Latest info re immigration from Trump

[Gator]

Mexicans of course have a different status, they didn’t cross the border, the border crossed them!  How can you say that a Mexican who crosses the border without documents to live in Santa Fe or Los Angeles has no moral right to be there, even if they were not granted the legal right to do so?

This is left of left.  Not even Elizabeth Warren professes such.

[ML]

Quote from: krimster2 link=topic=21572.msg457656#msg457656
Mexicans of course have a different status, they didn’t cross the border, the border crossed them!  How can you say that a Mexican who crosses the border without documents to live in Santa Fe or Los Angeles has no moral right to be there, even if they were not granted the legal right to do so?

This is left of left.  Not even Elizabeth Warren professes such.

I agree with Gator.

To carry Krimster further . . .

Anyone from Russia, France, England, Spain, Netherlands should be able to come live without authorization or restriction in some parts of USA . . . because their ancestors at some point in time owned/controlled those areas of USA.

[Gator]

Anyone from Russia, France, England, Spain, Netherlands should be able to come live without authorization or restriction in some parts of USA . . . because their ancestors at some point in time owned/controlled those areas of USA.

Maybe the Russians in California outnumbered Spanish settlers at one time?   .   

[Gator]

You don't need to give me the naming of Los Angeles.  Most of us Angelenos know where it came from, but mostly, California was not populated (aside from the Native Americans) until the turn of the last century, unless you count those Spanish priests and their wards.  I have been to the Spanish missions, up and down the coast.  They were the sole provenance, not the Mexicans, as you state.

A long time ago I remember studying antique prints of California. 

The prints showed San Francisco as a bustling port.  Los Angeles resembled a mission community, smaller than San Antonio before the Battle of the Alamo. 

             1850 Population

                 San Francisco       34,766  (22nd largest US city)

                 Los Angeles            1,610


The same as in Texas, the Spanish had sparsely settled their California territory by the early 19th C.  In fact when the newly formed independent nation of Mexico organized itself in the 1820s, the populations of settlers in the Mexican territories in what we call today's US were too small to meet the requirements for statehood. 

[krimster2]

“This is left of left.  Not even Elizabeth Warren professes such.”

Gator, I feel a lot of sympathy for the Hispanics that I have personal contact with who came to this country to escape horrible conditions in their home country and work hard to support their families, but are subjected to so much scorn, so yeah, I guess I’m a liberal...   

“Anyone from Russia, France, England, Spain, Netherlands ....”

ML, our immigration laws have given clear preference to most of the people listed above because these laws were deliberately created based on a position that would favor them and exclude all others, based on their nationality.  It was obviously and intentionally discriminatory, and I suspect not many people on this board would oppose that position.

Gator, I have previously stated that I understand the Hispanic population was small for the period in question, the numbers would only matter under the 1924 immigration laws.  My position is based on the following facts:

1. South Western US was actually once upon a time their land, and was forcibly taken from them.
2. Hispanics have a centuries old connection to the South Western US

How could a Mexicano be considered an alien in what was once their own land?

 

 

[Anotherkiwi]

...one episode dealt with a Nigerian lady at Laos attempting to board to the UK...

Laos or Lagos?

[ML]

Laos or Lagos?

Laos is a suburb of Lagos.

[Gator]

Gator, I feel a lot of sympathy for the Hispanics that I have personal contact with who came to this country to escape horrible conditions in their home country and work hard to support their families, but are subjected to so much scorn, so yeah, I guess I’m a liberal...   

I have met many Hispanics here in Florida - good people.  However, that fact and the situation in their home country does not entitle them to live and work in the US.

If the home country of these escapees is "horrible," they should stay there and work to improve it.  If their country is corrupt, join a revolution.   If it is simply a matter of  not being able to provide for their families, they should have fewer children. 

We have something very special in the United States.  I am not willing to dilute what is special to help illegal aliens when we already have a large number of our own citizens needing help of various forms. 

If this is so important to you, I suggest you spend your own personal money helping these people.  FYI, there are more desperate people on other continents?  For example, how about the horrible prison situations in Africa? 

....My position is based on the following facts:

1. South Western US was actually once upon a time their land, and was forcibly taken from them.

Crimea is an example of forcibly taking sovereign territory.   

