It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Real Reason That You are Terrified of Latinos, Africans, Asians and/or Muslims

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 




It's not the state's duty to provide jobs to anyone, not even its own citizens.


It is currently the states duty to provide basic standard of living to its inhabitants (welfare). If you want to allow unrestricted immigration, you have two options:

1. discontinue all forms of government benefits and welfare programs (even in economic crisis?) so government will not have to increase spending, but millions of people in America would fall into poverty. If you allow unregulated immigration, ANOTHER millions of poor and uneducated people would come into America on top of that, and also wont receive government assistance.

I would call it "Instant third world country. Just add water!

2. keep the welfare, but counter increased numbers of people needing it (due to immigration of unqualified individuals raising unemployment) with increasing taxes, thus hurting growth, causing economic decline, further increase in unemployment because of that and so on, until the economy collapses - no money from taxes for welfare, and again, the result is third world country. Slower process, the same outcome.

Is this what you want?
edit on 19/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Loved reading this most interesting post, seething with just barely able to be contained emotion and anger! Most excellent--I hate apathy! And I think the poster pretty much summed up the whole bottom line himself in one simple sentence in one of his paragraphs, "Keep out of our backyard." In its simplest and most fundamental terms, you exactly nailed the American sentiment right there, friend!



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by Darkrunner
 


What are you, a communist? It's not the state's duty to provide jobs to anyone, not even its own citizens. This is not the USSR.

A job is a task that someone needs or wants to have done. If there are millions of tasks that private citizens want completed and Hispanic migrants are ready, willing and able to do them, why should private citizens turn down the opportunity to hire them? Oh, it's not fair, it's not fair that private citizens would rather hire cheap, good labour that can't talk back to them or unionize than hire self-entitled, loudmouth Americans and Canadians. Suck it up and face it. The job market is first come, first serve, and if you don't have a job, it is nobody's fault but your own.
edit on 19-12-2010 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)


Oh in that we are in agreement. I was under the impression that you were advocating fence hopping because "they just want a better life", as if we are supposed to provide it, as well as social services for their 'anchor babies'.

I recently finished a job in a place which shall remain nameless, actually, no it won't. Plum Point Energy in Oceola, Arkansas. A power plant.

I went to lunch with a foreman from one of the other contractors working at the plant and he was laughing and telling me about one of his workers, when called to a job, shows up with a different name and social security number every time he shows up. He stopped laughing when he saw I wasn't laughing.

So yes, we are in agreement on that subject. Illegals will work for peanuts, and will break the law to do so.

I'd like to ask your opinion, however, of a penalty system for employers.

First Offense of being found hiring an illegal alien: $500,000.

Second: $1,000,000.

Third: $5,000,000 and mandatory jail time.

Would you agree with some system like this? And I already know there are (at least here in America) penalties for hiring illegal aliens. But I am talking ENFORCED penalties, not a slap on the wrist and once the Feds leave, they go back to hiring illegals.
edit on 19-12-2010 by Darkrunner because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkrunner

Even if enforced, monetary fines do little... they are less than what the businesses save by hiring slave labor illegally. I would love to see jail time for anyone who hires an illegal alien knowingly or recklessly (meaning they should have known but avoided asking) on their first offense.

For high-volume offenders: remove their business license or invalidate their corporate charter... shut 'em down.

Let's see them pass that on to their customers...

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I don't buy into this 'they are entering my home' line of thought. The country is not your home. You live in only one small part of it at any given time. It is not as if immigrants are coming into your actual house; they are entering a civil society in which you are but a single member. If New Yorkers move to South Carolina and do not immediately and completely assimilate, would you consider that a home invasion as well? They are not from your home state, though they are from the same country. What about an English immigrant? They are not from your home country, but they share many of the same elements of culture. Do immigrants need to seek permission from every single American before they are allowed to settle in the USA? These are the pressing questions that I ask myself between bathroom breaks.

