have a problem with your psyche. You are mentally sick and you
need proper medical care.
Thomas Mohr
>
> jnlwriter says:
> <<Furthermore, California and most of the
> land away from them.>>
>
> Mayflower. Call them pilgrims, call them settlers, but they were immigrants,
> Didn't Mexico steal that same land from the Natives, Senyor???? Weren't the
> Native Americans in California before the Mexicans? And are you trying to say
> that all Mexicans now in California are descended from those original
> settlers???
I.o.w. Samoa, you are the descendant of thieves.
Tavita Manumaleuna
<<Just give 400,000 Philippines, Bangladesh and Thai people
$1000 airplane tickets and they will come here....>>
They would gladly pay their own way here.
Gringo
><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
><html>
>A few days ago, I was watching a program on Spain on German Television.
>The program was about the Basques and their desire for separation from
>Spain. Several of the Basques were calling the Spaniards
> racists.
>Both are Caucasian. But in this case, racism is meant to be hatred
>of a different cultural group.
Are the Basque seperatists recognized as authorities in the use of the term
"racist"? They misuse the word as do most pro-immigration groups.
><p>Gringo wrote:
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>In article <7r97cl$1ai$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> allen...@my-deja.com
>wrote:
><br>> In my personal opinion, I believe that most,
>if not all
><br>>apprehensions towards immigration are racist in nature.
><p>The pro-immigrant forces are oh so eager to accuse their foes of being
>racist.
><br> In fact, a racist is a person who believes one or more races
>are superior to
><br>others. Since most Latin American immigrants are caucasian it's
>silly to
><br>refer to Anglos who oppose Latin immigration as racists.
><p>I do not find
><br>>any real economic justification to close our doors to immigration.
><p>You may not find any economic justification to halt immigration but
>there is a
><br>growing body of literature that supports the anti-immigrant position.
><p> I
><br>>feel that the whole "idea" of America begins with our treatment &
><br>>assimilation of immigrants.
><p>The "idea" of America is based on our Constitutional Democracy.
>Many new
><br>immigrants have no experience with democratic government.
><p>> I will admit while things are not perfect
><br>>racially in the U.S., we are much better off than the Kosovos &
>East
><br>>Timors of the world. I believe that our cultural diversity, and our
><br>>unity as Americans makes us superior to the rest of the screaming
>idiot
><br>>bigots on this planet.
><p>How about Germany and Japan which are more or less mono-ethnic?
><p>>Anyone care to challenge these views?
><br>>
><br>>
><br>>Sent via Deja.com <a href="http://www.deja.com/">http://www.deja.com/</a>
><br>>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.</blockquote>
></html>
>
Gringo
>>>>"America wasn't *built* by immigrants. It was *built* by Americans, the
>overwhelming majority of whom were born in this country. What is this myth
>about American being built by immigrants?">>>
>
>Mayflower. Call them pilgrims, call them settlers, but they were immigrants,
>close to Western culture.
Anglos stole land from pacifist tribes. However, many tribes (especially
plains indians) were warrior tribes who had taken land from other tribes.
These indians were defeated by superior warriors and thus have nothing to
complain about.
>"We" the anglos, have been here for a very, very
>short time by all global standards.
But a verrrry long time by the standards of any individual human.
> Furthermore, California and most of the
>west coast BELONGED to Mexico. They were here first and we bamboozled their
>land away from them.
> Look, I HATE sitting in traffic and standing in crowds and
>I know that population and cultural differences cause problems in *some*
>areas... but no one in these arguments seems able to admit to anything true
>that might weaken their stand...
>
>Above and beyond the Native American argument, you would probably be astonished
>to learn how many "great Americans" were immigrants.
When did they immigrate? 200 years ago?
A majority of them were,
>or at the very least their parents were. And DEFINITELY a majority of builders,
>miners, stone setters and so on were immigrants - immigrant sweat is in the
>morter of your house, I can almost guarantee it. I say "almost" just in case
>you live somewhere that is not a heavy immigration point.
>
>Just a personal observation: people are more eager to listen to what you say if
>you are balanced.
The only things in the middle of the road are dead armadillos.
Gringo
>
>Gringo <Gri...@Chinga.com> wrote in message
>> In article <tViC3.539$9q1....@typhoon01.swbell.net>, "David Gleason"
><da...@davidgleason.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Gringo <Gri...@Chinga.com> wrote in message
>> >news:rtjci5...@news.supernews.com...
>new
>> >> immigrants have no experience with democratic government.
>> >>
>> >Germany (really, like Italy, the collection of quasi-feudal fiefdoms that
>> >made up Germany 100 years ago) or England? How about Poland?
>Czechoslovakia?
>> >Armenia? Greece? And all the other monarchies and non-democratic places
>most
>> >Americans can trace their heritage to.
>> >
>> >At least the folks arriving today have seen a ballot box and cast a vote,
>> >even if the democracy they came form is, to say the least, defective.
>> >
>>
>> Notice I was speaking in the present tense. I said have, not had. How
>much
>> experience with democracy do immigrants from Nicaragua, Guatamala, El
>Salvador
>> or Mexico have with democracy? How about West African immigrants?
>
>US, let's put that aside for a moment.
>
>Mexico has been a functioning democracy since before 1920. Whether it runs
>as nicely as the US is not the issue.
Mexico is a one-party state. You can vote for the PRI, the PRI or the PRI.
The other parties don't have a snowball's chance in hell of taking control of
the government.
>The people do understand voting, have
>had a constitution with certain civil rights, etc. Nicaragua kicked out
>Somoza, and was socialist for about a decade. The nation is democratic now,
>as are El Salvador and Guatemala.
Right & left wing Goon squads terrorize voters in these countries.
David Gleason
Gringo <Gri...@Chinga.com> wrote in message
> >Mexico has been a functioning democracy since before 1920. Whether it
runs
> >as nicely as the US is not the issue.
>
> Mexico is a one-party state. You can vote for the PRI, the PRI or the
PRI.
> The other parties don't have a snowball's chance in hell of taking control
of
> the government.
Various of the state governments are in either PRD or PAN control, as are a
number of major cities like Monterrey. Most of the Norht of Mexico is either
PAN run or is a mixed PAN/PRI grvernment. The Federal District, known here
as Mexico City, is under PRD control. There is considerable fear in the PRI
ranks that the PAN or a coalition can take many more state governments and
truly challenge at the national level in 2000.
The PAN now has the governorship in Jalisco and Nuevo Leon, the states
holding the scond and third largest cities in Mexico, as well as Chihuahua,
Aguascalientes, Guanajuato, Querétaro and Baja California. Combined with the
PRD control of Mexico City, about 45% of the local government in Mexco is
not under the PRI today.
>
> >The people do understand voting, have
> >had a constitution with certain civil rights, etc. Nicaragua kicked out
> >Somoza, and was socialist for about a decade. The nation is democratic
now,
> >as are El Salvador and Guatemala.
>
> Right & left wing Goon squads terrorize voters in these countries.
Aw, gimme a break. If this were true, the huge majorities that the PAN has
run up in some states would not have happened.
On September 12, the PAN will hold its convention to determine its candidate
for the presidency. Read about it at http://www.pan.org.mx/ where you will
realize that democracy is alive in Mexico and there is a real interest and
effort in changing the corrupt, old boss system and replacing it with new
parties and candidates.
David Gleason
> On 11 Sep 1999 04:30:14 GMT, jnlw...@aol.com (Jnlwriter) wrote:
>
> >>>>"America wasn't *built* by immigrants. It was *built* by Americans,
the
> >overwhelming majority of whom were born in this country. What is this
myth
> >about American being built by immigrants?">>>
> >
> >The only real Americans are Native Americans.
>
> California. A couple of hundred million Americans are also Native
> Americans.
First you insisted that "gender" had to do with nouns and pronouns until you
were shown various dictionary definitions that indicated that it was used to
show the sex of humans, at which point you blustered in Luddite fashion
about the dynamic changes of the English language.
Now, you want to take a broadly accepted and officially defined term,
"Native American" and make it into something it is not. "Native American" in
the USA is a p/c term for "Indian." It does not mean just anyone born here,
as those are "native-born" but not "native."
And, your definition ha a mean backbite: about 25 million Hispanics, give or
take a million or two, are "native Americans" by your definition.
You really should stop redefining the language all on your own, Doug.
David Gleason
> >> Davo says:
> >> <<Attempts like Prop 187 don't fit this conformity with the legal
> >system.>>
> >>
> >> why not? It's the will of the people.
