Low cost living and quality of life/safety issues

[workathome]

But given that objection, I take it you objection to one of the next two most prevalent countries of origin these days, India (worse than Mexico) and applaud immigration from the other, China. Or do you deem those people defective as well?

Actually, by the IQ test, we ought to replace most Americans with Chinese people immediately. Great idea, huh?

I think your all-or-nothing reaction is a good representation of how emotional-laden this issue is. Admitting to IQ differences doesn't certainly equate eugenics or "defective" - though this notion does seem commonly and mistakenly held. I think real life examples may help though: Google and the US Military doesn't round up "defectives" for camps just because they use intelligence testing on recruits.

Yes, of course Chinese-only immigration would have a dramatically different impact on the future of America that Mexican-only immigration! Any immigration policy (or no policy) is going to have dramatic effect on the future of a nation based on who comes or doesn't come (obviously!).

There are 5-billion or so people in the world who live below-our-standards and would probably rather-be-here depending on the effort involved.

Now who is emotional.

Also, if Dragline's response was all or nothing, so was your initial IQ response.

I didn't mean the sarcasm to be taken as offense or emotion. I think I might get the basis of my disagreement - Jacob is assuming the best & good intentions, whereas I see the attempt as begging for abuse (and so humans rights violations against political opponents, etc.). Jacob is right in asserting that I don't think his fears are real possibilities, and he dismisses mine as not likely, or acceptable in the face if potential tail-end outcomes. He might be right, though the "because you ain't been educated right" assertions come off as condescending.

In my assessment, the problem is: if hate speech could actually produce your feared situation, the laws would be ignored anyway - and in a situation where they're easily and widely enforced they are redundant anyway and may be abused, lead to privacy violations, wrongful prosecutions, silencing political opponents, etc. - this idea of making offenses illegal, and what constitutes an offensive thought or speech, is very ambiguous and could easily lead to doing what it claims to prevent.

Taking the contrary opinion is interesting, but I don't have any real "skin in the game."

Edit: Not that I don't care! I do - I just don't think I will have to deal with any potential negative consequences. I'll probably have a net-gain from [illegal or legal] immigration economically, even if the "borderline bad speech" predictions come true and it leads to increased crime in the low-income areas, or if it adversely impacts the existing lower-classes wages. I don't think anyone on this forum seriously has to deal with those issues. Similar situation with the hate speech, in that I don't expect to be physically victimized by its existence nor a victim of zealous or abusive prosecutions. I can certainly sympathize with the thought that if I was an illegal immigrant I would certainly not advocate my own prosecution, or if I lost my roofing job my family might depend on to migrant laborers I'd be upset, etc.

[jacob]

Yeah I know, and the arrogant and condescending intellectual atheist elites are historically some of the first to "disappear" when the true people take over to in a populist push to usher in a promising new era of fixing everything that's wrong with the country at the simple cost of a few principles.

This is why I'm paying attention to this to see the early signs. I'm only half-way kidding.

[workathome]

Wasn't the French revolution the reverse from a religious standpoint? The peaceful ecclesiastics and condescending royal elites being purged by the spiteful atheist masses. Same with various Asian communist purges?

[Ego]

Or hell, you can be like Europe. Cordon immigrants off from the rest of the population. Don't talk to them. Don't hire them. Blame them for all your problems.

We Americans have been know on occasion to be unmeritedly prideful. Immigration is one issue where the opposite is true. We assimilate so well that we forget within a generation from whence we came. As you say, we need only look to Europe for an alternative view. We are indeed exceptional in this respect and we've earned the right to be proud. It's interesting how quickly we forget that.

This whole topic feels to me like the summer scandal-du-jour designed to pull attention to MS-FOX.

[jacob]

It seems that religion is simply a tool that's exploited by whoever is running the revolution according to which is more effective. Sometimes the priests are rounded up, like your examples. Other times it's the atheists, like the Nazis did. In that context I think religious affiliation simply makes for a handy shirt-color, i.e., we'll persecute and hate anyone wearing some select minority shirt-colors because it unites us in our cause.

The intellectuals are always rounded up though. Questioning people about their actions and choices is never popular and it also makes it pretty hard to head an effective revolution.

I don't think religion played a huge role in the French revolution. Basically the political leadership had run the country so much into debt that interest payments started taking half of the revenue. This lead to the financial crisis in 1788, so you had a very small minority living in luxury at the top while the rest of the people lived in poverty---relative to peasants in other countries. In 1789 the people stormed the Bastille. Then heads rolled left and right over the next several years... pretty much anyone who appeared too visible.