I am not ignoring the respect of the immigrant towards the 'host.' As I said, immigrants are pressured to adopt certain customs and material culture in order to survive in their new country. They must learn the language if they hope to do business with the locals or acquire work; they must buy new clothing to cope with the unfamiliar climate; they must alter their diet due to availability of foods; they must adopt local customs and mannerisms in order not to alienate their new neighbours; they must obey the law of the land even if they disagree with it. Immigrants must show some respect for the local culture if only for pragmatic reasons.

Unless it is expressly forbidden by law, everybody in the United States is permitted the freedom to think, do, or be whatever they please. I do not see why immigrants should abridge their own freedoms when it is not required of them by law or circumstance.

The purpose of nations is not to protect any one culture. If that were the case then the United States would not have such a wide diversity of Anglo-American cultures, much less Aboriginal, Latin American, European, African and Asian cultures. I think that you are conflating race with culture, not through any fault of your own. The rhetoric surrounding these ideas has, in the past few decades, mutated and distorted its history. Euro-American nation-states have historically pushed for monoculture, monoethnicity, and most critically, monotheism. The ruling cliques of various territories have pushed for centuries to make their own standards the standards of all people under their rule. The American revolution was an explicit rejection of enforced homogeneity. It was an explicit declaration of the liberation of the mind.

The focus of this thread is the disappointing failure of Americans to uphold their revolutionary legacy. It is about the counter-revolutionary authoritarianism and exceptionalism espoused by hundreds of thousands of Americans. It is about the unwillingness of these Americans to live up to their revolutionary pedigree and stand for the liberty of every man, woman, and child. The system of nation-states is an affront to this liberty and we must be willing to reject it and everything that it stands for if we are to keep the spirit of revolution alive.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


The word civilized, from the root civil, derives from the Latin civilis; "relating to a citizen, relating to public life, befitting a citizen." The word citizen comes to us from the French citeien; "inhabitant of a city."

Every continent has played host to cities before the intervention of the Europeans in the modern era. Each of these cities has had its own unique and shifting standards for what befits its inhabitants. The word civilized was used by the Moderns to position their own urban standards as superior to the standards of any other city, anywhere in the world. If you study historical sources you will find that Europeans have also referred to other Europeans as uncivilized, even though they possessed cities and thus practiced civilization.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

I don't buy into this 'they are entering my home' line of thought. The country is not your home. You live in only one small part of it at any given time.

I only live in my house in one small area at a time, and quite often am not even there. Does that mean my house, according to you, should be some sort of safe haven for anyone who feels the need to sit down and watch TV for a little while? No, I believe the analogy is apt.

This is my country. I was born and raised here, as were my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on since the mid 1700s. My culture is here, built around those very things you mention later in your post: the foods we can grow, the climate, the available resources. To say otherwise to to disrespect me, sir.


If New Yorkers move to South Carolina and do not immediately and completely assimilate, would you consider that a home invasion as well? They are not from your home state, though they are from the same country.

If people from New York came here and attempted to change the laws and regulations in place that support my culture, yes I would consider it an invasion. As a matter of fact, I have considered it as such. I have told more than one such person "Remember that road you drove here on? It goes the other way. Don't let the door hit ya' where the Good Lord split ya'."

The same goes for immigrants from anywhere. This is my home. This is my family's home. This is my friends' home. This is my culture's home. If a little green man from Alpha Centauri wants to come live here and be part of it, I have no problem with that. If he wants to terraform it into Alpha Centauri, I do have a problem with it. It's that simple.


I am not ignoring the respect of the immigrant towards the 'host.' As I said, immigrants are pressured to adopt certain customs and material culture in order to survive in their new country. They must learn the language if they hope to do business with the locals or acquire work; they must buy new clothing to cope with the unfamiliar climate; they must alter their diet due to availability of foods; they must adopt local customs and mannerisms in order not to alienate their new neighbours; they must obey the law of the land even if they disagree with it. Immigrants must show some respect for the local culture if only for pragmatic reasons.

If only for pragmatic reasons?