Some of our RWD members from the Southwest can explain accurately the history about the former territories of Mexico that eventually became part of the US.  My recollection says:

      -  Texas was not forcibly taken by the US.  Texas residents, including many Mexican citizens,  seceded from Mexico and defeated the Mexican army sent to stop the secession.   

      -  California, New Mexico, Nevada, et al were not forcibly taken, but were purchased from Mexico by the US under two negotiated treaties following a war lost by Mexico. 

2. Hispanics have a centuries old connection to the South Western US.

How could a Mexicano be considered an alien in what was once their own land?

Those Mexicans who were living in these territories at the time they became part of the US had the right to stay.  In fact, many did more than that - they fought against Mexico. 

Considering how well the US has done in the economic development of Mexico's former territorial land, maybe we should have forcibly taken all of Mexico.   

 

 

[krimster2]

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the war was at done at “gun-point”, and specified that the US was to pay Mexico about $30 per sq/mi of territory, or as Trump would say, “totally fair”. 

“Crimea is an example of forcibly taking sovereign territory.“

Yes, it is, and other than the fact that Russia has not marginally compensated Ukraine the way the US did with Mexico, how do these two events differ?

“ maybe we should have forcibly taken all of Mexico.  “

Ever consider the possibility that it’s not really ours to take?  Do you remember the 8th commandment?

 

[msmob]

Lagos.. My wondering mind, bad

Had Laos on my mind .. S.C. had to do a 'Visa' run to Ventiane - the capital - to extend her Thai visa

[Gator]

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the war was at done at “gun-point”, and specified that the US was to pay Mexico about $30 per sq/mi of territory, or as Trump would say, “totally fair”. 

A country usually does not fare well in negotiations upon losing a war and having its capital overrun and occupied.     

Your use of the term "gun-point" is misleading. The entire episode is very complicated.    I will admit that the reasons for the war are highly debatable (Mexico attacked first yet were provoked).  Not the finest example of American diplomacy, yet Mexican diplomacy was worse, refusing to even discuss the issues and not listening to European diplomats either.   

In the negotiations, Mexico's first offer was to sale California and other regions  dominated by American settlers.  This is not gun-point.  I don't have time to research the amounts, yet I recall we paid Mexico essentially what we had offered before the war and we assumed some of Mexico's debt. 

Keep in mind this is closely connected to Texas, where Mexico invited Americans to settle, then banned further immigration, and invaded against the American settlers to enforce its borders.  The Texans defeated the Mexican army, and Mexico's  President signed an agreement recognizing the independent Republic of Texas.  Later, Mexico refused to honor the agreement.     

Ever consider the possibility that it’s not really ours to take?  Do you remember the 8th commandment?

Do you forget the First Amendment to the Ten Commandments, passed in the 19th C.  It is summarized as the Manifest Destiny.   If you are a student of American History, look that one up to understand national sentiment.  It originated from the Democrats I believe (not your father's Democrats).   

BTW, I was not serious about seizing all of Mexico.  Some Democrats wanted to annex the entirety of Mexico, yet we declined as our primary interest remained in the sparsely settled areas to the north.   Would Mexico be better today if we had annexed them?     

[GQBlues]

Not sure what happened over 100 years ago have anything to do with the current illegal immigration problem we have today. For one, it estimated that only a fraction of these illegal, law-breaking immigrants that doesn't belong here - are actually from Mexico.

1. All that historical point is moot.
2. Mexico is one of a few country that are HOSTILE against illegal immigration within their country.
3. We are a sovereign nation and is wholly entitled to administer its law concerning 'immigration'.

If the liberals would like to find another 'moral' way to tackle our illegal immigrant problem instead of deportation. They should stand behind their conviction. Petition our government to allow each one of them to *adopt-an-illegal-immigrant*. They can own up to their conviction and be made responsible for these illegals' welfare including but not limited to, health, housing, food, sustenance, education, etc...

If they're not willing to be fully responsible for that, then I suggest the obvious.

#Buildthatwall

[Gator]

If the liberals would like to find another 'moral' way to tackle our illegal immigrant problem instead of deportation. They should stand behind their conviction. Petition our government to allow each one of them to *adopt-an-illegal-immigrant*. They can own up to their conviction and be made responsible for these illegals' welfare including but not limited to, health, housing, food, sustenance, education, etc...

