fbpx

Type to search

It’s Time To Let Immigrants Step Out Of The Shadows

Memo Pad Politics

It’s Time To Let Immigrants Step Out Of The Shadows

Share

Lily has lived in the United States since 1983. She married here, bore a son here and divorced here. She made a loyal circle of friends here. She has stitched together a productive life in this country, integrating fully into American culture, and in August 2013 she became a citizen. I like to call her a genuine “African-American” because Gambia, a tiny West African country, is her native land.

She embodies the immigrant’s dream, but there is a wrinkle in her story. Her route to citizenship involved laws bent, if not broken; crimped, if not crumpled; ignored, if not rejected. When Lily (not her real name) flew into Washington en route to Atlanta, she entered the country on a tourist visa. She had no intention of returning to Gambia.

The 1980s were years of lax border enforcement, so she was easily able to find a job as a domestic in an Atlanta hotel. She tells a hilarious story about persuading the human resources department that she was a native of the Caribbean, despite having an accent that bears little resemblance to the typical West Indian lilt. No one requested papers.

But she didn’t abuse the privilege. She worked hard. She stayed out of trouble. She acquired a green card — a document indicating legal residency — when she married another Gambian native who had already been naturalized. (I’ve known her for five years, since she became a caregiver in my family.) And she came to love her new land in the ways that so many hopeful immigrants do.

There are millions of people living in this country with stories similar to Lily’s. They have worked hard; they have learned English; they have paid taxes. Why don’t we have the generosity — or, at the very least, the sense of enlightened self-interest — to allow them a route to citizenship, too?

Unlike Lily, however, they have encountered an era of deep resentment toward immigrants, especially those of slightly darker hues. Despite establishing an economic climate that welcomed their labor during the 1990s and early 2000s, we don’t seem to want the rest of their personhood — their families, their possessions, their frailties, their political rights. They have been consigned to the shadows.

Tags:
Cynthia Tucker Haynes

Cynthia Tucker Haynes, a veteran newspaper journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner, is a Visiting Professor of Journalism and Charlayne Hunter-Gault Distinguished Writer-in-Residence at the University of Georgia. She is also a highly-regarded commentator on TV and radio news shows.

Haynes was editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper for 17 years, where she led the development of opinion policy. More recently, she was that newspaper’s Washington-based political columnist. She maintains a syndicated column through Universal Press Syndicate, which is published in dozens of newspapers around the country. Besides winning the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2007, Haynes has also received numerous other awards, including Journalist of the Year from the National Association of Black Journalists.

  • 1

725 Comments

  1. Dominick Vila December 21, 2013

    I don’t support giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, but I believe it would be in our best interest to grant them residency status to ensure they are not exploited, that they are forced to pay taxes, and contribute to Social Security and MEDICARE. As important as having a pool of willing and able men and women to work the land and do a myriad of jobs that we are no longer interested in, I believe that forcing 11 million – young – illegal immigrants to contribute to SS, MEDICARE and pay Federal taxes would help us overcome some of our economic woes and would guarantee the solvency of our social programs for decades to come.
    The most important part of this issue, however, is not the controversial issue of amnesty, but taking steps to ensure our immigration laws are fair, effective, and designed to protect and advance our best interests. It should be obvious to everyone by now that President Reagan’s decision to grant amnesty to five million illegal immigrants in 1986 did not solve the immigration problem. It simply kicked the can down the road for someone else to deal with. If we don’t mind immigrants from countries where a significant segment of the population hate our guts come to this country to fill some of the best vacancies our economy has to offer, why don’t we do the same for people whose goal is to work the land, work in meat processing facilities, hospitality, and other areas where most of us are unwilling to work for a variety of reasons?

    Reply
    1. daniel bostdorf December 21, 2013

      Once again, a great post Dominick….cant agree more…have a great holiday season!

      Reply
      1. James Bowen December 21, 2013

        Illegals should not be allowed to stay at all. We can’t take in everybody who wants to come here, and we need to have zero tolerance for illegal presence and employment.

        Reply
        1. WhutHeSaid December 21, 2013

          Yes, like YOUR family. Nobody invited you here, and unlike your ‘predictions’ that any given immigrant is non-productive and/or undesirable, we have incontrovertible proof that YOU are undesirable.

          You may now do America a favor by getting in the nearest boat and going back to whatever shit-hole you and your despicable family came from. Bye!

          Reply
          1. James Bowen December 21, 2013

            I came from South Dakota, thank you very much. My parents are also native born. This is our country. I never said that any immigrant is non-productive or undesirable. I said that we have limits to how many people we can provide for and therefore it is necessary that we turn most of those who want to come here away. What do you think the limit should be?

            Reply
          2. WhutHeSaid December 21, 2013

            I think we should have drawn the line at the point BEFORE your family came here. We’d be ever so much better of without more vile and despicable bigots who have the unmitigated gall to talk about other immigrants as if they forgot their own sorry status.

            Reply
          3. James Bowen December 21, 2013

            My family came here when this was an underpopulated frontier nation. It no longer is and we must have an immigration policy that accounts for that reality.

            Reply
          4. WhutHeSaid December 21, 2013

            This country was not unpopulated, and your family members were illegal immigrants. So by your own yardstick, since your ancestors were illegal you will consider yourself illegal and thus subject to immediate deportation.

            Bye!

            Reply
          5. James Bowen December 21, 2013

            I said underpopulated, not unpopulated. My ancestors came here legally. Our immigration policy needs to reflect the fact that we are full.

            Reply
          6. WhutHeSaid December 21, 2013

            No, they didn’t come here legally. How do you expect other people to take your arguments seriously if you can’t be truthful about your own status?

            Reply
          7. James Bowen December 22, 2013

            They did come here legally. How can you say they didn’t? You know nothing about them. By the way, from what I have seen most American Indians in the U.S. oppose illegal immigration and legalization.

            Reply
          8. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Well, I have to say that you may have just posted the most ridiculous statement ever made in a National Memo forum. American Indians oppose illegal immigration, really? So why are you here?

            Reply
          9. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            All indication I have seen are that American Indians do not want to see more people come into this country and want to see our immigration laws enforced, just like many other citizens. I have never heard a member of an Indian tribe in this country say they want more immigration or legalization. Really, what do they have to gain from it?

            Reply
          10. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            What difference would it make to most of them anyway? They don’t want a drooling, redneck European bigot like you — yet here you are. Why would anyone complain about any immigrant if it would leave less room for idiots like you?

            Look let’s get down to the brass tacks here. You aren’t worried about natural resources, or laws, or the price of produce. What you are worried about is that redneck Europeans like you are going to be marginalized by people with darker skin than you, and someday you will be on the receiving end of their majority decisions. Well, it’s too late. That day is already near, and there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it.

            So go home to your bigot-hole, drink up your favorite gruel, slap the wife, hump the cat or do whatever it is that you gibbering bigots do to get rid of your frustration. The day of the redneck bigot is over. All you have left is your pitiful squealing. Is this in any way unclear?

            Reply
          11. Independent1 December 22, 2013

            Let’s see, you apparently are trying to claim that America is overpopulated?? When there are western states that are lucky if they have 10 people/square mile?? And these states represent almost 1/3 of America’s land area. Boy, you really are losing it!!!!

            Reply
          12. James Bowen December 22, 2013

            There is a reason why Western states have lower population density. The are arid and water is in short supply. The Western states, if anything, are even more overpopulated than the Eastern states. Look at what is happening to the Colorado River. Lake Mead is very low because more water is being taken out of the river than is coming into it each year.

            Reply
    2. FT66 December 21, 2013

      I disagree. Why not support the path for illegal immigrants to obtain citizenship and still they are used to grow the economy? That is what we call “Exploitation” in the real sense.

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila December 21, 2013

        Because rewarding those who broke our laws encourages others to do the same. By allowing the stay, work, and do their civic duty they participate and benefit from our prosperity, and enjoy the protection of our laws. Doing that is not exploitation, it is a reward many of them do not deserve. Again, the key, if the goal is to find a long term solution, is to modify our immigration laws to extend to Mexicans and Central Americans the privileges every other immigrant enjoys.

        Reply
        1. FT66 December 21, 2013

          Allowing them to stay is not rewarding them for breaking the laws. It is the matter of understanding. Though they broke the laws, what contribution are they making economically? Is there anyone who hates a flourishing economy? By the way, by them growing the economy, are they bribing the government in order to stay?

          Reply
          1. Independent1 December 21, 2013

            FT66, they make an enormous contribution to Americans and I agree that they should have a path to citizenship. See this on the the economic benefits they provide to our country:

            Most arguments against illegal immigration begin with the premise that the illegal don’t pay income taxes, and that they therefore take more in services than they contribute. However, IRS estimates that about 6 million unauthorized immigrants file individual income tax returns each year.[21] Research reviewed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that between 30 percent and 50 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes.[21] illegal immigrants are estimated to pay in about $7 billion per year into Social Security.[26] In addition, they spend millions of dollars per year, which supports the US economy and helps to create new jobs. The Texas State Comptroller reported in 2006 that the 1.4 million illegal immigrants in Texas alone added almost $18 billion to the state’s budget, and paid $1.2 billion in state services they used.[27]

            The Social Security and Medicare contributions of illegal immigrants directly support older Americans, as illegal immigrants are not eligible to receive these services.[28] The Internal Revenue Service issues an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) regardless of immigration status because both resident and nonresident aliens may have Federal tax return and payment responsibilities under the Internal Revenue Code. Federal tax law prohibits the IRS from sharing data with other government agencies including the INS. In 2006 1.4 million people used ITIN when filing taxes, of which more than half were illegal immigrants.[29]

            Reply
          2. James Bowen December 21, 2013

            If they are legalized, most will fall into low income brackets and will not have to pay much in taxes. They will still be eligible for all public and social services though. They need to all be expelled.

            Reply
          3. Independent1 December 21, 2013

            You are being very shortsighted and misguided. You’re totally ignoring the impact that ridding America of illegals would have on our economy. It would be devastating!!

            Reply
          4. James Bowen December 21, 2013

            No, it is you who is being shortsighted. We must stabilize our population. Our food supply is dependent upon non-renewable resources that will eventually be depleted. We must lower our population in order to have a completely sustainable food supply. U.S. population growth is being driven by immigration, both legal and illegal, as well as births to immigrants. We must lower legal immigration to match emigration rates, eliminate birthright citizenship, and get rid of all illegals. It would be devastating to let them stay.

            Reply
          5. Independent1 December 21, 2013

            More total BS!! Get a life!! You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill!! A typical tunnel vision, shortsighted righ-wing wacko.

            Reply
          6. James Bowen December 21, 2013

            Now you resort to insults. I am not making this up. U.S. population growth is almost completely the result of immigration. If we are to sustain a decent quality of life in this country and not lay ecological waste to it, we must stop population growth. And that means we must greatly reduce immigration. I suggest you Google Dr. Albert A. Bartlett and look at what he had to say about this.

            Reply
          7. WhutHeSaid December 21, 2013

            Is this news to you? When did the population of the US begin to be ‘almost completely the result of immigration’? You may also get extra points for successfully telling us just why you don’t use the inclusive term ‘we’ when talking about immigrants. You are, after all, just another immigrant.

            Reply
          8. James Bowen December 21, 2013

            Since 1972, when U.S. total fertility fell below replacement level. I am not an immigrant, that’s why I don’t say “we”.

            Reply
          9. WhutHeSaid December 21, 2013

            That answers shows why some immigrants are less desirable than others. The correct answer, of course, is that this country began to grow largely by immigration way back in the 17th century.

            Of course you are an immigrant. Since you disagree with the concept of citizenship by birth, and your ancestors were illegal immigrants — that makes you an immigrant and an illegal one at that. Hearing this will no doubt cause you to call for your own deportation at once.

            Bye!

            Reply
          10. James Bowen December 22, 2013

            I was born to U.S. citizen parents here in the U.S. That by definition means I am not an immigrant, unless you count state to state migration as immigration.

            The country was sparsely populated back then. We now need to stop growing, which means greatly reducing immigration and having no tolerance for illegal immigration.

            Reply
          11. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            That’s YOUR definition. That’s not my definition.

            Your family is made up entirely of illegal immigrants. They immigrated illegally. That makes you an illegal immigrant by your own definition. You don’t believe in citizenship by birth, remember? You may go back now, since you are so worried about illegal immigration. Bye!

            Reply
          12. Independent1 December 21, 2013

            Oh!! So no one in the U.S. other than immigrants has been having babies??? What utter nonsense- You are a complete moron!!! And I could care less what Dr. Bartlett’s opinion is – what makes him such an expert on such things???? Because he’s another right-wing anti immigration wacko???

            Reply
          13. James Bowen December 21, 2013

            Again, throwing insults at me does not make you correct. Native-born currently have about 1.78 children in their lifetimes, below replacement level. Immigrants have somewhere between 2.5 and 2.9, well above replacement level. Dr. Bartlett was a nuclear physics professor at the University of Colorado who lectured about the physical impossibility of perpetual growth.

            Reply
          14. plc97477 December 26, 2013

            As well as the impact on our lives. Who would be doing the work that they do? One of our more inane states managed to curtail illegal workers to the point that nothing got done in the state.

            Reply
          15. Independent1 December 26, 2013

            That was Alabama I believe which came to somewhat of a standstill until the legislature reversed some of the more ridiculous sections of their immigration law.

            Reply
          16. plc97477 December 26, 2013

            Yes I know I was trying to help them save face, to some extent.

            Reply
          17. Independent1 December 26, 2013

            Oh! I’ve been using the Alabama debacle as an example of what could happen to the whole country if we tried to rid all of America of illegals. But even with what happened in AL, Bowen and CPA have been hard to convince.

            Reply
          18. Independent1 December 22, 2013

            If they don’t pay much in taxes, how do they manage to contribute 7 billion to the Social Security trust fund which they can’t even use?? You are so far out of step with reality that your posts are pure nonsense. You are obviously spending too much time listening to right-wing wacko websites and news outlets.

            Reply
          19. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            I did not say they don’t pay taxes. I said that what they pay does not make up for what they consume (by sending this kids to school, using our roads, using our emergency rooms, etc.). And in my last comment I was talking about what would happen if they were legalized. They wouldn’t even pay the taxes they currently pay.

            Reply
          20. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            You forgot to mention that when working class people consume, they do it with everything they have. This means that you are getting back a near 100% return to your local economy, which you fail to mention. It’s mostly the employers of illegal labor that make off with the goodies. This doesn’t involve illegal immigrants only — just look at how Walmart and McDonalds use the taxpayer as a part of their employee compensation package. They plan their budgets around the taxpayer’s money.

            Reply
          21. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            Consumption by definition takes resources out of the economy. So more people consuming limited resources is a drain on the economy so far as an average citizen is concerned.

            Reply
          22. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Bullshit. When one consumes, they fuel the profits of local businesses. That’s how capitalism works — are you really that clueless?

            Reply
          23. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            And they increase competition for limited goods, which has a greater impact on the average person than increasing the profits of a few retailers.

            Reply
          24. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            I don’t know of any ‘limited goods’ that hiring cheap labor will exacerbate — do you?

            Reply
          25. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            Food for one thing. Our grain yields are not increasing, and we already do not grow enough produce to for our population to meet the daily recommended dietary intakes. Water is another one, especially in the Southwest. Resources don’t just magically appear when more people come. We have a finite resource base, and adding more people to it accelerates their depletion.

            Reply
          26. WhutHeSaid December 24, 2013

            That’s ridiculous. There are vast subsidies that the US has paid for years for farmers NOT to grow certain crops. Why? Because they want to keep the prices high. Why would they do this, you might ask? Well, to answer that question you’d have to start by looking at who the primary beneficiaries are. I’ll give you a hint: It isn’t the small-scale farmer growing vegetables.

            Water shortages can and have been mitigated by public works and irrigation projects. This only applies to certain areas anyway, and I haven’t seen you say that you oppose immigration just to these areas. You also haven’t said anything about non-immigration population growth that stress these same resources, because it’s not stressing these resources that worries you at all.

            Just why is it that you gibbering bigots work so hard conjuring up lies? After all — nobody really believes you anyway, now do they? Everyone can see the common thread in your narrative no matter how hard you try to disguise it. Natural resources? Grain shortages? Really — do you think people are stupid enough to buy this garbage? All because of illegal immigration, now isn’t that right?

            You are a fool, a liar, and a drooling dyed-in-the-wool bigot. That’s the beginning and end of your story, and everything in between is reeking bullshit. You don’t even know your own immigration status, and it would be poetic justice of all of your hot gas galvanized somebody enough to look up your status and find out you are actually here illegally. Fate has been known to play tricks like this on gibbering fools like you.

            Reply
          27. James Bowen December 24, 2013

            You clearly don’t know much about this subject. Please don’t talk about something you are don’t know anything about. Part of what motivates those subsidies you speak of is in fact conservation. Less land under the plow means more land for wildlife habitat. And just because we can feed our population now does not mean that we will always be able to feed them. We already have more people than can be sustained indefinitely via completely renewable organic methods. We therefore have to rely on exhaustible resources such as fossil fuels to feed ourselves. These resources will eventually run out. Where will we get our food then? Mars?

            Besides, I have much more respect for the grain farmers and ranchers than the produce growers. The grain farmers and ranchers do most of the work themselves and do not rely on cheap labor.

            Those irrigation projects you speak of, where do you think the water comes from? I’ll tell you, it’s from places like Lake Mead which is drying out because more water is being taken out of the Colorado River than goes into it each year. No matter how many irrigation projects and aquedects we have, we still only have so much ground water and so much surface runoff.

            As for non-immigration population growth, in the U.S. there basically is none. If it wasn’t for post-1970 immigration, our population would have stabilized already. The U.S. native-born total fertility rate has been below replacement level since 1972.

            Reply
          28. WhutHeSaid December 24, 2013

            As I said before, there are still subsidies in place this very minute that pay farmers NOT to grow certain crops. Are you trying to claim that these subsidies are part of some conservation effort? That’s a ridiculous claim, and you know it.

            The United States is the largest agricultural (read: food) exporter in the world. How do you reconcile your dire claims of hunger and famine with this easily verifiable reality? You can’t — your argument is false.

            With respect to irrigation projects, yes, there are certain areas where irrigation is a problem, but this has always been the case and has nothing to do with immigration. If you still want to argue that it does, make sure to provide some cause and effect studies that support your ridiculous claim.

            I agree that it is largely immigration that is the primary reason for a net positive US population growth, but this too is really nothing new. The US as we know it today is an immigrant country, and pretty much has been since the 17th century.

            I think what you are really worried about is the fact that as of the 2012 Census, minority children crossed the 50% mark of the percentage of all children born in this country. That means, of course, that the newest generation will make the Caucasian European an absolute minority when they come of age, and it will only head more in that direction over time. Is this your real fear?

            Reply
          29. James Bowen December 25, 2013

            Once again, you are clearly very ignorant on these issues. Those subsidies you speak are are known as the Conservation Reserve Program. The name says it all.

            You are right about the U.S. being the largest food exporter in the world, but that has been accomplished, just as increases in food production elsewhere have been, by utilizing non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels to increase yields to levels that would not be possible with completely renewable organic methods. This can’t last forever since we will run out of these resources. Using completely natural methods, we couldn’t even feed the U.S. population right now, let alone the hundreds of millions of others that we currently feed.

            Also, immigration has not always been the primary cause of U.S. population growth. Until the 1840’s, natural increase was. This was also the case during the baby boom years. Americans reduced their birth rates to sub-replacement levels by 1972, and ever since then immigration has been the primary cause of U.S. population growth. If we are going to stabilize our population, we have to greatly reduce legal immigration, crack down on illegal immigration, and eliminate birthright citizenship, along with maintaining the family planning programs that President Nixon started.

            I don’t care what color our population is, so long as there are not too many of us.

            Reply
          30. WhutHeSaid December 25, 2013

            Once again, you simply continue to fabricate arguments even when they’ve been proven false.

            The farm subsidy boondoggle started way back in the 1930’s with the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The purpose was to eliminate surplus agricultural products in the market, which was a form of price support for struggling farmers at that time. It had nothing whatever to do with land conservation, and was intended to help the small farmer.

            Over the years the farming lobby has become a powerful political arm of the so-called ‘red’ states, and the number and complexity of the subsidy programs has grown out of control. Recently the farm subsidies in general have surpassed the amount that is spent of what Republicans noisily squeal about as ‘welfare’, yet the benefits are almost entirely reaped by large commercial agriculture operations or corporate land holders. The small farmer that was originally the focus of the program has largely ceased to exist.

            If I’m not mistaken, the Conservation Reserve Program accounts for about 8% of federal farm subsidies. That doesn’t exactly support your claim that farm subsidies are efforts at conservation. So while the CRP accounts for just under $2 billion per year, the remaining cash subsidies that have nothing whatever to do with conservation amount to more than $20 billion per year — the vast majority going to large businesses rather than small family farms. This is largely a Republican pork-barrel form of corporate welfare, which is also an issue in other industries (e.g., the petroleum industry). None of it has anything to do with immigration at all.

            You still have not shown that irrigation (or lack thereof) has anything whatever to do with immigration either. Arid lands are just that — short of water, and immigration has nothing to do with it and never has.

            Regarding US population, the only ‘natural’ population growth would be that of the Native Americans, for which no reliable records were ever kept. The immigration of Europeans and African slaves were the primary cause of the US population explosion that occurred (as you’ve noted) in the 19th century. Thereafter the population growth was mainly the children of these immigrants — which you like to call ‘natural increase’. To me, the birth of immigrant children still means that the population growth was fueled by immigration, although I can see why you would desperately like to deny this because you wish to deny being a part of immigration.

            So in every case you’ve presented, you are fabricating a theoretical argument against a nonexistent issue. US population growth is just barely under the replacement level without immigration, and when you factor in immigration it is just barely above. There are no food shortages, therefore immigration cannot be blamed for a nonexistent issue. Irrigation of arid land areas has nothing to do with immigration, and never has. Agricultural subsidies that were originally intended as a socialistic program to save small farmers has become a form of corporate welfare that — whatever the fanciful name — is now big Republican political tomfoolery in no way related to immigration.

            So what it boils down to is that you are all worked up over a solution to a problem that doesn’t even exist. Why is that? So far every one of your claims has been shown to be false. You still try to sidestep the fact that without the 14th Amendment guarantee of citizenship for children born on US soil you might not even be a US citizen at all.

            I’ve seen this type of argument before, of course, such as the rationalizations behind the recent wave of voter suppression laws. No matter how many times the argument is made that these efforts are aimed at preventing voter fraud, everyone really knows that they are attempts to prevent minority votes. There is no voter fraud issue — just like there is no immigrant issue with food shortages or land irrigation or runaway population growth. What you need to do is explain what’s really bothering you about immigration, because so far you’ve only presented a bunch of malarkey (to borrow a colorful immigrant term).

            Reply
          31. James Bowen December 26, 2013

            I never said that the CRP was the only farm subsidy. You said that subsidies have nothing to do with conservation and then specifically mentioned subsidies that pay farmers not to grow crops, which is exactly what the Conservation Reserve Program is. See the contradiction?

            By “natural increase”, I meant population growth due to births minus deaths from those who lived here and were citizens during those times. Immigration to the U.S. was low until the Irish Potato Famine and was low again between 1924 and 1965 (years where laws were in effect that strictly limited immigration). Whatever the case, in the 19th Century we were a frontier nation. Considering that and the loss of American lives during the Civil War, immigration was crucial to building this country.

            I think you are not understanding what I have said, or perhaps don’t want to understand. It is population growth that is straining our water supplies, and that population growth is not just “barely above replacement level” with immigration. Without immigration, it would be below it, and with immigration it is way, way above it. Just look at the U.S. population increase since 1990. I was 60 million, the population of the France. That is not small growth. And while there are no food shortages right now, our current production levels cannot be sustained indefinitely. If we are to put our nation on a sustainable path, we must gradually reduce our population, and that cannot happen unless we reduce immigration to match emigration rates.