My good man, you are exhibiting exactly where the problem lies. Respect is priceless here. A man's reputation is worth more than his monetary wealth and possessions. To even attempt to dismiss respect for others so casually is unthinkable to me. Yet, apparently it is not only imaginable, but proper for you.

Your custom, your culture. Please celebrate it. I will continue to celebrate mine.


Unless it is expressly forbidden by law, everybody in the United States is permitted the freedom to think, do, or be whatever they please. I do not see why immigrants should abridge their own freedoms when it is not required of them by law or circumstance.

You seem to be confused...

It is required by law that immigrants obtain some clearance form the government before entering the country. In order to become a citizen of the USA, immigrants must demonstrate some measure of ability and aptitude to assimilate into the culture, such as some degree of proficiency in English. I have no problem with those immigrants who do such. I can handle broken English with a strong foreign accent; they are at least trying to speak my language after all. I have no problem with someone who is, say, Muslim, practicing their religious ceremonies. I have no problem with them eating foods I have never heard of (matter of fact, I might be tempted to ask for a taste!
).

Where I have a problem is with those who make no effort to assimilate despite an intent to remain indefinitely. Those immigrants are not legal; in order to get permission to remain indefinitely, they have to pass certain requirements that indicate their willingness to do so. And if someone is living here without government approval...

...they have already broken the law.

Perhaps there are a few individuals who have gone through the rigors of entering the country legally and yet do not wish to assimilate. But those numbers are precious few and compared to the immigration flow we have, irrelevant.


The purpose of nations is not to protect any one culture. If that were the case then the United States would not have such a wide diversity of Anglo-American cultures, much less Aboriginal, Latin American, European, African and Asian cultures.

Surprise! We do!

We have areas that are stongly latino culture (Southern Texas), areas which have a heavy French influence (Southern Louisiana), areas with a strong Asian influence in most US cities, and areas with strong African influence scattered throughout the country. America is a melting pot, and any melting pot will have areas of higher intensity of one thing than others.

It might surprise you to know that I can tell what county, even what part of what county people are from around here, simply by their accent. Most people who have heard me (as anyone can on Saturday evening form 6:00-9:00PM Central on ATS Live!) simply think I have a southern accent. I do, but there is so much more to it than that. I have an accent unique to the section of the county in Alabama where i live.

As a truck driver for 8 years, I have covered 43 of the 48 continental states, plus had a few excursions into Canada. I have seen this country, as well as a decent part of yours, from coast to coast. I have seen that each area, not just each state, has its own unique culture, based on the locale and the historical settlers' origins. As a matter of fact, I was fascinated during those 8 years with knowing more about each culture. I have spent many hours simply conversing with locals, occasionally breaking bread with them. I have sat in a small sidewalk cafe in Philly eating a Philly Cheesesteak; enjoyed a nice luncheon in the heart of Queens NY, ate brisket in Texas, savored a Mexican restaurant in southern New Mexico (which I should add is officially bi-lingual), and chatted with the locals in Baton Rouge over a plate of Cajun cuisine.

All of these cultures have blended together to make something which you apparently do not comprehend. The USA is not one single culture; it is a mixture of many many different cultures, tied together by a language and a dream. We are all different, all unique, all special. All American. Not Euro-American, French-American, African-American, Asian-American... we are American.

Even the Yankees.



The focus of this thread is the disappointing failure of Americans to uphold their revolutionary legacy. It is about the counter-revolutionary authoritarianism and exceptionalism espoused by hundreds of thousands of Americans. It is about the unwillingness of these Americans to live up to their revolutionary pedigree and stand for the liberty of every man, woman, and child. The system of nation-states is an affront to this liberty and we must be willing to reject it and everything that it stands for if we are to keep the spirit of revolution alive.

The Department of Homeland Security website states that as of 2008, there were 12.45 million legal permanent residents in the USA, 7.87 million of those being eligible for naturalization. That number includes 2.57 million from Mexico alone.