[Dragline]

basically, most Americans don't want a few elites deciding what is "hate speech" and "what is not"....That's what you sound like....You sound like an elite who thinks he's more intelligent than others with different viewpoints and therefore you get to decide what is considered "hate speech".

I'm sure many atheists with PHds would consider a lot of the Bible "hate speech" and would have it banned if they could....And would have Christian/Catholic schools made illegal. So should we do that even though there are over 2 billion Christians who believe in the Bible?

I don't want an arrogant group of elitists in the Federal government changing the rules on what is "hate speech" and what is not....

Also, have you been to Tijuana? I have....It's a toilet bowl full of criminals and people i don't really want to hang out with....Now, you go to Costa Rica, and it's some of the nicest people I've ever met. Why is there the need to be politically correct and not call a spade a spade....Why try to change reality? Why lie just to be politically correct?


I'll stick to my stance: I welcome immigrants of all colors with Engineering, Medical, and computer science degrees who want to come here legally....INCREASE legal immigration to make our country better and DECREASE illegal immigration while forcing the dead-beat, lazy bums collecting phony social security disability payments, to work the fields, clean hotels, etc.

Take away their free government checks and automatic vote for the "fundamental transformation of America".

I hear a lot of white people on this topic making feel-good posts so they can tell themselves "i'm not a racist" because i want to flood the country with illegal immigrants....

I just don't carry enough white guilt around to feel that i have to suck-up to whole groups of people based on their skin color. I'd rather judge people by the content of their character.

Paragraph 1: Would you prefer that ignorant people decide what "hate speech" is? Who should decide?

Paragraph 2: I send my kids to Catholic schools. They teach them that we have a duty to support the aliens in our midst (along with widows and orphans), which is a basic Judeo-Christian teaching that goes back to Biblical times. These schools, at least the good ones, are well supported and are not in danger from atheists or anyone else.

Paragraph 3: What are the rules of "hate speech" that are not enshrined in law by elected officials? You certainly have the right to vote in arrogant non-elites if that's what you prefer.

Paragraph 4: Yes, I've been to Tijuana. Not unlike many border towns. Check out Windsor, Ontario sometime. Does the entirety of Canada resemble Windsor, Ontario? No more than the entirety of Mexico resembles Tijuana. Or the entirety of the US resembles the worst US slum you can think of. I'm sorry, but there is a serious lack of critical thinking doing these kind of one data point extrapolations.

Paragraph 5: Yes, I agree that we probably need more legal immigration of skilled people in some areas. But bear in mind, these people may be culturally very different than the majority of people here now. I'm not in favor of illegal immigration either, but I'm not willing to pay the kind of taxes that would be required to drop it to zero anymore than I expect or would pay for all illegal drug sales to disappear. I'm assuming that the lazy bums are the US citizens who collect those payments. Statistically, they are mostly typical white Americans, and probably overweight. Not sure what that has to do with immigration.

Paragraph 6: Not even sure what an "automatic vote" is or the quoted phrase. But America is constantly being transformed. That's part of what makes it successful. The opposite of transformation is stagnation.

Paragraph 7: How do you know who is white and who is something else or something mixed? And what motivates them? Perhaps it is something in the Bible.

Paragraph 8: But I'm afraid you don't judge by the content of character if you are making statements like the generalizations of paragraphs 1 and 4 about people with PhDs and Mexicans. You really don't. You paint with broad brushes and your favorite stereotypes and then get upset when people point it out. Speaking that way may make you friends or comrades in arms in certain quarters, but its still just a basic expression of ugliness for most people.

BTW, I sense there is the usual great confusion about "free speech" in this thread. The First Amendment only prohibits the government from limiting speech, and the right has never been unlimited. Controversies over it date back to the Aliens and Seditions Act of 1798. Moreover, it does not prohibit private parties from criticizing each other's speech or limiting or prohibiting many kinds of speech in private places.

[workathome]

Do you think the Catholic church might have a degree of selfish-interest at stake? The church hasn't exactly been growing in Europe or the US, while Hispanic immigrants have a higher birthrate and are largely Roman Catholic. For example, the current Pope, the first from South America, might be seen as part of this political move.

[jennypenny]

They would still be Catholic if they stayed in their home countries. The overall number of Catholics isn't changing. If anything, they are more likely to drift away from the Church if they come to the US.