            Reply
          32. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            It’s your contradiction, not mine. I said that there is no current food shortage and no impending food shortage — despite your claims to the contrary. So my point is that your dire claims of food shortages caused by illegal immigration is an argument completely void of merit, after all — you can’t have a food shortage caused by immigration if you have no food shortage.

            Your claim that paying farmers not to grow certain crops is a conservation effort is also false. There is a program with the word ‘conservation’ in it, but that’s just a name that has as much to do with politics as anything else, and the genesis of these programs had nothing to do with conservation OR immigration.

            I know what you mean about ‘natural increase’. You want to separate the births of US citizens from those of non-citizens, and I’m telling you that without the birthright clause of the 14th Amendment that argument makes no sense. So all of your arguments are based upon a premise — and a law — that you oppose. Sound a little silly to you?

            The US was not a ‘frontier country’ to everyone during the 19th century — it’s all a matter of perspective, now isn’t it? And your perspective is decidedly self-serving since you don’t even know whether you would be a citizen without the benefit of the 14th Amendment.

            Immigration is not ‘straining’ our water supplies. Where such situations do exist they have nothing to do with immigration whatever, and certainly not illegal immigration. If you dispute this, then you may supply some definitive studies or statistical data to back up your claim.

            Reply
          33. James Bowen December 26, 2013

            No, there is no current food shortage, but there is an impending food shortage with our current population. It might not occur for several centuries, but that does not mean it will not happen. As I have said before, completely renewable organic methods of producing food cannot feed our current population, so we have to rely on non-renewable resources to produce the yields that we otherwise couldn’t produce.

            It is a mathematical fact that our population growth is due to immigration and births to immigrants. That is indisputable (see http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/about-problem/three-possible-causes-biggest-us-populat.html) and it is all based on Census data. And it is our population and population growth that is straining water supplies in the West. Do you deny that Lake Mead has been declining in level since 2000 due to human consumption? I want you to demonstrate how we can stabilize and reduce our population without greatly reducing immigration.

            Reply
          34. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            Now you are really reaching. It’s a “mathematical fact that our population growth is due to immigration and birth to immigrants”?

            Let’s think about that statement. It sounds like my point, really, that this is an immigrant country and has been for centuries. So I’m guessing that you are counting the US citizens (either via the 14th Amendment birthright clause or not) as the ‘children of immigrants’? If that’s your argument then I would agree and say that you are now making my case for me — thank you.

            If that is not your argument, and you are saying that ‘children of immigrants’ does NOT include you and those like you, then your mathematical skills are in terrible need of remediation. In that case I would say: Please prove, by referencing credible studies or statistics, that non-citizen immigrant births ALONE (without counting US citizens) exceeds the so-called ‘replacement rate’. It doesn’t, of course, and your argument is thus defeated.

            Reply
          35. Dominick Vila December 27, 2013

            I suspect you are well aware of what he is saying. He is not referring to the children of immigrants, he is specifically talking about the children of Latino and Hispanic immigrants, and I am willing to bet that it encompasses more than “illegal” immigrants.

            Reply
          36. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            Perhaps that IS what he is trying to say, but if so let him spell it out. Singling out Latino immigrants would be a racist argument, so I’d rather hear him say it himself if that is indeed his point.

            Reply
          37. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            What I am saying is that the birth rates among immigrants exceed replacement level, i.e. >2.1 children per immigrant woman. This is clearly illustrated in that link I provided, and it is based on U.S. Census data. This does prop up the overall U.S. total fertility rate to levels higher than they would be due to native fertility alone, although U.S. total fertility rate is still below replacement level. Immigration itself far exceeds the emigration rate. The combined result of immigration and immigrant fertility is the rapid population growth this country has been experiencing since 1972 despite a total fertility rate that is sub-replacement among the native born. This is not hard to understand. Immigration, not native fertility, is driving U.S. population growth. Had it not been for the post 1970 immigration boom, our population would be very close to stabilization right now.

            Reply
          38. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            Nonsense. If US citizens stopped having children then the population would drastically decline. What you are talking about is the COMBINED fertility rate, and it’s nowhere near as drastic as you try to make it sound.

            Reply
          39. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            The combined fertility rate is still sub-replacement, but it would be even lower if it weren’t for immigrant fertility. Combine the boost in fertility due to immigration with immigration itself, and we’ve got the rapidly growing population that we have. And it is drastic. It only took 39 years to go from 200 million to 300 million (1967-2006), even though fertility was sub-replacement during most of that time. Compare that to the 50 years it took to go from 100 million to 200 million (1917-1967), when birth rates were above replacement.

            Reply
          40. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            Well that just awful. Who would’ve thought that only the United States would experience population growth numbers like this — and all due to illegal immigration!

            You need to go look at the rest of the world.

            Reply
          41. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            Due to both legal and illegal immigration.

            Reply
          42. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            I’m glad you said that. So since you *claim* that your family immigrated legally, then they were part of the same problem that you speak of, yes?

            I’m getting confused now. What kind of immigration was it that you oppose?

            Reply
          43. James Bowen December 28, 2013

            I don’t oppose immigration. It just needs to be reduced to match emigration rates, and all of it needs to be legal.

            Reply
          44. WhutHeSaid December 28, 2013

            So you say, but I disagree and your presence here proves that your family also disagreed. Immigration can be a good thing, and it’s absurd to outlaw something that’s going to happen anyway. Also, you STILL haven’t proven that your own family’s immigration was ‘legal’, now have you?

            Reply
          45. James Bowen December 29, 2013

            It’s not “going to happen anyway.” Our own past (1924, 1954) shows that we can easily control both legal and illegal immigration. As for the necessity of reducing it, as I have said, we must do it to stabilize our population. I have already stated many times why that is necessary.

            Reply
          46. idamag December 28, 2013

            What happened in the 70’s, is people said, “Maybe we should limit our families because of the population explosion.” The people who said that were the people who could read and understand. They limited their families while the less intelligent kept on producing. Now we have more people with less intelligence and less people with more intelligence.

            Reply
          47. WhutHeSaid December 28, 2013

            What really happened in the 1970’s was the result of birth control and the so-called ‘sexual revolution’. Women became empowered to plan their own reproductive lives. Ah, the good old days!

            Reply
          48. James Bowen December 29, 2013

            Native-born Americans, as a whole, have had sub-replacement fertility since then.

            Reply
          49. idamag December 26, 2013

            Since obesity has become the top health problem, I would say there is not shortage of food.

            Reply
          50. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            There is no shortage of food right now. But our food supply is dependent upon non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels to produce the yields that we currently produce. Those resources won’t last forever. Using completely renewable organic methods to grow our crops, we wouldn’t even be able to feed the U.S. population, let alone the hundreds of millions of others around the world that we feed. When we run out of those resources and are no longer able to artificially fertilize the soil, where are we going to get our food then? Mars?

            Reply
          51. idamag December 28, 2013

            And to add to your paranoia: The West Coast is going to get a huge tsunami some day. The north western half of the United States is going to be wiped out by a gigantic caldera (The ground around Old Faithful, in Yellowstone Park, bulges by more inches every year.), When the San Andreas plates shift we will have earthquakes of a scale yet unheard of, and because of indiscriminate use of antibiotics we are developing super bugs. BTW, you didn’t say how much you contributed to the present population.

            Reply
          52. James Bowen December 29, 2013

            Most of those things are beyond our control. Our numbers are not. It makes no sense whatsoever to overpopulate and deplete the resources that we need to survive, especially when all it would take to stop it is a simple exercise of discipline.

            I actually don’t have any kids, at least not yet.

            Reply
          53. idamag December 26, 2013

            I watched a documentary on television. 8000 acres of producing farm land in Texas was purchased by a large corporation for the purpose of putting it in the land bank. In other words, they were getting paid not to raise crops. When Roosevelt started that program it was to stop the glut on the market that brought down the price of grain, corn, etc. It is now used and abused.

            Reply
          54. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            Yes, I agree. It’s become another Republican form of pork-barrel corporate welfare.

            Reply
          55. idamag December 28, 2013

            Fifty billionaires have been farming the subsidy program for years according to the Hightower Report. They include top executives and owners of corporate empires. Listed are: Chase Manhattan Bank, Chick-fil-A, DISH Network, Fiji Water, Hyatt Hotels, Microsoft and Victoria’s Secret. To cut the farm subsidy bill, they eliminated food stamps. People don’t seem to get upset over able-bodied CEO’s and corporations with their hands out, do they?

            Reply
          56. WhutHeSaid December 28, 2013

            It doesn’t end with the farm subsidy program either. Don’t forget other subsidies (petroleum is a good example) and the corporate mining of public social programs to increase profits (e.g., McDonalds and Walmart). The chickens will come home to roost eventually, however.

            Reply
          57. Dominick Vila December 27, 2013

            Conservation is part of the equation, but the impetus is really to keep prices high to ensure the agri-business remain profitable.

            Reply
          58. idamag December 27, 2013

            That is exactly why the soil bank was initiated. After the farmers learned conservation, they increased crops and glutted the market. Wheat fell to 6 cents a bushel. To alleviate the glut, farmers were paid not to plant crops.

            Reply
          59. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            I certainly don’t deny that a major purpose of subsidies is what you are saying, but the ones that leave land fallow do have conservation in mind.

            Reply
          60. idamag December 28, 2013

            No that is not why they were doing that. You need to study history so as not to have to repeat it. The Soil Bank was to stop the glut on the market.

            Reply
          61. James Bowen December 29, 2013

            Again, I don’t deny that. However, to suggest that conservation is not an objective of some of these subsidies, one of which is the Conservation Reserve Program, is absurd.

            Reply
          62. CPAinNewYork December 28, 2013

            Mr. Bowen:

            Regarding your last paragraph: That seems to me to be a good argument for restricting immigration. I’d like to see our population stabilize, because it stabilizes the labor market and helps to give the worker a decent wage.

            Businesses and the rich in general seem to like immigration, especially illegal immigration, because it tends to lower wages: supply and demand being what they are.

            Reply
          63. James Bowen December 29, 2013

            CPAinNewYork,

            Thank you. It is the rich that are driving this excessive immigration policy of ours for exactly the reason you say. The “progressives” who support their agenda are their useful idiots. It would almost be laughable if the consequences weren’t so disastrous for ordinary Americans.

            Reply
          64. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            You’re a typical shit liberal who would ruin this country just to feed your liberal bias. I detest you and Independent1

            Reply
          65. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            On the contrary, I’ve said many times that I believe the real human garbage (like you) should go back to Europe. We don’t need any greasy, racist, Kraut bean counters hereabouts, I reckon. Even in New York, where they tolerate many things, that’s asking a bit much.

            This country was founded by liberals as a great experiment with a liberal new form of government. Why did your family come here — were they three steps ahead of the noose for their vile behavior in the old country? Given your despicable racist hate, you would have enjoyed fascism ever so much better. It’s not too late for you to go back, you know, and I want you to know that your effort to clean up America thus would be very much appreciated.

            Adios, amigo!

            Reply
          66. idamag December 27, 2013

            I am wondering what you mean by that statement? As we use the toilet paper off a roll, we are consuming it. My toilet paper is in this country so consumption by definition does not take resources out of this country. Our economy is consumer driven. When we have less consumption, we also have less paid in taxes and the economy suffers.

            Reply
          67. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            Toilet paper is made from wood pulp, which in theory is a renewable resource. However, renewable resources have their limits–we can’t cut down trees faster than they grow if that renewable resource is to last. There are many resources we use, including agricultural resources, that are not renewable and will eventually be depleted–it is just a question of when.

            Consumption is not the only thing that drives our economy. There are other forms of economic activity such as savings and investment and production. The fact that our economy is currently so dependent on consumption is a severe weakness that needs to be corrected. We cannot consume our way to prosperity and sustainability.

            Reply
          68. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            I will happily donate all of my used toilet paper to help alleviate your hysterical fears. See? There’s always a solution if you think hard enough.

            Reply
          69. idamag December 28, 2013

            economies always have been driven by consumption. You need to ponder that a bit.

            Reply
          70. James Bowen December 29, 2013

            Consumption is certainly part of economic activity, but you can’t have an economy completely dependent on consumption, not one that lasts anyway. The less dependence on consumption and the more reliance on savings, the better. It encourages conservation of resources and ensures the availability of capital for important investments. When we were young, how many times were we told that it is better to save our money than spend it?

            Reply
          71. idamag December 29, 2013

            Saving money is a virtue. However, if you are not purchasing things to be consumed, then you are being supported by someone else. Money sitting idle in a bank is not driving the economy. Money has to circulate in order to move the economy. If I have 10 dollars and save all of it in the bank, it grows my bank account. That is a benefit to me. If I spend 5 dollars and save five dollars, the money I spent helps the business. With the consumers’ money the businessman can pay his help who in turn spend money elsewhere to keep the momentum going.

            Reply
          72. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            Spending and consumption are necessary parts of economic activity, but it is best that they be minimized as it conserves natural resources as well as investment capital. There are other ways to create and sustain employment than consumerism. Yes, people need to consume things to survive, and that inherently creates employment opportunities. But to promote excessive consumption for this end is not very innovative or imaginative, not to mention irresponsible. Accumulated savings and investment leads to far more innovative ways of creating employment.

            Reply
          73. Independent1 December 23, 2013

            Sorry, but you’re totally wrong!! CBO studies have proven that illegals have a negligible affect on state costs which are greatly outweighed by the economic benefits they provide with the purchases they make in local establishments and certainly by the taxes they pay which have to be significant if they’re adding 7 billion to the social security fund.

            Reply
          74. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            Does this make any sense to you? They don’t even make enough to pay for the cost of living in this country. Therefore, they certainly don’t make up for what they take, no matter how hard working they are. And those purchases only help the retailers, they do not help private citizens as more consumers means more competition for resources and higher prices for goods in the long run.

            Reply
          75. Independent1 December 23, 2013

            Where are you getting all those ridiculous statements?? Nowhere!! You’re simply making them up!!

            I live in the state of Maine. And without immigrants, I’ll guarantee you that half Maine’s potato farmers would have to get out of farming because they simply wouldn’t be able to find the people to harvest all their potatoes. And the same goes for the immigrants who spend long boiling hours under the sun in August raking blueberries. Virtually every company in Maine that grows blueberries would shut down. And you know all those tens of thousands of wreaths that are placed by the tombstones of our fallen soldiers in Arlington National Cemetery and other cemeteries across the country come from?? From immigrants that scavenge through the Maine forests trimming trees for the wreath making folks!!

            You are a blooming idiot and I’m tired of listening to your self-centered bigoted rot that’s filled with one lie and distortion after another!! Go get lost somewhere and come back when you know how to live on the same planet with people who have one ounce of humanity!!!

            Reply
          76. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            Insults to not refute an argument. So you say that certain business would fail if they couldn’t hire cheap foreign labor. I say good, they deserve to fail if they have to break laws that exist to protect the livelihoods of Americans in order to stay in business. That is the least they deserve. They deserve heavy fines and jail time to boot. They will be replaced by those who can do business legally.

            Reply
          77. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            Your “humanity” is to convert a successful society into a total garbage heap, just to feed your liberal bias.

            You’re worse than an idiot. You’re a traitor who should be put against a wall and shot.

            Reply
          78. Independent1 December 26, 2013

            Like I care what a self-centered, egotistical bigot thinks??? I’m sorry, nothing is more worthless than your opinion.

            Reply
          79. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            ‘Put against a wall and shot’? Uncle Adolph would have been proud.

            Reply
          80. Independent1 December 26, 2013

            I think CPA has been hitting the bottle or crack pipe too hard. He’s been more cranky than usual.

            Reply
          81. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            Yeah, or perhaps it’s just been a stressful day and he needs to blow off some steam. If insults are therapeutic for him, I’m always here to help. 😉

            Reply
          82. Independent1 December 26, 2013

            I think all this political wrangling is really starting to get to a lot of us, I know it is to me. Like you’re suggesting, a lot of us need to loosen up a bit, me included. Hope you had good Christmas. Have a happy & healthy New Year!

            Reply
          83. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            Yeah, it’s been a bit testy out here lately, but it’s better than dodging bullets from each other. I think even the most insulting arguments are useful as long as there is an underlying point. Perhaps that’s because I’m a habitual insulter myself — I just can’t help it, I guess.

            Anyway, thank you for the holiday wishes and I hope you and your family are having a great time.

            Reply
          84. idamag December 27, 2013

            What are you adding to this discussion?

            Reply
          85. CPAinNewYork December 27, 2013

            I’m pointing out the inherent evil in your advocacy of allowing illegal aliens to invade the United States.

            You are a miserable traitor. Those of your ilk should be arrested for treason, convicted and shot.

            Reply
          86. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            Wow.

            Jawohl, mein Heinie!

            Reply
          87. idamag December 28, 2013

            Maybe gas chambers and ovens will be more efficient than shooting us.

            Reply
          88. CPAinNewYork December 28, 2013

            Is that the best you can do? Play the Nazi card?

            Your advocacy of the illegal aliens is disgusting and disgraceful. I repeat; You should be arrested for treason and shot.

            Reply
          89. idamag December 29, 2013

            I think he is a child. His arguments are so immature.

            Reply
          90. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            Where do you get the $7,000,000 contribution figure?

            Reply
          91. Independent1 December 26, 2013

            Check out the narratives under CBO Study and Taxes Contributed within this link:

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

            Reply
          92. yes2freespeach January 19, 2014

            simple math

            Reply
          93. FT66 December 22, 2013

            Many thanks Independent1 for a well compiled data. Quite impressive. I appreciate it.

            Reply
          94. James Bowen December 22, 2013

            FAIR concluded in 2011 that illegal aliens are a net cost to the taxpayers of $113 billion annually. I recommend you check that out too.

            Reply
          95. FT66 December 23, 2013

            I have to thank you also for your guidance, BUT I regret I won’t take a look at it, as it will confuse me to decide who to believe.

            Reply
          96. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            I hope I can help by posing this question: How can people who wages are so low that they can’t even afford the cost of living here be net contributors to the public coffers?

            Reply
          97. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            That’s an easy one: Because they don’t live in anything near what you would recognize as a comfortable living standard. Just asking the question should make you ashamed of yourself.

            Reply
          98. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            They can’t even afford the basics like rent or bills without putting 20 people into a place built for 4. Bringing in large numbers of poor people imports poverty. There is no gain to American citizens except the ones who profit from their cheap labor.

            Reply
          99. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            So then why do you consume cheap-labor products and fuel the very situation you claim to despise, you hypocrite?

            Reply
          100. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            I actually try to consume as little as possible and save as much as possible.

            Reply
          101. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            You still purchase cheap-labor products. Deny it and you will set a new National Memo record for the biggest whopper ever told in any forum.

            Reply
          102. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            Bowen is absolutely correct. We should not make our country the receptacle of the world’s detritus.

            Reply
          103. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            Agreed. So I expect you will be boarding that boat back soon, yes? Good.

            Adios!

            Reply
          104. Fry85 January 1, 2014

            Hilarious! I see you only want people to see what you want. Why did you not mention that the Congressional Budgetary Office(CBO) also said they made mistakes because they never added in costs of these people through prison, hospitals, infrastructure breakdown, education, etc etc. Their report was only done on a ten year stretch. The new report says they will cost 5.6 trillion dollars over the next 50 years. The average illegal invader, overwhelmingly, falls into an income level of the bottom 40 % which means they pay -9% in taxes.

            Reply
          105. James Bowen December 21, 2013

            They are consuming more than they are contributing. We are already overpopulated. If we are to stabilize are population, the most logical place to start is by ridding America of illegals.

            Reply
          106. Independent1 December 21, 2013

            Sorry but that is blatantly NOT TRUE!! Even at the state level their affect on state services is minimal considering the contributions they make to increase state taxes and other economic expansion.

            Here is the CBO’s assessment back in 2007 and there are less illegals in America today than there were then:

            During 2007, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reviewed 29 reports published over 15 years on the impact of unauthorized immigrants on the budgets of state and local governments. While cautioning that the reports are not a suitable basis for developing an aggregate national effect across all states, they concluded that:[21]

            State and local governments incur costs for providing services to unauthorized immigrants and have limited options for avoiding or minimizing those costs;

            The amount that state and local governments spend on services for unauthorized immigrants represents a small percentage of the total amount spent by those governments to provide such services to residents in their jurisdictions;

            The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants, although the impact is most likely modest; and

            Federal aid programs offer resources to state and local governments that provide services to unauthorized immigrants, but those funds do not fully cover the costs incurred by those governments.

            Reply
          107. James Bowen December 21, 2013

            FAIR concluded that illegal immigration, at all levels of government, costs the taxpayers $113 billion annually as of 2011. But that is not the worst of it. The most important factor is that they are a major contributor to U.S. population growth. Our population must be stabilized and decreased in order to ensure that our ability to feed ourselves is indefinitely sustainable. In achieving this, it makes sense that illegals should be the first to go.

            Reply
          108. Independent1 December 21, 2013

            More total BS!! What would you expect from a right-wing bigoted organization???

            Reply
          109. James Bowen December 21, 2013

            They are not a right-wing organization. Bringing more people into this country is not expanding our resource base. But more people need more resources, so depletion increases. Basic arithmetic.

            Reply
          110. WhutHeSaid December 21, 2013

            So subtract yourself already. Need help finding a boat? America will be grateful — I promise.

            Reply
          111. James Bowen December 21, 2013

            I am a citizen, and I have a stake in the future of this nation as it is my future to. The U.S. Government is charged with the welfare of its citizens over aliens, and that is where its duty lies.

            Reply
          112. WhutHeSaid December 21, 2013

            You are an illegal immigrant, I’ll bet. Are you claiming to be a Native American?

            Reply
          113. James Bowen December 21, 2013

            I am Native, and I am an American, so the answer is yes.

            Reply
          114. WhutHeSaid December 21, 2013

            Haha! So you believe that lying is a legitimate path to citizenship?

            Reply
          115. James Bowen December 22, 2013

            No, I don’t. That’s why I don’t think illegal aliens who have lied about having a valid SSN should be allowed to stay here.

            Reply
          116. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            You just lied — claiming to be Native American. So now you may follow your own wishes for lying immigrants and leave.

            Reply
          117. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            I am a Native American. I was born here to citizen parents, that makes me native. That is not a lie, that is a legal fact. People born to illegals or temporary visitors have no business being declared citizens.

            Reply
          118. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            That’s a lie. All the world knows what a Native American is, and you aren’t it. That’s why there’s no reason to take your arguments seriously, because you are a liar.

            Reply
          119. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            No it isn’t. A Native American is someone who is native to America. What I think you are referring to is an American Indian.

            Reply
          120. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            I see you like to play games with semantics. That’s not the only game you play, either. Your whole argument is shot through with lies and deceptions — just what one would expect from an illegal immigrant like you.

            You are a burden on this society. I have an unquestionable right to be here, but you are an illegal ‘anchor baby’. I want you to go back to your home country — now.

            Reply
          121. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            Why do you have a right to be here and I don’t? I was born in this country to citizens who themselves were born to citizens. All of our ancestors were came here under legal circumstances. Illegal aliens are not legitimate residents of this country, and it makes no sense to legally legitimize their children like we currently do.

            Reply
          122. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            What a shameless liar you are. You’ve already been caught admitting that you don’t know about the immigration of your ancestors, so it’s very likely that you are one of those children of illegal immigrants you talk about so much. But that won’t stop you from spewing more lies, now will it?

            You need to drop the bullshit stories and admit what you are really about. You are a bigot, yes? Do you belong to the KKK or the ‘new and improved’ KKK — the Tea Party? Why must you people invest so much effort denying who and what you really are? It never works, so really — what’s the point?

            Reply
          123. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            I think that you should make sure to declare that you are a ‘Native American’ on the next federal form you complete. Then send it to me, and we may have the beginnings of a successful deportation program for illegal immigrants.

            Reply
          124. comanche89 December 23, 2013

            Native Americans is correct to refer to the gentleman from South Dakota. Indigenous American people’s are referred to as American Indians. Even Senator Elizabeth Warren is not correct in describing herself as an Native American on her application to Harvard. Everyone wants Too many chiefs and no Indians.
            Even I migrated from elsewhere ….at least it was from America to America.