That means right now we are willing to naturalize a group as large as the province of Quebec!

And it's not enough? OK, fine. It's not enough. Show us how it is to be done so we can follow your example. If you're not willing to do better, then... all I can say is you just lost all my respect.

Not that respect apparently matters in your culture...

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Just because your family has been in America for a long time does not mean that you own the country. It is not your country in that sense. Where is the boundary between what is your home, inviolate and private, and what is not your home? Is it the house? Is it the limits of the county? The state limits? The Federal limits? The whole Earth? All of my ancestors were born and raised on Earth; this is MY planet and people should respect my culture if they expect to live on it!

The diversity of America is a direct result of the process that I described in previous posts. The 'melting pot' does not so much create homogeneity as it creates a plurality of new and hybrid forms of culture. These various American subcultures are produced when immigrants and their native neighbours make mutual compromises and assemble new relations of thought, practice and artifact. They do not assimilate. They have never assimilated. They have never remained wholly loyal to their old ways, either, and neither have their neighbours.

I see that you prefer heritage to democracy, which is pretty much what I have been criticizing for the entire thread. I can't see how you could think of yourself as a true heir of the Revolution unless you see the Revolution as something that is already over.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
TheRedneck and others have made much sense.

For me, I have seen illegals take the place of a citizenz in the job market. With millions of unemployed citizens, how can anyone justify illegal immigration? Our homeless shelters are filled to capacity and tent cities are rising even in the cold climates. For a few years now I have noticed that jobs keep popping up that rquire us to be bilingual and speak both english and spanish. I am as far away as the border as can be and this is happening all around me. I feel like a foreigner in my own country.

All other cultures have come and learned our language without problems, why do we have to cater to the spanish speaking population and be forced to speak a foreign language in our own country?

With open borders, you are allowing anyone to come through without a health or background check. We are over run with murderers, thieves, gang members, rapist, pedophiles etc. Many illegals have had numerous arrests and deporatations and they just keep coming back with a new identity. They steal our social security numbers, present false documents and have no respect for the country or our laws.

Many illegals have had plenty of time to become legal citizens and choose not to. There are far more benefits to them in being illegal. They also lie and cheat the system. Many women lie and say thay have one income even though they have boyfriends who live with them and their combined income is way over the poverty limit. They have a number of children and recieve welfare, food stamps, cheap housing, free medical. Our tax dollars are paying for all their necessities while our citizens are falling through the cracks. This is neither fair nor right.

When i saw an elderly woman who was crying because she was refused help with her medical bills because she made 3.00 over the poverty limit, I wanted to cry myself knowing how many illegals didn't have to worry about a thing. When I see my fellow Americans struggling to survive while illegals just waltz over and take away from the American citizens, I want scream. They take our jobs, take, take, take, and demand more and more rights.

OP, don't you see what is going on? Don't you understand? We have seen and experienced too much. We are a nation of laws for a reason, just like any other country. Our citizens have had enough!



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Night Star
 


Illegal immigration is not the cause of the terrible job market. Why wasn't the job market this terrible in the 90s? There were millions of illegal immigrants in America even then. No, what has caused this slump in the job market is that employers don't have enough money to hire more people. They don't have money because their lines of credit were vaporized in the financial meltdown.

Why did the financial meltdown happen? Why was it focused in first-world countries? Because their neocolonial plunder-based economy has reached a saturation point. After the USSR fell, vast new markets opened up to the First World. Now, there is no more room for expansion. Everyone is broke, and so there is nothing left for the First World to loot. That is one reason that this desperate, Pyrrhic war against Iraq had to happen; the West had to set themselves up for war with Iran, because only by destroying Iran could they penetrate the unopened markets of central Asia. They have failed, and the economy is tanking as a result.

Deporting every illegal alien will do nothing to help. In fact, it can only harm the economy at this point; the cheap labour that they perform ensures that the economy continues to rumble along at an affordable price.

