Activism: How to measure it?

[Don]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

Why are you saying anti-immigrant? Twice, in fact, in the post directly above.

That term does not accurately describe the sentiments of the folks here or the ones at the tea parties this past weekend. At least not at the one I attended in Pasadena.

I am anti-immigrant and most people secretly are. You speak your mind. I'll speak mine.

This whole hair splitting thing about being "anti-immigration" or just anti "illegal" immigration is a fig leaf used by cowards who are afraid of being called "racists" by the communists and the SPLC, ADL, etc. We have lost our country because people are more afraid of being called names than they are of being dispossessed and kicked out of their own cities. Why do you think most American cities are essentially off limits to Americans? Why do you think the "American dream" no longer applies to Americans? We're being sheared like sheep and when there's no more wool, they'll slaughter us for what's left.

The criminal ruling class that has seized control of what's left of the USA will call you a racist no matter what you do or say.

I don't want Mexicans or Muslims in my country legally or illegally. I don't want our cities transformed into filthy stinking slums by anyone, legally here or illegally here. I respect their countries. They should respect mine.

I think that Gheen's organization, "Americans for Legal Immigration" is a huge fraud. If he really supported legal immigration he would support amnesty because amnesty increases legal immigration, something he supposedly supports. There is something weirdly Orwellian, not to mention dishonest and schitzophrenic, about an organization that supports policies that are a complete opposite of its stated goal. All immigration needs to be stopped. If they want to work hard, let them work hard in their own countries.

If you believe in "legal' immigration, then you should be honest enough to demand amnesty to achieve your goal of achieving more "legal" immigration instead of going through a bunch of intellectual gymnastics and contortions to try to earn the approval of Communists and liberals because you're afraid they're going to call you a "racist" or a "nativist." They will call you those names anyway and will dispossess and ultimately kill you any way.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Don

I am anti-immigrant and most people secretly are. You speak your mind. I'll speak mine.

This whole hair splitting thing about being "anti-immigration" or just anti "illegal" immigration is a fig leaf used by cowards who are afraid of being called "racists" by the communists and the SPLC, ADL, etc. We have lost our country because people are more afraid of being called names than they are of being dispossessed and kicked out of their own cities. Why do you think most American cities are essentially off limits to Americans? Why do you think the "American dream" no longer applies to Americans? We're being sheared like sheep and when there's no more wool, they'll slaughter us for what's left.

The criminal ruling class that has seized control of what's left of the USA will call you a racist no matter what you do or say.

I don't want Mexicans or Muslims in my country legally or illegally. I don't want our cities transformed into filthy stinking slums by anyone, legally here or illegally here. I respect their countries. They should respect mine.

I think that Gheen's organization, "Americans for Legal Immigration" is a huge fraud. If he really supported legal immigration he would support amnesty because amnesty increases legal immigration, something he supposedly supports. There is something weirdly Orwellian, not to mention dishonest and schitzophrenic, about an organization that supports policies that are a complete opposite of its stated goal. All immigration needs to be stopped. If they want to work hard, let them work hard in their own countries.

If you believe in "legal' immigration, then you should be honest enough to demand amnesty to achieve your goal of achieving more "legal" immigration instead of going through a bunch of intellectual gymnastics and contortions to try to earn the approval of Communists and liberals because you're afraid they're going to call you a "racist" or a "nativist." They will call you those names anyway and will dispossess and ultimately kill you any way.

First of all, I think you might be quite presumptuous to say that most Americans are anti-immigrant. I mean, I understand why you feel that way, but I doubt the majority of Americans do. You probably were affected more negatively than most, but if you lived in other areas where immigrants maintain a higher degree of assimilation or have higher standards to begin with, you'd likely find your neighbors and co-workers think well of immigrants, and would reject your attitude. That doesn't mean to say they would support continuing high levels of immigration, but it is my opinion that they would find your solution overly harsh or unneccessary.
I do see your point about the misnomer of legal immigration, and agree somewhat. the term legal immigration does not mean the same thing to all, but your probably right that some have latched on to the term for propaganda-esque purposes. Maybe not though. It's their opinion, so I'll let them defend.