            Reply
          125. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            That’s your opinion. Try telling that to the US federal prosecutor when you are indicted for making false statements. You may also like to ask Martha Stewart or Bernie Madoff if this is a good idea.

            Everyone knows what the term ‘Native American’ means. Why you are out here playing games with it remains to be seen.

            Reply
          126. comanche89 December 23, 2013

            You speak with forked tongue, Quine no sabe. Kemo sabe for you Clayton Moore followers. This is an amusing forum from my perspective…..arguing over a piece of land. I am glad it is over, almost.

            Reply
          127. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Are you serious? Take your play-acting somewhere else.

            Reply
          128. comanche89 December 23, 2013

            Will the great white ….correction half- breed Chief be indicted for lying to his great people, that blindly selected him twice.

            Reply
          129. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Well, that’s all we needed: A redneck bigot out here posing as a Native American. Slow day at the trailer park?

            Reply
          130. comanche89 December 23, 2013

            You finally got redneck correct for me anyway. You appeared to be the bigot here.

            Reply
          131. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Yeah, that’s why I used the term. What you get out of posing to be Native is beyond me, though. Have you people ever heard of soap out there?

            Reply
          132. comanche89 December 23, 2013

            Why does one need soap when we are in the wild , clean,’open land with no one to offend like apartment dwellers living on top of one another. Even the people living in trailer parks , that you hold in contempt, are more civil in their rhetoric then you. You are extremely hostile, bigoted and harbor hatred for others that call you out. Even a child
            Is able to speak with more eloquence and even temper . You obviously were hated as a child also, which is understandable .

            Reply
          133. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Well, I’m guessing that your refusal to use soap has something to do with that. I’m willing to bet that nobody comes within a country mile of you because of the stench. Even the chickens run for their lives when you come near — isn’t that right, Goober?

            Reply
          134. comanche89 December 23, 2013

            True there may be a country mile between people out here and the Dakota’s, Montana and southwest, Unlike where you may live,. Chickens have their place and fart down wind towards cities.they are smarter in this respect.

            Reply
          135. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Sounds suspiciously like another bigot I’ve seen out here posting. Just so that you are aware, The National Memo has been cracking down on raving bigots posting under multiple names, like ObozoMustGo, Infadelicious and others. Better get your ya-yas out while you can.

            Reply
          136. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            If asked the question, I would. A Native American is anyone who is native to America. That is not a lie. A successful deportation program, in all honesty, would be to just enforce the laws in the workplace. If there are no jobs for them, there is no reason for them to stay.

            Reply
          137. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            You are just a liar, and when exposed you simply double down on your lies. You aren’t Native American, and you don’t even know your immigration history. So there is no reason for anyone out here to take your arguments seriously.

            My guess is that you are just another sordid bigot. CPAInNewYork is also one of those, but he has an argument vastly superior to yours since he is being honest. I don’t agree with it, of course, but it is still far superior to your endless stream of self-serving lies.

            Reply
          138. idamag December 27, 2013

            It might make you feel good to consider yourself a Native American, but the term refers to the aborigines who were on this continent before your ancestors were.

            Reply
          139. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            Depends on who you ask. American Indian is a far more descriptive term in that sense. A Native American, taken at face value, is simply someone who is native to America.

            Reply
          140. WhutHeSaid December 28, 2013

            Why would calling a people who are native to the Americas ‘Indian’ (an Asian country, no less) be ‘more descriptive’?

            Reply
          141. James Bowen December 29, 2013

            They have been called “Indians” by Europeans ever since the Age of Exploration. It reflects a misunderstanding of where the early explorers like Columbus thought they were in the world. After all, another name for the islands in the Caribbean are the West Indies.

            Reply
          142. WhutHeSaid December 29, 2013

            Yes they have and yes indeed it was incorrect. But unlike you, they all acknowledge the contemporary meaning in spite of the fact. And now you argue for it’s usage despite pointing out yourself that it’s inaccurate. You know full well that the West Indies were named for the very same reason, I expect.

            So we see how you twist your argument to suit what you want rather than reality. That’s just what I’d expect from the descendent of immigrants who would be considered illegal but for the 14th Amendment.

            Reply
          143. James Bowen December 29, 2013

            We disagree on the use of words here. No big deal. I maintain Native American is a very broad term and American Indian, even though based on a historical error, is more descriptive.

            Reply
          144. WhutHeSaid December 29, 2013

            How is calling somebody native to the Americas ‘Indian’ descriptive? It isn’t — give up the argument already.

            Reply
          145. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            Like I said, we just disagree. Both terms have their problems, but I just happen to think that American Indian is better.

            Reply
          146. WhutHeSaid December 30, 2013

            Most of the rest of the world disagrees with you on this point. I personally don’t care if you call yourself Mary, Queen Of Scots, but you may want to consider what such claims do for the credibility of your arguments.

            Reply
          147. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            Maybe they do, I don’t know. I think the term is problematic.

            Reply
          148. WhutHeSaid December 30, 2013

            Well, I think I can wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

            Reply
          149. comanche89 December 23, 2013

            Absolututely correct , Quine no sabe, Kemo sabe. This is all so amusing.

            Reply
          150. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Are you putting on your toe-bells now? How impressive!

            Not.

            Reply
          151. comanche89 December 23, 2013

            Not all injuns wear toe bells except when entertaining white faces in Tucson at local Indian exposition. New Yorkers love this kind of stuff. Is that not profiling and bigotry from you, oh sanctimonious one. I never experienced such outrageous contempt. Oh yes, I do recall an incident in Montana , at the Little Big Horn. Let me recall what happened there.

            Reply
          152. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            No thanks, you may keep it to yourself or perhaps bore your friends if you have any.

            Why anyone would come out here posing as an ‘injun’ as you put it is beyond me. Is there nothing else to do in your redneck trailer park? Did they cancel the local beer-fart contest and all of the sheep ran off or something?

            Reply
          153. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            You just don’t have any arguments, do you? All you have are insults. You have not given a single refutation of any argument anyone has laid forth on here.

            Reply
          154. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            I was responding to a drooling bigot Native imposter. He had no legitimate point about anything. When all of your allies are despicable, lying, redneck bigots — what does that say about you?

            Reply
          155. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            How do you know? Do you know the man? Quit making statements that you can’t substantiate.

            Reply
          156. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            He admitted being a bigot, and beyond that his own posts proved it. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? You are just desperate for allies, and he up-voted you. YOU are the one who can’t substantiate your claims, although you’ve been given every opportunity. PROVE that your family came here legally and did not rely on the 14th Amendment for legal citizenship.

            Reply
          157. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            Thanks!

            Reply
          158. GoodEssence December 24, 2013

            A valiant effort through this painful “conversation”, JB, but WhutHeSaid is hellbent on remaining an ignorant lout who has a loose grasp of English and a looser grasp of logic. I admire your perseverance, but to what end?

            Reply
          159. James Bowen December 24, 2013

            Thanks! I told him that his crazy statements are irrelevant and pointless, so I will no longer respond to him. He did actually try to argue some of my points after I said that, but after I refuted them he went back to his crazy statements that were only insults and lacked any argument. He seems to be very emotional about the 14th Amendment. No one is talking about repealing the 14th Amendment. At most, by eliminating birthright citizenship for illegal aliens and temporary residents and visitors, I am suggesting we slightly modify it. I don’t see what the big deal about this is. Most 1st World nations have eliminated birthright citizenship. Even Australia, which has a generous immigration policy, does not have this.

            Reply
          160. WhutHeSaid December 24, 2013

            You forgot to reconcile your own immigrant status with the very real possibility that you are only a US citizen thanks to the 14th Amendment birthright clause. It’s obvious that you don’t even know the circumstances around your ancestors’ immigration, so you have no real way of knowing.

            When faced with this point you began to backpedal, claiming that your previous answer that your ancestors immigrated to the US or British Colonies really meant that you had a veritable swarm of ancestors who immigrated at various times — all with legal papers, of course. Just how many ancestors do you have? Most people can be traced to one male and one female parent — do you have multiple sets of parents?

            This is the glaring hypocrisy that you feel compelled to lie about over and over. I’m not sure why yet, but it will eventually become clear. The fact that you feel compelled to lie is certain, but the motivation isn’t — yet.

            Reply
          161. James Bowen December 25, 2013

            I see you are mathematically challenged too. I had four grandparents, each of whom had four grandparents, and each of them had four grandparents, and so on. All of these are my ancestors, so tracing ancestry is a very complicated process.

            Reply
          162. WhutHeSaid December 25, 2013

            It looks like I’ll have to offer you some help in this area since logic and/or critical thinking is obviously not one of your strengths.

            You only have 2 parents. Without the 14th Amendment birthright clause, at least one of them must be a legal US citizen for you to be a US citizen. Since you claim that tracing your ancestry is a ‘very complicated process’, then establishing your ‘legal’ citizenship without the benefit of the 14th Amendment is likewise difficult. I have no doubt that you rely entirely on the 14th Amendment birthright — which simplifies things for you. The same can be said of your parents, and their parents, etc. I don’t believe that you even know whether you (or your parents) would be US citizens without the 14th Amendment. You would like to claim otherwise, of course, because if you were to find out that in fact you were only a US citizen due to the 14th Amendment birthright clause you would appear a complete fool (which in my opinion is already debatable).

            You already proved to me in an earlier post that you simply don’t know. Just be thankful for the 14th Amendment birthright clause and stop trying to revise your story.

            Reply
          163. tax payer December 22, 2013

            I still have the white jacket that was ordered for you by your insane doctor at the State Institution.

            Reply
          164. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Sorry tax-snorter — I had forgotten you were there. You may go now.

            Reply
          165. Independent1 December 21, 2013

            Basic arithmetic only to a shortsighted bigot.

            Reply
          166. James Bowen December 21, 2013

            They explain to me where we are going to get the resources to provide for all of those newcomers? Mars?

            Reply
          167. idamag December 27, 2013

            If I remember, FAIR is an iffy source. Try using other sources and make some comparisons.

            Reply
          168. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            As I recall, the National Academy of Sciences, I believe, also came out with something similar a number of years ago. And really, does it make any sense at all that people whose income is so low that they can’t even afford the cost of living here would be net contributors to the public coffers?

            Reply
          169. charleo1 December 22, 2013

            To say, “they,” are consuming more than they are contributing,
            is ridiculous! For one thing, there is absolutely no way of determining that. Because, the immigrant is illegal, their
            contributions are not attachable to them. Besides, these
            people are not coming here on vacation. Or, cross the border, lie down, and demand to be fed, clothed, and given room, and
            board. They are coming because of the jobs. Now, you want
            to rid America of the true criminals in the immigration system?
            Put some of these people who are knowingly breaking the law,
            by hiring them behind bars. The rhetoric, on immigration in this Country is just like the rhetoric on everything else. From decent pay, to healthcare. From Socialism for the corporations, and wealthy. To stern, hard core, austerity Capitalism for everyone else. Otherwise the Country would be overrun with “liberals.”
            If I didn’t know better, I’d say the rich elite are running the entire
            Country. Including how we see the World, the wealthy, our
            Country, and even the direction of our public conversations.

            Reply
          170. Independent1 December 22, 2013

            Charle, according to the CBO, the impact on states of illegal immigrants is really not significant especially considering the very positive impacts they have at the federal level with more than 1/2 of them paying taxes, illegals adding 7 billion to the SS fund they can’t use and how much their spending spurs the economy. See this from the CBO vis-a-vis their impact at the state level:

            CBO study[edit]

            During 2007, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reviewed 29 reports published over 15 years on the impact of unauthorized immigrants on the budgets of state and local governments. While cautioning that the reports are not a suitable basis for developing an aggregate national effect across all states, they concluded that:[21]

            State and local governments incur costs for providing services to unauthorized immigrants and have limited options for avoiding or minimizing those costs;

            The amount that state and local governments spend on services for unauthorized immigrants represents a small percentage of the total amount spent by those governments to provide such services to residents in their jurisdictions;

            The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants, although the impact is most likely modest; and

            Federal aid programs offer resources to state and local governments that provide services to unauthorized immigrants, but those funds do not fully cover the costs incurred by those governments.

            (That last statement doesn’t mean undocumented immigrants create large costs for state and local governments (as noted above), only that the fed doesn’t cover all the costs these governments incur).

            At the Fed level it appears more positive. My point with all this is my feeling that right-wingers such as Bowen are grossly exaggerating the impacts that illegals have on our government and economy and thereby demonizing them far beyond what is needed. The right needs to tone down their rhetoric and start using some common sense in crafting immigration laws that really make sense:

            Most arguments against illegal immigration begin with the premise that the illegal don’t pay income taxes, and that they therefore take more in services than they contribute. However, IRS estimates that about 6 million unauthorized immigrants file individual income tax returns each year.[21] Research reviewed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that between 30 percent and 50 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes.[21] illegal immigrants are estimated to pay in about $7 billion per year into Social Security.[26] In addition, they spend millions of dollars per year, which supports the US economy and helps to create new jobs. The Texas State Comptroller reported in 2006 that the 1.4 million illegal immigrants in Texas alone added almost $18 billion to the state’s budget, and paid $1.2 billion in state services they used.[27]

            The Social Security and Medicare contributions of illegal immigrants directly support older Americans, as illegal immigrants are not eligible to receive these services.[28] The Internal Revenue Service issues an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) regardless of immigration status because both resident and nonresident aliens may have Federal tax return and payment responsibilities under the Internal Revenue Code. Federal tax law prohibits the IRS from sharing data with other government agencies including the INS. In 2006 1.4 million people used ITIN when filing taxes, of which more than half were illegal immigrants.[29]

            Reply
          171. charleo1 December 22, 2013

            Excellent researching! I think perhaps NM, Mother Jones,
            or Forward Progressives, or maybe Daily Kos, should
            seriously consider offering you a position! Because even
            though I’m not what one would call a voracious reader,
            I try to keep up. But, I have not seen this very pertinent
            information put together. Even by immigration advocacy
            groups. It certainly flies in the face of what the anti-
            immigration factions have established as almost common
            knowledge. Namely that these immigrants are purely
            on the public dole. Now, I don’t think most people believe
            that 100%. But, the impression that they create a drain on
            public services, police, schools, and medical facilities, is
            widespread. And works as an impediment to finding an
            acceptable way of being inclusive to the many millions
            now living a life with so much uncertainty, due to their
            lack of legal standing. I live on the Southern tip of Fl.
            South of Miami, near huge farming operations in which
            thousands of the undocumented are employed. My wife
            worked as an accountant for one such operation. And
            by proximity, came to know dozens of these people. I
            know they are here because they were slowly staving
            in their native countries, and really had few choices, but
            to immigrate. This is the history of America! In that respect,
            these immigrants are no different than the Irish, fleeing
            a potato famine. They come, they break their backs, they
            start businesses, they get their educations, invent and assimilate into the patchwork fabric, that has always been
            America. I do not understand the fear. One single Mother
            we came to know, came with her two young children from
            Central Mexico, fleeing the violent war between the drug
            cartels, and the Mexican Army. I don’t think many Americans can appreciate, a Mother in America, instructing her children where they should go, if Mom gets picked up, and doesn’t return home. She can’t bear the thought of her children being deported back to Mexico.

            Reply
          172. Independent1 December 22, 2013

            Your comments, especially those to the end, reinforce my feeling that illegals should have a path to citizenship. I know Dominick seems to be convinced that they shouldn’t because he feels that it sets a bad example for others, but my sense is that few illegals come here thinking that they can get away with something; instead as you pointed out, I think the vast majority come because they’re trying to get away from an untenable situation in their home country. I don’t really think the vast majority are even thinking about the fact that they are breaking some kind of laws in America – to the vast majority of them, it’s all about survival. (For example, look at the boat loads of Cubans that have drowned who were so driven to get away from an oppressive regime in Cuba that they were willing to risk their lives just to get to America. They took that chance because they refused to continue living under Communism.)

            What’s your thoughts on a path to citizenship for illegals?

            Reply
          173. charleo1 December 22, 2013

            My thought is there absolutely should be a path.
            And not one so onerous, as I hear suggested either.
            As some of the requirements, like pay back taxes. I’m
            not sure it’s possible to ascertain with any certainty
            what they are. Learn English. Most of the younger ones
            already speak it, and learning a new language is not so
            easy, if one is older. Plus, I think that requirement is
            petty, and a bit mean spirited. As far as the matter of
            fairness to other immigrants, or setting a bad example,
            by rewarding those who broke the law. Sure, there is
            an unfairness about it. But, the way I see it, life is often
            unfair, and people are unavoidably rewarded all the
            time for breaking what is considered an unfair law, in
            a broken immigration system. If we’re honest about it,
            these people were illegally invited in. To stay, work,
            have their children, and set down roots. So, they have.
            If we hold out for the perfect solution for a problem in
            which there is no such thing. Those kind of excuses for
            not addressing a situation that will undoubtedly grow.
            Well, as I said, I think we’re better than that. Controlling
            the border is not rocket science. Require a government
            issued ID, to get hired. Crack down on those breaking
            the law. The one’s we ought to be concerned about,
            who are setting a bad precedent, and being rewarded
            for breaking the law. That’s the way I see it anyway.

            Reply
          174. James Bowen December 22, 2013

            What do you think the limit to immigration should be? These people broke many laws, and many committed felonies. They are not paragons of virtue. They are illegal invaders.

            Reply
          175. charleo1 December 22, 2013

            First of all, it seems you’ve got an ax to grind that has nothing
            to do with the law. You obviously don’t know them, but yet you despise them. What you ought to do, is be thankful you’re not one of these people. But, you could pay back in return for your own good fortune, by learning a bit more about the other side, of immigration. What’s driving, and motivating the illegal entries. Shit! Just blaming, and demonizing poor people gets
            old, doesn’t it? Plus, it’s never true. Poor Americans don’t
            run this Country, much less poorer immigrants.

            Reply
          176. James Bowen December 22, 2013

            I don’t despise them. There actions are understandable. That does not mean we should tolerate their being here though. There is a limit to how many people we can take in and still provide for our own people. Our government must act in the interests of its own citizens. If one tries to put 30 people in a life raft that can only hold 15, all that is going to be accomplished is to take down 15 people who could have been saved.

            Reply
          177. charleo1 December 23, 2013

            Well, there are some conclusions that a person could logically come to, if unaware of certain facts about the demographics in the U.S. The people in that life boat you’re talking about, because of the baby boom, are getting older, as a percentage of the number on board. If fact, without immigration, the population of the U.S. is both aging, and declining. So, without an infusion of younger workers, the increasing number of occupants in the boat too old to man the oars, is going to have us sitting dead in the water, in a few decades. That’s from the U.S. Government’s Bureau
            of Labor Statistics. Now, to your point of simply swinging
            the doors wide, and having an unregulated number of entrants flood in. While we spend hundreds of billions
            trying to keep them out, and deport them. Only to have
            them attempt another unauthorized return, is what’s been happening. You asked an important question in your other post. “How many immigrants do we need?” There is actually an answer to that important question. But, what we have, at
            any given time, is how many immigrants can get past border
            security, and show up for the seasonal jobs, some of them
            have been doing for years, then returning to their homes,
            and families in Mexico, or parts South of Mexico. Our beefed
            up border security actually prevents these immigrants from
            returning, as they had ordinarily done. So the fact is, all
            immigrants are not the same. The agriculture industry insists
            this labor is vital to their business. However, they are but one of the special interest factions, that oppose identifying, and
            granting work permits for the number of migrant workers,
            each of these operations ask for. These workers don’t mind
            being regulated. In fact, they would apply in large numbers,
            finding, and providing the necessary paperwork to authorities
            here, to obtain these permits. The permits would have an
            expiration date. And if they could not obtain work without them. Or, staying illegally beyond the date, would disqualify
            them for future permits, the incentive would be to comply with
            the law, not flout it. Simply put, want to control the border?
            Control the hiring. This is but one single component of the
            monumental problem we have created, by bowing to these powerful interests, allowing our immigration system to run amuck. Other immigrants have been here for years, have businesses, homes, and outside of their transgression upon
            entering the Country, have been law abiding, and productive members, of society> Assimilated for years, with American
            citizen children. And ties to their former homeland, non existent, or no longer of any consequence. We need to bring
            this group, who have proven themselves beyond doubt, into
            full legal standing, as they are Americans in every sense of
            the word. Except on paper. They pay their taxes. Their children serve in our military. Their work enriches the Nation.
            We need to do the right thing by these people. And the political stakes could not be higher. These children, some 5,000 of them, become eligible to vote each day. And settling
            their parents disposition in a fair, and respectful way, is high
            on their priority list. Their loyalties will lie with the Political
            Party with the courage, and vision to reform our immigration
            system.

            Reply
          178. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            O.K., again, I agree with some of what you say here. The businesses that hire illegal labor are the root of the problem. The answer is not to accept or tolerate illegal immigrants, the answer is to enforce laws in the workplace so that it is no longer profitable to hire illegal immigrants. If they can’t find work, they will leave on their own accord.

            I am very aware of the demographics you talk of, and I maintain those demographics are advantageous. We need to reduce, not increase, our population. With an aging population and declining birthrates, that will happen gradually if we reduce immigration. It is high time we stop treating old people as a burden and utilize them. Really, an able bodied and able minded senior citizen (and there are many of them) is a far greater asset than young and inexperienced workers.

            Finally, those illegal immigrants you speak of are not otherwise law abiding outside of their immigration status. If they hold a payroll job, which some 6-7 million of them do, they have committed a Federal felony involving SSN theft or fraud–not exactly a minor offense. Also, the Navy does not even allow citizens to enlist who have illegal alien relatives, so I don’t think there are that many of them in the military either.

            Reply
          179. charleo1 December 23, 2013

            Demographics aside, if you, and I had to agree on improvements to the system to reform immigration
            I’ll bet we could find enough in common to get it
            done. It’s not easy, but i can see several places
            we might start. The SS fraud is part of the original
            circumvention of the law. Which is, what it is.
            Not excusing it. But, these employers are complicit.
            It is now, the acceptable way of doing things, if your
            livelihood has been working for these agriculture,
            hospitality, or construction operations that use
            this kind of labor. As to the military, and Latinos.
            Or, other immigrant groups. Their children born in
            this Country, even to undocumented parents, are U.S. citizens, and as such, may serve in the Navy, or any
            branch of our armed services. Which they do, in
            numbers disproportionately greater, than is average
            for the general populations. This phenomena has been
            true of all immigrant groups, throughout our history.
            Party due I’m sure to being poor. (All new immigrant
            groups are poor.) But, I truly believe it is also party due
            to a debt of gratitude they feel toward this fantastic
            Country. And a chance to fulfill their life’s goals. And,
            the fact is, that every one of these groups, no matter
            how straggly, or poorly educated they were when they
            arrived. Have went on to contribute invaluable benefits
            to our society. Some are always admonishing me for my
            pro-immigrant stance, by pointing to other Country’s
            strict immigration policies. My answer is well, America
            is not those other Countries. None of them create, or
            innovate, or otherwise allow people to reach their full
            potential, as we in this Country have done, since the
            beginning. It is one reason we as a Country, and as an economy, are more diverse, and resilient than any other. Controlled immigration? Of course we must. But no immigration, or worse, two permanent classes of people? That has never been what this Country was all about.

            Reply
          180. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            I’m sorry, but I do not find Federal felonies that involve identity theft and fraud acceptable. Those crimes hurt American citizens. For anyone who has ever committed such a crime, their ever coming back here should be out of the question, let alone their being allowed to remain here.

            Our immigration policy must reflect the fact that we are no longer a sparsely populated frontier nation. We have limited resources and must provide for our own people. Bringing in more people does not solve any problems and makes existing problems far worse.

            This touches on why I don’t think common ground can be found between those who want to grant legal status and those who want to strictly enforce the law. Those who want to drive the illegal population out, with few exceptions, also want to greatly reduce legal immigration. Those who want to give legal status to illegals, with few exceptions, also want to greatly increase legal immigration. The only common ground here is the status quo or something like it. And if the two sides agree on anything, it is that the status quo is unacceptable.