> >
> >It was not constitutional, but other than that it was just wonderful.
>
> *One* doctrinaire judge declared that sections of it weren't
> Constitutional. A proper appeal to higher courts would have been
> interesting, and those courts might have found some merit to "the will
> of the people," and not only in the spirit but also in the letter of
> the Constitution.
A lower court found it unconstitutional. Before going higher, it was
submitted to arbitration and determined that the initiative was so flawed
that it had no hope of passing muster.
Remember, this was a voter initiative, not a piece of legislation.
Legislation can be sent back to the State House for amendment or rewriting
but an initiative by a portion of the electorate must return to the ballot
level to again be voted on if it is to be changed.
David Gleason
language and only hear second hand about it.
DKL <DKL...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37d9fb18...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:36:10 -0700, "David Gleason"
> <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Mexico has been a functioning democracy since before 1920.
>
> Mexico has been a *disfunctioning* democracy since... when?
> 1910? In fact, its disfunctioning has been so extreme that to call it
> a democracy rather than a a kleptocracy of the oligarchy - a
> plutocracy - is to misapprehend the nature of Mexican political
> reality.
>
> > Whether it runs
> >as nicely as the US is not the issue. The people do understand voting,
have
> >had a constitution with certain civil rights, etc. Nicaragua kicked out
> >Somoza, and was socialist for about a decade. The nation is democratic
now,
> >as are El Salvador and Guatemala.
>
> Salvador, Guat, and Nicaragua are democracies in name only as
> the term *democracy* is understood in this country. A Cuban friend
> remarked to me, and I tend to agree, that Latin Americans are
> tempermentally incapable of democracy. What they end up with is
> strife, chaos, and states of siege.
>
> >In the case of the Central American republics, it is fairly significant
to
> >note that the non-democratic regimes, with the exception of Daniel
Ortega,
> >were all supported and, in many cases, installed, by the US or its
agents.
> >It is a bit on the amusing side to call the democracy issue in the
> >hemisphere into question when the USA has intervened to protect its
supposed
> >interests in every nation in Central America several times... at least.
>
> Right. The US has supported certain members of local
> oligarchies over other members of local oligarchies, and in the end
> the difference to conditions for people in the country were likely to
> be uneffected as, no matter what, the oligarchy would run the show.
>
> >Oh, and as to Mexico, the current system is the direct result of the
> >overthrow of the Porfirio Diaz regime prior to 1910. That regime was
> >supported by the US government and financed by US and other foreign
> >corporations which owned the lion's share of the railroads and industry
and
> >natural resources of Mexico. Again, cause and effect. We are simply
reaping
> >now what we sowed politically nearly a century ago.
>
Thomas Mohr
> >Oh, and as to Mexico, the current system is the direct result of the
> >overthrow of the Porfirio Diaz regime prior to 1910. That regime was
> >supported by the US government and financed by US and other foreign
> >corporations which owned the lion's share of the railroads and industry and
> >natural resources of Mexico. Again, cause and effect. We are simply reaping
> >now what we sowed politically nearly a century ago.
>
> With or without US intervention, Mexico would be a disaster.
> Mexican culture and nothing else created and perpetuates Mexico.
And you dare to tell others not to be superior. Cute.
Gringo
>
>Gringo <Gri...@Chinga.com> wrote in message
>news:rtknuu...@news.supernews.com...
>runs
>> >as nicely as the US is not the issue.
>>
>PRI.
>> The other parties don't have a snowball's chance in hell of taking control
>of
>> the government.
>
>Various of the state governments are in either PRD or PAN control, as are a
>number of major cities like Monterrey. Most of the Norht of Mexico is either
>PAN run or is a mixed PAN/PRI grvernment. The Federal District, known here
>as Mexico City, is under PRD control. There is considerable fear in the PRI
>ranks that the PAN or a coalition can take many more state governments and
>truly challenge at the national level in 2000.
Heck the PRI will just assassinate the PRD candidate.
>
>The PAN now has the governorship in Jalisco and Nuevo Leon, the states
>holding the scond and third largest cities in Mexico, as well as Chihuahua,
>Aguascalientes, Guanajuato, Querétaro and Baja California. Combined with the
>PRD control of Mexico City, about 45% of the local government in Mexco is
>not under the PRI today.
>>
>> >The people do understand voting, have
>> >had a constitution with certain civil rights, etc. Nicaragua kicked out
>> >Somoza, and was socialist for about a decade. The nation is democratic
>now,
>> >as are El Salvador and Guatemala.
>>
>> Right & left wing Goon squads terrorize voters in these countries.
>
>Aw, gimme a break. If this were true, the huge majorities that the PAN has
>run up in some states would not have happened.
I was referring to Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, not Mexico.
It's been well documented that Paramilitary forces in these countries have
intimidated voters.
rrcrumb
America. Majority of the Latino nations are ruled by a white, inbred
Spanish class of oligarchs and overseers.
Meztizos and Indians get the crumbs that fall off the table.
Mexico is a prime example where the white oligarchy is
very happy whenever a desperate mestizo illegally enters
the USA and sends money home to Mexico.
It is all part of a government plan to rid themselves
of people that the rotten Mexican economy cannot
employ.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.dallasnews.com/editorial/columnists/0827edit1estrad.htm
By Richard Estrada
08/27/99
"The argument that a colonia is a colony has its limits, to be sure.
But consider this: One of the most important elements of Mexican
foreign policy is to maximize the emigration of Mexican citizens
to the United States bylobbying on U.S. soil for high levels of
legal immigration and fighting or attenuating U.S. laws and strategies
designed to challenge illegal immigration. Mexican officials concerned
about a labor surplus in their country even have spoken openly about
creating an Israeli-type lobby for Mexico among people of Mexican
origin in the United States.
The liberal penchant for ignoring such infringements on national
sovereignty is well known. But even libertarian conservatives
in the business community are indifferent to the matter. They tend
to be fearful of any rhetoric or action that might impede the mass
influx of inexpensive foreign labor."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Illegal immigration exposed at:
http://americanpatrol.com
BEST CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE:
http://www.freerepublic.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rrcrumb
>
>
> Now, you want to take a broadly accepted and officially defined term,
> "Native American" and make it into something it is not. "Native American"
in
> the USA is a p/c term for "Indian." It does not mean just anyone born
here,
> as those are "native-born" but not "native."
**** HEY!!!! If your Hispanics can take the word American
and pretend that it means anything other than BORN/LIVING
IN THE USA .........
....... well then DKL can use the word native American to refer
to himself. I also am a native (born) American
> And, your definition ha a mean backbite: about 25 million Hispanics, give
or
> take a million or two, are "native Americans" by your definition.
>
> You really should stop redefining the language all on your own, Doug.
***** Bwahahahahhahahahha !!!!!
******Tell that to your Hispanic bullshit artists/propagandists.
David Gleason
rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GNvC3.5881$ES2....@news3.mia...
> The biggest racists on the planet are the Hispanics of Latin
> America. Majority of the Latino nations are ruled by a white, inbred
> Spanish class of oligarchs and overseers.
>
> Meztizos and Indians get the crumbs that fall off the table.
Explain, please, Benito Juárez. Or Lázaro Cárdenas.... etc., etc.
David Gleason
>
> David Gleason <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote in message
> news:xNuC3.7$kL2....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
> >
> >
> > Now, you want to take a broadly accepted and officially defined term,
> > "Native American" and make it into something it is not. "Native
American"
> in
> > the USA is a p/c term for "Indian." It does not mean just anyone born
> here,
> > as those are "native-born" but not "native."
>
> **** HEY!!!! If your Hispanics can take the word American
> and pretend that it means anything other than BORN/LIVING
> IN THE USA .........
>
> ....... well then DKL can use the word native American to refer
> to himself. I also am a native (born) American
Just a small point: which existed first "The Americas" or the "United States
of America?"
If anyone has the right to use the term "American" it is the residents of
ALL the Americas, North South and Central.
And, to all but the die-hard xenophobe and isolationist, America has two
meanings, depending on the context. Always had for the last several hundred
years.
David Gleason
Gringo <Gri...@Chinga.com> wrote in message
> >Gringo <Gri...@Chinga.com> wrote in message
>
Write me when it happens.
> I was referring to Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, not Mexico.
> It's been well documented that Paramilitary forces in these countries have
> intimidated voters.