And by the way, employers are private and free citizens. They can offer jobs to anybody they please, under any circumstances, provided it does not break the law. Don't bother complaining that there are jobs that require you to be bilingual.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

Just because your family has been in America for a long time does not mean that you own the country. It is not your country in that sense. Where is the boundary between what is your home, inviolate and private, and what is not your home? Is it the house? Is it the limits of the county? The state limits? The Federal limits? The whole Earth? All of my ancestors were born and raised on Earth; this is MY planet and people should respect my culture if they expect to live on it!

The limit of my home is my property line; the limit to my state is the border of Alabama; the limit to my nation is the border of the United States of America.

You raise a moot argument. The national borders exist; the state borders exist; the property borders exist.


The diversity of America is a direct result of the process that I described in previous posts.

I must commend you. It is rare when someone misses the point that badly.

The population of the United States of America is diverse, yes, but it is also consistent in many ways. As I said, we are held together under a common tongue and a common dream: the American Dream of a home where we have basic rights under which we can live our lives in peace, with dignity and purpose and the chance to achieve and succeed. Those who come here and demand social services have no such dream of achievement and purpose in life; they come to mooch, yes, even to steal from those who live here.

Look at the United States a moment... it has, in a little over 200 years, gone from a rag-tag bunch of colonists, poorly equipped and persecuted in their homeland, and even from a penal colony (Georgia), to being the greatest superpower on Earth... the home of the Industrial Revolution... the originator of what was the International Reserve Currency for many years, the dollar... one of the wealthiest countries on the planet. It became that because the people who lived here worked hard and long... they, by their blood, sweat, and tears created this country from a wilderness.

Now look at Mexico... drug cartels, an overtly corrupt government (even compared with ours), extreme poverty, destitution, disease, despair... this is also the result of the people. They did not build a successful country. They did, even longer ago, start with the same wilderness.

We, the United States, succeeded. Mexico did not. Now Mexicans wish to simply walk across the Rio Grande and benefit from our ancestor's hard work without giving anything back? I don't think so. Legally, responsibly, to become a part of the USA, sure.... illegally, irresponsibly, and to take what they can.... never!


I see that you prefer heritage to democracy

Heritage is the sum of influences that shape a person's culture and personality.

Democracy is rule by the majority.

I fail to see how the two are comparable?

You should be aware that we in the USA do not have a democracy anyway. We have a democratic republic. The difference is akin to two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner as opposed to the same thing with the caveat they can't vote to eat one another. It does not matter how many people want to vote to remove me from my home; I have the right to stay, guaranteed under the US Constitution. An immigrant does not have the right to intrude upon me... as a matter of fact the Constitution does not even apply to those not citizens or legal residents of the USA.

Don't like it? Then get them to write their own constitution. I'm tired of them trying to change mine.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


You do not seem to understand what I am saying. You seem to think that I am disagreeing with you about American diversity, when I am plainly not disagreeing.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the spaces between 'American' and 'Chinese' communities, something new will emerge. Those immigrants that are willing to assimilate because they desire greater participation in American society will adopt American norms and material. Those Americans friendly and sympathetic to their new Chinese neighbours will adopt Chinese norms and material . . . What I see in the long view is a Euro-American 'culture' that takes in new 'bricks,' new components of culture from around the world at an increasing pace.

In this post I state that diverse synthetic cultures - - i.e. 'Chinese-American' - - emerge in the USA because of the mutual respect that each side has for some element of the other side's culture.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The purpose of nations is not to protect any one culture. If that were the case then the United States would not have such a wide diversity of Anglo-American cultures, much less Aboriginal, Latin American, European, African and Asian cultures.

In this post I plainly and obviously state that you are incorrect to say that a nation-state's purpose is to protect any one culture and as evidence I point out the great diversity of America.

I don't mean to be rude, but did you even read my posts? I can understand it if either of us missed some implicit message in what the other was saying, but I repeatedly and explicitly said that America is diverse before you said 'Surprise!' as if I had said the exact opposite.