            Those born to illegal immigrants do not serve in disproportionately large numbers at all. There was recently a Wall Street Journal article about how the Navy does not allow relatives of illegals to enlist, even if they themselves are citizens. I don’t know what the reasoning is here, but I presume it has something to do with security clearances. Someone who is closely related to an illegal alien would not be able to get a clearance, which would make them ineligible for most jobs in the Navy.

            Reply
          181. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Federal felonies and identity theft, eh? Sounds like what you would be guilty of should you claim to be a ‘Native American’ on a federal form, yet you’ve done that very thing in this forum.

            I’m confident that you now see the error of your lying ways, and will henceforth cease to claim being a Native American either here in this forum or on federal forms, yes?

            Reply
          182. CPAinNewYork December 23, 2013

            I do despise them. So what if I have an ax to grind? Who are you to make the rules of this discussion?

            Am I thankful that I’m not one of these people? Yes! They’re the dregs of humanity. They don’t belong here, yet bleeding heart liberals like you would turn the country over to them. You stink charleyo1.

            Reply
          183. Independent1 December 23, 2013

            And exactly WHO ARE YOU to refute Charle the right to express his opinion?? It’s so nice that you’re such a humanitarian, NOT!!

            Reply
          184. CPAinNewYork December 23, 2013

            You’re missing the point again, because I’m not denying anyone the right to self expression, even when I think that they’re totally wrong.

            Reply
          185. Independent1 December 23, 2013

            I’m not missing the point. Here is your comment to Charle earlier:

            I do despise them. So what if I have an ax to grind? Who are you to make the rules of this discussion?

            You explicitly said: Who are you to make the rules of this discussion?

            If that doesn’t suggest he doesn’t have the right to express what thinks, I can’t think of any other explaination.

            Reply
          186. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            I still don’t think he was denying anyone’s right to speak though.

            Reply
          187. CPAinNewYork December 23, 2013

            I’m not saying anything of the kind. I’m telling charlieo1 that he doesn’t make the rules on this website. If that’s tells you that I’m arrogating to myself the power of rules-maker, then I’d say your English is weak.

            Reply
          188. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            I don’t think he did that.

            Reply
          189. charleo1 December 23, 2013

            No rules of discussion by me. Honesty is important. If one is
            bigoted, or a racist, or any ignorant combination thereof, they should just come right out with it, as you have. I’m frankly sick
            to death of all the transparent denials. The fact is, there is so
            much racism in this Country, you can’t throw a cat without
            hitting a dam, fascist. But, it’s darn near impossible to get anybody to admit it. So thanks.

            Reply
          190. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            Maybe you’re right, but racism is a far more manageable problem than overpopulation.

            Reply
          191. Independent1 December 23, 2013

            Are you paranoid or what?? What is it with is overpopulation nonsense?? I’m for doing what we can to keep the population from growing excessively, but you’re way over the top!!!

            Reply
          192. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            You clearly don’t know much about this issue. The native birth rate is already below replacement level. It is immigration that is the cause of our population growth. We are overpopulated because we cannot sustain our numbers in this country using completely renewable agricultural methods. I recommend that you Google Dr. Albert Bartlett. He was a nuclear physicist who lectured extensively on the physical impossibility of infinite growth.

            Reply
          193. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            You need to just stop lying, you shameless imposter. You don’t even know your own immigration status. Just admit it.

            Reply
          194. CPAinNewYork December 23, 2013

            You’re welcome…I think.

            Reply
          195. Independent1 December 23, 2013

            And by the way, Neither you or Bowen even has a clue as to the disaster that trying to rid America of the illegal aliens would create. And no one at this time knows better about than the politicians in Alabama which got hammered when they enacted the strictest immigration legislation in the nation. Here’s an excerpt from an MSNBC article on the debacle that took place in Alabama:

            When HB 56 passed, Albertville—where the booming poultry industry had attracted thousands of immigrants from Mexico and Central America—quickly became the national face of the crackdown. From 2000 to 2010, the number of unauthorized immigrants in Alabama jumped from an estimated 25,000 to 120,000, as migrants flocked to jobs in agriculture, meatpacking, and construction.

            Supporters of Alabama’s law argued it was necessary because Congress had repeatedly failed to pass a workable immigration policy of its own. “The illegals in this country are ripping us off,” state representative Kerry Rich, who represents Albertville, told reporters the day HB 56 passed. “If we wait for the federal government to put this fire out, our house is going to burn down.”

            That concern drove Alabama to pass the nation’s toughest legislation but it is not alone in its desire to stem the flow of undocumented workers. Arizona, Georgia, and South Carolina have all passed similar laws over the last three years and legislatures around the country are debating more immigration-related bills.

            And less than a couple months later:

            At courthouses, simple tasks like renewing one’s vehicle tags now required proof of legal status, whichgenerated long lines for citizens and non-citizens alike. Utilities were unsure whether they needed to cut off service to residents who couldn’t prove citizenship.

            “People couldn’t get power or water, it was crazy,” Jeremy Love, an immigration attorney in Birmingham, recalled. “It got resolved, but it took pressure. I’d call managers and tell them it was a civil rights violation.”

            County attorneys even questioned whether residents needed papers to use their public swimming pool – an uncomfortable prospect in a state still haunted by the legacy of segregation.

            And More:

            There was some irony to the problems public servants’ rigorous implementation of the law had created. When lawmakers first passed HB 56, they were actually concerned that police might refuse to enforce it.

            A number of police chiefs and sheriffs had strongly opposed the must-arrest provisions because they lacked the manpower to carry them out. Small town departments with just a few officers on staff were suddenly expected to devote hours of work to individual traffic stops that used to take 20 minutes to resolve. The departments also had to pay to keep suspected undocumented immigrants in jail while federal authorities looked into each case.

            The Alabama government finally realizes that they have to back off from the law and fix it:

            Politicians, tired of complaints from business, police, religious leaders and more, quickly called for changes. “I’ve learned in life that if you make a mistake, you should be man enough to admit it,” Republican state senator Gerald Dial, who voted for the law, said shortly after the Mercedes arrest.

            But fixing it meant backtracking on one of the central pillars of the law. Politicians were so eager to arrest undocumented immigrants that they included a provision empowering citizens to sue individual officers caught shirking their enforcement duties.

            Basically, trying to rid Alabama of immigrants almost ended up in hundreds of companies either going bankrupt or moving out of the state because they couldn’t find workers – including Mercedes and other multi-nationals. And even after trying to fix it, Alabama is still wresting with thousands of law suites filed by both outraged citizens and outraged immigrants both legal and illegal for civil rights violations.

            People like you and Bowen really have no idea of the disaster you’re suggesting with respect to trying to rid America of illegals – it would be an absolute nightmare for America.

            Here’s a link to the full article:

            http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/undocumented-workers-immigration-alabama

            Reply
          196. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            So the law working as intended is a disaster, huh? This law has been very effective. It might have had some bugs in it, but the most important provisions of the law have been left intact as they were very popular among the voters in Alabama. After a few months of this law being in effect, Alabama’s unemployment fell considerably. People who are here illegally should not be able to get utility services. That was an excellent provision, and I wish they would have stuck with that.

            Getting rid of these people would not be a disaster. It would relieve us of a burden. If big businesses come into a state and won’t hire locals, and demand tax breaks to boot, what do the people of the state gain from having them? I say if they leave, don’t let the door hit you in the rear on the way out.

            Reply
          197. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            You are a burden on this society. I don’t want illegal immigrants like you here. My right to be here is unquestionable, but yours isn’t. You may leave now.

            Reply
          198. charleo1 December 23, 2013

            The law is ideological in nature. Not taking into consideration
            the realities of these businesses using the illegal labor. There
            were many documented reports of valuable crops left rotting
            in the fields. And unrecoverable losses due to the lack of
            knowledgeable help, used to the back breaking work necessary to harvest crops like tomatoes, pole beans, squash, and strawberries, One owner took the press out to her fields in Georgia, and had them document the produce wasting on the ground. She said her workers were leaving due to the law. She also said she was paying $100 dollars a day, for local people. And, reported people would show up one or two days, then ask for their check, Too sore to continue. That’s the reality. You may want to ignore it. But, nevertheless. Maybe, if you thought about it a different way. This is Capitalism. Finding the lowest possible price for labor, to increase profits. What you are suggesting is for government to regulate against the free market, and aganist
            the highest rate of return for the investors. In this case, the farmers. What the law did in this instance was pull the slats
            out from under farmers, for purely political reasons. Instead
            of at least, implementing the law in increments to allow for
            these businesses to adjust. One could say, they were breaking the law, and so what? Because everyone got
            hurt unnecessarily.

            Reply
          199. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            If there were so many crops rotting in the fields, why weren’t there food shortages? Why didn’t the price of produce spike? The “crops rotting in the fields” story came from those who had something to lose from not being able to hire cheap illegal labor, as did the stories about Americans not being able to do the work. The latter is patently absurd. Americans are every bit as human as illegals are and therefore every bit as capable of doing this work. Illegals are not super-human laborers. If growers have to pay $100 a day for a legal workforce, so be it. That is the free market. It’s funny how employers love the free market when it works for them but want to cheat it when it works to the workers’ advantage. Illegal labor due to non-enforcement is taxpayer-subsidized labor since the public picks up the tab for what the employer does not have to pay the illegal workers. What I am suggesting is that the government serve the public interest and not the narrow interests of certain businesses. If they can’t stay in business by paying a living wage to workers, that is the least they deserve for breaking the law and dumping the costs of their business onto the taxpayer.

            Reply
          200. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Why don’t you just quit your lying, bigoted proselytizing and address the point? Economic advantages to immigrant labor are a valid point and always have been. What you continuously argue is a nonexistent ‘pie-in-the-sky’ legal and moral justification, which is nonsense.

            There are plenty of arguments to be made both pro and con about immigrant labor. Address the point, and stop your preaching. And drop your false and exaggerated claim to having a legal and moral ‘high ground’. You have none — only the 14th Amendment stands between you and every other illegal immigrant.

            Reply
          201. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            The only economic advantages to illegal labor or to their employers who profit from cheap labor. American workers are crowded out illegally, and the taxpayers are stuck with the bill for that cheap labor. Very progressive, eh?

            Reply
          202. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            As I said, there are arguments both pro and con. Consumers like cheap labor because it lowers the price of the goods they purchase. Employers like cheap labor because it increases their profits and ability to compete with those paying higher wages. I tend to see the abuse of human labor by the employers as the biggest evil, yet those are always the very last to pay any price for supporting illegal labor.

            For illegal laborers, the pay that they do receive is often far better than what they could find at home or no pay at all. Going after the employers would put a serious dent in illegal labor, but then the same gaggle of bigots who support vilifying foreigners will never, ever support that approach because it would mean sending Americans who prey on foreigners away for real prison time.

            Currently it’s a stalemate. The proponents of deportation also have the businesses who employ illegal labor and the consumers who are savvy to what’s going on as opponents. As time goes by with the issue undecided, life goes on and more people immigrate illegally and more employers hire them. The pool grows larger.

            So now, many years after the last attempt to address the issue, we are back at square one. Vilifying people who just want to support their families is plain stupid for many reasons — not the least of which is to remember your own status as the progeny of immigrants. The only solution has to address both sides of the issue, and vilifying people never works in the long run.

            Reply
          203. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            There is nothing pro about cheap labor. The consumer sees very little, if any benefit from cheap labor as almost all of the “savings” in labor costs goes to lining profit margins. As you indicated, the best way to enforce immigration law is to enforce laws in the workplace and thereby remove all profitability from hiring illegal labor. Without any jobs, the illegals themselves would have little choice but to go elsewhere, i.e. outside the U.S.

            Also, compromise on this issue is not feasible. Here is why. Those who want to remove all illegals also, with few exceptions, want to greatly reduce legal immigration. Those who want to give legal status to illegals also, with few exceptions, want to greatly increase legal immigration. The only compromise is the status quo or something like it; and if either side agrees on anything, it is that the status quo is unacceptable.

            Reply
          204. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            The consumer does in fact see a benefit from cheap labor — even if it’s not as much of a benefit as they perceive in the long run. This is why Walmart has been so successful. An $8.99 foreign product at Walmart may not, in the long run, be any advantage over a $9.89 American product, but you just watch and see which product is emptied from the shelves first.

            Immigration is a two-headed beast. Personally, I’m about as ‘in-the-middle’ a person as you could find on the topic, because I’m not an immigrant or a descendent of an immigrant. So from that angle it’s all a practical matter. The Natives very quickly realized that European immigration wasn’t going to stop anytime soon, and being mostly practical people they addressed it that way.

            What you have to realize is that any argument you use that smacks of bigotry, racism, or self-serving history revision will turn off anyone but bitter bigots right out of the gate. You may not be a bigot, but your arguments along these lines make you sound like one, and you certainly seem to attract bigots for support. Drop the 14th Amendment argument. That marks you as a drooling bigot, and until you do so you will be vehemently opposed at every turn. You can;t claim the law as your justification while also opposing the law.

            Reply
          205. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            Allowing illegals to become citizens under the 14th Amendment is an incentive for them to have more kids, and it must be stopped. There is nothing unreasonable about insisting that birthright citizenship only apply to those who are allowed to live here permanently.

            As I said, the consumer sees very little, if any savings as a result of illegal employment in the U.S. I find it very interesting that produce is so much more expensive that grain. The former utilizes illegal labor to pick crops, the latter is highly mechanized. Of course there are many reasons for this, but this is interesting nonetheless. And whatever pennies the consumer might save due to illegal labor, they more than make it up in paying more in taxes to subsidize their labor and having their wages depressed (yes, wage depression in one occupation does affect all others in a free labor market like the one we have).

            Reply
          206. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Now you are confusing your arguments. The 14th Amendment applies to children born on American soil — like you. We fought a war based on these very bigoted topics, with immense carnage on either side. The 14th Amendment does not create an incentive to have children. That’s complete fabrication. It does nothing for the status of the mother or father.

            Opposition to the 14th Amendment is a drooling bigot’s pursuit. It’s not going to be repealed – ever. If anything it will be strengthened. You’d better disabuse yourself of any such fantasy right away. Unless you can come up with a very convincing argument why the child of immigrants who relies on the 14th Amendment for his very citizenship sees something that millions of other people, scholars, and jurists somehow missed (laughing here, sorry) — it simply marks you as a blubbering racist.

            Reply
          207. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            Immigrants have actually told me that that illegal immigrants have more children. Having a citizen child does serve as a type of legal documentation. It allows them to access welfare programs that they otherwise cannot access, and the statistics show that they are less likely to be deported if they have citizen children. This is cover that needs to be demolished.

            Reply
          208. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Now you’ve progressed from telling whoppers to spewing volumes of reeking bullshit. No immigrant would ever have a reason to talk to a drooling bigot like you unless it was one of your illegal-immigrant family members. Even then they probably only talk to you when they are forced to do so. You’ve probably been the big family embarrassment ever since they caught you humping the cat — am I right?

            Reply
          209. charleo1 December 23, 2013

            Couldn’t agree more. Let’s force employers to follow the law.
            And raise the minimum wage. Because, illegal labor is not
            the only labor the tax payers are subsidizing. See Walmart,
            The High Cost of Low Prices.

            Reply
          210. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            Right on!

            Reply
          211. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            It seems to me that you too have an ax to grind: your liberal agenda.

            You stink! When we get rid of the illegals, I hope that somebody remembers to also get rid of the scumbags like you who want to keep them coming. Or, are you a business person who’s profiting from paying low wages to the illegals off the books?

            Reply
          212. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            Who invited YOU here, little Adolph?

            Reply
          213. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            No one invited me, shithead. I was born here, so I’m entitled to be here, which is more than any of your beloved illegals can claim.

            Reply
          214. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            Well that certainly seems like an oversight, considering that they appear to be better people than you.

            Reply
          215. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            “Better people”? How do you define “better people”? By the color of their skin?

            Come on bigot. Tell us exactly what you mean by “better people.”

            Reply
          216. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            You are calling me a bigot, Adolph? Or is it Hans the schwanz? You may want to lay off the schnapps for a bit.

            Reply
          217. CPAinNewYork December 27, 2013

            You didn’t answer my question. Your advocacy of the “right” of Latin Americans to enter the United States at will is an insidious form of racial bigotry. Is your bigotry based on your skin color, your being a business owner looking for cheap labor, or something else, like an old time Communist who’s pissed off at the demise of the Soviet Union?

            Reply
          218. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            I don’t advocate any such ‘right’, and never did. Are you mistaking my posts for the posts of somebody else?

            I already stated what I believe: Immigration — legal and illegal — is inevitable, and this is an immigrant country. It’s absurd for one set of immigrants (you and people like you) to attack other immigrants on legal or moral grounds that you don’t have.

            This is a problem of our own making. We need to fix it or deal with the consequences in a sensible manner. After all, these are people just like you and your family (although perhaps not as bigoted), who just want to build a decent life for their families. Are there rotten apples in the barrel? Of course, but that’s really no different than the immigrants or their children who are already here, now is it?

            Rounding up 11 million people and deporting them will never happen because it’s ridiculous. In my opinion, the correct solution is to address the root problem (a broken immigration system) first. Otherwise the number may be 22 million or 44 million the next time we have this debate.

            Reply
          219. CPAinNewYork December 27, 2013

            We didn’t make any part of this problem. It was made by the corrupt governments that plague the so-called Third World. We had a problem of our own and our forefathers solved it: we kicked out England and became an independent nation.

            The poor of Latin America have a problem: they live in plutocratic oligarchies. But, instead of solving their problem, they want to dump it on us by invading the United States. I’m an American. I was born here. I’m under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to solve the problems of the downtrodden of the Third World.

            Let them solve their problem by rising up and overthrowing their fellow countrymen and women who are oppressing them. In the case of Latin America, it’s the indigenous indians who are being oppressed by the ethnic European, i.e. Spanish and Portuguese, aristocrats.

            Reply
          220. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            Nope, we made the problem. The US isn’t some infant nation that can’t tie it’s own shoes yet (or shouldn’t be, anyway — Tea Party notwithstanding). We know about immigration by now, and the conditions that cause people to flee other countries is nothing new.

            Nobody is looking for YOU to solve any problems with respect to immigration. Sensible people with rational ideas will continue to propose solutions, and when the public gets tired enough of the issue languishing — it will get solved. What YOU will do is live with it.

            It’s ridiculous for an immigrant like you to argue against the exact thing that your family did. That’s called hypocrisy. Your petulant and ineffectual rants make you sound like a spoiled brat, and I’m guessing that simple things like being unable to remove a lid from a jar send you into fits of howling rage that cause you to kick the cat in your uncontrolled fury.

            Don’t be a cat abuser — start using your noggin.

            Reply
          221. CPAinNewYork December 27, 2013

            You are such a pompous ass that it’s hard for me to respond to you. You keyed on my use of a personal pronoun to refute my argument that I’m not obligated to solve the illegals’ personal problem, that they should solve their own problems and not try to invade us.

            I’m an American, born and raised in America. The illegal alien problem IS my problem, because it’s America’s problem. it’s a problem for EVERY American.

            You content that because we’re defending our borders against this invasion by Latin American poor people, we have created a problem. The problem was created by the invaders. We are solving that problem by repelling those invaders. That is our right. That is our duty. It’s also our right and duty to combat the efforts of traitors like you to undermine our country and allow the influx of human detritus from Latin America, especially Mexico.

            Reply
          222. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            Run kitty — run! Poor kitty.

            You are an immigrant. Your family came here for the very same reasons any other immigrant does. Just because you have a personality defect is no reason to become unglued every time somebody talks common sense within earshot.

            Immigration will continue, and you will just live with it. Nobody is giving you a choice in the matter because of your, eh…’problem’.

            Reply
          223. CPAinNewYork December 27, 2013

            My people came here LEGALLY. Can’t you see the difference, asshole? Are you so stupid that you honestly believe that there’s no difference between the crap that’s infiltrating from Mexico and the people who entered this country legally?

            I’m truly amazed at your obtuseness. I do have a question for you: Are you being intentionally obtuse to bait me or are you really that stupid?

            Reply
          224. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            If I were to get smart with you, how would you know?

            I’ll tell you what’s stupid: Telling other posters that they should be lined up against a wall and shot because you don’t agree with them. Speaking of which…perhaps we should administer psychological examinations for prospective immigrants, yes? I could support that.

            So after your exam, will you go back to Germany or Italy? Oh well — doesn’t matter much where you go just as long as you go. Bye!

            Reply
          225. Independent1 December 23, 2013

            We’re pretty much on the same page with the handling of a path to citizenship for the current illegals. Some of my main concern with the immigration legislation being considered these days is the insistent by the GOP of erecting more fencing along the Mexican border and greatly increasing the number of border guards. (More fencing and more guards is not going to keep more aliens from crossing the border. The flow of aliens crossing the border has already been reduced to levels lower than decades ago. In fact, at one point a couple years back, there were more aliens going back into Mexico than were coming to the U.S.)

            A considerable amount of fencing has already been built, and what’s there has already resulted in people dying because of flooding and preventing poor folks from getting to what was their source of food and livelihood. The existing fencing is also interrupting the normal migration/mating patterns of a number of endangered wildlife species and it has also caused considerable environmental damage from flooding where the fencing is blocking the normal runoff of water during the rainy season.

            So the misguided notion that right-wing extremists have that more fencing is going to create more security, not only sets up the situation where more people may die because their cut off from where they normally go to get their food, water, etc., but also more animal species will be threatened and more environmental damage will occur. Even the border guards are concerned about expanding the fencing and bringing in more border patrols, because a number of border guards have already been killed from friendly fire, because there is so much overlap on patrolling the border as it is, that there have been incidents where one patrol. thinks another patrol are aliens and shooting starts.

            Reply
          226. CPAinNewYork December 23, 2013

            We’re not on the same page. I want to rid our country of this Latin American crap and I’m not too fussy about how to accomplish it. Rounding them all up and kicking them out is a viable solution.

            Israel is performing exactly this procedure, which we now call ethnic cleansing, on the Arabs. The israeli government is putting them in enclaves like Gaza where they can be closely monitored. The ultimate goal is to rid Israel of all Arabs, whether by transportation or by killing. This policy has been in effect right from the beginning of Israel as an independent country. David Ben Gurion and Golda Meir both enunciated it: “Israel for the Jews”. For us it should be “America for Americans”.

            Reply
          227. Independent1 December 23, 2013

            Say, why don’t you move to Israel so they can expel you to too??? It’s people like you that totally dishonor what America is all about!!!

            Reply
          228. CPAinNewYork December 23, 2013

            I don’t want to move to israel or any other country. I like it here.

            Is that alright with you? I wouldn’t want you to think that i’m dishonoring America. You hypocrite.

            Reply
          229. charleo1 December 23, 2013

            Okay, it’s the holidays. You’re smashed, this morning! Am I right? Pickled, juiced, hammered to the gills, drunk as a skunk!
            America for Americans? Really?

            Reply
          230. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            Yes, America for the Americans. We have an obligation to take care of our own first. If we can still help others, that great, but our people should come first.

            Reply
          231. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Yes, exactly. So lying immigrants who don’t even know how they got here should be expelled first since they are the most obnoxious. Agreed? Bye!

            Reply
          232. plc97477 December 26, 2013

            Bowen is not a name generally used by native americans.

            Reply
          233. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            You mean American Indians. Anyone of any ethnicity can be a “Native American”. Think about it, Native American literally means someone who is from America.

            Reply
          234. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            Why would anyone worried about ‘literal’ meanings use the term ‘American Indians’? Wouldn’t that mean American citizens who’ve immigrated from India?

            You already lost this particular argument long before you started. All the world knows what a Native American is, and you can even look it up in any number of online dictionaries and encyclopedias if need be. You lost — drop the argument.

            Reply
          235. James Bowen December 28, 2013

            There are plenty of people who agree with me that the use of “Native American” to describe American Indians (i.e. those descended from inhabitants of the Americas prior to 1492) is inaccurate. Anyone who is a natural-born U.S. citizen (born to citizen parents) is, by definition, a native to America.

            Reply
          236. WhutHeSaid December 28, 2013

            Yeah, just like their are plenty of people who agree that climate change is a liberal hoax and President Obama is a Kenyan-born, communist-socialist-Marxist Muslim homosexual dictator, right?