At this time, the only intimidation in any of these nations is in Nicaragua,
where the leftist or socialist Sandinistas make a horrible amount of noise
and engage in considerable intimidation.
The "problem" in El Salvador has been over for most of the decade; Guatemala
would down a number of years ago and there was a ceremonial cessation of
hostilities about 18 months back if I remember right.
Interestingly, the one nation where problems persist was th eone most often
invaded or intervened in by the USA and where the later generalisimo
(Somoza) was firmly placed in the CIA/US Military pocket.
rrcrumb
The ruling kleptocracy of Mexico is composed
of Spanish families and has been ever since
there has been a Mexico.
Your brave Mexican people need only look inside
their borders to find the source of their misery.......
.....not the CIA or US companies.
Mexico would be in even more pathetic
condition without US investment there.
Illegal immigration exposed at:
http://americanpatrol.com
BEST CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE:
http://www.freerepublic.com
http://www.dallasnews.com/editorial/columnists/0827edit1estrad.htm
By Richard Estrada
08/27/99
"The argument that a colonia is a colony has its limits, to be sure.
But consider this: One of the most important elements of Mexican
foreign policy is to maximize the emigration of Mexican citizens
to the United States bylobbying on U.S. soil for high levels of
legal immigration and fighting or attenuating U.S. laws and strategies
designed to challenge illegal immigration. Mexican officials concerned
about a labor surplus in their country even have spoken openly about
creating an Israeli-type lobby for Mexico among people of Mexican
origin in the United States.
The liberal penchant for ignoring such infringements on national
sovereignty is well known. But even libertarian conservatives
in the business community are indifferent to the matter. They tend
to be fearful of any rhetoric or action that might impede the mass
influx of inexpensive foreign labor."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Gleason <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote in message
news:JYvC3.29$kL2....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
>
> rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
David Gleason
> They are the exceptions and you know it.
> The ruling kleptocracy of Mexico is composed
> of Spanish families and has been ever since
> there has been a Mexico.
Actually, this is not true. A certain Mr. Slim, of lebanese heritage, can
only go back to the beginning of the century. Like him there are many.
>
> Your brave Mexican people need only look inside
> their borders to find the source of their misery.......
>
> .....not the CIA or US companies.
> Mexico would be in even more pathetic
> condition without US investment there.
America, right or wrong, huh? That statement is just sick and arrogant.
Don't let "those people" come here, but, damn, we better go and meddle in
thier affairs becasue we have an exclusive on right and justice.
rrcrumb
is that "American" means from the United States.
A US citizen.
How you can argue against that I haven't a clue.
Illegal immigration exposed at:
http://americanpatrol.com
BEST CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE:
http://www.freerepublic.com
http://www.dallasnews.com/editorial/columnists/0827edit1estrad.htm
By Richard Estrada
08/27/99
"The argument that a colonia is a colony has its limits, to be sure.
But consider this: One of the most important elements of Mexican
foreign policy is to maximize the emigration of Mexican citizens
to the United States bylobbying on U.S. soil for high levels of
legal immigration and fighting or attenuating U.S. laws and strategies
designed to challenge illegal immigration. Mexican officials concerned
about a labor surplus in their country even have spoken openly about
creating an Israeli-type lobby for Mexico among people of Mexican
origin in the United States.
The liberal penchant for ignoring such infringements on national
sovereignty is well known. But even libertarian conservatives
in the business community are indifferent to the matter. They tend
to be fearful of any rhetoric or action that might impede the mass
influx of inexpensive foreign labor."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Gleason <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote in message
news:1YvC3.28$kL2....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
>
> rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ZNvC3.5882$ES2....@news3.mia...
> >
> > David Gleason <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote in message
rrcrumb
high time to send the asylum scam artists home.
The wars and death squads are in the past.
David Gleason <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote in message
news:m0wC3.31$kL2....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
David Gleason
> The commonly accepted meaning in the USA
> is that "American" means from the United States.
> A US citizen.
And in the rest of the Hemisphere, the meaning is the other option.
Among better educated and traveled "Americans" of the USA, there is awarness
that the term may be interpreted differently abroad and they account for
this.
The USA is not the entire world, you know.
>
> How you can argue against that I haven't a clue.
I couldn't possibly argue against (the fact) that you don't have a clue.
Thank you for stating your admission so clearly. I didn't realize that you
were aware of how clueless you are.
Thomas Mohr
>
> The commonly accepted meaning in the USA
> is that "American" means from the United States.
> A US citizen.
>
That you do not have a clue had to be expected. The US is not he world,
and definitely not the highest standard or measure.
Gabriel519
Americans.>>>
Canadian immigration system goes about "points" given to the applicant for
several factors like education,language ability,etc.Nationality is irrelevant
as there are NO nationality quotas.
Plenty of southamerican easily make the 70 points needed to qualify,even
without relatives or big money to invest.
There are entire neighborhoods/communities in Toronto and Montreal with
restaurants,markets and latinamerican themed business.
Also in Australian cities,but I do not know their system.
Gabriel
David Gleason
> If Guatemala, El Salvador are doing so well then it is
> high time to send the asylum scam artists home.
> The wars and death squads are in the past.
You read a lot between the lines. Those two countries have just emerged from
a long period of civil strife. The economy of El Salvador, particularly, is
still in ruins and many of the people who were granted asylum have nothing
to return to.
In any case, asylum for those nations was a permanent status.
Gabriel519
those motherfuckers hate the USA with a passion>>>
Samoron knows full well what we love and what we hate.He knows us better than
we know ourselves.
Gabriel
Gabriel519
a
That body did its growing 6/7 ago ,at the peak of last recession and is very
quickly now
being "matched" by another growing body
supporting just the opposite .
Gabriel
rrcrumb
***** Not correct. Your Central American asylum
scammers have been working the US immigration
system non stop.
They refuse to go home even though it was a
TEMPORARY asylum that was given due to
typically Hispanic wars and death squads.
TEMPORARY was the basis that they were admitted
to the USA..... by the way these scam artists always yowl
that due to the children they have had in the USA, they
cannot return to their homelands. And then there's
a hurricane. Always something...always some BS.
Illegal immigration exposed at:
http://americanpatrol.com
BEST CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE:
http://www.freerepublic.com
http://www.dallasnews.com/editorial/columnists/0827edit1estrad.htm
By Richard Estrada
08/27/99
"The argument that a colonia is a colony has its limits, to be sure.
But consider this: One of the most important elements of Mexican
foreign policy is to maximize the emigration of Mexican citizens
to the United States bylobbying on U.S. soil for high levels of
legal immigration and fighting or attenuating U.S. laws and strategies
designed to challenge illegal immigration. Mexican officials concerned
about a labor surplus in their country even have spoken openly about
creating an Israeli-type lobby for Mexico among people of Mexican
origin in the United States.
The liberal penchant for ignoring such infringements on national
sovereignty is well known. But even libertarian conservatives
in the business community are indifferent to the matter. They tend
to be fearful of any rhetoric or action that might impede the mass
influx of inexpensive foreign labor."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Gleason <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote in message
news:gUxC3.103$kL2....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
rrcrumb
US usage is.
BWHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH... hahahhahahhahah
hahhahahahhahha !!!!!!!
Stick to your yodeling you fool.
Thomas Mohr <thoma...@magnet.at> wrote in message
news:37DAA857...@magnet.at...
rrcrumb
> > The commonly accepted meaning in the USA
> > is that "American" means from the United States.
> > A US citizen.
>
***** In the USA the commonly accepted meaning
is that "American" means from the United States.
A US citizen.
> Among better educated and traveled "Americans" of the USA, there is
awarness
> that the term may be interpreted differently abroad and they account for
> this.
****** I am only concerned about the common usage in the USA.
And so should you since you live here. And so should the Spanish
speakers in this NG since they all live in the safety and comfort of
the USA.
Would you like to bet $100 that if I stop 100 people in Atlanta
Georgia, and ask them "what is an American", what the answer
would be?
>
> The USA is not the entire world, you know.
**** W O W ! ! ! ! !
>
> >
> > How you can argue against that I haven't a clue.
>
rrcrumb
Don't blame the USA for that failed nation.
David Gleason <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote in message
news:wPxC3.100$kL2....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
>
> rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Gringo
The most recent studies show that the costs of immigration outweigh the
benefits.
David Gleason
> Mexico is as Mexicans do.
> Don't blame the USA for that failed nation.