This one though:

I don't want Mexicans or Muslims in my country legally or illegally. I don't want our cities transformed into filthy stinking slums by anyone, legally here or illegally here. I respect their countries. They should respect mine.

You also have some double standards. If you don't want our cities transformed into stinking slums by anyone, then it is not entirely pure to single out immigrants. I think I undertand what you meant there, but it does point out the need to adhere to your own standards of reference, lest you be thought a fraud also. lastly, you have singled out muslim and mexican, so your scope has narrowed quite a bit. I doubt you'll find much support for such narowly tailored immigration controls. If I understand you correctly, you want zero levels of immigration from those demographics. It wouldn't fit in well here I think.

[Don]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

First of all, I think you might be quite presumptuous to say that most Americans are anti-immigrant. I mean, I understand why you feel that way, but I doubt the majority of Americans do. You probably were affected more negatively than most, but if you lived in other areas where immigrants maintain a higher degree of assimilation or have higher standards to begin with, you'd likely find your neighbors and co-workers think well of immigrants, and would reject your attitude. That doesn't mean to say they would support continuing high levels of immigration, but it is my opinion that they would find your solution overly harsh or unneccessary.
I do see your point about the misnomer of legal immigration, and agree somewhat. the term legal immigration does not mean the same thing to all, but your probably right that some have latched on to the term for propaganda-esque purposes. Maybe not though. It's their opinion, so I'll let them defend.

This one though:
You also have some double standards. If you don't want our cities transformed into stinking slums by anyone, then it is not entirely pure to single out immigrants. I think I undertand what you meant there, but it does point out the need to adhere to your own standards of reference, lest you be thought a fraud also. lastly, you have singled out muslim and mexican, so your scope has narrowed quite a bit. I doubt you'll find much support for such narowly tailored immigration controls. If I understand you correctly, you want zero levels of immigration from those demographics. It wouldn't fit in well here I think.

I think there would be a huge amount of support for zero immigration, especially from third world countries.

Sen. Chris Dodd of Conn said the US has a real umemployment rate of 20%.

Question: What is the proper number of "legal" immigrants you would like to see admitted into the US in order to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs, housing and public benefits?

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Don

I think there would be a huge amount of support for zero immigration, especially from third world countries.

Sen. Chris Dodd of Conn said the US has a real umemployment rate of 20%.

Question: What is the proper number of "legal" immigrants you would like to see admitted into the US in order to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs, housing and public benefits?

I don't think we need any competition in those categories Don. But limiting immigration from what you refer to as third world countries might be politically difficult to obtain. You have to remember to include business and religious immigrant proponents when you gauge the climate for closing or curtailing immigration numbers. I think there may be a little more than you realize. I'm saying that in relation to your claim of "huge support", and not because I'm arguing against it. It wouldn't pay to fool ourselves with wishful thinking.

[Don]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

I don't think we need any competition in those categories Don. But limiting immigration from what you refer to as third world countries might be politically difficult to obtain. You have to remember to include business and religious immigrant proponents when you gauge the climate for closing or curtailing immigration numbers. I think there may be a little more than you realize. I'm saying that in relation to your claim of "huge support", and not because I'm arguing against it. It wouldn't pay to fool ourselves with wishful thinking.

You say you favor legal immigration. I asked what is the number of "legal" immigrants you want admitted to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs, housing, public benefits.

Please answer my question.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Don

You say you favor legal immigration. Please answer my question.

Where did I say that?

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Originally Posted by Don

You say you favor legal immigration. I asked what is the number of "legal" immigrants you want admitted to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs, housing, public benefits.

Please answer my question.

Don we all come here with different levels of opinions as to what will solve our immigration problems. Some of those differences come from our exposure and contact with immigrants, and also how wealthy or poor the area it that we live in. Everything has its positive and its negative, but we are seeing a loss of our culture in many areas. You may be right when some issues are addressed and completely wrong when others are brought into the mix. There is no correct blanket yes or no. You must realize that not everyone has seen exactly what you've seen or heard exactly what you've heard. What we can all agree on is there's been far too many people come here in the last 30 years while our government has looked the other way, and it has impacted the US in a very negative way.