It's probably fair to say that the Catholic Church is giving the issue more attention because of the predominance of Catholics affected.

[workathome]

Thanks jennypenny, that is fair and concise.

[Chad]

Yeah I know, and the arrogant and condescending intellectual atheist elites are historically some of the first to "disappear" when the true people take over to in a populist push to usher in a promising new era of fixing everything that's wrong with the country at the simple cost of a few principles.

This is so common after a revolution that does not seek to establish inclusive institutions.

[tylerrr]

basically, most Americans don't want a few elites deciding what is "hate speech" and "what is not"....That's what you sound like....You sound like an elite who thinks he's more intelligent than others with different viewpoints and therefore you get to decide what is considered "hate speech".

I'm sure many atheists with PHds would consider a lot of the Bible "hate speech" and would have it banned if they could....And would have Christian/Catholic schools made illegal. So should we do that even though there are over 2 billion Christians who believe in the Bible?

I don't want an arrogant group of elitists in the Federal government changing the rules on what is "hate speech" and what is not....

Also, have you been to Tijuana? I have....It's a toilet bowl full of criminals and people i don't really want to hang out with....Now, you go to Costa Rica, and it's some of the nicest people I've ever met. Why is there the need to be politically correct and not call a spade a spade....Why try to change reality? Why lie just to be politically correct?


I'll stick to my stance: I welcome immigrants of all colors with Engineering, Medical, and computer science degrees who want to come here legally....INCREASE legal immigration to make our country better and DECREASE illegal immigration while forcing the dead-beat, lazy bums collecting phony social security disability payments, to work the fields, clean hotels, etc.

Take away their free government checks and automatic vote for the "fundamental transformation of America".

I hear a lot of white people on this topic making feel-good posts so they can tell themselves "i'm not a racist" because i want to flood the country with illegal immigrants....

I just don't carry enough white guilt around to feel that i have to suck-up to whole groups of people based on their skin color. I'd rather judge people by the content of their character.

Paragraph 1: Would you prefer that ignorant people decide what "hate speech" is? Who should decide?

Paragraph 2: I send my kids to Catholic schools. They teach them that we have a duty to support the aliens in our midst (along with widows and orphans), which is a basic Judeo-Christian teaching that goes back to Biblical times. These schools, at least the good ones, are well supported and are not in danger from atheists or anyone else.

Paragraph 3: What are the rules of "hate speech" that are not enshrined in law by elected officials? You certainly have the right to vote in arrogant non-elites if that's what you prefer.

Paragraph 4: Yes, I've been to Tijuana. Not unlike many border towns. Check out Windsor, Ontario sometime. Does the entirety of Canada resemble Windsor, Ontario? No more than the entirety of Mexico resembles Tijuana. Or the entirety of the US resembles the worst US slum you can think of. I'm sorry, but there is a serious lack of critical thinking doing these kind of one data point extrapolations.

Paragraph 5: Yes, I agree that we probably need more legal immigration of skilled people in some areas. But bear in mind, these people may be culturally very different than the majority of people here now. I'm not in favor of illegal immigration either, but I'm not willing to pay the kind of taxes that would be required to drop it to zero anymore than I expect or would pay for all illegal drug sales to disappear. I'm assuming that the lazy bums are the US citizens who collect those payments. Statistically, they are mostly typical white Americans, and probably overweight. Not sure what that has to do with immigration.

Paragraph 6: Not even sure what an "automatic vote" is or the quoted phrase. But America is constantly being transformed. That's part of what makes it successful. The opposite of transformation is stagnation.

Paragraph 7: How do you know who is white and who is something else or something mixed? And what motivates them? Perhaps it is something in the Bible.

Paragraph 8: But I'm afraid you don't judge by the content of character if you are making statements like the generalizations of paragraphs 1 and 4 about people with PhDs and Mexicans. You really don't. You paint with broad brushes and your favorite stereotypes and then get upset when people point it out. Speaking that way may make you friends or comrades in arms in certain quarters, but its still just a basic expression of ugliness for most people.

BTW, I sense there is the usual great confusion about "free speech" in this thread. The First Amendment only prohibits the government from limiting speech, and the right has never been unlimited. Controversies over it date back to the Aliens and Seditions Act of 1798. Moreover, it does not prohibit private parties from criticizing each other's speech or limiting or prohibiting many kinds of speech in private places.

so if Tijuana is just an ignorant extrapolation, why are people from around the world dying to get into the U.S, but they're not dying to get into Mexico for a better life? Are you really trying to equate Mexico with the U.S.A and claim it's mainly not a toilet bowl?