First you say Mexico is better off do to our historic meddling, then you say
the curent situation there is all their fault.
Try posting this on alt.cake.and.eat.it and see if the logic fares any
better there than here.
David Gleason
excludes you as you fail to see the distinction between those in the US and
those outside.
Whether you are only concerned with the "inside" of the US, it appears to me
we share the globe with a few other nations and ought to have a vague notion
of the interaction of the peoples of the world.
rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bByC3.6824$XL2.1...@news2.mia...
>
> David Gleason <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote in message
> news:PMxC3.99$kL2....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
> >
> > rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
David Gleason
> > In any case, asylum for those nations was a permanent status.
>
> ***** Not correct. Your Central American asylum
> scammers have been working the US immigration
> system non stop.
Most asylum seekers were granted permanent asylum as the war in El Salvador
and the insurrection in Guatemala wore on as the exiles had now families in
the US, kids in school and very little to return to.
>
> They refuse to go home even though it was a
> TEMPORARY asylum that was given due to
> typically Hispanic wars and death squads.
Full of US Military trainers and "observers" who carried guns.
Thomas Mohr
> > And in the rest of the Hemisphere, the meaning is the other option.
>
> ***** In the USA the commonly accepted meaning
> is that "American" means from the United States.
> A US citizen.
Onviously you are one of these arrgonat US-Americans thinking that their
standard has to apply for everybody.
> > Among better educated and traveled "Americans" of the USA, there is
> awarness
> > that the term may be interpreted differently abroad and they account for
> > this.
>
> ****** I am only concerned about the common usage in the USA.
> And so should you since you live here. And so should the Spanish
> speakers in this NG since they all live in the safety and comfort of
> the USA.
Unfortunately, *HERE* is NOT the US.
rrcrumb
in the USA and that it ignores what ever hokum your
Hispanics have cooked up for the situation. Truth is we
just don't give a flying flip.
So the arrogant Hispanics come to the USA, flee
their failed, disintegrating homelands and start
telling US citizens that common usage here must change
to reflect Hispanic usage?
BAWAHAHAHHAHHA !!!!!!! HAHhahhahhahhahah !!!!!!!
hahahha hahahhahahha
Illegal immigration exposed at:
http://americanpatrol.com
BEST CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE:
http://www.freerepublic.com
http://www.dallasnews.com/editorial/columnists/0827edit1estrad.htm
By Richard Estrada
08/27/99
"The argument that a colonia is a colony has its limits, to be sure.
But consider this: One of the most important elements of Mexican
foreign policy is to maximize the emigration of Mexican citizens
to the United States bylobbying on U.S. soil for high levels of
legal immigration and fighting or attenuating U.S. laws and strategies
designed to challenge illegal immigration. Mexican officials concerned
about a labor surplus in their country even have spoken openly about
creating an Israeli-type lobby for Mexico among people of Mexican
origin in the United States.
The liberal penchant for ignoring such infringements on national
sovereignty is well known. But even libertarian conservatives
in the business community are indifferent to the matter. They tend
to be fearful of any rhetoric or action that might impede the mass
influx of inexpensive foreign labor."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Gleason <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote in message
news:c2zC3.144$kL2....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
> As I said, "among better educated persons." That qualification obviously
> excludes you as you fail to see the distinction between those in the US
and
> those outside.
>
> Whether you are only concerned with the "inside" of the US, it appears to
me
> we share the globe with a few other nations and ought to have a vague
notion
> of the interaction of the peoples of the world.
>
> rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bByC3.6824$XL2.1...@news2.mia...
> >
> > David Gleason <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote in message
> > news:PMxC3.99$kL2....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
> > >
> > > rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:KGxC3.7240$Yu3....@news4.mia...
> > > > The commonly accepted meaning in the USA
> > > > is that "American" means from the United States.
> > > > A US citizen.
> > >
> > > And in the rest of the Hemisphere, the meaning is the other option.
> >
> > ***** In the USA the commonly accepted meaning
> > is that "American" means from the United States.
> > A US citizen.
> >
> > > Among better educated and traveled "Americans" of the USA, there is
> > awarness
> > > that the term may be interpreted differently abroad and they account
for
> > > this.
> >
> > ****** I am only concerned about the common usage in the USA.
> > And so should you since you live here. And so should the Spanish
> > speakers in this NG since they all live in the safety and comfort of
> > the USA.
Thomas Mohr
>
> So now you, the Austrian big mouth, know what common
> US usage is.
>
> BWHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH... hahahhahahhahah
Did you unplug your earstop so taht the laughter which is echoing in
your empty skull had a chance to come out ?
> Stick to your yodeling you fool.
Crumbieboy, this here is NOT the US, empty-head.
Gabriel519
benefits.>>>
Wrong.It shows that the benefits are not fairly distributed by the federal
government among the states.
Gabriel
rrcrumb
These scammers came here on TEMPORARY asylum
then proceeded to abuse the hospitality of the USA.
Permanent means they came here under a scam
pretence then got amnestied in or their lawyer got
them *normalized*
They are SCAM ARTISTS plain and simple.
Also liars since many lied about how severely they were
impacted by the death squads and wars.
Illegal immigration exposed at:
http://americanpatrol.com
BEST CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE:
http://www.freerepublic.com
http://www.dallasnews.com/editorial/columnists/0827edit1estrad.htm
By Richard Estrada
08/27/99
"The argument that a colonia is a colony has its limits, to be sure.
But consider this: One of the most important elements of Mexican
foreign policy is to maximize the emigration of Mexican citizens
to the United States bylobbying on U.S. soil for high levels of
legal immigration and fighting or attenuating U.S. laws and strategies
designed to challenge illegal immigration. Mexican officials concerned
about a labor surplus in their country even have spoken openly about
creating an Israeli-type lobby for Mexico among people of Mexican
origin in the United States.
The liberal penchant for ignoring such infringements on national
sovereignty is well known. But even libertarian conservatives
in the business community are indifferent to the matter. They tend
to be fearful of any rhetoric or action that might impede the mass
influx of inexpensive foreign labor."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Gleason <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote in message
news:e6zC3.150$kL2....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
>
> rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
rrcrumb
Read Borjas from Harvard.
http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/96nov/immigrat/borjas.htm
The New Economics of Immigration
Affluent Americans gain; poor Americans lose
by George J. Borjas
HE United States is on the verge of another great debate over immigration.
Thus far the focus of this still-inchoate debate has been on illegal
immigration or welfare benefits to legal immigrants, not on the larger issue
of the character and consequences of the current high levels of legal
immigration. Economic factors by themselves should not and will not decide
the outcome of this debate. But they will play an important role. Economics
helps us to frame answerable questions about immigration: Who gains by it?
Who loses? And in light of the answers to these questions, what should U.S.
immigration policy be?
There have been two major shifts in immigration policy in this century. In
the twenties the United States began to limit the number of immigrants
admitted and established the national-origins quota system, an allocation
scheme that awarded entry visas mainly on the basis of national origin and
that favored Germany and the United Kingdom. This system was repealed in
1965, and family reunification became the central goal of immigration
policy, with entry visas being awarded mainly to applicants who had
relatives already residing in the United States.
The social, demographic, and economic changes initiated by the 1965
legislation have been truly historic. The number of immigrants began to rise
rapidly. As recently as the 1950s only about 250,000 immigrants entered the
country annually; by the 1990s the United States was admitting more than
800,000 legal immigrants a year, and some 300,000 aliens entered and stayed
in the country illegally. The 1965 legislation also led to a momentous shift
in the ethnic composition of the population. Although people of European
origin dominated the immigrant flow from the country's founding until the
1950s, only about 10 percent of those admitted in the 1980s were of European
origin. It is now estimated that non-Hispanic whites may form a minority of
the population soon after 2050. More troubling is that immigration has been
linked to the increase in income inequality observed since the 1980s, and to
an increase in the costs of maintaining the programs that make up the
welfare state.
These economic and demographic changes have fueled the incipient debate over
immigration policy. For the most part, the weapons of choice in this debate
are statistics produced by economic research, with all sides marshaling
facts and evidence that support particular policy goals. In this essay I ask
a simple question: What does economic research imply about the kind of
immigration policy that the United States should pursue?
A Formula for Admission
VERY immigration policy must resolve two distinct issues: how many
immigrants the country should admit, and what kinds of people they should
be.