_____________________________________

Heritage and democracy come into direct conflict when you refuse to allow the democratic process to proceed because you see it as a threat to your heritage. Which is more important? The will of the citizen-inhabitants to govern themselves, or the history of the place? Apparently it cannot be both ways because you see any changes in the law, introduced by people who do not share your heritage, as an attack on your heritage. Apparently it is wrong for the law to change unless it is changed by the people who have lived there the longest!

Now, if you are bringing up the constitution of the Federation as an out to this argument, if you are trying to find a way to deny democracy without outright saying it, then I think I have confirmation of my main thesis.

I want to boil down your argument to its basic points, as relevant to my own argument.

-My culture is good
-Other people should not change it
-A change in the law is an attempt to forcibly change my culture [it is malicious]
-The law should not be changed by people who do not share my culture, even if they have voting rights
-America isn't a democracy and I like it that way

Am I on point here? Hopefully I read your posts better than you read mine.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 




Now, if you are bringing up the constitution of the Federation as an out to this argument, if you are trying to find a way to deny democracy without outright saying it, then I think I have confirmation of my main thesis.


If citizens DEMOCRATICALLY agree that there should be national borders and illegals should not be tolerated, its suddenly not a democracy?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


When a privileged class of voters (citizens) decides to suspend the inalienable rights of other people, is that democracy? I assume that you will say that yes, democracy for the lucky few is what the Revolution was all about.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


In fact yes, that is pure democracy. If there exist a class of rights that cannot be legally suspended no matter what proportion of people want it in the democratic vote, it is called a republic.

Inalienable rights in our western republics are enumerated in the Declaration. Absolute freedom of movement, even agaist the will of the owners of the destination location is not one of them. Only freedom from being imprisoned somewhere without a fair trial. This rights are NOT the same - the one in the declaration speaks about the origin point, you are speaking about the destination.
edit on 20/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

The misunderstanding is mutual, apparently. You fail to see what I am saying. Let me try again:

The United States of America is a diverse nation, subdivided into 50 individual states and a few territories. Each state is then divided into municipalities with that state... counties, cities, towns. Each individual culture exists within these minuscule subdivisions. As such, each section of a state has certain laws and regulations pertaining to the individuality of its culture. Each state then has laws and regulations that apply to all of the individual cultures within it. The nation has a narrowly defined role to ensure the safety and equity between states, outlined in the US Constitution.

This we are a nation of diversity, as we both agree. The disagreement, unless i misread your posts, is that we also have a lot of common cultural aspects from border to border as well. It is these common threads within the various cultures that exist inside the USA that separate it from other nations.

The problem comes about when someone enters the country illegally with no regard to the culture they are infringing upon, and instead of adapting to the culture there, they try to change it. And as I have stated before, it doesn't matter if the newcomer is from another state, another part of the same state, another country, or even another planet... it is not right to expect those who you find already living in an area to adapt to you.

To address your points one by one (because, no, you are not "on point"):

-My culture is good

My culture is mine. Good and bad are relative terms.


-Other people should not change it

Correct. It is mine, not theirs.


-A change in the law is an attempt to forcibly change my culture [it is malicious]

Not necessarily. A change in the law could be either beneficial or detrimental to the culture affected.


-The law should not be changed by people who do not share my culture, even if they have voting rights

Partly true. No one who is not a part of my community should be allowed to cast a vote that affects my community exclusively. I do not vote (can not vote) in an election concerning New York or Minnesota. That is appropriate, and as such, neither can nor should they vote in matters pertaining to Alabama.

City elections are restricted to the legal residents of a city. County elections are restricted to legal residents of a county. State elections are restricted to legal residents of the state. In essence, we have no open national elections; the only national leader is the President/Vice-President, and that election is voted on by representatives (electors) from each state.

That means you, as a Canadian, do not get a say-so in what my state tax rate should be.



-America isn't a democracy and I like it that way

That, sir, is a fact, not my opinion nor my desire. The USA is a democratic republic, where elected officials make the actual decisions, not a popular vote of the populace.