BTW, i've been to Cozumel and other places in Mexico....So I DO know what i'm talking about from a diverse experience. I don't like the place. On the other hand, i loved Costa Rica in Central America.

I just don't have a desire to permanently change the U.S. culture. I don't hate my own country so much.

and Yes, all studies show new, Hispanic U.S. citizens overwhelmingly vote for the Democrat Party. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why they want to keep flooding our country with low educated people from latin America who demand more government benefits(of course Bush and Reagan did too).

The super majority is being created and will permanently change the country. I believe it's being changed for the worse, not the better. I say this after growing up in a mid sized, midwestern city and then living in 4 major U.S. cities on the West and East Coast over the past 20 years following my career around...

The same thing is happening here:
"Attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany have "utterly failed", Chancellor Angela Merkel says.

She said the so-called "multikulti" concept - where people would "live side-by-side" happily - did not work, and immigrants needed to do more to integrate - including learning German."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11559451

[Ego]

......

[Chad]

Come on, you and I both know that Tijuana and Cozumel are the worst examples for the rest of Mexico. Plus, one could make a good argument that part of the reason they are so bad is because of their connection to the US (proximity and vacation/red light district/drugs). Not much different than Miami at 11 PM in the 80's.

On top of that, Mexico is at the top of almost all emerging market lists, which suggest an improving economy. This also denotes exclusive institutions being changed to inclusive institutions.

[tylerrr]

Come on, you and I both know that Tijuana and Cozumel are the worst examples for the rest of Mexico. Plus, one could make a good argument that part of the reason they are so bad is because of their connection to the US (proximity and vacation/red light district/drugs). Not much different than Miami at 11 PM in the 80's.

On top of that, Mexico is at the top of almost all emerging market lists, which suggest an improving economy. This also denotes exclusive institutions being changed to inclusive institutions.

again, I ask you...if Mexico is such a great place like you profess, why are millions of Mexicans risking their lives to get into the U.S. for a better life?

I get it, people like you believe the U.S. should LOWER our lifestyles and increase the poverty level here to put us more on an "equal" playing field with the 3rd world.

That way, everyone would get along and all cultures would hold hands and sing with each other right? The progressive, liberal utopia. If we Americans can just become more poor, then everyone will get along great.

Just like everyone is getting along so well in Germany, France, and Britain....

It's easy to paint a multicultural utopia behind a keyboard when you live in white-majority neighborhood and probably benefited from white-majority school systems.

We will just have to agree to disagree...

I do not aim to be politically correct, kiss the back-sides of certain ethnic groups with white guilt, or try to silence others with threats of "racism" or "hate speech".

Don't walk away mad....Just walk away.....

[Chad]

No, people like me use paragraphs and don't get lazy and use "..." all the freak'n time.

And, no we won't just have to disagree. I and others have proved our points over and over. Then when we obviously punch holes in your argument you never acknowledge it or even try to counter it. You make up new random points, that get shot down, yet again.

[llorona]

again, I ask you...if Mexico is such a great place like you profess, why are millions of Mexicans risking their lives to get into the U.S. for a better life?

Because they are poor.

If all of Mexico is such a cesspool, why do millions of people travel to vacation there every year?

I get it, people like you believe the U.S. should LOWER our lifestyles and increase the poverty level here to put us more on an "equal" playing field with the 3rd world.

Where did that come from?

That way, everyone would get along and all cultures would hold hands and sing with each other right? The progressive, liberal utopia. If we Americans can just become more poor, then everyone will get along great.

Just like everyone is getting along so well in Germany, France, and Britain....

Although they are not perfect, these countries are some of the best places to live in the world in terms of standard of living, freedom, and human rights.

It's easy to paint a multicultural utopia behind a keyboard when you live in white-majority neighborhood and probably benefited from white-majority school systems.

I'd love to know what kind of magical powers enable you to see where everyone lives and went to school.

We will just have to agree to disagree...

Actually, no. I realize you're not speaking personally to me, but I, for one, do not agree to disagree. I am proud to both professionally and philanthropically work with nonprofit groups that treat immigrants with dignity and respect, promote humanitarian solutions for improving their quality of life, and improve economic and educational opportunities so the next generation can have a better future.