It is useful to view immigration policy as a formula that gives points to
visa applicants on the basis of various characteristics and then sets a
passing grade. The variables in the formula determine what kinds of people
will be let into the country, and the passing grade determines how many will
be let into the country. Current policy uses a formula that has one
overriding variable: whether the visa applicant has a family member already
residing in the United States. An applicant who has a relative in the
country gets 100 points, passes the test, and is admitted. An applicant who
does not gets 0 points, fails the test, and cannot immigrate legally.
Of course, this is a simplistic summary of current policy. There are a lot
of bells and whistles in the immigration statutes (which are said to be only
slightly less complex than the tax code). In fact the number of points a
person gets may depend on whether the sponsor is a U.S. citizen or a
permanent resident, and whether the family connection is a close one (such
as a parent, a spouse, or a child) or a more distant one (a sibling). Such
nuances help to determine the speed with which the visa is granted. A
limited number of visas are given to refugees. Some are also distributed on
the basis of skill characteristics, but these go to only seven percent of
immigrants.
Although the United States does not officially admit to using a point system
in awarding entry visas, other countries proudly display their formulas on
the Internet. A comparison of these point systems reveals that the United
States is exceptional in using essentially one variable. Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand have more-complex formulas that include an applicant's
educational background, occupation, English-language proficiency, and age
along with family connections.
Sometimes a host country awards points to people who are willing to pay the
visa's stated price. Canada, for example, has granted entry to virtually
anyone who would invest at least $250,000 in a Canadian business. Although
this "visas-for-sale" policy is a favorite proposal of economists (if we
have a market for butter, why not also a market for visas?), it is not taken
very seriously in the political debate, perhaps because policymakers feel a
repugnance against what may be perceived as a market for human beings. I
will therefore discuss the implications of economic research only for
policies in which points are awarded on the basis of socioeconomic
characteristics, not exchanged for dollars.
What Have We Learned?
HE academic literature investigating the economic impact of immigration on
the United States has grown rapidly in the past decade. The assumptions that
long dominated discussion of the costs and benefits of immigration were
replaced during the 1980s by a number of new questions, issues, and
perceptions.
Consider the received wisdom of the early 1980s. The studies available
suggested that even though immigrants arrived at an economic disadvantage,
their opportunities improved rapidly over time. Within a decade or two of
immigrants' arrival their earnings would overtake the earnings of natives of
comparable socioeconomic background. The evidence also suggested that
immigrants did no harm to native employment opportunities, and were less
likely to receive welfare assistance than natives. Finally, the children of
immigrants were even more successful than their parents. The empirical
evidence, therefore, painted a very optimistic picture of the contribution
that immigrants made to the American economy.
In the past ten years this picture has altered radically. New research has
established a number of points.
The relative skills of successive immigrant waves have declined over much of
the postwar period. In 1970, for example, the latest immigrant arrivals on
average had 0.4 fewer years of schooling and earned 17 percent less than
natives. By 1990 the most recently arrived immigrants had 1.3 fewer years of
schooling and earned 32 percent less than natives.
Because the newest immigrant waves start out at such an economic
disadvantage, and because the rate of economic assimilation is not very
rapid, the earnings of the newest arrivals may never reach parity with the
earnings of natives. Recent arrivals will probably earn 20 percent less than
natives throughout much of their working lives.
The large-scale migration of less-skilled workers has done harm to the
economic opportunities of less-skilled natives. Immigration may account for
perhaps a third of the recent decline in the relative wages of less-educated
native workers.
The new immigrants are more likely to receive welfare assistance than
earlier immigrants, and also more likely to do so than natives: 21 percent
of immigrant households participate in some means-tested social-assistance
program (such as cash benefits, Medicaid, or food stamps), as compared with
14 percent of native households.
The increasing welfare dependency in the immigrant population suggests that
immigration may create a substantial fiscal burden on the most-affected
localities and states.
There are economic benefits to be gained from immigration. These arise
because certain skills that immigrants bring into the country complement
those of the native population. However, these economic benefits are
small -- perhaps on the order of $7 billion annually.
There exists a strong correlation between the skills of immigrants and the
skills of their American-born children, so that the huge skill differentials
observed among today's foreign-born groups will almost certainly become
tomorrow's differences among American-born ethnic groups. In effect,
immigration has set the stage for sizable ethnic differences in skills and
socioeconomic outcomes, which are sure to be the focus of intense attention
in the next century.
The United States is only beginning to observe the economic consequences of
the historic changes in the numbers, national origins, and skills of
immigrants admitted over the past three decades. Regardless of how
immigration policy changes in the near future, we have already set in motion
circumstances that will surely alter the economic prospects of native
workers and the costs of social-insurance programs not only in our
generation but for our children and grandchildren as well.
Whose Interests Will We Serve?
F economic research is to play a productive role in the immigration debate,
research findings should help us to devise the formula that determines
admission into the United States. We need to decide what variables are to be
used to award points to applicants, and what is to be the passing grade.
Before we can resolve these issues, however, we have to address a difficult
philosophical question: What should the United States try to accomplish with
its immigration policy?
The answer to this question is far from obvious, even when the question is
posed in purely economic terms. We can think of the world as composed of
three distinct groups: people born in the United States (natives),
immigrants, and people who remain in other countries. Whose economic welfare
should the United States try to improve when setting policy -- that of
natives, of immigrants, of the rest of the world, or of some combination of
the three? The formula implied by economic research depends on whose
interests the United States cares most about.
Different political, economic, and moral arguments can be made in favor of
each of the three groups. I think that most participants in the U.S. policy
debate attach the greatest (and perhaps the only) weight to the well-being
of natives. This is not surprising. Natives dominate the market for
political ideas in the United States, and most proposals for immigration
reform will unavoidably reflect the self-interest and concerns of native
voters.
Immigration almost always improves the well-being of the immigrants. If they
don't find themselves better off after they enter the United States, they
are free to go back or to try their luck elsewhere -- and, indeed, some do.
A few observers attach great weight to the fact that many of the "huddled
masses" now live in relative comfort.
As for the vast populations that remain in the source countries, they are
affected by U.S. immigration policy in a number of ways. Most directly, the
policy choices made by the United States may drain particular skills and
abilities from the labor markets of source countries. A brain drain slows
economic growth in the source countries, as the entrepreneurs and skilled
workers who are most likely to spur growth move to greener pastures.
Similarly, the principles of free trade suggest that world output would be
largest if there were no national borders to interfere with the free
movement of people. A policy that restricts workers from moving across
borders unavoidably leads to a smaller world economy, to the detriment of
many source countries.
The three groups may therefore have conflicting interests, and economics
cannot tell us whose interests matter most. The weight that we attach to
each of the three groups depends on our values and ideology. For the sake of
argument I will assume a political consensus that the objective of
immigration policy is to improve the economic well-being of the native
population.
Beyond that, we have to specify which dimension of native economic
well-being we care most about: per capita income or distribution of income.
As we shall see, immigration raises per capita income in the native
population, but this does not mean that all natives gain equally. In fact
some natives are likely to see their incomes greatly reduced. We must
therefore be able to judge an immigration policy in terms of its impact on
two different economic dimensions: the size of the economic pie (which
economists call "efficiency") and how the pie is sliced ("distribution").
The relative weights that we attach to efficiency and distribution again
depend on our values and ideology, and economics provides no guidance on how
to rank the two.
For the most part, economists take a very narrow approach: policies that
increase the size of the pie are typically considered to be better policies,
regardless of their impact on the distribution of wealth in society. We
shall begin our construction of an immigration policy by taking this narrow
approach. In other words, let's assume that immigration policy has a single
and well-defined purpose: to maximize the size of the economic pie available
to the native population of the United States. We shall return to the
distributional issues raised by immigration policy later on.
The Economic Case for Immigration
O see how natives gain from immigration, let's first think about how the
United States gains from foreign trade. When we import toys made by cheap
Chinese labor, workers in the American toy industry undoubtedly suffer wage
cuts and perhaps even lose their jobs. These losses, however, are more than
offset by the benefits accruing to consumers, who enjoy the lower prices
induced by additional competition. An important lesson from this exercise,
worth remembering when we look at the gains from immigration, is that for
there to be gains from foreign trade for the economy as a whole, some
sectors of the economy must lose.
Consider the analogous argument for immigration. Immigrants increase the
number of workers in the economy. Because they create additional competition
in the labor market, the wages of native workers fall. At the same time,
however, native-owned firms gain, because they can hire workers at lower
wages; and many native consumers gain because lower labor costs lead to
cheaper goods and services. The gains accruing to those who consume
immigrants' services exceed the losses suffered by native workers, and hence
society as a whole is better off.