            Your argument is false. All of the world knows what the term ‘Native American’ means, and you aren’t one. You lost the argument — have the grace to admit when your argument has been defeated.

            Reply
          237. James Bowen December 29, 2013

            We just disagree on the meaning of words and their proper use. Fine.

            However, I will say that American Indians are every bit as much the descendant of immigrants as Americans of European descent as human beings are not native to the Americas. By your argument, they are therefore immigrants too.

            Reply
          238. WhutHeSaid December 29, 2013

            Ha! I knew it would eventually come: The last-ditch argument of the illegal-immigrant European when all else has failed. The illegal-immigrant ‘Alamo’, so to speak.

            There are a number of insurmountable problems with this argument:

            1. You are not relying on recorded history, but instead a theory based upon archeological evidence that may or may not give an accurate picture.
            2. There can be no ‘illegal’ immigration without any laws or other people in place to oppose it.
            3. Even if Native Americans — the accurate and world-accepted term for American aboriginal people — did come to the Americas at some time in prehistory, it would be properly termed ‘migration’ and not ‘immigration’.

            So now you realize that your attempts to brand yourself a ‘Native American’ are ridiculous. Simply using the term ‘American’ would be correct and accurate. I recommend that you adopt this approach lest you invite further ridicule.

            Reply
          239. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            Are you suggesting that humans evolved separately in the Americas? That’s nonsense.

            There isn’t much point in debating semantics, but I will point out that immigration is migration–it is in-migration, just and emigration is out-migration. Therefore, any humans who came here, by your definition, are immigrants.

            Reply
          240. WhutHeSaid December 30, 2013

            There is no question that Native Americans evolved for quite some time separately from other peoples, as evidenced by their complete vulnerability to European and Asian diseases, as well as the development of completely distinct languages and customs that do not share any root elements with other peoples (e.g., Latin).

            The term ‘immigration’ commonly refers to individual migration from one distinct country to another, while the term ‘migration’ is more commonly used to describe the simple movement of a group to another location. I’ll admit that it’s a somewhat subtle distinction, yet unless a group is moving to an already established civilization it’s usually termed ‘migration’ instead.

            Reply
          241. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            No question that they were culturally isolated from the rest of the world for some time. That being said, human beings everywhere in the world are remarkably similar to each other. I have read that biologists are shocked at how little genetic variation there is among humans when compared to other species. Late Medieval Europe was a very dirty place where sanitation was poor, which I suspect had something to do with their spreading of so many deadly diseases.

            Reply
          242. CPAinNewYork December 23, 2013

            As a matter of fact, Chucky baby, I’m a teetotaler. I take so many meds that I decided not to mix them with alcohol. Been on the wagon for twenty years, although I was never an alcoholic.

            Reply
          243. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            The best way to enforce immigration laws is through the workplace. If there is no profit in employing illegals, there will be no jobs for them and they will leave on their own accord.

            Reply
          244. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            Well said, but sleazebag traitors like Independent1 oppose prosecuting the employers of illegals off the books. He feels that they should be given a free pass from the enforcement of the labor laws.

            Reply
          245. Independent1 December 26, 2013

            Why are you making all that up?? I never said anything about the employers of illegal immigrants. All I’ve been saying is that focusing on the illegals themselves and trying to expel them would not only be an exercise in futility; it would also have a horrendous affect on our economy.

            But you talk about lying and here you’re distorting the facts – I’m all for improved immigration laws that in fact make some sense, but given what’s been in place, which has been nothing but a hodgepodge; putting the full blame on the illegals for the current situation is unfair; a good bit of the responsibility for our current problems lie squarely on our laws and their enforcement – which the GOP is determined to not even address – just like everything else their solution is to just kick the problem down the road.

            Reply
          246. CPAinNewYork December 27, 2013

            The GOP, being the party of big business and the rich in general, doesn’t want immigration reform because having fearful illegal aliens here provides them with a source of cheap labor and weakens the unions.

            Reply
          247. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            It is the workplace enforcement that really scares the pro-illegal alien types. They know that more border security is not going to stop illegal immigration, but they know that the lack of the ability for illegal aliens to make a living in the U.S will. Thanks for backing me up.

            Reply
          248. WhutHeSaid December 28, 2013

            You don’t know of any ‘pro-illegal alien’ types. That’s a figment of your hysterical imagination. But I see that you have a new racist pal, the fascist-racist immigrant goombah/kraut bean-counter CPAinNewYork. He thinks those who disagree with him should be lined up and shot. Aren’t you proud of yourself now?

            Reply
          249. James Bowen December 29, 2013

            I didn’t see that he said that.

            Reply
          250. WhutHeSaid December 29, 2013

            Then you just didn’t look. He’s said it more than once here. Be proud of yourself — people like these are your allies.

            Reply
          251. James Bowen December 29, 2013

            He never said anyone should be lined up and shot. That is slander.

            Reply
          252. WhutHeSaid December 29, 2013

            In fact he did. You’d better read his posts here or you will rightly labeled a liar.

            Reply
          253. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            So I was wrong. I apologize. I either forgot or did not notice. Not much different that you calling me a liar though, is it?

            Reply
          254. WhutHeSaid December 30, 2013

            I consider telling another poster that they should be put up against a wall and shot at least one order of magnitude more objectionable than accusing them of lying. I realize, however, that perhaps that’s just my opinion.

            Reply
          255. WhutHeSaid December 29, 2013

            Here’s one quote:

            “Your “humanity” is to convert a successful society into a total garbage heap, just to feed your liberal bias.

            You’re worse than an idiot. You’re a traitor who should be put against a wall and shot.” -CPAinNewYork

            Reply
          256. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            Again, I apologize for my oversight. But like I said, it’s not pleasant being treated uncivilly, is it?

            Reply
          257. WhutHeSaid December 30, 2013

            Truthfully, it doesn’t really bother me all that much, and in this case the insults were directed at somebody else. It’s pretty common for online debates to involve some form of insults — and I’ve noticed that you do your share of insulting as well.

            There’s no need for apologies. I was simply making the point that this is the type of person who is usually drawn to your anti-immigration arguments.

            Reply
          258. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            I don’t insult people unless they have insulted me, and even then I still keep to the subject at hand.

            The people who are drawn to immigration-reduction arguments (I am not anti-immigration) are a diverse group and have many different reasons for doing so.

            Reply
          259. WhutHeSaid December 30, 2013

            I will admit that I enjoy insults; it makes a debate more interesting. Being a habitual insulter is one of my weaknesses, however, there are certain lines that I do not willingly cross — even in jest. Expressing a wish for people to be shot over a difference of opinion on immigration policy would be an example of such a line, and noting what kind of people are attracted to your arguments is a fair point.

            I think you’ll find that I respect everyone’s right to express their opinion even if I myself find it to be distasteful. That’s why I never complain to moderators even when I am on the receiving end of the vilest insults (and occasionally even death threats), because I believe in freedom of speech. I don’t come out here in search of the ‘warm fuzzies’, rather, I come out here to debate issues.

            Reply
          260. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            Glad to hear you have your limits.

            Reply
          261. WhutHeSaid December 29, 2013

            Here’s another:

            “I’m pointing out the inherent evil in your advocacy of allowing illegal aliens to invade the United States.

            You are a miserable traitor. Those of your ilk should be arrested for treason, convicted and shot.” -CPAinNewYork

            Reply
          262. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            Like I said, I either didn’t notice or forgot. Sorry about that. But again, you are one to talk about others being uncivil in their posts. How do you like being on the receiving end of it?

            Reply
          263. WhutHeSaid December 29, 2013

            Here’s yet another:

            “Is that the best you can do? Play the Nazi card?

            Your advocacy of the illegal aliens is disgusting and disgraceful. I repeat; You should be arrested for treason and shot.” -CPAinNewYork

            So now would you like to retract your statement? Or do you want to continue to lie in the face of overwhelming evidence?

            Reply
          264. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            Okay, so I was wrong. Either I didn’t see it or I forgot. I apologize for that. However, you are hardly in a position to call someone out for the civility of their arguments. How does your own medicine taste?

            Reply
          265. WhutHeSaid December 30, 2013

            Mild insults are one thing. Racist death wishes are quite another — don’t you think?

            I’m not bothered by such things anyway. My point was that this is the type of person you attract with your arguments. Would you like to hazard a guess as to why that is so?

            Reply
          266. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            There are numerous reasons for wanting to reduce immigration, and the people who want to do have diverse reasons for doing so. I have stated mine.

            Reply
          267. WhutHeSaid December 30, 2013

            The point is well taken, but I would feel a bit unsettled to find out that my arguments were popular with racist and bigots. Such a thing would cause me to examine my own arguments carefully to learn why. I realize this is just my opinion.

            Reply
          268. plc97477 December 26, 2013

            Someone should have told them not to hire george zimmerman.

            Reply
          269. Independent1 December 26, 2013

            Unfortunately, there’s usually at least one bad apple in every barrel.

            Reply
          270. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            The only people who invited them in were outlaw employers. The American people, who have been economically strained by their presence, did not invite them to come and owe them nothing. Both illegal workers and illegal employers were willing participants in these crimes and legal infractions, and they should both be held responsible for their actions–they employers by heavy fines and possibly the loss of their business and the illegal aliens by termination from work and deportation.

            Reply
          271. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            They invited themselves, like, uh — hey — just like your family! I don’t remember anyone inviting YOU — do you?

            Reply
          272. charleo1 December 28, 2013

            I don’t agree with any of that. Sure, employers can be charged, and fined. But, convicting them is another thing. Besides, how many corporations can you think of that’s been sued out of existence? Won’t happen. Another fact is, it is our system that has for years has allowed employers to flout the law. And our politicians, on behalf of these corporations, that have opposed the implementation of a verification process, that would prove in a court of law, the employer knowingly broke the law. Our system, our responsibility. And why are we spending billions building a useless fence, while refusing to deal with, and control the reason the vast majority want to come here in the first place? And why is it, those who are determined to keep things just as they are, always insist we secure the border first? Because they know the day will never come when they say, okay the border is secure, let’s deal with the employers. It’s been the same way for years. So the
            immigrant does what all immigrants do. They have kids,
            take on a mortgage, maybe start their own business. They
            put down roots. And if you think there will ever come a
            time, government troops are dragging parents out of their
            homes, and businesses, while their American Citizen kids
            stand by hysterical? It will never happen, and should
            never happen. So exactly like securing the border, the
            idea of rounding up people, and deporting them by the
            train load, becomes just another stall, to keep the illegal
            hiring, and the cheap labor coming.

            Reply
          273. James Bowen December 28, 2013

            A mass deportation could happen. After all, Eisenhower did it with only 1000 agents in three months.

            Also, don’t say something won’t happen. You don’t know that. In order to get control of illegal immigration, all profitability in illegal employment, both for the employers and the illegals themselves, must be eliminated. Until it does happen, illegal immigration will continue to be a major problem. The American people did not ask for a corrupt system, which is what we currently have on immigration. We should never accept or tolerate that. And if the illegals “put down roots”, we must not hesitate from plucking those roots, otherwise our system has no teeth and no respect and is therefore ineffective.

            Reply
          274. charleo1 December 28, 2013

            What you fail to realize, John. Is only a small minority of
            Americans agree with you on this. And, when was the last
            time you remember seeing a politician commit political
            suicide? You may be as draconian, and heartless with
            your proposals as you wish. You’re not answering to voters.
            Or, if you think such a stance could get you elected, it’s a
            free Country, as they say. Go for it. The reason I say it will
            never happen is not a wild guess. Were you aware 5,000
            Hispanic, and Latino citizens, turn 18 in this Country every day? That Mitt Romney’s position on immigration may have cost him the election? With only 3 of 10 of this fastest growing minority agreeing with his self deportation policy. What would you guess their opinion of your round ’em up policy would be? The sooner people like yourself stop deluding themselves, while making politicians like Marco Rubio pay the price for seeking solutions within the bounds of what is politically possible, and makes common sense, things are only going to get worse. For the Country in general. And for the GOP in particular.

            Reply
          275. James Bowen December 29, 2013

            Actually, far more Americans agree with me on this than disagree with me. Letting illegal immigrants remain legally, let alone increasing legal immigration, is almost no popular support whatsoever. If you don’t believe me, go to compete.com and compare the Internet ratings for NumbersUSA to those of America’s Voice, La Raza, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The support for increased immigration comes from wealthy business interests who use “progressive” arguments as a front.

            Romney’s position on immigration has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. The biggest demographic reason for his defeat was his poor performance among female voters. Hispanic voter behavior was similar to previous elections. Their turnout was actually lower than in was in 2008 and their reasons for supporting the Democrats are for reasons other than immigration.

            Reducing legal immigration and cracking down on illegal immigration are very possible politically. These would be very well-received by the American public (including Hispanic citizens who are disproportionately harmed by illegal immigration). The biggest obstacle here is the influence of wealth and big business which drives the push for more immigration and amnesty.

            Reply
          276. charleo1 December 29, 2013

            The Hispanic Vote in the 2008 Election i Pew Hispanic Center November 5, 2008 Overview

            Hispanics voted for Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden over Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin by a margin of more than two-to-one in the 2008 presidential election, 67% versus 31%, according to an analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center of exit polls from Edison Media Research as published by CNN.1 The Center’s analysis also finds that 9% of the electorate was Latino, as indicated by the national exit poll. This is higher, by one percentage point, than the share in the 2004 national exit poll.2

            Nationally, all Latino demographic sub-groups voted for Obama by heavy margins. According to the national exit poll, 64% of Hispanic males and 68% of Hispanic females supported Obama. Latino youth, just as all youth nationwide, supported Obama over McCain by a lopsided margin – 76% versus 19%.

            Obama carried the Latino vote by sizeable margins in all states with large Latino populations. His biggest breakthrough came in Florida, where he won 57% of the Latino vote in a state where Latinos have historically supported Republican presidential candidates (President Bush carried 56% of the Latino vote in Florida in 2004). Obama’s margins were much larger in other states with big Latino populations. He carried 78% of the Latino vote in New Jersey, 76% in Nevada, and 74% in California.

            In an election year when voter participation rose across the board, Latinos increased their share of the national vote to 9% from 8% in 2004 according to the national exit poll. In several states, however, Latinos represented a larger share of voters this year than in 2004. The largest increases in the share of voters who are Hispanic occurred in the states of New Mexico (9 percentage points higher), Colorado (5 points higher) and Nevada (5 points higher), all three battleground states in this year’s election.

            1 The analysis in this report is limited to nine states with sufficiently large Hispanic samples in state exit polls. These states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico and Texas. Voter survey results from the National Exit

            Reply
          277. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            I’m not arguing with or disputing any of this. Hispanics lean strongly Democrat, but immigration is not the reason they do so. They tend to be lower income, and lower income people tend to vote Democrat. The only thing that would change this is for more Hispanics to enter the middle class–that would make the GOP more competitive with them. Increasing immigration and legalizing illegal immigrants will have the opposite effect. It would depress their wages and put a middle class existence even more out of reach for many Hispanic citizens. From a purely cynical political standpoint, this would of course benefit the Democratic Party. But if the Democrats really care about the workers and the people like they say they do, they should be strongly opposed to this.

            Reply
          278. charleo1 December 30, 2013

            It seems to me, we have a faction of Republicans that favor
            the status quo. Due to the constituencies in their respective
            States, that now have the best deal they’re ever going to get, on labor. Then, there is a second camp that sees the influx of Latinos, as a political, and cultural threat. For these people, they see the immigrant obtaining any legal standing, even to work, as eventually turning into a kind of backdoor amnesty. So, for this group, any definitive path by which they could be granted permanent residency, leading to citizenship, is out of the question. In fact James, I believe you find the most in common with this group. But the fact nonetheless remains, Conservatives are split, each faction blocking the other for their own particular reasons. It is for this reason, Speaker Boehner allowed as there would be no taking up immigration reform, or debating the Bill the Senate passed earlier this year. And I would be very surprised if it’s taken up at all. It’s always easier to stop legislation, than to pass it. Plus, the GOP is divided, and solidly so on this. And couldn’t pass a bill on immigration, if the Democrats all quit and went home. Which, of course is not going to be the case. They will continue to enjoy their big advantages with this group.
            And continue to berate their opposition about the head,
            and shoulders with it. And if need be, wait out the next decade. At which point the demographics bury the Right Wing Conservatives on this. This is not my conclusion,
            but the conclusion of those charged with electing Republicans. (See the post election speech by Party Head Rance Priebus And at long last Latinos will receive their hard won, long anticipated, immigration reform legislation.

            Reply
          279. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            The GOP is deeply divided on immigration. Statistically speaking, the GOP voters, so far as they pay attention to this issue, are almost unified in opposition to legalization and increased immigration. The division is not among the voters, it is between the voters and the donor-connected party leadership (of which Reince Priebus and John Boehner are obviously members). This is often painted as a Latino issue, but that is not really the case. La Raza is little more than a front group for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and business lobby–the true driving force behind the effort to make U.S. immigration policies more permissive than they already are. Latino voters are heavily Democratic, but many of them are as concerned about the consequences of illegal immigration and GOP base voters are–and other citizens for that matter. They vote Democrat for other reasons. The opposition to illegal immigration non-partisan and is far larger than the conservative base of GOP voters, and the problems that mass immigration causes are only going to get worse unless immigration is reduced. And increasing immigration is not going to make things better for Latinos in the U.S., it will make them worse. I don’t know if immigration increases and amnesty will pass or not, no one does. But if they do, it will be because that’s what business wanted, not because it is popular with the American people or even with Latinos.

            Reply
          280. James Bowen December 22, 2013

            Maybe some are coming here for survival, but most are here for the money. Mexico, where about half of illegals in the U.S. come from, is now the most obese nation in the world. So illegals are not coming here to avoid starving. If we turn people away, that puts more pressure on other nations to get their act together as they can no longer use us as a relief valve.

            Reply
          281. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            Kick the illegals out of the country as soon as possible. Then the question of their having a path to citizenship become irrelevant, as they won’t be here.

            Reply
          282. Independent1 December 26, 2013

            So you want what happened in Alabama a couple years back when they enacted the toughest immigration laws in the nation to happen again across the country?? Where hundreds of businesses threatened to leave the state because they would either be forced to do that or go bankrupt because they couldn’t find people to do the work they needed done to stay in business?? And even some foreign internationally owned companies like Mercedes Benz threatened to pull it’s manufacturing out of Alabama because of the negative climate the state had created about ‘foreigners”? (Except that instead of being hundreds of businesses it could be thousands and instead of just potentially crippling the Alabama economy it could be throwing America and the world into another depression.)

            Doesn’t sound like very good business practice to me. You must have been one pretty clueless CPA in your time. You can be sure I would never have hired you with the attitudes you’re displaying on the this blog.

            Reply
          283. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            Your letter is pure baloney. Neither Mercedes Benz nor any other businesses threatened any such thing. You’re a typical lying liberal. If you don’t have facts, you make them up to suit your agenda.

            I fear for this country with crap like you writing such drivel.

            Reply
          284. Independent1 December 26, 2013

            Really, here’s a version from MSNBC on the Alabama debacle that says lawmakers feared Mercedes and Honda would pull out of the state. Another account I read earlier says that the Mercedes VP arrested and thrown in jail threatened to do what he could to have Mercedes move out:

            As it turned out, the driver was an executive at Mercedes-Benz. The European car giant was one of several foreign auto companies in the state whose plants provide thousands of much-needed jobs.

            The incident was soon followed by another traffic arrest involving a Japanese Honda worker. Together, the auto blow-ups sparked an outcry from the business community, who feared companies would pull out of the state. Pouring salt on the wound, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran an editorial inviting Mercedes to move their operations to the “Show-Me State” instead of the “Show me your papers” state.

            More unintended consequences emerged, this time from the religious community. Churches complained the law’s ban on providing aid to undocumented immigrants could criminalize everything from soup kitchens to Spanish-language Sunday services.

            CPA, are you really clueless enough to believe that if companies felt threatened in America that there wouldn’t be foreign countries (like Mexico), offering them incentives to move out of America and get out from under all the anti-immigrant rhetoric and mindsets in this country?? Come on!! Wake up!!

            Reply
          285. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            More lies. Your first paragraph doesn’t even make any sense. Who was arrested for what? A Mercedes vp was arrested for what? Being in the United States illegally or or some other crime?

            Third paragraph: For what was the Japanese Honda worker arrested, for being in the state of Alabama, or for something else? We’re arguing illegal immigrants here, dumbass. What you’re referring to are incidents involving foreigners here legally. You’re just a damned liar, but you slipped up in your response. You exposed your own duplicity.

            The reason that foreign car makers are setting up Mexican plants is the cheap labor that’s available there. Those wetbacks will work for a small fraction of what an American worker must be paid.

            You’re a liar through and through. You have shown that you cannot be believed. You’re a typical lying liberal.

            Reply
          286. Independent1 December 26, 2013

            What are you drinking?? These people were just stopped because the new Alabama law had stipulated that all non foreigners who didn’t have citizenship papers on them had to be checked out. So when they were stopped for no reason at all, they were then taken to jail.

            And the third paragraph and all of them until I started with CPA were all part of an MSNBC article on the debacle of what was then the new Alabama immigration law. A law that would be very similar to one that would be needed across the country if we were to try and expel all illegals like you are so misguidedly suggesting!!

            You better get off whatever you’re drinking but you’ve become totally delusional!!! Despite your accusations, I don’t make comments I can’t back up with facts!!!

            Reply
          287. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            Independent1:

            Let’s break down what you just wrote. They “…were stopped for no reason at all,…” Is that what happened? Were they walking on the street? Were they in public conveyances? Were they in their cars? How did the police know to stop them? Did they have “foreigner” tattoo’d to their foreheads?

            Elucidate, Independent1, because your version is becoming increasingly improbable the more that we examine it.

            You say that you “…don’t make comments I can’t back up with facts!!!”. Put that MSNBC article in your response, because i want to verify it. I don’t believe what you’re telling us.

            Reply
          288. Independent1 December 26, 2013

            You really are losing it:Of course they were driving the cars!! They had licenses but they didn’t have proof they were citizens!! What’s wrong with you!!

            Here’s the link to the complete article from MSNBC, the title of the article is; “How America’s harshest immigration law failed”

            http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/undocumented-workers-immigration-alabama

            Reply
          289. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            Thanks for the link. I read the entire article and I see where you got your information.

            It saddens me to see that our government cannot protect our borders from invasion by a hostile neighboring nation because of legalistic red tape. It also saddens me that any American would favor that invasion, just to increase their business profits.

            Reply
          290. Independent1 December 26, 2013

            I don’t think many of us “favor the invasion”, but many of us see the debacle that could result from trying to round up and ship these people out and the damage that doing so may foist on the country by crippling companies that depend on them to work. Despite what many think, there are actually many menial jobs in America that American workers will simply not do, no matter how much they were paid to do these jobs..

            Reply
          291. James Bowen December 22, 2013

            But we don’t have the resources to bring everybody in who wants to come here. We have to tell people no if we are to preserve our quality of life and adequate natural resources for future generations.

            Reply
          292. James Bowen December 22, 2013

            This is nonsense. How can people who are as low income as they are and have as high of birth rates as they do be net contributors to taxes? Go to FAIR and look at their 2011 report. If illegal immigration is so wonderful, why don’t we just invite the entire world here, all 7 billion of them?

            Reply
          293. CPAinNewYork December 23, 2013

            I don’t care what they’re contributing. I just want to get rid of a plague of lower class Latin American crap.

            Reply
          294. Independent1 December 23, 2013

            America sure doesn’t need more bigots like you!!

            Reply
          295. CPAinNewYork December 23, 2013

            You want only people who agree with your bleeding heart agenda. Right? I think that you’re dead wrong, so I express my opinion. It’s my right as an American.

            That’s ok with you, isn’t it?

            Reply
          296. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            You are obviously a sordid bigot, and of course the very last person that America wants or needs — but at least you are honest. You deserve some points for that — even as we watch you waving goodbye on that big illegal-European-immigrant-goodbye-and-good-riddance boat.

            Reply
          297. CPAinNewYork December 24, 2013

            You don’t know what America “wants or needs.” You think that your liberal agenda is the only consideration?