[tylerrr]

No, people like me use paragraphs and don't get lazy and use "..." all the freak'n time.

And, no we won't just have to disagree. I and others have proved our points over and over. Then when we obviously punch holes in your argument you never acknowledge it or even try to counter it. You make up new random points, that get shot down, yet again.

And you're an elitist who thinks he's smarter than everyone else with condescending language. You haven't proven anything except that you think letting in millions of illegal immigrants somehow makes the U.S.A a better place. You're wrong. I've proven it with links referencing other countries where it's turned out to be a disaster. Convenient to keep ignoring the obvious references i listed.

btw, Cozumel is an island resort town....completely different than Tijuana. I thought you would know that....since....well, you know everything.

[tylerrr]

We will just have to agree to disagree...

Actually, no. I realize you're not speaking personally to me, but I, for one, do not agree to disagree. I am proud to both professionally and philanthropically work with nonprofit groups that treat immigrants with dignity and respect, promote humanitarian solutions for improving their quality of life, and improve economic and educational opportunities so the next generation can have a better future.

you're not any more compassionate than i am....I don't care what your job is....I've had just as much direct contact with first generation immigrants as you have....Personally, in the family.

That experience doesn't make me advocate for flooding the country with illegal, low skilled, low educated immigrants who don't assimilate well.

Save the bleeding heart speech...seriously, you're not any more compassionate than people who want our laws FOLLOWED and not BROKEN.
you can't have a country with open borders and no enforcement of immigration laws.
[/quote]

[llorona]

It's not about being more compassionate than anyone. It's a statement about what I believe in, which is humanely addressing the issue of illegal immigration without denigrating or persecuting entire groups of people.

[Chad]

No, people like me use paragraphs and don't get lazy and use "..." all the freak'n time.

And, no we won't just have to disagree. I and others have proved our points over and over. Then when we obviously punch holes in your argument you never acknowledge it or even try to counter it. You make up new random points, that get shot down, yet again.

And you're an elitist who thinks he's smarter than everyone else with condescending language. You haven't proven anything except that you think letting in millions of illegal immigrants somehow makes the U.S.A a better place. You're wrong. I've proven it with links referencing other countries where it's turned out to be a disaster. Convenient to keep ignoring the obvious references i listed.

btw, Cozumel is an island resort town....completely different than Tijuana. I thought you would know that....since....well, you know everything.

Yeah, my language is condescending, but yours is nice and not in anyway trying to shout down anyone. You are the perfect gentleman, sorry. Actually, my discussion with SpartanW perfectly illustrates that I'm examining the option of trying to keep out all those "3rd world toilet bowel people" (your words), but based on what has actually happened it appears it's too costly even if I wanted too. And, I do to a certain extent. I don't think the border should be a free-for-all. But, maybe if I yell more and disparage all those people with semi-racist slurs it will make it all better. It won't cost a shit ton of money that I bitch about or new taxes I bitch about. Oh, wait, that's you.

I know Cozumel is an island resort, it doesn't change the grab bag of descriptors I through out there for it and Tijuana. Some of them apply to one and some the other.

Oh, and I examined the SINGLE link you provided. So, Germany thinks they failed, that's fine. Historically, the US succeeds massively with immigrants. It's kind of one of the secretes to our success. Be it Irish, Italian, Eastern European, and even non-immigrant slave decendants have contributed (Through, no choice of their own.). The hispanic immigrants have just begun contributing. Sure, some send cash back, but others stay. And, like everyone some suck, some are awesome.

Is their sending cash back really that bad? How awesome would it be to have Central America be mainly countries with solid economies? Decent places we could trade with (Of course, given our size and efficiency due to size we would still have a massive advantage). This money helps implement that (yes, there are also ways it doesn't, but the chance is worth taking given the small amounts). Sure, we could keep it here with legislation, but I thought you were a smaller government guy? Except when we need to up border patrol by twenty times? Lets be honest, that is the least amount we would have to increase the cost to even remotely stem the current tide. And, no just enforcing hiring practices would not be enough. What sheriff in that small Kansas town is going to raid the biggest employer and richest industry in his home town? None.

I'm just a realist. I pick the cheapest most advantageous policies based on what will really happen. You unhappy that not everything will be based off of white culture is not necessarily best for this country.

Read Guns, Germs, and Steel, and Why Nations Fail, with a focus on Why Nations Fail, and then you will understand my position.