Immigration therefore has two distinct consequences. The size of the
economic pie increases. And a redistribution of income is induced, from
native workers who compete with immigrant labor to those who use immigrants'
services.
The standard economic model of the labor market suggests that the net gain
from immigration is small. The United States now has more than 20 million
foreign-born residents, making up slightly less than 10 percent of the
population. I have estimated that native workers lose about $133 billion a
year as a result of this immigration (or 1.9 percent of the gross domestic
product in a $7 trillion economy), mainly because immigrants drive down
wages. However, employers -- from the owners of large agricultural
enterprises to people who hire household help -- gain on the order of $140
billion (or 2.0 percent of GDP). The net gain, which I call the immigration
surplus, is only about $7 billion. Thus the increase in the per capita
income of natives is small -- less than $30 a year. But the small size of
this increase masks a substantial redistribution of wealth.
My calculation used the textbook model of a competitive labor market: wages
and employment are determined in a free market that balances the desires of
people looking for work with the needs of firms looking for workers. In this
framework an increase in the number of workers reduces wages in the
economy -- immigrants join natives in the competition for jobs and bid down
wages in the process. There is a lot of disagreement over how much native
wages fall when immigrants enter the labor market. Nevertheless, a great
deal of empirical research in economics, often unrelated to the question of
immigration, concludes that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers
lowers wages by about three percent.
If we accept this finding, we can argue as follows: We know that about 70
percent of GDP accrues to workers (with the rest going to the owners of
companies), and that natives make up slightly more than 90 percent of the
population. Therefore, native workers take home about 63 percent of GDP in
the form of wages and salaries. If the 10 percent increase in the number of
workers due to immigration has lowered wages by three percent, the share of
GDP accruing to native workers has fallen by 1.9 percentage points (or 0.63
x 0.03). Thus my conclusion that in a $7 trillion economy native earnings
drop by $133 billion.
Those lost earnings do not vanish into thin air. They represent an income
transfer from workers to users of immigrants' services -- the employers of
immigrants and the consumers who buy the goods and services produced by
immigrants. These winners get to pocket the $133 billion -- and then some,
because the goods produced by immigrant workers generate additional profits
for employers. Under the assumption that a 10 percent increase in the number
of workers reduces wages by three percent, it turns out that the winners get
a windfall totaling $140 billion. Hence the $7 billion immigration surplus.
We can quibble about assumptions, but the rigor of economic theory suggests
that this nitpicking may not alter our conclusions much. For example, one
could argue -- and many do -- that immigrants do not reduce the earnings of
native workers. If we wished to believe this, however, we would also be
forced to conclude that natives do not benefit from immigration at all. If
wages do not fall, there are no savings in employers' payrolls and no cost
savings to be passed on to native consumers. Remember the lesson from the
foreign-trade example: no pain, no gain.
One could also argue that immigration has reduced the earnings of natives
very substantially -- by, say, 10 percent. The immigration surplus would
then be about $25 billion annually. The net gain from immigration,
therefore, remains small even with an unrealistically high estimate of the
impact of immigration on native earnings. Imagine what U.S. policy would
look like today if our earnings had fallen by 10 percent as a result of past
immigration.
The immigration surplus has to be balanced against the cost of providing
services to the immigrant population. Immigrants have high rates of welfare
recipiency. Estimates of the fiscal impact of immigration (that is, of the
difference between the taxes paid by immigrants and the cost of services
provided to them) vary widely. Some studies claim that immigrants pay
$25-$30 billion more in taxes than they take out of the system, while other
studies blame them for a fiscal burden of more than $40 billion on natives.
It is doubtful that either of these statistics accurately reflects the gap
between taxes paid and the cost of services provided. Studies that claim a
beneficial fiscal impact tend to assume that immigrants do not increase the
cost of most government programs other than education and welfare. Even
though we do not know by how much immigrants increase the cost of police
protection, maintaining roads and national parks, and so forth, we do know
that it costs more to provide these services to an ever larger population.
However, studies that claim a large fiscal burden often overstate the costs
of immigration and understate the taxes paid. As a result, estimates of the
fiscal impact of immigration should be viewed with suspicion. Nevertheless,
because the immigration surplus is around $7 billion, the net benefit from
immigration after accounting for the fiscal impact is very small, and could
conceivably be a net loss.
How Many and Whom Should We Admit?
N principle, we should admit immigrants whenever their economic contribution
(to native well-being) will exceed the costs of providing social services to
them. We are not, though, in a position to make this calculation with any
reasonable degree of confidence. In fact, no mainstream study has ever
attempted to suggest, purely on the basis of the empirical evidence, how
many immigrants should be admitted.
This unfortunate lack of guidance from economic research has, I believe, led
to sudden and remarkable swings in policy proposals. As recently as 1990
Congress legislated an increase in the number of legal immigrants of about
175,000 people annually. Last year the Commission on Immigration Reform,
headed by Barbara Jordan, recommended that legal immigration be cut by about
240,000 people a year -- a proposal that was immediately supported by
President Clinton. (The Clinton Administration, however, successfully
resisted congressional efforts to follow up on the commission's
recommendations.)
Although we do not know how many immigrants to admit, simple economics and
common sense suggest that the magic number should not be an immutable
constant regardless of economic conditions in the United States. A good case
can be made for linking immigration to the business cycle: admit more
immigrants when the economy is strong and the unemployment rate is low, and
cut back on immigration when the economy is weak and the unemployment rate
is high.
Economic research also suggests that the United States may be better off if
its policy of awarding entry visas favors skilled workers. Skilled
immigrants earn more than less-skilled immigrants, and hence pay more in
taxes, and they are less likely to use welfare and other social services.
Depending on how the skills of immigrants compare with the skills of
natives, immigrants also affect the productivity of the native work force
and of native-owned companies. Skilled native workers, for example, have
much to gain when less-skilled workers enter the United States: they can
devote all their efforts to jobs that use their skills effectively while
immigrants provide cheap labor for service jobs. These gains, however, come
at a cost. The jobs of less-skilled natives are now at risk, and these
natives will suffer a reduction in their earnings. Nonetheless, it does not
seem far-fetched to assume that the American work force, particularly in
comparison with the work forces of many source countries, is composed
primarily of skilled workers. Thus the typical American worker would seem to
gain from unskilled immigration.
How does immigration affect companies' profits? Companies that use
less-skilled workers on the production line gain from the immigration of the
less-skilled, who reduce the earnings of less-skilled workers in favor of
increasing profits. However, other companies -- perhaps even most -- might
be better off with skilled immigrants. Many studies in economics suggest
that skilled labor is better suited to the machines that are now used widely
in the production process. Most companies would therefore gain more if the
immigrant flow were composed of skilled workers.
Most workers prefer unskilled immigrants, whereas most companies prefer
skilled immigrants. This conflict can be resolved only by measuring how much
native workers gain from unskilled immigration and how much companies gain
from skilled immigration, and comparing the two. Although there is a lot of
uncertainty in the academic literature, we do know that the productivity of
capital is very responsive to an influx of skilled workers. The large
increase in the profits of the typical company, and the corresponding
reduction in the cost of goods produced by skilled workers, suggest that the
United States might be better off with a policy favoring skilled immigrants.
The gains from skilled immigration will be even larger if immigrants have
"external effects" on the productivity of natives. One could argue, for
example, that immigrants may bring knowledge, skills, and abilities that
natives lack, and that natives might somehow pick up this know-how by
interacting with immigrants. It seems reasonable to suspect that the value
of these external effects would be greater if natives interact with highly
skilled immigrants. This increase in the human capital of natives might
offset -- and perhaps even reverse -- the harm that immigration does to the
wages of competing workers.
Although such effects now play a popular role in economic theory, there is
little empirical evidence supporting their existence, let alone measuring
their magnitude. I find it difficult to imagine that interaction with
immigrants entering an economy as large as that of the United States could
have a measurable effect. Nevertheless, if external effects exist, they
reinforce the argument that the United States would gain most from skilled
immigrants.