            I’m not a bigot, but I don’t want this country spoiled by millions of pieces of illegal garbage who’ve had the misfortune to be born in a third world dump.

            Reply
          298. WhutHeSaid December 24, 2013

            I can tell you this much: There will never be another majority redneck bigot election in this country, and the day that Caucasians become a minority isn’t that far off. You’d just better behave yourself lest you find yourself on the receiving end of of your own style of bigoted shenanigans.

            Reply
          299. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            You aren’t in a position to tell me or anyone else anything, because you don’t know very much. If the caucasians ever become a minority in the United States, our populated will so mixed by that time that the issue will be moot.

            You’re talking about thousands of years, unless of course we continue to let that illegal garbage continue to slither in from Mexico and other Latin American dumps.

            Reply
          300. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            2011 was the year that minority (read: non-white) children outnumbered Caucasians for the first time. In 18 years (voting age) — guess what that means? For your further enjoyment, the Hispanic population growth is rising faster than any other ethnic group, and is already significant enough to change the outcome of national elections — just ask old Mitt.

            Welcome to your future, amigo!

            Reply
          301. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            Did those census figures include the illegals, who, if I have my way, will never vote because they won’t be here?

            Old Mitt didn’t lose because of his opposition to immigration reform. He lost because he, Paul Ryan and the entire Tea Party contingent threatened the economic well being of the middle class and the poor.

            When the illegals are safely out of the United States, we can start to bring justice to the predatory rich and the bastard business owners who enticed the illegals to come here for under-the-table jobs.

            Welcome to YOUR future, amigo!

            Reply
          302. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            All this hostility from a bean-counting Kraut? Tsk-tsk!

            Reply
          303. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            I’m not a bean counter and I’m not a kraut. I’m an American CPA. Interesting that you descend to pejorative labels when you have nothing sensible to say, but cannot just shut up.

            I’m mildly surprised that you didn’t use some insulting term to describe the Italian side of my family.

            Reply
          304. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            Well, what needs to be said about that? Perhaps you expected me to ask “Why is Italy shaped like a boot?”, yes?

            Well, go ahead — tell us why Italy is shaped like a boot.

            Reply
          305. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            My question is why is your head shaped like an asshole?

            Reply
          306. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            Um…so that you won’t feel lonely, perhaps? Is that the correct answer?

            OK, ok — I’ll finish the joke, just because you are such a pleasant person: Because all that shit won’t fit into a shoe!

            Haha! Now wasn’t that funny?

            Reply
          307. James Bowen December 22, 2013

            I actually agree with most of what you say here. However, when it comes to taxes, they do consume more than they produce. They are primarily low income workers, but they still use our roads, schools, emergency rooms, etc. They are technically ineligible for welfare, but if they have U.S. born children they can get welfare via their children. FAIR concluded in 2011 that illegal immigration costs the taxpayers $113 billion annually.

            Reply
          308. Independent1 December 22, 2013

            All of which is total nonsense.

            Reply
          309. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            No it wasn’t. Really, how are people who make so little that they can’t even afford the living costs in this country going to be net contributors to the public coffers?

            Reply
          310. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Well, let’s see — how did YOUR family do it? They just stole from those who were already here, yes? What’s wrong with that? It was good enough for your family, right?

            Reply
          311. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            I can’t speak for my ancestors in that regard, because I don’t know. However, what I can say is that two wrongs don’t make a right. At the time, it would have been in the Indians’ best interest to drive the European colonists into the sea. They did not though. We don’t have to make the same mistake though. We can learn from the mistakes the Indians made in not banding together to resist an invasion. We could still easily drive the illegal invaders out.

            Reply
          312. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            No you can’t. It’s just not possible — ever. The reason it isn’t possible is because the human instinct for survival plays a large part in this topic — just as it did when your illegal immigrant ancestors came here. Native people who were already here by and large understood this, but apparently you don’t.

            All of the arguments here that start out with a immigrant arguing why THEIR immigration was ‘legal’ and that of others wasn’t is fatally flawed. The reason is because every manner of crime, murder, and mayhem was used in said ‘immigration process’, and now you conjure up a fantastic version of reality to support what you just WANT. That’s really the key here, now isn’t it? No matter how many broken laws or crimes (never mind the trivial ‘illegal entry’) were involved in your family getting what YOU wanted, the key is it’s just what you want. So you will spin whatever elaborate story you feel justifies what YOU want.

            Well, so will other people. You can’t legally stop it, and you have no moral or legal ‘high ground’ from which to try.

            Reply
          313. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            We can legally stop it because it is already illegal. And the physical act of driving them out of here would not be difficult at all. If we defeated the Axis Powers, getting rid of illegals would be a piece of cake. Eisenhower did it in 1954 when it was getting out of control. He deported 1 million with only 1000 agents and 2 million more left on their own when they saw that the government was serious about these laws. What followed was ten years of effective immigration enforcement and a negligible illegal population until the disastrous Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 which threw the doors open.

            And again, I am not justifying what happened to the American Indians. But that does not mean that my ancestors’ immigration was illegal. It was not. They did not violate any existing laws by coming here.

            Reply
          314. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Yes, in fact you ARE attempting to justify what was done against Native Americans (the real ones — not the liars like you), by trying to deflect the argument away from what happened, and the part your family had in it.

            You need to stop the self-serving lies. You don’t know what laws your ancestors broke, where they immigrated to, and how — that much is clear. Hell — you probably don’t even know who your ancestors are. That they broke laws is very obvious — even their OWN laws, which is a matter of legal and public record.

            But your self-serving lying aside, what you propose will never happen. It’s impossible. The only way that illegal immigration will ever be substantially stopped is to make legal immigration a less onerous process. Even then it will never completely stop, and it never has.

            Reply
          315. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            If it’s impossible, than why has it happened before? The fact that it has happened before show that it is not only impossible, but is actually easy. We have also more or less shut off legal immigration before–with the Immigration Act of 1924. It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, so just shut up.

            Reply
          316. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            It has never happened before — ever. And it won’t happen — ever. Why would anyone listen to any of your arguments when you repeatedly lie about your own legal status as a US citizen? You should get down on your knees and kiss the 14th Amendment, because from what I can see that’s all you really have, you lying bigot.

            Reply
          317. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            Then how did Eisenhower do it in 1954? He deported 1 million people with only 1000 agents. 2 million more left on their own when they say the government was serious about enforcing the law. It’s not only impossible, it’s quite simple. We have the power to exercise it. It is just a matter of doing so, like Eisenhower did.

            Reply
          318. comanche89 December 23, 2013

            You are absolutely right again, as an aside it only took a small American cavalry to herd American Indians into reservations…. So it can be done with more modern delivery systems. Do not get me wrong ,our people are still angry at broken treaties, especially the young ones, but We do have our sovereignty…. And perhaps we will come back and treat you better when the diseases being brought in my some immigrants will destroy some of your populations. We will be here with blankets to care for the hardy survivors.

            Reply
          319. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            As they should be. What happened to the American Indians was an unnecessary tragedy. But overpopulating the U.S. by bringing in hundreds of millions of foreigners is not going to help American Indians or European descendents alike.

            Reply
          320. comanche89 December 23, 2013

            There are many who managed to become professionals,physicians attorneys and returned to make businesses Ag , manufacturing, casinos as well.many are working with heir hands with the earth, steel contractors and trades as any group with varied interests. Being isolated has its disadvantages and spirituality to rise above difficulties.you all . If you all secede and become a part of our nation there would be no taxation . We can start over and write no laws that abridge commerce. All law books to be burned and rules will be based on honor .

            Your nation has a problem unless checks are implemented, look what happens to us. Peace. Keep at it , Jim and friends .

            Reply
          321. WhutHeSaid December 24, 2013

            Isn’t that special: Two posers and drooling bigots jerking each other off in public. One is a lying illegal immigrant nut-case, and the other is a lying, drooling redneck bigot playing ‘injun’ from his trailer park computer. Truly a pitiful sight to be seen.

            Reply
          322. WhutHeSaid December 24, 2013

            You’d better get your ya-yas out while you can, because the day isn’t far off when little brown people will be the majority in this country. When that day comes you’d better hope that they behave better than you, or they may just show up at your bigot-hole one day and snatch up all of your ill-gotten goodies. Believe that.

            Reply
          323. James Bowen December 24, 2013

            You don’t know if that will happen or not. A reduction in immigration, which is something that is supported by most American citizens (but not the business interests that profit from cheap labor). It all depends on who wins out there. The way business has behaved in recent decades, they are flirting with revolution. I don’t mean that as a threat, I am just stating what historically happens when those at the top of the economic ladder stop looking out for the interests of citizens/subjects. Nonetheless, I do not care what color people are. We are all human. What I do care about it the numbers, and immigration is driving those numbers up. That could be easily halted.

            Reply
          324. WhutHeSaid December 24, 2013

            Oh yes, it’s going to happen. You’ve noted yourself what the birth rate numbers are, and even if illegal immigration was zero it’s already inevitable. Immigration has nothing to do with it, in fact. You like looking up numbers, so go have a look yourself and see if I’m not correct.

            Business isn’t flirting with revolution. There are a few overzealous assholes like the Koch Brothers who are trying to stack the deck — but that’s nothing new. So I’m guessing that you are referring to the middle and working classes, yes? The pendulum swings in both directions, and for decades it has swung to the right. You can expect an equal swing back — that’s all.

            I’ve been a little hard on you out here, but I haven’t really seen you express bigoted hate outright. You still haven’t answered the question of your own citizenship status, of course, but you haven’t actually said anything overtly bigoted. So I’m still trying to figure out your real motivation. It’s not using up natural resources, or water shortages, or the price of produce, or even a drain on local economies by illegal immigration. That much I’m sure of, because most of the things you cite have no direct relation to illegal immigration at all, and those that do are so negligible as to be laughable.

            At any rate, despite the fact that I see your posts as pretty far out there, I wish you and yours a Merry Christmas, and I hope Santa doesn’t bring you a lump of coal for forgetting what good will is all about.

            Reply
          325. James Bowen December 25, 2013

            No, you don’t know that. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, have much higher fertility that native-born. If immigration were reduced and illegal immigrants forced to leave (both of which have happened before and would be supported by the American public), that extra fertility would decline quickly.

            As for big business flirting with revolution, they absolutely are. Excessive wealth concentrated with a few and those few trying to rig the system in their favor (such as they have done with our immigration policies) is not a recipe for stability.

            What I have said is that the overpopulation/resource depletion threat is being exacerbated by a growing population. In the U.S. and Canada, that growth is being caused by immigration, including legal and illegal immigration. We take in about a million legal immigrants each year, and there are numerous estimates that about 700,000 illegal immigrants come in each year. Therefore, illegals are a significant contributor to this population growth. To say that we can address this issues without lowering immigration and cracking down on illegal immigration is preposterous.

            Merry Christmas!

            Reply
          326. WhutHeSaid December 25, 2013

            The current fertility rate for Hispanic mothers is about 2.4%, followed by African American mothers at 2.1% and Caucasian and Asian mothers both at 1.8%. This is pretty simple math, but I’m almost certain you have access to a calculator. If not, using your fingers would also work in this case.

            I agree that big business is flirting with disaster, but I don’t agree that anything near a revolution is necessary to correct it. I’ve seen this type of thing before, and the pendulum always swings back.

            As I said before, I am neither a strong anti-immigration proponent nor a strong pro-immigration advocate. I see it as a practical and humanitarian issue. There are many benefits to immigration and also drawbacks, but your arguments about dire and imminent catastrophes are simply examples of searching for problems to fit your preconceived ‘solutions’.

            Reply
          327. James Bowen December 26, 2013

            Assuming you mean 2.4 children per woman, 2.1 children per woman, etc., you are right about those total fertility rates. However, if immigration is reduced, that would put upward pressure on wages and allow more blacks and Hispanics to enter the middle class. Consequently, their birthrates would likely decline to levels similar to whites.

            I agree that I don’t think a revolution is necessary to correct the excesses of big business, and I hope it doesn’t happen. However, what I see is that both the political right and left establishments have sold out to big business, so middle America does not have many friends to turn to in high places.

            All of what I have said about pending catastrophes is not conjecture, it is a physical fact (unless we can find colonies in space to support our population, which is not likely to happen any time soon). We do not have the resources to sustain the population we currently have, let alone more. Since it is immigration, not native fertility, that is driving our population growth, the most pressing issue regarding sustainability then is to reduce immigration and strictly enforce immigration laws. Remember, one human lifetime isn’t that long, so if we don’t live to see any of these population/resource depletion ecological disasters, that does not mean they are not going to happen.

            Reply
          328. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            Now you are just talking about predictions for the future that have no direct correlation to what’s actually happening in the here and now. Your predictions are just that — predictions — and not current reality. There are any number of possible outcomes, including those where immigration actually HELPS our situation.

            What do you think would happen if people like you had their way, and the United States population declined while the rest of the world became overpopulated, hmm? What do you think our economy would look like then, and what would happen when billions and billions of hungry people saw what they considered prime real estate that was ‘underpopulated’? That day you would learn immigration policies from the same perspective as the Native Americans did centuries ago. Can you say ‘poetic justice’?

            Reply
          329. James Bowen December 26, 2013

            You are right. They are predictions for the future. There is no guarantee that they will happen, and I for one hope they don’t. However, if we exhaust those resources before we reduce our numbers, there is no other alternative possibility (unless we find other worlds to colonize by then, which is certainly no guarantee).

            Our economy would be one where people are provided with the basics while others struggle to survive daily. The situation you mention here is certainly a possibility, in which case we would have the right to defend ourselves if they try to take our country by force.

            Reply
          330. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            Well, in this case I can’t argue with anything in your post. I too hope your dire predictions don’t come true, and I don’t believe they will. I predict that we will continue to enjoy the benefits of immigration, and one day even amend the process so that it isn’t such a ridiculous ordeal. If your ancestors had to go through then what people have to go through today you very well might not be here to voice any opinion at all. All this just because people want a chance at a decent life for their families? Think about it.

            Reply
          331. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            If things continue on the course that they are currently on, they will. It is not inevitable (nothing is), but in order to avoid it we must reduce our population, and in the U.S. and Canada that means reducing immigration. I can’t blame people for wanting to come here, but we simply cannot allow them all to come here without putting our future even more in extremis. When formulating national immigration policy, the needs and interests of the nation should take precedent over those of the immigrants. We have the most generous legal immigration policy in the world, taking in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined, and we need to reduce those numbers.

            Reply
          332. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            Nonsense. The US has about 20% of the world’s immigrants, and that’s only because it is currently the world’s largest economy. But if you look at the actual immigration rate adjusted for relative population the US is 16th. Some countries that have a higher immigration rate:

            Australia
            Canada
            Spain
            Italy
            United Arab Emirates
            Qatar
            Zimbabwe

            The list goes on.

            This is an immigrant country and has been for centuries. In fact, immigration has fueled the very productivity that has made this country a magnet for other immigrants.

            There are no dire shortages, and your ‘gloom and doom’ arguments have all been shown to be false. So what’s your real issue?

            Reply
          333. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            As I have repeatedly emphasized, when we are talking about population, absolute numbers matter as opposed to ratios and percentages. Maybe I was wrong in saying we have a majority of the world’s immigrants, but 20% compared to the U.S. having 5% of the world’s population is still very disproportionate.

            My arguments about pending shortages have not been shown to be false. As a matter of fact, you admitted that what I am concerned about could happen (and they will if we do not reverse or alter course).

            Immigration was undoubtedly very important in history of our country, but our immigration policy must match the necessity of the times, and the necessity of our time is to stabilize population. In all fairness, I should also mention that the years, 1945-1970, which were low immigration years, were the best years this nation ever had in terms of economic stability, industrial prowess, and scientific achievement.

            Reply
          334. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            Well, you just made a very interesting statement: “Immigration was undoubtedly very important in [the] history of our country”.

            Why don’t you tell us all why and how it was important? And just who were these productive Americans who fueled the economy during the post WWII years?

            Reply
          335. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            Too many ways to list here.

            Those Americans you ask about between 1945 and 1970 were mostly native-born Americans.

            Reply
          336. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            Is that so?

            Here are some real numbers for you to consider before you really look foolish:

            Foreign Born US Population (US Census)

            1900: 10,341,276
            1910: 13,515,886
            1920: 13,920,692
            1930: 14,204,149
            1940: 11,594,896
            1950: 10,347,395
            1960: 9,738,091
            1970: 9,619,302
            1980: 14,079,906
            1990: 19,767,316

            So where is this big dip in immigration that supposedly occurred before WWII? The only reason that the 1940 numbers are as low as they are is because the of the Great Depression, otherwise it’s been a steady stream of immigrants all along.

            Are you trying to say that all of the immigrants from 1910 through 1940 suddenly died off in 1945? Perhaps they were killed in the war? Get real. Admit that America was then — and is now — an immigrant country. Immigration fueled this economy then, and it still fuels it today. It will do the same in the future if we deal with the situation rationally.

            Reply
          337. James Bowen December 28, 2013

            Your numbers back up my point. In 1924, immigration was greatly reduced. The Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 opened the doors for greatly increased immigration, though it took a few years for that to gain momentum. Notice that number of foreign-born decreased during the years 1930-1970. As for the rest, they were economically assimilated. Also keep in mind that the population grew during those years 1920-1970, from 106 million to 203 million.

            To deal with this situation rationally is to acknowledge that we have dug ourselves into the overshoot trap and act to stabilize our population, which means greatly reducing immigration.

            Reply
          338. WhutHeSaid December 28, 2013

            Economically assimilated? That’s exactly my point. Immigrants fueled a good portion of the very economic growth that attracted further immigration. This will continue to be the case for some time.

            Your arguments remind me of a person waiting for an elevator. Upon the doors opening, you immediately enter the elevator. When the doors open on the next floor, you loudly proclaim the elevator ‘overfull’ and recount the various reasons why another person should not be able to enter — forgetting the fact that you apparently did not consider the elevator ‘overfull’ until you yourself entered.

            America may be ‘overfull’ to you, but then that’s just your opinion and a self-serving one at that. To the REAL Native Americans, perhaps the population in 1700 was ‘overfull’. It’s all relative.

            China has 400% of the population of the US in an area approximately the same size. India has almost the same population in an area even smaller. China is poised to become the world’s largest economy in a few short years. Do you think they regard the US as overpopulated?

            Reply
          339. James Bowen December 29, 2013

            I have already told you how we are overpopulated. We cannot, using renewable resources, sustain our current numbers, let alone the hundreds of millions of others around the world who depend on us for food. I have read that the sustainable population for the U.S. is somewhere between 150 and 200 million (where we were between 1950 and 1967). Look up Dr. Albert Bartlett for more information.

            As for China and India, let me answer that question by asking where you would rather live–here or there?

            Reply
          340. WhutHeSaid December 29, 2013

            I see. So according to your argument we should have all been dying off from starvation since the 1960’s. That sure is a long time to starve — don’t you think? All of that horrible suffering from the world’s largest food exporter? Who would’ve thunk it?

            You know full well what the point is about China and India: The US is nowhere near as populated. But there is another point that’s very important when you consider the differences in relative population density, and I’ve mentioned it before. Can you remember what that is?

            Reply
          341. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            I don’t see how I can be more clear about this. The situation is analogous to someone who is spending far more than he makes, but is able to keep doing it because he has a large bank account that is there because he inherited a lot of money from someone. He can live high while that bank account has money in it, but it is eventually going to run out, and when that happens, his lifestyle is going to come crashing down. We cannot sustain our food yields indefinitely because it depends on “inherited wealth” that for the moment is able to make up for what we don’t have in income, but that won’t last forever.

            China and India are, frankly, horrible places to live for the reason that they are so heavily populated. They are a lesson in why we need to stabilize our population. They have the same long term sustainability problems that we do, only far more severe.

            Reply
          342. WhutHeSaid December 30, 2013

            That’s a very poor analogy, but even in this case you take a very simplistic view that can also be debunked for the same reasons.

            Somebody may take that large bank account and spend a great deal more than he makes, and yet actually IMPROVE his lifestyle. It really depends what he spends that money on, now doesn’t it? What happens if Mr. Big spender spends his money on real estate, for example. Do you see things from a different perspective now?

            China and India are examples of how such arguments are relative. To Native Americans in 1492, a population of 317 million people would be considered horribly overpopulated. Can you think of any good reasons why their perspective was vastly different from yours?

            The other point about both China and India is that both economies are among the largest in the world, and in the case of China, poised to surpass the US in the near future. Already holding a very substantial portion of American financial interests, China could conceivably end up owning this country without any need for a physical invasion. Under your isolationist plan, this situation would only be exacerbated as the American economy stagnated or even contracted.

            The final point is that should America ever become so disproportionally underpopulated in relation to the rest of the world that other populations began to see it as necessary for survival, America would look for all the world to them as their very own ‘manifest destiny’ — just as the Europeans saw the Native American homeland in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

            Reply
          343. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            As far as my analogy is concerned, what you are talking about is speculation. There is no guarantee it will pay off, and to assume it will solve problems is like gambling. The physical limits I have discussed are empirical truths, and no advances in science or technology will change that. The best we could do is colonize space and access resources there. There is no way to know how long it would take or if it would even be successful, so the wisest course of action is to assume what we have on Earth is what we have and act accordingly, while at the same time pursue space colonization, etc.

            I am not calling for isolationism. I am simply calling for a national population and immigration policy that recognizes the limits to growth and that we have already crossed those long term limits. If China and India’s economies surpass ours in size, no big deal. What truly matters is our quality of life (which is much better than anyone in China or India (due in large part to their excessive population) and our ability to defend ourselves.

            If American Indians thought in 1492 that growth to 317 million was excessive, they were right, and their perspective was no different than mine.

            I do think that overpopulation is a global problem, and that we must work with other nations to address it. But the first thing that means for us is halting our own population growth. If the rest of the world were to eye our country for settlement, we are quite capable of defending ourselves so long as we maintain our unity and integrity as a nation.

            Reply
          344. WhutHeSaid December 30, 2013

            Native Americans in 1492 had a very different perspective than you. Their lifestyle and livelihood was much different. One excellent example of the difference would be the wanton and wasteful killing of the American buffalo, which was a primary resource for many tribes. You can imagine the confusion and astonishment that these tribes must have felt when witnessing the indiscriminate slaughter of hundreds of thousands of buffalo that were simply left to rot in the field.

            Regarding your reference to self defense I will simply note that, without exception, history shows us that every major military power eventually meets up with it’s equal — whether through war or other means. The survivors have all learned how to conduct their affairs in ways that employ compromise, while those who couldn’t or wouldn’t learn this eventually vanished.

            Reply
          345. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            I meant their perspective regarding population and sustainability of their way of life. Yes, mine is very different (and different from anyone else who lived back then for that matter), but I can see where they were coming from in such concerns.

            About self defense, we do not necessarily need to be the “most powerful nation on Earth” to successfully defend ourselves. As long as we remain firmly unified as a nation, an invasion of the North American continent would be very, very difficult. We are surrounded by three oceans and much of this continent has a rugged and harsh climate, and at present we have the natural resources to hold our own in weapons production against anybody. That would certainly be the case if facing off against an overpopulated world. The logistical challenges of sustaining an invasion of this continent, no matter how many people are available to do it, are unfathomable. Germany and Japan, for this reason, never seriously considered an invasion of North America. Interestingly enough, the greatest military threat the U.S. faces is one of national unity. If the U.S. were to break up, then invading a divided, fragmented country would be feasible from overseas.

            Reply
          346. WhutHeSaid December 30, 2013

            My point with respect to the relative nature of overpopulation is that technology and lifestyle changes can make a very significant difference in raising or lowering the threshold where population saturation occurs. Such changes can be incidental or arise out of necessity, but the net result is that your estimations, terribly vague to begin with, are subjective and certain to change with scientific and technical advances.

            As for defending your hypothetical underpopulated Shangri-la against billions of crowded and hungry humans, all I can say is that the most reliable defense would be to never allow such a situation to arise in the first place. If it ever did, you may finally get your wish to know what being Native American meant during 18th and 19th century America.

