You can relax. Just serving up racist-laced fare for my little marionette, The Racist.
Whoops. Make that The Dumb Mexican Racist.
Bigoted? Nope.
Pea brain? Nope
Freaking out? Nope.
I consider Hispanics an inferior race? Nope.
Iraqis inferior? Nope.
Consider CBEscapee inferior? Absolutely.
To prove it, I just point to you sticking with your rock-dumb illegal-immigrant::military action analogy. I must admit, that I wouldn’t have dreamed that someone could be so stupid as to offer it up. And then to defend it?!! Well, that’s powerful dumb. Or as we say here in the states, “CBEscapee-Dumb”.
And just for the record, anyone who sneaks in should get the fuck out. Anyone who is here illegally due to overstaying their visas should get the fuck out. I don’t care if your name is Jose, Ian, Sven, Jiles, Igor, KImba, or Kwon, if you’re here illegally, get the fuck out.
Hmmm…a quandry. Is it stupider to offer up the analogy he did to support his position if you believe the illegals are invaders, or they aren’t? Man, that’s a tough call.
Of course there is, much like there is a difference between being pro-choice and being FOR abortions. Hell, I’m not FOR illegal immigration. I want them to do it legally, but I also want them to be ABLE to do so legally. All of them.
According to Forbes, the estimated wait time for a 30 year old Mexican with a high school diploma and a sister who has U.S. citizenship is 131 years.
If we make it easy to immigrate legally, I’ll happily join up with those who want to stamp out illegal immigration (although I’ll avoid the groups and people who are simply racists, which appears to be a large number of them).
“All”? So anyone who wants to come in here (leaving rapists, murderers, and terrorists aside, of course), you’d let in. Regardless of the number? 1 million? 10 million? 50 million? 200 million? 400 million? It’s all the same to you? If not, where and how do you draw the line?
And if “you” guys would take a stand on ILLEGAL immigration, I’d be willing to let the powers that be decide on some reasonable number of people we will allow to immigrate immigrate every year.
But that doesnt mean EVERY person who wants to should be able to. America doesnt have the space to be the last refuge for a few billion unhappy people.
And as it is, IMO illegal mexicans have already (probably) taken up more than their fair share of America’s allotable socio economic refuge space. Or do they have some extra special claim on it because they can walk here?
If you check my position from old threads on the subject, I do agree with many proposals to protect the border.
What is happening now is that many of the ones that are cracking down on illegal immigration and opening more inconveniences and abuse to legal residents, promised to the Latino community that immigration reform was going to take place at the same time.
I do think that the stand was made by many before, but someone else broke their promises.
Of course not, but the price to make your point is IMHO expensive, both in the monetary sense and in the human one.
No, but I would gave it to many for humanitarian reasons. While it is true that anecdotes are not data I personally know some Mexican/American families that are suffering because there is no immigration reform.
Naw, it’s France who lower-cases nationalities. He’s a Francophile.
Were it up to me, I would give Canadians and Mexicans priority in immigration, as they are close and friendly neighbors. I would, of course, expect the same from them. The North American Free Migration Agreement.
You later backtracked (or clarified) that you meant 100% of people you talk to (presumably about this subject), but with all due respect, you can’t get 99% of people to agree on anything.
I’d like to see any poll that got 99% of people to agree on something. I am sure if you take an anonymous poll on people’s opinion on eating dogs, fucking chicken and murdering their moms you’d still have a hard time getting 99% of them to agree on the matter.
Yes it is in the Middle East. Now take a guess what continent it is on. Then you can tell me who is geographically ignorant.
And of course your immigrant neighbors comprise 99.99% of all Mexican legal immigrants. And their descendants aren’t immigrants if they were born there so they can’t be considered immigrants, can they?
Feel free to do quick background checks and I’m fine with barring rapists, murderers, and terrorists, if you insist. As for numbers, as many as want to come. I’d also argue that other countries do the same and as Frank stated, it would be great if we could move freely between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, at the very least.
There was a measurable number of Latinos who voted for California’s Prop 187:
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=492_0_2_0
While I would like to see us clean up our immigration issues, and also get some control over our border, is it worth it to amend the US Constitution 300,000 babies born annually to illegal immigrant parents?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/07/eveningnews/main4000401.shtml?source=mostpo p_story
Just so I understand you, you’d be okay with any number of people being able to come in?
And you’d only want to check for rapists, murderers and terrorists if I insist? Otherwise, you wouldn’t care to cull those people out?
That might be geographically accurate, but I am fairly connected to the Middle Eastern cultural community of the United States and NONE of them call themselves “Asian.”
I don’t call myself American but I am.
Only in a meaningless, semantic sense. The entire world accepts that the term “American” refers to people from the United States of American. South American is used (and misused) to refer to that particular continent, and Central American is also used for the people from a few nations. North American can be used, but is worthless for any sort of categorization other than continental location.
Nope: Lynn and I, like many Dopers, know the value and limitations of anecdotal data. She reported her own experience, as anecdotal evidence. She did make a possibly-invalid generalization from it, in passing.
By the way, my classic example on the limitations of anecdotal evidence is something that happens to hold true for me: 100% of all persons with AIDS whom I knew personally were in exclusive intended-as-lifelong monogamous relationships at the time of contracting the disease. And yes, I’m quite well aware I’m a statistical outlier on that – but it serves to make a point.
If you’re from the U.S., that would be accurate. If you’re not from the U.S. that’s misleading information, even though it might be true in some hyper-technical regard.