Efficiency Versus Distribution
ARTICIPANTS in the immigration debate routinely use the results of economic
research to frame the discussion and to suggest policy solutions. Perhaps
the most important contributions of this research are the insights that
immigration entails both gains and losses for the native population, that
the winners and the losers are typically different groups, and that policy
parameters can be set in ways that attempt to maximize gains and minimize
losses. If the objective of immigration policy is to increase the per capita
income of the native population, the evidence suggests that immigration
policy should encourage the entry of skilled workers. It is important to
remember, however, that even though the immigration of skilled workers would
be beneficial for the United States as a whole, the gains and losses would
be concentrated in particular subgroups of the population.
As we have seen, the net gains from current immigration are small, so it is
unlikely that these gains can play a crucial role in the policy debate.
Economic research teaches a very valuable lesson: the economic impact of
immigration is essentially distributional. Current immigration redistributes
wealth from unskilled workers, whose wages are lowered by immigrants, to
skilled workers and owners of companies that buy immigrants' services, and
from taxpayers who bear the burden of paying for the social services used by
immigrants to consumers who use the goods and services produced by
immigrants.
Distributional issues drive the political debate over many social policies,
and immigration policy is no exception. The debate over immigration policy
is not a debate over whether the entire country is made better off by
immigration -- the gains from immigration seem much too small, and could
even be outweighed by the costs of providing increased social services.
Immigration changes how the economic pie is sliced up -- and this fact goes
a long way toward explaining why the debate over how many and what kinds of
immigrants to admit is best viewed as a tug-of-war between those who gain
from immigration and those who lose from it.
History has taught us that immigration policy changes rarely, but when it
does, it changes drastically. Can economic research play a role in finding a
better policy? I believe it can, but there are dangers ahead. Although the
pendulum seems to be swinging to the restrictionist side (with ever louder
calls for a complete closing of our borders), a greater danger to the
national interest may be the few economic groups that gain much from
immigration. They seem indifferent to the costs that immigration imposes on
other segments of society, and they have considerable financial incentives
to keep the current policy in place. The harmful effects of immigration will
not go away simply because some people do not wish to see them. In the short
run these groups may simply delay the day of reckoning. Their potential
long-run impact, however, is much more perilous: the longer the delay, the
greater the chances that when immigration policy finally changes, it will
undergo a seismic shift -- one that, as in the twenties, may come close to
shutting down the border and preventing Americans from enjoying the benefits
that a well-designed immigration policy can bestow on the United States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Copyright © 1996 by The Atlantic Monthly Company. All rights reserved.
The Atlantic Monthly; November 1996; The New Economics of Immigration;
Volume 278, No. 5; pages 72-80.
Gabriel519 <gabri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990911165812...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
Thomas Mohr
>
> Typical Hispanic bullshit.
> Read Borjas from Harvard.
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/96nov/immigrat/borjas.htm
> Copyright © 1996 by The Atlantic Monthly Company. All rights reserved.
> The Atlantic Monthly; November 1996; The New Economics of Immigration;
> Volume 278, No. 5; pages 72-80.
Crumbieboy, let me lecture you about your own language: "copyright"
means that the holder of said copyright has the exclusive riight to
copy. I.o.w., you're a lawbreaker again.
Thomas Mohr
> > Mexico is as Mexicans do.
> > Don't blame the USA for that failed nation.
>
> First you say Mexico is better off do to our historic meddling, then you say
> the curent situation there is all their fault.
>
> Try posting this on alt.cake.and.eat.it and see if the logic fares any
> better there than here.
What do you expect from somebody who posts as "black outrage" really
idiotic things showing his miseducation ? Consistent thinking ?
rrcrumb
by George J. Borjas
Shopping with us is 100% safe. Guaranteed.
List Price: $27.95
Our Price: $19.57
You Save: $8.38 (30%)
Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours.
Hardcover - 264 pages (September 1999)
Princeton Univ Pr; ISBN: 0691059667 ; Dimensions (in inches): 1.01 x 9.52 x
6.43
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 8,256
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reviews
Library Journal
"Borjas is the leading American economist conducting research and writing
about immigration policy. A mervelous read. . . ."
Book Description
"Borjas is the leading American economist today writing about immigration
policy. I do not share all of his views, but they have to be taken seriously
by everyone in the field, and indeed his research has shaped the field more
than that of any other writer."--John Isbister, University of California,
Santa Cruz
The U.S. took in more than a million immigrants per year in the late 1990s,
more than at any other time in history. For humanitarian and many other
reasons, this may be good news. But as George Borjas shows in Heaven's Door,
it's decidedly mixed news for the American economy--and positively bad news
for the country's poorest citizens. Widely regarded as the country's leading
immigration economist, Borjas presents the most comprehensive, accessible,
and up-to-date account yet of the economic impact of recent immigration on
America. He reveals that the benefits of immigration have been greatly
exaggerated and that, if we allow immigration to continue unabated and
unmodified, we are supporting an astonishing transfer of wealth from the
poorest people in the country, who are disproportionately minorities, to the
richest.
In the course of the book, Borjas carefully analyzes immigrants' skills,
national origins, welfare use, economic mobility, and impact on the labor
market, and he makes groundbreaking use of new data to trace current trends
in ethnic segregation. He also evaluates the implications of the evidence
for the type of immigration policy the that U.S. should pursue. Some of his
findings are dramatic:
Despite estimates that range into hundreds of billions of dollars, net
annual gains from immigration are only about $8 billion.
In dragging down wages, immigration currently shifts about $160 billion per
year from workers to employers and users of immigrants' services.
Immigrants today are less skilled than their predecessors, more likely to
re-quire public assistance, and far more likely to have children who remain
in poor, segregated communities.
Borjas considers the moral arguments against restricting immigration and
writes eloquently about his own past as an immigrant from Cuba. But he
concludes that in the current economic climate--which is less conducive to
mass immigration of unskilled labor than past eras--it would be fair and
wise to return immigration to the levels of the 1970s (roughly 500,000 per
year) and institute policies to favor more skilled immigrants.
About the Author
George J. Borjas is the Pforzheimer Professor of Public Policy at the John
F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and a Research
Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He is the author of
several books, including Wage Policy in the Federal Bureaucracy, Friends or
Strangers: The Impact of Immigrants on the U.S. Economy, and Labor
Economics, and of over one hundred articles in books and scholarly journals.
S.BM
New Mexico, (I think NM) getting together with Mexico and encouraging more
Mexican nationals to come here to work? It was on KTLA the other night and
no one has said a word about this.
rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KCyC3.6827$XL2.1...@news2.mia...
> Mexico is as Mexicans do.
> Don't blame the USA for that failed nation.
>
>
>
>
> David Gleason <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote in message
> news:wPxC3.100$kL2....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
> >
> > rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Gringo
><<<The most recent studies show that the costs of immigration outweigh the
>benefits.>>>
>
>Wrong.It shows that the benefits are not fairly distributed by the federal
>government among the states.
>
>
>Gabriel
How about the Rice University study?
The Traveler
>
> Why is it that no one has talked about the Gov. of California, Arizona and
> New Mexico, (I think NM) getting together with Mexico and encouraging more
> Mexican nationals to come here to work? It was on KTLA the other night and
> no one has said a word about this.
Because if it were to be criticized, the cries of "racist!!" would
instantly be heard.
--
But she looked good in ribbons......
DKL
<da...@davidgleason.com> wrote:
>> *One* doctrinaire judge declared that sections of it weren't
>> Constitutional. A proper appeal to higher courts would have been
>> interesting, and those courts might have found some merit to "the will
>> of the people," and not only in the spirit but also in the letter of
>> the Constitution.
>A lower court found it unconstitutional. Before going higher, it was
>submitted to arbitration and determined that the initiative was so flawed
>that it had no hope of passing muster.
The main problem in the arbitration - which should never have
taken place, since the governor should assert the will of the people
as expressed on the ballot - was that nobody involved represented the
voters. While the governor is supported to do so, his sympathies were
with the opponents of 187. Not much of an arbitration ... more like a
fixed game.
>Remember, this was a voter initiative, not a piece of legislation.
>Legislation can be sent back to the State House for amendment or rewriting
>but an initiative by a portion of the electorate must return to the ballot
>level to again be voted on if it is to be changed.
One doctrinaire judge and one doctrinaire governor overturned
the democratic process - first of the election, then of the appeals
process. Their doing so isn't an exercise in democracy. It's an
exercise in totalitarianism.
DKL
<da...@davidgleason.com> wrote:
>> >>>>"America wasn't *built* by immigrants. It was *built* by Americans,
>the
>> >overwhelming majority of whom were born in this country. What is this
>myth
>> >about American being built by immigrants?">>>
>> >
>> >The only real Americans are Native Americans.