Never will happen.  Yet they willingly spend somebody else's money.   

[krimster2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States

“In 2005, according to a Pew Hispanic Center report, there were about 6,840,000 illegal immigrants from Mexico making 56% of immigrants present in the United States illegally. 24% were from other Latin American countries; 9% were from Asia, 6% from Europe and Canada”

So based on percentages, if we’re willing to spend a few billion on a wall to keep out Mexicans, why aren’t we spending a proportional amount (a few hundred million) to keep out Canadians and Europeans? Where’s the wall with Canada?

“3. We are a sovereign nation and is wholly entitled to administer its law concerning 'immigration'.”

I’m not debating whether or not the US has the right to determine its immigration laws, it does.  I am pointing out the fact that our immigration laws have been discriminatory based on race.  However, a lot of people (pretty much everyone on this forum) are OK with that. 

If you note the shift in demographics in the US, then I suggest the possibility that one day our current immigration laws will also merely be an historical point, or as you say “moot” - of no practical value... 

Every independent economic study I’ve read on this subject says that the cost of illegal immigration roughly equals the benefit, so elevating this issue to a national priority serves no practical purpose other than making Trump popular with people who hold "certain beliefs", which is its true purpose...

As far as me personally supporting someone other than my family, why don’t you go and volunteer your time to mix the concrete for the wall you support?

[GQBlues]

Never will happen.  Yet they willingly spend somebody else's money.

Well, it's actually an 'equitable' proposition. The liberals can solely benefit from the so-called 'cheap labor' they counter with all the time. In return, they pay additional yearly 'taxes' for the continued and perpetual sponsorship costs of these illegals and their offspring.

If I don't sign up for it since I'm for upholding our immigration law, I don't benefit from the products of 'cheap labor', but I will not be liable for any expense related to keeping these illegals here.

Methinks if something like happens, I feel it will be these liberal who'll make sure they're all deported pronto! Conviction be damned!

[GQBlues]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States

“In 2005, according to a Pew Hispanic Center report, there were about 6,840,000 illegal immigrants from Mexico making 56% of immigrants present in the United States illegally. 24% were from other Latin American countries; 9% were from Asia, 6% from Europe and Canada”

So based on percentages, if we’re willing to spend a few billion on a wall to keep out Mexicans, why aren’t we spending a proportional amount (a few hundred million) to keep out Canadians and Europeans? Where’s the wall with Canada?

Once again. Building our southern wall is BUT one of the measures we need to get done to begin implementation of our immigration law. The southern wall not only prevent Mexican nationals from entering from the south, but also prevent the rest of the SA nationals, and others who uses the southern point to enter illegally including but not limited to Haitians and a slew of other nationals not from SA.

This doesn't even mention the endless flow of drugs through the southern territories and that of national security.

...I’m not debating whether or not the US has the right to determine its immigration laws, it does.  I am pointing out the fact that our immigration laws have been discriminatory based on race.  However, a lot of people (pretty much everyone on this forum) are OK with that.

I suggest to check the latest census and determine what our demographic slices are these days. You'll find your assumption that our immigration law to be discriminant is false. 

Immigration facts: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states-4#Current and Historical

If you note the shift in demographics in the US, then I suggest the possibility that one day our current immigration laws will also merely be an historical point, or as you say “moot” - of no practical value...

I happen to NOT see 'AMERICA" as a homogenous society today the way that you do. So I'm not sure what you're basing your point with this. 'Even 'white' America is nowhere near where you believed and thought it was anymore, krimster.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/largest-immigrant-groups-over-time

..Every independent economic study I’ve read on this subject says that the cost of illegal immigration roughly equals the benefit, so elevating this issue to a national priority serves no practical purpose other than making Trump popular with people who hold "certain beliefs", which is its true purpose...

It isn't. Not if you properly assess this against the fact that for every 'illegal alien that entered our border displaces one that tried to enter 'legally'. For every job an illegal alien does, displaces one a legal resident or even a citizen is shorted. Do not for a minute argue the silly argument legal resident/citizen won't do the job for the pay rate these guys do, because frankly, you and me and most everyone DO NOT SEE the economic benefit of these so-called 'cheap labor'. It is THOSE employers that greatly profit from the slave work, and they in turn provide ample financial support for politicians to insure fostering & hiring of illegal aliens to continue while we, the public, continue to be liable for their keep. I know that for a fact!