            Reply
          347. James Bowen December 31, 2013

            Scientific and technological advances can help to a point, but they cannot change the fact that the Earth has limited photosynthetic capacity and limited ability to produce food. We are already several times over that threshold. We have compensated by harnessing other resources to artificially increase yields, but those resources are not renewable. This is called the overshoot trap. The only way out of it, other than finding other worlds to colonize (not likely within the timeframe that is of concern), is to reduce our population before we exhaust all of those resources. We might have enough time left to allow this to happen naturally, but if we don’t, there will be a population correction.

            As to your last point, I couldn’t agree more. The best way to prevent that is to reduce human numbers gradually, including U.S. numbers. If we do but everybody else doesn’t, an invasion of North America, in that face of a strongly unified USA, is unlikely to succeed.

            Reply
          348. WhutHeSaid January 1, 2014

            Your arguments regarding carrying capacity and current food production are grossly pessimistic. The median estimate for the Earth’s carrying capacity given current productivity is about 10 billion people. As I stated before, lifestyle and the inequality of living standards account for existing hunger — not a shortage of food. The US, being one of the most affluent countries on Earth, consumes many times more food than it actually needs, and a significant amount of agricultural production is actually being diverted to such things as bio-fuels rather than being added to the world’s food supply.

            Regarding technology and population growth, it’s worth noting that while the world’s population grew at a record rate between 1960 and 1980, the per capita production of food actually increased during the same period primarily due to technological advances in production methods. Despite your insistence that the world must use renewable resources, the fact is that this is an artificial requirement. I agree that using renewable resources is a great idea, however, in many cases it is less feasible economically. Because the net production capability isn’t low enough to force the use of renewable resources, the preference will usually be to use the most profitable methods. Arguing that the use of non-renewable resources is bad because they will eventually run out is like arguing that you shouldn’t eat your dinner because your plate will become empty.

            Another fact that conflicts with your arguments is that the global population growth rate has been declining fairly significantly since around 1980. The growth rate is currently just over 1% — down from a peak of about 2.2% in the 1960’s. As noted earlier, technological advances in production actually outpaced the world’s population growth at a time when it was the highest in recorded history (1960’s).

            I don’t agree at all that halting immigration to the US will necessarily improve the world’s use of resources or slow population growth. In fact, a good case can be made that the opposite is true because it’s a well-known fact that an improved standard of living — including education and access to health care and contraception — reduces the rate of human reproduction. It’s a simple survival formula as old as the human race: When mortality rates are lowered, the rate of reproduction also declines. In addition to this, the consumption of resources will occur with or without immigration, as I noted with my earlier point about Saudi Arabian oil production.

            For the reasons I’ve stated, I believe that economic arguments in favor of immigration just as valid as any other immigration theory. I believe that it should be kept at a reasonable level as much as possible, but outlawing immigration is both silly and impossible. People will immigrate to other countries when those countries offer a significant improvement in opportunity, and the greater the disparity in opportunity the greater the allure of immigration.

            Reply
          349. James Bowen January 1, 2014

            Again, you are missing the point. Completely renewable organic means of food production is not simply a desirable thing. In the long run, it is the only option. Those technologies that have so dramatically increased yields won’t last forever.

            The Census data shows that what you say about immigration to the U.S. reducing world population growth is not what is happening. Immigrants actually have considerably higher fertility that the people in their nations of origin do. Therefore, a reduction in U.S. immigration would have a contraceptive effect.

            I don’t think we should outlaw immigration, but it is possible. If they have no way to make a living, they will not come. If they attempt outright conquest, I have already discussed how defensible the North American continent is, and that’s not even counting the option of using nuclear weapons.

            Reply
          350. WhutHeSaid January 1, 2014

            I’m not missing any of your points — I am disputing them. Completely organic means of food production is NOT the only option. We tend to use whatever is the most economically viable method, regardless of whether or not it is ‘renewable’. When and if that method ceases to be the most viable option, we simply move on the the next most viable. The fact that a production method depends on finite resources has never stopped people from using it.

            With respect to the population growth numbers for immigrants, you are now disputing your own arguments. You have repeatedly claimed that naturalized immigrants and their children (like yourself) have a lower fertility rate than new immigrants. I contend that this is due to the relative security and affluence of American society, and that the fertility rate of immigrants begins to drop towards these levels when the immigrant begins to assimilate into American society. You have alluded to this trend yourself on multiple occasions.

            Finally, your arguments on ‘defending’ the North American continent is just xenophobic chest-puffing. Should America ever become as drastically underpopulated in relation to the rest of the world as you seem to wish, the pressure to immigrate would increase until it was just absolutely unstoppable. Nuclear weapons? Are you serious? Who would you launch such weapons at — anyone who appeared to be hungry?

            Reply
          351. James Bowen January 2, 2014

            The problem is that, in the long term (i.e. indefinitely), renewable organic means is the only viable method that we know of. It is possible that we will colonize other worlds, but that is not likely to be a feasible alternative prior to the depletion of known resources that we need for our current levels of food production.

            I have not claimed that naturalized immigrants have lower fertility rates, I have stated that native-born Americans do. Immigrants and their first generation offspring, according to Census data, have birthrates that considerably exceed those of the nations they left behind. Therefore, reducing immigration to the U.S. would have a contraceptive effect.

            My statement about defending North America is not chest puffing or xenophobic. The United States has the most enviable defensive position in the world, geographically speaking. With a strong navy and air force to guard North America, and attempted invasion would be very unlikely to succeed. The key is that the United States must remain a strongly unified nation. The American Indians were politically divided and ravaged by plagues and as a result were not successful in halting the expansion of European-descended settlers across the continent. They same need not be true today. In the unlikely event that regular defenses were not adequate to halt an invasion from overseas, we could use nuclear weapons. We have a right to defend ourselves, and that includes using nuclear weapons if need be.

            Reply
          352. WhutHeSaid January 2, 2014

            Methods that are viable are exactly the methods that people will use. When I say ‘viable’ I mean ‘economically viable’. People do not always care about the long term, and they will use the most economically viable methods, which is to say the most profitable. I’m afraid that’s just how it works.

            Immigration bans as a form of birth control? That’s laughable. Prohibiting immigration actually does nothing for the fertility rate. I haven’t seen you advance an argument that immigration actually causes an increase in fertility rate, and such would be the only logical reason that banning immigration would reduce the fertility rate. Presumably the would-be immigrants bring their current fertility rate with them when they arrive — this is a result of a more difficult life in their home countries.

            The problem here is that you are mixing arguments that do not compliment each other. Some of the time you argue global issues like world population, and sometimes regional issues like the US population. Carrying capacity is a global issue. If you wish to advance this argument, then immigration to an affluent society like the US helps reduce the overall birth rate after the first generation of children is born. That’s been your argument all along — that immigrant children and naturalized US citizens have a lower birth rate. I agree with that part. If the would-be immigrants aren’t allowed to relocate to the more affluent society, then presumably their fertility rate remains high. So this actually contradicts your other arguments.

            As for your last argument, Natives were not ‘unsuccessful’ in halting European immigration. The fact is that they by and large didn’t even try. In fact, had they really decided to oppose European immigration we may be having a very different argument today. The issue here was not one of failed attempts to repel invaders, but of agreements and laws being broken once the Europeans felt they were in a position to do so. A grossly underpopulated US at a time when the rest of the world is bursting at the seams (so to speak) would create an imbalance that would force immigration. To a smaller extent this is exactly what happened to the Native Americans — laws and treaties be damned. Nuclear weapons and armed intervention in a situation like this would be not only ridiculous but for many reasons impossible.

            Reply
          353. James Bowen January 2, 2014

            Something is not viable if it cannot be done, which will eventually be the case with our current agricultural methods if we don’t gradually reduce our numbers before then.

            I don’t need to argue a fact. Post-1970 immigrants not only have higher birthrates that U.S. citizens, they have higher birthrates than people in their nations of origin do. That comes from Census data. I can’t explain it, but it is undeniably true. Therefore, reducing immigration will likely have a contraceptive effect. I have never said that immigrants have a lower birthrate–I have stated the opposite all along.

            The point about the American Indians is that they were divided, which nullified the natural defensive advantages of the North American continent. A unified America using armed force to repel invasions from overpopulated nations overseas would not be impossible–it would be very likely to succeed. During the Cold War, we had enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the human race several times around. If we could do that, stopping an invasion from nations that have failed to control their numbers is not only possible, but very feasible.

            Population problems are both regional and global, and they must be addressed at both levels. In the U.S., that means we must reduce immigration so that it is no longer a contributor to population growth. We obviously have more limited ability to control what happens in other countries, but we can take certain measures like attaching family planning to any foreign aid package, having more favorable trade policies with nations that seek to control their numbers, etc.

            Reply
          354. James Bowen January 2, 2014

            Something is not viable if it can’t be done, which will eventually be the case with our current agricultural methods if we don’t gradually reduce our numbers in time.

            I don’t need to argue a fact. Post-1970 immigrants not only have a higher birthrate than native-born citizens, they also have a higher birthrate that their nations of origin. That is from Census data. I can’t explain it, but that is what is going on. Therefore, reducing immigration will likely have a contraceptive effect. I have never said that immigrants have lower fertility than native-born, I have stated the opposite all along.

            The point about American Indians is that they were divided, which nullified the natural defensive advantages of the North American continent. Given these advantages, any attempted invasion of the U.S. from an overpopulated nation overseas would be unlikely to succeed, so long as we remain unified as a nation. During the Cold War, we had enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the human race several times over. With firepower like that, stopping an invasion of masses from overseas is not only possible but very feasible.

            Overpopulation and carrying capacity is both a local and a global issue, and it must be addressed at both levels. In the U.S., that means reducing immigration so that it no longer contributes to population growth. We obviously have more limited ability to control things in other countries, but we can still take actions such as attaching family planning to any foreign aid package, more favorable trade policies with nations that take measures to reduce their numbers, etc.

            Reply
          355. WhutHeSaid January 2, 2014

            Stop playing dumb. If something is being done this very minute then it is viable. Your argument is that it may become nonviable in the future. That’s your prediction only, and as with any prediction — unprovable. It’s interesting to note that you mix long term and short term arguments as if they actually fit together. They do not, but it’s just your wish to pick arguments that you feel give your wishes some credibility. But that credibility vanishes when all of your arguments are taken into the proper context and really examined.

            Your arguments about immigrant fertility rates are inaccurate. First, some immigrants do indeed experience an increase in fertility rate — at least initially upon immigration. Some, however, actually experience decline. Granted there is a net increase in the US, but studies show that the fertility rate declines over time toward the level of the host country. The decline eventually levels out at the host country fertility rate. Part of this is attributed by most researchers as the ‘socialization’ theory, that is, the values learned growing up in the country of origin. This can be greater than the destination country or less. So over time the result is actually a net DECREASE in fertility for those countries where the native fertility rate is greater than the US. It all depends on the relative disparity of the origin and destination countries. This becomes especially true for the children of immigrants, who by now would be native-born Americans just like you. Their fertility rate literally becomes a part of the native fertility rate. This is known as the ‘adaptation’ theory, and this is the long-term result for immigrants and their offspring. So part of your argument is exactly the same as my argument, that is, that immigrants and their descendents eventually appear no different than any other American.

            I’d suggest that you abandon trying to argue the history of Native Americans and their response to European immigration until you invest some time to research the subject. You know very little about Native Americans and thus by citing them you only make your arguments weaker. Natives weren’t any more divided than the colonies themselves, and several large confederacies of tribes existed that could have effectively prevented much of the European immigration had they actually made an effort to do so. What happened was more properly the result of widespread deceit, crime and foreign disease — not warfare.

            Arguments about using nuclear warfare to fight immigration are ridiculous. You cannot target poor immigrants — you have to target organized entities and infrastructure. Many of your so-called ‘targets’ are within the border of the United States itself. This is your silliest argument of all.

            Carrying capacity is most certainly not a regional issue. Here is the place where your Easter Island reference actually proves some value — but not in the way you originally intended. As I said before, Easter Island still exists today. It exists because it is now part of a larger nation and also the global economy. No country in this world is entirely self-sufficient in everything, and trade between countries, and later global trade, balances this out. Thus the ‘carrying capacity’ of Easter Island was exceeded but was easily ‘carried’ (if you will) by Chile and the rest of the world. That’s the current state of things and disproves this theory.

            Reply
          356. James Bowen January 3, 2014

            The short term and the long term do fit together. To suggest they don’t is just plain ignorant. Our current agricultural methods becoming non-viable in the future is not simply a prediction. It will happen if current trends continue. It is a prediction in the same sense that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow. I am talking about ways to avoid it, but you are denying that it is even a problem.

            I know more about American Indian history than you might think–it is a subject that interests me. European colonists were not the world’s first conquerors and American Indians were not the world’s first victims. What happened to the American Indians in undoubtedly one of our darker chapters in history, but it was also a lot more complex that you make it out to be (for example, the Pawnee sided with the Government during the Sioux wars because they thought the Government was preferable to dealing with the Sioux). So please give the guilt trip a rest. I did not do anything to harm American Indians, so I personally have nothing to apologize for.

            Most immigrant groups have a great increase in fertility upon arrival compared to their nations of origin. That increase contributes significantly to U.S. population growth and it is an addition to world population that would not have otherwise occurred. So lowering immigration would have a contraceptive effect. The long term decreases you speak of take a few generations, and with our current immigration policy more immigrants will have arrived with their accelerated fertility rates. So the long term effect of our immigration policy is still a net increase in world population, not to mention the U.S. population.

            Carrying capacity is both a local and a global issue. Easter Island is great example. It survives more as a museum than anything else nowadays, and could not support the people that currently live there on its own. It was a microcosm for the Earth. You are fond of pointing out how the U.S. is the largest grain exporter. I have discussed how we cannot keep those yields going forever to even feed our current population, but right now the U.S. is a crucial part of the world food system. If our immigration policies continue, we will have a population comparable to that of China and India by the end of the century. That will erase that surplus. Where will those people around the world get their food then? Do you see why U.S. population policy has worldwide ramifications?

            Since you insist upon discussing strategy in defending North American against an invasion, I will get more specific. The U.S. and Canada are mostly surrounded by water. Any invasion from overpopulated nations from overseas would have to come by water. A powerful navy could easily prevent that from happening. At the very least, it would greatly compound the already infeasible logistical problem. And overpopulated nations that are hard-pressed to feed their own people would already be in weak logistical position as it is. If it is an unorganized invasion (i.e. massive illegal immigration), again, a powerful navy could prevent that from happening. During World War II, the U.S. Navy eventually had so many ships and aircraft that it was able to keep every square mile of the Atlantic Ocean under surveillance for u-boats. If we could do that in 1943-45, we could certainly make our coasts and borders “airtight”. Nuclear weapons, at least large ones, probably wouldn’t be necessary, but they could be used against invasion fleets or large concentrations of invading personnel if need be. That’s how we deterred the Soviets from invading Germany during the Cold War, despite their overwhelming superiority in manpower. As for illegal aliens that are already here, Eisenhower deported 3 million of them in three months with only 1000 agents (1 million apprehensions, 2 million more left on their own when they saw that Ike meant business), so that is really not much of a challenge at all.

            Reply
          357. WhutHeSaid January 3, 2014

            Don’t be ridiculous. We have ample proof that the sun will rise tomorrow. You, on the other hand, have no proof that we will run out of resources or when. It’s all a prediction for the future and you have no way to prove that your predictions are correct. I am not denying that it may BECOME an issue, but I am emphatically denying that it is an issue now.

            You don’t know nearly as much about Native Americans as you’d like to believe. I suggested that you abandon your references to them for your own good, because it made you look foolish. If you wish to look foolish that’s your prerogative.

            Your Easter Island example supports MY argument — not yours. Easter Island still exists, and so do it’s inhabitants. Try telling them that they are ‘museum pieces’. They are part of the economy of Chile and the larger global economy. Because ‘carrying capacity’ is really a global issue, Easter Island survives because it is ‘carried’, in part, by Chile and the rest of the world. Your argument has been debunked.

            Your arguments about ‘defending’ the North American continent against hungry immigrants is humorous. For one thing, the US is not the only country that has a say in this issue, and presumably other countries are just as unlikely to adopt your hysterical attitude against immigration as the US. Since you like predictions so much, I predict that if you ever get your way the resulting population imbalance would create an overwhelming pressure for immigration that cannot be halted. Unlike your predictions, I have historical evidence to back up mine. I’m glad to see you decided to abandon the ‘nuclear option’ to immigration bans, because it was just ridiculous.

            Reply
          358. James Bowen January 3, 2014

            I have not seen that you have demonstrated any great knowledge of American Indian history. Most of what you have stated is common platitudes as opposed to hard knowledge of their history. I never said I was an expert, but as someone who is very interested in American history (including pre-1492 American history), I probably know more than you think.

            If we continue to deplete certain vital resources for modern agriculture, they will eventually become untenable as surely as the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow. The only way to avoid it is to reduce our numbers before that happens. Space colonization might be an escape from that coming depletion, but that is certainly not a guarantee.

            Easter Island, when viewed as a microcosm, does not support your argument for ignoring the consequences of population growth at all. Easter Island was “rescued” by the outside world, but as far as we know their is no “outside world” to rescue humans when we deplete vital resources on Earth that have allowed us to temporarily exceed the Earth’s carrying capacity. There are also other indications of our overpopulation, including the rates at which other species are becoming endangered. That is due to habitat loss, caused by human overcrowding and the resulting consumption.

            As to my arguments about defending North America, I have stated how large scale immigration can be halted. You have not stated how it can’t or why the strategy I listed would fail. I would be very likely to succeed (although I cannot say for sure precisely because I cannot predict the future). I also did not abandon the possibility of using nuclear weapons, I just said that they probably wouldn’t be necessary, but could be used in extremis. The historical evidence you cite is what happened to the American Indians. I have stated all along that the strategy I laid out hinges upon firm national unity in the U.S. The North American Indians were as politically divided as could be. If the U.S. were to become divided or its national unity significantly weakened, you are probably right that we would not stop mass immigration in the event of huge population distribution imbalances. However, a firmly unified U.S. would most likely be able to stop any attempt at mass immigration, be it organized invasion or unorganized illegal immigration.

            Reply
          359. WhutHeSaid January 3, 2014

            Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion regarding what I might know about Native Americans. I’m afraid that I have a bit of an insider view in this case, and I know a number of things that are pretty unique to that perspective. Debate the issue at your own risk.

            Native Americans were not as politically divided as you claim. In fact, there is evidence that the US Constitution was at least partly modeled after a Native Confederacy’s own. Do you know which one that was?

            Look, you’ve lost the Easter Island argument. They still survive, and that’s verifiable fact. The reason is that carrying capacity is a global issue, and Easter Island proves it. Your predictions about the world at large are just that — predictions, and not provable. Any number of things could happen.

            Immigration pressure is not unique to the US or even North America. It’s ridiculous for you to act as though it was, and to utterly fail to see what has happened time and time again throughout history. Immigration is a human survival mechanism, primarily, and as such will prosecuted to the upper limit of human ability. More people support the principles involved than oppose it, after all — we are all members of the same species.

            Reply
          360. James Bowen January 4, 2014

            Answer to your question: the Iroquois Confederation. There is no doubt that the North American continent was far more politically divided prior to the consolidation of the U.S. than it was afterward.

            You are missing the point about Easter Island. They were a microcosm. What “saved” them was intervention from the outside world (the few survivors couldn’t even escape the island because they had depleted all the resources to build boats). That would be analogous to extraterrestrials intervening and getting us out of the hole we have dug ourselves. I am not banking on that happening. Earth as a whole can be compared to Easter Island, and who is going to save us as a whole? Like I said, these are not predictions. They will happen sooner or later unless we drastically alter our course. If we continue to use certain crucial but depletable resources , we will run out of them. We might find substitutes, and we might find more of those resources. But two hard physical limits, the Earth’s finite mass and the finite energy the Earth receives from the Sun, ensure that that depletion I speak of will happen eventually. You have not demonstrated that they will not happen. To do so would violate the law of conservation of energy, and if you can do that you would really get my attention along with many others. I encourage you to read the following about this: http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_24_1/tsc_24_1_bartlett.shtml.

            We were talking about a hypothetical but possible future scenario of the U.S. being less populated than the rest of the world. Americans, so far as they are informed, do not support immigration in current numbers, and so far as they would be informed, I don’t think Americans would support being overrun by masses from an overpopulated world. I have already stated how that can be stopped.

            Reply
          361. WhutHeSaid January 4, 2014

            Wow — what an impressive argument: The US was ‘far more politically divided’ before it became politically united? How very profound.

            At least you proved that you can use Google when you want to. I’d suggest you do it more often. The history of Native Americans supports my argument, not yours. The Iroquois Confederacy was just one indigenous nation that could have repelled Europeans yet didn’t even try. The subject was debated but the xenophobes didn’t win the day. They knew something that still eludes you. What was/is that?

            I do not miss any points regarding Easter Island. My argument is that they survived and are part of the larger country of Chile and also the world at large. My point is a matter of verifiable history. Although you thought you had an example that proved your gloom and doom predictions, it turned out to prove the exact opposite. You chose a bad example — please don’t blame me for your choices.

            Immigration will never stop — ever. The reason it won’t is because it is a human survival tactic. And we are all human — at least I am and you appear to be. Please forgive me if I’m mistaken on this point.

            Reply
          362. James Bowen January 4, 2014

            I actually have known that about the Iroquois since I was a senior in high school (I learned it in my government class). Like I said, this is a subject I am interested in. What is now the U.S. was not unified under a single government until 1848. Many of the Indian tribes were hostile to other tribes. We could stop immigration if we want to, not that I want to though. We greatly reduced it in the 20’s and we could do it again.

            The Easter Island example shows what could happen to humans on Earth. What larger world is there to save us?

            Reply
          363. WhutHeSaid January 4, 2014

            So you actually learned something in high school about Native Americans, did you? Not very much — as it seems to me. Why didn’t they just wage war against the Europeans? If they had, then perhaps you wouldn’t be around to act like you have some right that other people don’t have.

            Easter Island shows what could happen to people on Earth? Yes, it does: It shows that people will find a way to survive. Immigration is just one of those ways, and that’s why you will never be able to stop it.

            Reply
          364. James Bowen January 5, 2014

            Some of them did wage war against Europeans, some of them did not. Like I said, there was no firm political union existing on the North American continent at the time to direct the actions of American Indians toward European colonists. Had one existed, history might have turned out very differently as you say.

            The Easter Islanders found a way to wipe all but a few of themselves out. How the few survivors were finally rescued from the waste of their island was due to events beyond their control. The analogy for humans on Earth as a whole would be for some extraterrestrial civilization to rescue us. Not counting on that happening.

            In the face of the defensive strategy I have talked about in the scenario we discussed, immigration would not be a survival strategy. It would just hasten their deaths. A nation that once possessed enough nuclear firepower to wipe out the human race several times around has the capability to stop people from coming, no matter how desperate they are. I hope it does not come to that though.

            Reply
          365. WhutHeSaid January 5, 2014

            Some did wage war, but not that many and not in an organized fashion. This wasn’t because they weren’t capable of doing such, rather, it was because most of the fighting was either rogue individuals or retaliatory in nature.

            What took place is more properly classified as crime, deceit, and betrayal — which admittedly the Europeans were very good at doing. Treaties were made between the fledgling United States and quite a few Native Nations that were still in a position at the time to expel Europeans if they had decided on that action. That is, of course, exactly the reason that such treaties were made in the first place. It is unclear if the US ever honored any of the treaties that were signed once they felt in a position to violate them.

            Further, a great many of the skirmishes were caused by competing European groups inciting violence against another. This too the Europeans were very good at doing, having many centuries of practice. Many Native nations were actually formal allies of the United States, but in the end were betrayed by European crime.

            Another important factor in all of this was disease. Native Americans did not possess any immunity against many European diseases, and there were devastating outbreaks that caused widespread death among the Natives — especially smallpox. Nor were these outbreaks all merely accidental exposure, rather, in some cases the Europeans intentionally waged biological warfare against men, women, and children who were supposedly their allies — all because they wanted to take what didn’t belong to them. That’s called crime — not war. Crime was the Native American’s primary enemy — not soldiers or war.