>>
>> I'm a Native American. I was born in San Francisco,
>> California. A couple of hundred million Americans are also Native
>> Americans.
>
>First you insisted that "gender" had to do with nouns and pronouns until you
>were shown various dictionary definitions that indicated that it was used to
>show the sex of humans, at which point you blustered in Luddite fashion
>about the dynamic changes of the English language.
Evidently you didn't grasp my explanation. For an elaboration
on my theme, read George Orwell's essay *Politics and the English
Language.*
>Now, you want to take a broadly accepted and officially defined term,
Officially defined? Really? By whom? The same group that
gave us *Hispanic*? Again, read Orwell.
>"Native American" and make it into something it is not. "Native American" in
>the USA is a p/c term for "Indian." It does not mean just anyone born here,
>as those are "native-born" but not "native."
So the PC crowd now officially defines, does it? American
Indian is the correct term. You might check the dictionary for the
meaning of the word *native* and you'll find that its unadulterated
meaning complies with my usage of it.
>And, your definition ha a mean backbite: about 25 million Hispanics, give or
>take a million or two, are "native Americans" by your definition.
What's a *Hispanic*?
>You really should stop redefining the language all on your own, Doug.
Actually, I'm interested in preserving the integrity of the
language rather than accept its dilution and abuse.
DKL
><<<You may not find any economic justification to halt immigration but there is
>a
>growing body of literature that supports the anti-immigrant position.>>>
>
>That body did its growing 6/7 ago ,at the peak of last recession and is very
>quickly now
>being "matched" by another growing body
>supporting just the opposite .
No evidence whatsoever exists to support that claim. Also,
exactly what do you think will happen when the economic cycle turns to
the downside? If the downside follows Newton's law, that the downside
will be equal to the upside, then expect busloads, truckloads,
boatloads, and every other kind of load of Mexican and Central
Americans being delivered to the southern border.
DKL
><<<The most recent studies show that the costs of immigration outweigh the
>benefits.>>>
>
>Wrong.It shows that the benefits are not fairly distributed by the federal
>government among the states.
Read some GAO reports. Read Huddle. Read Brimelow. Read the
latest Rand study. Even the Urban Institute can't produce a study to
support an economic benefit of immigration.
Gringo
>
>Gringo <Gri...@Chinga.com> wrote in message
>news:rtl1ot...@news.supernews.com...
>> >Gringo <Gri...@Chinga.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Heck the PRI will just assassinate the PRD candidate.
>
>Write me when it happens.
>
The PRI assassinated its own candidate in 1994.
Gabriel519
latest Rand study. Even the Urban Institute can't produce a study to
support an economic benefit of immigration.>>>
Read current economic reports.Read Alan Greenspan views on immigration.
Read current demographic trends and projections.
Read Cato institute studies.
Gabriel
S.BM
minute. there was LITTLE time devoted to it. All I know for 100% sure is
what I heard, and it was that the 3 governors where heading to Mexico to get
together with someone there, No names I can recall so I wont try to post
that, or give positions, because sure as hell I would be wrong, and I see
what happens here if you make one mistake, BUT, it was so that more Mexican
nationals could work here in the three states to fill positions that no one
else will take...no mention of those jobs, pay, or anything like that. It
simply was about allowing more to come here and work, legally.
I am attempting to locate something that spells it out in more detail for my
own information as well...
Wild Rice <wild_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rzPbN7xVAhXe7e...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 15:02:57 -0700, "S.BM"
> <sp...@the.breakfast.of.cloggedarteries> wrote:
>
> >Why is it that no one has talked about the Gov. of California, Arizona
and
> >New Mexico, (I think NM) getting together with Mexico and encouraging
more
> >Mexican nationals to come here to work? It was on KTLA the other night
and
> >no one has said a word about this.
>
> Tell us more.
>
> Wild Rice
S.BM
http://americanpatrol.com/BRACERO/TJmeetingLATimes990911.html
DKL
Do so, of course, but realize Cato and others are promoting
the view of multi-national corporations and Libertarians. Realize too
that Cato cooks the books.
Iskinder
<<How about the Rice University study?>>
How about the US-Mexico Binational Study on Immigration...same results as
Cato's
sando...@hotmail.com
keep going Gleason!
Big Al
In article <hEeC3.194$9q1....@typhoon01.swbell.net>,
"David Gleason" <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote:
>
> JBaker9217 <jbake...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19990910163842...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
> > >From: "David Gleason"
> >
> > >The question had the word "treats" and not the word "takes."\
> >
> > Hunh?
>
> Oh, what the heck, I'll try again.
>
> Here is your the original reply................
> ==========================
> >Canada accepts about 225,000 immigrants per year and Australia less
than
> >100,000. To compare that with America's over one million per year is
> >ludicrous.
> >(Also worth noting are the immigration reform movements in both
Canada and
> >Australia which seek to prevent an American style immigration
disaster from
> >happening there)
> ===========================
>
> I had responded to Mamaleuna's comment that (paraphrase) "no country
treats
> immmigrants better than the US." by indicating that there are several
that
> do, in fact, treat, as a nation, thier immigrants better than we do.
>
> You replied by taling about how many immigrants we take, or accept,
rather
> th;an addressing the nature of treatment those immigrants that are
let in
> are afforded.
>
> "Take" means to accept. In the case of immmigrants, it reflects the
number
> of immigrants admitted.
>
> "Treat" indicates in what fashion the immigrants, once in a country,
are
> dealt with by the populace and the government and the institutions of
the
> new home country.
>
> >
> > >Both Canada and Australia treat their immigrants better than the
US does.
> >
> > Assuming this statement is true, (a big leap) why not advise all
your
> friends
> > south of the border to immigrate to either one of those two
countries.
> >
> Why should I? Most of my friends in Latin America are much better off
where
> they are, and wouldn't think of coming here to receive the type of
second
> class treatment that your attitudes reflect.
> >
> > >However, jumping into your argument, it's important to note that
225
> > >thousand immigrants to Canada or 100 thousand to Australia is a far
> bigger
> > >percentage of the total population than 1 million is to the USA.
> >
> > Which is exactly why the immigration reform movement is growing.
>
> Legal reform by the will of the people is perfectly commendable. As
long as
> it is in accordance with each country's legal system. Attempts like
Prop 187
> don't fit this conformity with the legal system.
> >
> > >That "immigration disaster" you speak of allowed the
> > >Italians, Germans, Poles, Irish and many others in in very
significant
> > >percentages.
> >
> > The immigration disaster I am referring to is the one occurring
right now.
>
> And how is one different from another? The percentage of Irish coming
here
> in the 1846-1850 period far exceeded, in percentage, the Hispanic
> immigration of today. And the Iris were treated as a separate race,
signs of
> "no Irish allowed" and all the other trappings of bigotry, prevailed.
As I
> said, what is so different?
> >
> > However, jumping into your argument, if the immigration of Italians,
> Germans,
> > Poles, Irish and many others has been good for America in the past,
then
> it
> > ought to be good today. But very few of the people you mention can
get in
> > today. United States immigration policy is discriminatory aginst
anyone
> who is
> > not Latino or Asian. Funny how those who prattle on about diversity
> support a
> > policy which has all of our immigrants coming from the same place.
>
> Maybe because large immigrant waves are generally caused by poverty,
famine
> and political unreast or turmoil. Italy, Poland, Ireland, etc. had
> conditions in the 1800's that promoted immigration. Europeans now live
> better, more safely and in a better educated environment than we do
in the
> US. Why would they want to come here unless they are form Bosnia, the
> former Russian Republics or from Mother Russia itself/herself?
> >
> > >As to third grade... the one in the corner should be you. "treat"
and
> "take"
> > >are very different words, even to a 10 year old.
> >
> > Still don't know what you're talking about here.
>
> I explained it a second time. Capiche?
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Quote
order to more easily enchain them. Who talks
nowadays of the "sovereign people" without a
laugh of derision? and yet it was once thought to be
a term of full significance. Your 'sovereignty' is
now acknowledged sham, and your freedom a
dream.
WAL444
>immigration. But I am vehemently oppossed to Latin American immigration
>because...........................
You oppose anyone not from your background coming to the US? Isn't that
racist?
So how do you feel about African immigrants?
How do you feel about Australian immigrants?
Do you really think ALL latin Americans hate this country? I think there are a
lot of conservative patriotic Latinos who would dispute you on that.