As far as me personally supporting someone other than my family, why don’t you go and volunteer your time to mix the concrete for the wall you support?

Oh I am. If Mexico doesn't pay for it, it'll be on my taxes one way or another. Besides, from what I understand, the wall will be Pre-cast so all the mixing are done at the plant. 

[LiveFromUkraine]

Ole Jorge Ramos is now saying the US is their country.
 
http://www.latintimes.com/watch-jorge-ramos-send-powerful-message-donald-trump-premio-lo-nuestro-2017-video-413117


This is the type of dialog that pushes citizens to vote for a guy who will deport illegals.  I would say I have been pushed more towards the right after this election.  People come here illegally and demand rights is a little over the top.  I wouldn't have thought about going into another country illegally and making such statements and demands.  Yet this is the type of attitude I have been seeing during the last year or so.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Oh I am. If Mexico doesn't pay for it, it'll be on my taxes one way or another. Besides, from what I understand, the wall will be Pre-cast so all the mixing are done at the plant. 

The wall may be cheaper compared to the money spent on illegals within the country.   I grabbed some buckets from Home Depot and ready to mix up some cement.

[GQBlues]

The wall may be cheaper compared to the money spent on illegals within the country.   I grabbed some buckets from Home Depot and ready to mix up some cement.

It is. The estimate are anywhere from $12-25 billion dollars.

It cost taxpayers $11 billion/yr in health care for these illegals. That doesn't include SNAP and other social assistance like the child credit illegal aliens with anchor babies get, where it is estimate to cost us around $9 billion yr. Plus monies it cost for judicial processing, public school provisions, policing, etc....

[krimster2]

“This is the type of dialog that pushes citizens to vote for a guy who will deport illegals.”

This is also the type of dialog that prompted Jorge Ramos to make the statement, “...this is our country too...We are close to 60 million Latinos in the United States...”

This 60 million is what I meant by changing demographics in the US.  When, and not if this population gets organized, the wall may become a rallying point for them.  Then you may have second thoughts about the wisdom of building it.

[LiveFromUkraine]

“This is the type of dialog that pushes citizens to vote for a guy who will deport illegals.”

This is also the type of dialog that prompted Jorge Ramos to make the statement, “...this is our country too...We are close to 60 million Latinos in the United States...”

This 60 million is what I meant by changing demographics in the US.  When, and not if this population gets organized, the wall may become a rallying point for them.  Then you may have second thoughts about the wisdom of building it.

Jorge said the same thing to Trump during his campaign.  He told Trump he couldn't win without placating to the illegals. Guess what happened...    Don't forget, the wall was a primary campaign topic of Trump.


The Democrat's whole strategy was based on changing demographics.  That didn't work out so well.

[jone]

You ever get the feeling that Krimster has never had a direct conversation with a legal immigrant, who came here, got their green card, and made a future for themselves? 

There is a signficant more amount of pride a legal immigrant has for our country when compared to someone who has come here illegally. 

I have known both.  Most of the legal immigrants want nothing to do with the illegals.  And the discussions I've had with the illegals?  Well, the belligerence of the illegals towards the United States is quite significant, on the whole.

[krimster2]

"You ever get the feeling that Krimster has never had a direct conversation with a legal immigrant, who came here, got their green card, and made a future for themselves?  “

You mean my mother?  Who came from the UK, or my wife who came from Ukraine?

[jone]

No.  I mean between the Hispanics you are so adamantly advocating for.  Like my brother-in-law's family who came here legally vs. the guy who sleeps underneath the overpass to stay out of the rain. 

I have the feeling you don't have a clue.  Prove me wrong.

[LiveFromUkraine]

"You ever get the feeling that Krimster has never had a direct conversation with a legal immigrant, who came here, got their green card, and made a future for themselves?  “

You mean my mother?  Who came from the UK, or my wife who came from Ukraine?

Surely you're not suggesting you talk to your mother and wife.  That is worst than the Jorge comments.