[Don]

Originally Posted by Jeanfromfillmore

Don we all come here with different levels of opinions as to what will solve our immigration problems. Some of those differences come from our exposure and contact with immigrants, and also how wealthy or poor the area it that we live in. Everything has its positive and its negative, but we are seeing a loss of our culture in many areas. You may be right when some issues are addressed and completely wrong when others are brought into the mix. There is no correct blanket yes or no. You must realize that not everyone has seen exactly what you've seen or heard exactly what you've heard. What we can all agree on is there's been far too many people come here in the last 30 years while our government has looked the other way, and it has impacted the US in a very negative way.

How many "legal" immigrants do you think we should allow into the country to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs, housing, health care and other public benefits?

I would love to have an answer to this question. For years people have taken great pains to clarify that they are not against all immigration, but only against "illegal" immigration. [I guess it's OK if third world hordes come here "legally" to take our country away from us without firing a shot.]

I have repeatedly asked this question: "How many legal immigrants do you want?) As yet I have never received a direct, honest answer.

If you support "legal immigration," please state how many "legal" immigrants you would like to be brought into the country to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs and public benefits?

If you are opposed to all immigration, both "legal" and "illegal", then you're on the same page that I am.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Originally Posted by Don

I am anti-immigrant and most people secretly are. You speak your mind. I'll speak mine.

This whole hair splitting thing about being "anti-immigration" or just anti "illegal" immigration is a fig leaf used by cowards who are afraid of being called "racists" by the communists and the SPLC, ADL, etc.

That's an interesting take. I disagree with you. My experience has been that the large majority of folks who are active about border enforcement want either reduced legal immigration or current laws enforced. Nonetheless, I give you points for candor.


-------------------------

Since we're tossing ideas around, however, about changes to the immigration system, I would reduce legal immigration from Mexico and Central American countries by 2/3. Reason: It forces them to start looking for other solutions to fixing their poverty than exporting their least wanted citizens to the United States. Right now, the U.S. is an "enabler" for the incompetence/corruption/lack of decent opportunities that exists in El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, etc. They don't have to really get their act together. The ability to have the poorest go elsewhere (and send Yankee dollars home, to boot) is a huge release valve on forces that would otherwise result in change.

[Twoller]

Legal and illegal immigration are connected. For example, when we hear about some business being prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants, you have to ask yourself, "How are these illegal immigrants hired and managed?" There must be somebody there in the business, maybe even the owner, who speaks the language of the illegals they are hiring. Either the employer is a legal immigrant, or in all probability, an anchor baby themselves.

Yes, we need to have a moratorium on immigration. But not only that, we need to start cracking down on citizens too. If you are a citizen claiming citizenship because you are an anchor baby, and you are hiring illegals, then you need to be deported. Of course this should follow from putting the legal claims of citizenship made by anchor babies into question and in prosecutions like this, this is a natural place to start throwing them out. Of course, anyone who does not claim citizenship who is hiring illegals needs to be deported.

How many people in this country who falsely claim citizenship do not speak English? Because so many anchor babies have the benefits of a public education, this is where many of them learn to speak English. But it remains that many of them have no cause to speak English and so the skill fades, we hope. And of course we still have illegals from English speaking countries like Canada. If you cannot speak English, you cannot be a citizen and so we have another sound test for real candidates for testing legitimate citizenship.

We need to keep pushing and hammering away at this problem at every possible and conceivable angle. Stopping at legal immigrants is just foolish, it really shows a complete lack of grasp of the problem. I would go so far as to say that you cannot sincerely be opposed to illegal immigration if you do not support confronting legal immigration and even some who claim citizenship. The problem really is that bad and illegal immigration is really just the natural consequence of a failed and profligate immigration practice. It is a "practice", one could hardly call it a "policy", certainly not a government policy.