I do, however, like the electoral arrangement we have, yes. It seems to have worked well for 200 years, and if we could get voters educated and interested, I believe it would work still.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by Night Star
 




Deporting every illegal alien will do nothing to help. In fact, it can only harm the economy at this point; the cheap labour that they perform ensures that the economy continues to rumble along at an affordable price.

And by the way, employers are private and free citizens. They can offer jobs to anybody they please, under any circumstances, provided it does not break the law. Don't bother complaining that there are jobs that require you to be bilingual.


Quite the contrary. If there is a place of employment that has say 200 illegals working for him, that is 200 jobs that could have gone to American citizens. As for the employers themselves, they will choose an illegal over a citizen evey time because an illegal will work for sub-standard wages.

There will be some interesting bills coming up in the future that will be anti-illegal and believe me, I will fight along with my fellow citizens to make darned sure that they pass. Wether it is the english language being the primary language, doing away with the anchor babies, Employers being fined and or imprisoned if they hire illegals, or any other issue that affects the American people. We WILL be taking our country back.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I have one question for you that has not been answered. If legal immigrants to your locality successfully pass a law that somehow inhibits your ability to practice some element of your culture, is that wrong?

reply to post by Night Star
 


I have a question for you as well. If that employer hires 200 citizens instead of 200 immigrants, he will be paying a great deal more in wages. Compared to his current scheme for hiring, this is an inefficient use of capital. In the present economic hard times, it is in the employer's best interest to maximize their capital efficiency and ride out the financial storm. My question is this: Why should the employer put his business at risk just to hire more citizens?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

That would be an unlikely situation. In order for an immigrant, even a legal one, to pass a law that conflicts with the local culture, one or more of the following would have to occur:
  • The elected officials would have to, for some reason such as bribery, reject the wishes of their major constituency in favor of a minority.

    Obviously, this is something I would consider 'wrong'.

  • The area would have to have been so overrun with immigrants as to make the indigenous population the minority.

    Again, I would consider this 'wrong'... it is an actual invasion.

  • The law in question would have have been passed at a higher level of government, abusing the spirit if not the letter of the laws in place.

    Again, wrong. It would be a deviation from the system in place due to the wishes of the citizenry.


It is becoming more and more obvious that you have very little concept of how the USA works, as well as very little knowledge of the cultural makeup of the USA. Yet, I will answer your question:

As long as the immigrants in question are legal and no other laws have been violated (as exampled above), my only recourse would be to attempt to remove the offending laws by legal means. I would consider it wrong, no doubt, but it would appear the legal immigrants would not; therefore, since they are legal citizens of the area, right and wrong become relative terms which must be balanced in the political system in place.

I am sure your next point would be that it is perfectly legal for those 7.87 million naturalizable immigrants could settle in Alabama and overrun the population, making the culture primarily theirs instead of ours. Not practical. There is only so much empty housing, so many available jobs, so many available resources to support a population explosion. As well, should this sort of immersion commence, there would be enough people of my culture that would make life difficult for incoming masses, via legal means, so as to cause the immigrants to prefer to move elsewhere.

The same thing would happen if too many Alabamians tried to 'invade' Connecticut, I'm sure.

I now have a question for you (and I am assuming you are Canadian based on your location in your mini-avatar):

Do you believe you should have the right to vote for elected officials of the United States? And if yes, would that not imply that I could vote for Canadian Parliament members?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
It may not be necessary to say but I am a Canadian. Born here to immigrant parents. My parents left their homeland to live a better life here in Canada and upon arriving let go of many cultural practices in favor of local practice. My parents assimilated into Canadian culture and so did other members of their families whom they sponsored over the years. I grew up with a Canadian identity and I cannot identify with other people from my parents homeland because of the cultural differences. I play hockey, poker, drink beer with friends, marry the woman of my choosing. I do not uphold the religious laws of my parents homeland, but the laws of Canada.




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join