            Had Native Americans understood just what level of depravity the Europeans were capable of, they might very well have resisted their immigration in an organized fashion rather than mostly offering assistance at the outset. Even so, they understood that this was a largely unstoppable process, and it would only delay the inevitable. So they attempted adapt to sharing their homelands with new peoples. How long could they have put off the inevitable? Who knows? 50, 100, 150 years? Probably no more than a few decades. The pressure to immigrate was enormous, and they knew it.

            Your Easter Island argument is debunked. Many people have killed each other off in huge numbers, and it has nothing to do with ‘carrying capacity’. Usually it has more to do with political squabbles that have their basis in one group wanting the possessions of another group. We call this crime unless the criminal completely wipes out the victim, in which case the surviving criminal then calls it ‘history’ or ‘victory’ or ‘manifest destiny’. Nothing new here.

            Nuclear weapons are useless against immigration, and the very idea is just ridiculous. For one thing, the easiest way to avoid nuclear attack would be to simply rush the border and enter the United States. And just how would any such maniacal plan be put to preemptive use anyway? Are you suggesting the the US launch nuclear weapons at the entire would to prevent immigration? That would be the only way to guarantee getting anyone who might immigrate. Such an argument is, of course, utterly ridiculous.

            Reply
          366. James Bowen January 5, 2014

            Most of what you say about the American Indians here is true. You do
            mention that many of the tribes were played off against one another,
            which is illustrates their lack of political union. As far as whether
            it was crime or war, I don’t think it matters. The two are basically
            the same thing. The human beings is a violent animal, although those
            violent tendencies are less likely to manifest themselves if there are
            not too many people competing for too few resources. That is exactly
            what happened on Easter Island, and it was others who found a way for
            them to survive.

            In rushing the border, that would make the
            employment of nuclear weapons easier since they could be used to destroy
            large concentrations of people. That is how we deterred the Soviets
            from invading Germany during the Cold War. Their strategy was to “rush”
            the West German border, taking advantage of their vastly superior
            manpower in doing so. This threat was nullified by our threat to
            vaporize them if they did. Anything lower scale than an all-out rush
            could be effectively met at the sub-nuclear level. Also remember that
            most of the U.S. and Canada together is bounded by the oceans, and a
            powerful navy could prevent invasions/unauthorized migrations from
            overseas.

            Reply
          367. WhutHeSaid January 5, 2014

            I strongly disagree that war and crime are the same thing, although in many cases the end result may be similar. If they really were considered equivalent, we wouldn’t have so many history revisionists claiming that Native Americans were ‘defeated’ when in reality they were primarily crime victims.

            This all raises an interesting and familiar point. The chances are extremely good that the home that you sleep in at night lies on land that was taken illegally, by people who never had a legitimate right to be there in the first place. Thus you may very well be in possession of stolen property. Murder, mayhem, and all manner of crimes were a part of this process. And yet you cannot see the hypocrisy in ranting about ‘undocumented entry’? How much time needs to pass before illegal immigration or other crimes become ‘legal’ in your eyes?

            Since you insist upon continuing your ridiculous argument about using nuclear weapons against prospective immigrants, remember this: Launching nuclear weapons against people invading a country half a globe away (Germany) isn’t quite the same thing as launching nuclear warheads against, say, the Texas-Mexico border — now is it? I’m guessing that Mexico and even some Texans would be rather annoyed by all of this. Nobody who has a firm grip on sanity would ever even suggest such a thing.

            Second, you should remember that the United States is not the only country that possesses nuclear weapons, and other people take a rather dim view on the prospect of letting you kill them. The genie has been out of the bottle (so to speak) for quite some time now, and the number of members in the nuclear club will only continue to grow. And you need to remember that after a certain point the only credible deterrence is the concept of mutually assured destruction — with the altogether appropriate acronym of MAD. Are you suggesting that self-immolation is preferable to immigration?

            Reply
          368. James Bowen December 25, 2013

            Again, you don’t know if it will or not. If immigration is greatly reduced and illegal immigration cracked down upon (both of which have happened before and would be supported by the American people), the high immigrant fertility which is driving this would be eliminated.

            Business is flirting with revolution. When the wealth gets excessively concentrated with a few and those few try to rig the system in their favor, such as they have done with immigration policy, this is not a recipe for stability.

            Our population is growing because of immigration, both legal and illegal. We already have more people than we can support indefinitely, and immigration-driven population growth is exacerbating this. The idea that we can address the sustainability problem without reducing immigration is preposterous.

            Merry Christmas!

            Reply
          369. WhutHeSaid December 25, 2013

            It’s simple arithmetic. You may enlist the assistance of a second grader if you feel the need.

            Reply
          370. James Bowen December 26, 2013

            That is only assuming our immigration policy and birth rates remain what they are right now. That is not guaranteed. You cannot predict the future.

            Reply
          371. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            Neither can you. But then your entire argument relies on dire predictions of food shortages and other things that don’t exist. So now you are making my point for me — thank you.

            Reply
          372. James Bowen December 26, 2013

            No, I can’t. Those food shortages don’t exist right now, but they will IF we don’t gradually reduce our numbers before we exhaust key resources that are currently necessary to sustain the population. The only other way around this is to find suitable colonies on other planets, but there is certainly no guarantee that can or will happen, let alone before we exhaust those resources.

            Reply
          373. WhutHeSaid December 26, 2013

            This could happen even without any immigration at all. So I get your point, but it really has little to do with immigration.

            Reply
          374. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            Yes it could, but there is no way we will avoid this problem without reducing immigration. There is simply no way to halt and reverse U.S. population growth without reducing immigration.

            Reply
          375. James Bowen December 26, 2013

            Like I said, you don’t know if it will happen or not. That is assuming current immigration policy continues. That is guaranteed. You cannot predict the future. But that is not the reason why I am so concerned about immigration. I am concerned about the numbers and the accompanying social strain.

            Reply
          376. Dominick Vila December 22, 2013

            Because our laws are not for sale. They broke our immigration laws – regardless of how flawed they may be – and they should not be rewarded for doing so. I support legal immigration, if nothing else because my ancestors were all immigrants. My Dad entered the USA in 1920 via Ellis Island, admittedly, at a time when there were no impediments to come to the USA, other than meeting minor requirements at the port of entry.
            I support Sen. McCain’s guest worker program, and even giving them a green card that would allow them to work in the USA legally, pay taxes, and contribute to the betterment of our society, but I believe giving them a path to citizenship is very wrong and it sends the wrong message to others.
            Yes, the solutions I mentioned would make them second class citizens, but that is something they chose for themselves when they broke our laws. My answer to their “Yes we can” is “No, you can’t”. It is up to us to change our laws, and until they are changed they must be respected.
            BTW, I oppose deporting the so-called “anchor” babies, and I believe our immigration laws must be modified as soon as possible. They are unfair, discriminatory, and conducive to abuse and exploitation.

            Reply
          377. James Bowen December 22, 2013

            We need to greatly reduce immigration because we already have too many people in this country as it is.

            Reply
          378. Dominick Vila December 23, 2013

            We do not have an over population problem in the USA, at least not like what exists in China, most of Asia, and most of Europe. The worse part for us is that our fertility rate is too low to offset the effects of mortality and augurs serious declines in population in decades to come if immigration is banned.

            Reply
          379. James Bowen December 23, 2013

            The United States is overpopulated because we can’t feed our current population, let alone all the others around the world that we feed, using completely renewable organic agricultural methods. We must rely on non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels to grow these foods. Those resources will eventually run out. Therefore, what we need is a gradual population decrease. Maintaining sub-replacement fertility and strictly limiting illegal immigration will accomplish this. Therefore, what you speak of is not a disadvantage, it is a necessity.

            Reply
          380. CPAinNewYork December 23, 2013

            Guest workers are welcome only if there’s a labor shortage, as there was in Germany, when that country welcomed Turks.

            Now that there’s no longer a labor shortage, the Germans want the Turks to get out. We don’t have a labor shortage, so McCain’s proposal for guest workers is nonsense.

            As to the anchor babies, I favor a Constitutional amendment to remove the protection of citizenship from any whose parents entered the United States illegally.

            I respect the law, but remember, Mr. Vila, that laws can be enacted quickly, including Constitutional amendments.

            Reply
          381. CPAinNewYork December 23, 2013

            To hell with their “economic contribution”! They stink. many of them, especially those from El salvador, are gang members.

            Reply
          382. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Have you ever really smelled yourself? Just wondering.

            Reply
          383. CPAinNewYork December 24, 2013

            While you’re wondering, try smelling yourself. You probably stink from eating tamales and overripe peppers.

            Reply
          384. WhutHeSaid December 24, 2013

            I eat at Mexican restaurants occasionally, and when I do, I crap things with more class than you. Next time, I’ll wave goodbye to you just before I pull the handle to flush.

            Reply
          385. CPAinNewYork December 26, 2013

            Better verify the last health department inspection before you eat that food. I wouldn’t want an upstanding citizen like you to get a debilitating intestinal infection.

            Reply
          386. idamag December 27, 2013

            I have a friend whose father came from Russia. He was required to learn English and American History before he could become a citizen. His father resents amnesty. Why aren’t those businesses and ranchers required to see that they use guest workers who come to this country legally. In order to get a green card, the workers need to have someone guarantee them a job. Instead of doing that, the businesses call a coyote and ask for 150 workers for the season. Those seeking to come here to work, pay the coyote for bringing them here and the business pays so much a head. The present system fosters criminal behavior and keeps the human trafficker in business.

            Reply
          387. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            Excellent points.

            Reply
          388. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            Well that’s really nothing new, now is it? All manner of crime, murder, and mayhem has been committed by some people during the last few centuries of immigration in this country. Send the business owner(s) to do real prison time, and forget vilifying the people who are just trying to feed their families and know nothing about how crooked the owners are.

            Reply
          389. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            For once we agree. I am not vilifying the people who came here illegally, I am simply talking about acting in our national interest and holding them responsible for their actions. Besides, most if not all of them did not come here out of a pressing need to feed their families. Mexico, where about half of illegal immigrants to the U.S. are from, is now the most obese nation in the world.

            Reply
          390. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            Except that you haven’t shown that it is even in our national interest. All you’ve offered a dire predictions of gloom and doom that a) could happen anyway without immigration, and b) could possibly be helped by immigration.

            You really need to show something that is more than a distant projection that may never happen or may happen either way. So far all of your arguments are flawed solutions in search of a nonexistent problem.

            Reply
          391. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            The problem is not non-existent. We cannot support our current population indefinitely. That is a very existent problem. Our population is being inflated by immigration, therefore immigration can only make the problem much worse and make any solution impossible. Just because something happens beyond the scope of our lifetimes does not mean it is not important. If our indefinite survival is not in our national interest, I don’t know what is.

            Reply
          392. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            This is nothing new. The US population has been growing with the help of immigration for centuries now. What is this sudden crises of which you speak? Please give real examples — not predictions.

            Reply
          393. James Bowen December 28, 2013

            It needs to stop growing. The native fertility aspect of that growth was successfully addressed in the early 70’s. In order to stabilize population, immigration must be reduced to match emigration rates. It’s not a sudden crisis either, it has been brewing for a long time. The Rockefeller Commission in 1972 stated that it was necessary for us to stabilize our population. I am saying that we cannot keep feeding our current population indefinitely, let alone more.

            You want concrete examples, I’ll give you two: Easter Island and 19th Century Ireland.

            Reply
          394. WhutHeSaid December 28, 2013

            So I’m guessing that your earlier affirmation of pro-choice policies means that you are a proponent of the Donohue-Levitt theories, eh?

            With respect to Ireland and Easter Island, you haven’t provided any reason for us to believe that this supports any of your arguments. Sure, they both suffered famine, war, political unrest and most of the things that have plagued humans throughout history — so what? Both still exist today. What’s your point?

            Reply
          395. James Bowen December 29, 2013

            Donohue-Levitt theories? I am not familiar with those.

            Easter Island: Their population grew to numbers that beyond the indefinite sustainability of the island’s resource base. In other words, they fell into the overshoot trap, like we have. Eventually, when they had exhausted all of the resources and reserves that fed them, their population crashed and they turned to cannibalism–the only plentiful source of nutrients left. At one time they numbered 10,000. By the 19th Century, they numbered 117.

            In Ireland, an unexpected yet very natural phenomenon suddenly greatly reduced the carrying capacity of the island. Had their numbers not been so large and had they had a reserve capacity, this would not have been nearly the tragedy that it was.

            Reply
          396. WhutHeSaid December 29, 2013

            Easter Island still exists, and I believe that there are at least 5,000 inhabitants. There is also an international airport, modern amenities (yes, you can even buy an iPhone there), and easy travel and commerce with the rest of the world. So despite your ridiculous comparison of a tiny, remote island during a period when travel was difficult, this in no way supports your hysterical ‘gloom and doom’ predictions.

            The same applies to Ireland, but in that case there are quite a few differences (such as size). You didn’t seem to find it important to mention what one solution to Irish famine turned out to be, which is the subject of this discussion. You also forgot in both cases to cite the causes that have been corrected by modern science and civilization (such as diseases), or the fact that both a now part of a modern global economy.

            Reply
          397. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            Again, you miss the point. Easter Island and Ireland were microcosms (the former more so than the latter). When Easter Island gained access to the outside world (something that was actually lost when their depletion of resources cost them the ability to build boats), it was able to import resources. Ireland had access to the outside world, but that still didn’t prevent the disaster. However, humans have exceeded the Earth’s indefinite capacity to provide food, and the U.S. population has exceeded the ability of our country’s indefinite capacity. There is no outside world to rescue us, at least not one that we know of. Modern science has by no means corrected these problems. It certainly has not been able to stop possible blights and plagues, and the increases in agricultural yields have been accomplished using resources that will be exhausted if we keep using them. There are limits to how many people the Earth can sustain with its own resources, and those limits are physically non-negotiable.

            Reply
          398. WhutHeSaid December 30, 2013

            I don’t miss your point(s), rather, I just happen to disagree with most of them. Easter Island both suffered from and ultimately benefited from foreign contact. To the extent that you believe that this small island can be used as some sort of example, I say that it better supports my argument because Easter Island did in fact survive and even prosper in the long run.

            The US is still the world’s largest food exporter, and you have no idea what new resources will be discovered and/or developed in the future, nor do you know what other scientific advances may be discovered or perfected. The Earth’s natural resources are used by the Earth’s population pretty much independently of the actual distribution of the population. Why do you think that enormous amounts of forest have disappeared from South America over the last couple of centuries, for instance? It wasn’t due solely to population growth in South America, now was it?

            In fact, a logical argument can be made that immigration to the US could actually SLOW the consumption of the world’s natural resources — for two reasons:

            1. As you noted yourself, once the immigrant population becomes naturalized as US citizens with American living standards — their fertility rate declines.
            2. In a highly developed and advanced country such as the US, natural resource usage tends to become more efficient and careful than in less developed countries, primarily because the US can better afford alternative conservation-minded production methods.

            So for every argument that you’ve presented, there is a flip side to also consider. After all, your theories are just that — theories that may end up being very different in reality. In any event, I contend that immigration is driven by the human survival instinct and will never be successfully halted in the long run. History has shown my argument to be the more accurate one.

            Reply
          399. James Bowen December 30, 2013

            Easter Island survived due to a chance encounter with outsiders, and it hardly prospered. As far as we know there is no “outside world” to save humanity on Earth as a whole. It has never recovered from the ecological devastation inflicted by its population (it is largely treeless whereas it was once completely forested), and it is more or less a museum than anything else. To say what happened on Easter Island supports your argument (i.e. unsustainable population growth) is nonsense.

            The U.S. is the largest food exporter only due to technology which relies upon exhaustible resources. Without them, we couldn’t even feed our own population.

            You are right that I don’t know what advances are going to happen in the future. I am familiar with physical laws and limits though, and I know that no advances can lift those limits. They are hard physical limits that are non-negotiable.
            Most of the deforestation in South America has been due to a combination of growth and increased consumption in South America.

            Immigration to the U.S. will only accelerate the world’s consumption of natural resources. Immigrants have higher fertility rates than people in their native countries do, meaning that our immigration policy truly does contribute to world population growth. Efficiency has limits (things can only be so efficient–that is a consequence of thermodynamics), and whatever diminishing increases in efficiency we have achieved have already been offset by having more people.

            What I am saying is strongly supported by all physical evidence available. These are facts. And immigration has been successfully halted before, so it can be done again. If people refuse to acknowledge our immigration laws and try to force their way here, we do have weapons that can stop them, but I don’t think it would come to that right now if we reduced immigration.

            Reply
          400. WhutHeSaid December 30, 2013

            As I said before, Easter Island does in fact survive to this very day along with the descendents of it’s ancient inhabitants. I agree that the landscape has change from it’s unsettled state, however, this is pretty common throughout the rest of the world as well. It’s also not very surprising considering that the island is a mere 60+ square miles — which can be deforested quite easily. Contrast that with 9.5 million square miles of land area for North America. You may wish to believe that it’s just a matter of extrapolation, but that would be a gross oversimplification. It’s a fairly useless comparison.

            No matter what the reason is for the US being the largest food exporting country in the world, the point was (and is) that your claim of ‘limited goods’ (food being your response when questioned for an example) is simply false. You have questionable predictions as the basis for your argument, while I have verifiable reality for mine.

            As for your claims of ‘hard physical limits that are non-negotiable’, you have nothing but a rather nebulous prediction that immigration will run afoul of these unspecified limits. It’s easy to say that there are limits to resources, but making a convincing argument that immigration to the US will cause mankind to violate these ‘limits’ is really just an unprovable guess. I contend that resources will be consumed throughout the world no matter the population distribution. After all, Saudi Arabia doesn’t consume over 10 million barrels of oil per day (it’s primary natural resource), yet it gets consumed just the same independent of the location of the consumers.

            Reply
          401. idamag December 28, 2013

            In management, we used to call these people: “yahbuts and whutifs.” They were ruts in the path to accomplishment.

            Reply
          402. WhutHeSaid December 28, 2013

            Yeah, this guy’s arguments puzzle me. I pressed him pretty hard and never heard a single overtly bigoted word out of him — which is usually the case with arguments like these. He does, in fact, attract plenty of drooling bigots and racists for support of his arguments — but nary a bigoted word himself.

            I think the arguments are beginning to get a bit delusional. No matter how many times one of his theories is debunked, he doggedly continues to argue them. One good example is his insistence that HE is the real ‘Native American’. Everyone in the world knows what a Native American is, yet he continues to argue this point.

            The only other people who argue doggedly in the face of overwhelming evidence are the vile and despicable Tea-Bigots, which he says he isn’t and I tend to believe him. I’m not sure what his real motivation is — perhaps he’s defending a term paper or something. What’s your take?

            Reply
          403. Fry85 December 31, 2013

            You cannot have open borders and a welfare country!
            Milton Friedman.

            Reply
          404. WhutHeSaid January 1, 2014

            We have neither, so what’s your point?

            Reply
          405. Fry85 January 1, 2014

            Your adorable!

            The only people that support this bill are people who are unaware of what’s in it. Let’s review.
            Nobody will be required to speak English or have an understanding of it. They will only be required to show a receipt for a class. Not prove they passed or attended.
            They will be entitled to immediate welfare if they are pregnant, elderly, single mothers, learning a skill or trade, getting a GED, etc etc.
            They will allow criminals with up to 3 misdemeanors and one “lite” felony. Including sexual assault, DUI, drug possession, identity theft, etc etc.
            The chain migration will bring in an estimated 44 MILLION more illegals over the next 10 years. Making 1/5 people in this country foreign born.
            The next director of homeland can waive all additional funding for the border the second he/she feels the border is secure enough.
            The employer mandate for E-Verify only applies to companies with 500 employees or more. Less than 2% of companies.
            Any company that hired a illegal employee in the past automatically gets an exemption from any prosecution now or in the future.
            The biggest concern should be that these people are exempt from obamacare which means a few things.1) employers will not be required to pay any penalty for not providing health insurance, nor will they be required to provide health insurance. 2) employers will have a huge incentive to hire these illegals over your brother, husband, wife, neighbor, kids, grand kids, etc etc. 3) the middle class will continue to pay the medical bills of these 60 million illegals.

            Knowing that let’s review some facts about these people.
            55% of all illegals deported in 2011 had a criminal record.
            40% of California’s prison population is illegal immigrants.
            The average education of illegals is 3rd grade.
            The legal age of consent in Mexico is 12 years old. Do you want them living by your middle school?
            The average income of illegal immigrants is in the bottom 40%. Which means they pay -9% in taxes after you consider education, courts, infrastructure breakdown, prison costs, healthcare, etc etc.

            But if all these people left tomorrow, guess what would happen?
            Wages would rise immediatly to match market demand.
            Prisons would be far less overcrowded, stopping conditional releases of criminals.
            Courts would be relieved.
            Crime rate would drop.
            Hospitals would no longer shut down in high Hispanic neighborhoods.
            Car and health insurance rates would drop immediatly when we are not paying for a population the size of greece’s healthcare.
            Literally everything would lower in costs as demand would drop immediatly while wages increased. This would truly help the wealth disparity aspect. Funny how this is everything that democrats say they want but still push this bill. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that 75-80% of these people believe that govt should play a larger roles in their lives to protect them from their own failures(democrats). Let me ask you this. If they overwhelmingly voted conservative/republican, do you think we would be having this conversation?

            The head of LaRaza said that they will take this country back with votes. But if not, with force, I say “Come and try”.

            Reply
          406. James Bowen December 27, 2013

            The contribution they are making to the economy is to majorly contribute to our unsustainable population growth, depress wages and salaries by glutting the labor market, and put a strain on public infrastructure. The only ones who benefit from the economic growth caused by their presence, other than the aliens, themselves, are the employers who profit from cheap labor as well as other parasitic businesses while the bulk of the citizenry is stuck with the bill.

            Reply
          407. James Bowen December 28, 2013

            Their economic contribution is to depress wages, strain public infrastructure, and displace workers. The only ones who benefit from their presence are illegal employers. The American people owe them nothing.

            Reply
          408. James Bowen December 29, 2013

            It is rewarding them. They came here for a job, and in taking one, they increase the supply of labor and depress wages for all workers, not just the workers in that occupation. It is not in the interests of Americans for them to remain, and they should leave.

            Reply
          409. James Bowen December 31, 2013

            They are lowering wages, straining public infrastructure, and contributing to overcrowding. The only economic contribution they make is to line the pockets of their employers. They should all be made to leave.

            Reply
        2. paulyz December 21, 2013

          I agree with Dominick that when we reward Illegals it just encourages more Illegal entry, as we have clearly seen for decades.

          Reply
          1. James Bowen December 21, 2013

            Absolutely. We should deal with illegals the same way President Eisenhower did. It was remarkably efficient and effective.

            Reply
        3. James Bowen December 21, 2013

          You are right about them not deserving it. They should all be expelled.

          Reply
        4. CPAinNewYork December 23, 2013

          The “key” is to round up that 11 million-strong accumulation of crap and get rid of it in the fastest way possible.

          Reply
          1. Dominick Vila December 23, 2013

            Hopefully the tens of thousands of Americans working abroad are not referred to as crap and treated the way we treat Mexican and Central American immigrants. How do you feel about the thousands of illegal immigrants from Europe living and working in the USA? The latter don’t work the land and other jobs we refuse to do, they take the best jobs our economy has to offer.

            Reply
          2. CPAinNewYork December 23, 2013

            Thousands from Europe versus the 11,000,000 from Latin America? I can live with that.

            Reply
          3. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            Well I can’t. I want all European illegal immigrants to go back. Now what?

            Reply
          4. CPAinNewYork December 23, 2013

            You tell me. You probably have as much control over European illegals as I have over Latin American illegals.

            Let me know when you figure out what to do about the European illegals.

            Reply
          5. WhutHeSaid December 23, 2013

            OK. Meanwhile, you let me know when the “I want it” approach sways anyone’s opinion. At least it’s honest, unlike the elaborate justification I see coming from others.

            Reply
        5. idamag December 26, 2013

          The problem has became so big that there might not be a sensible solution. There are many people, in Mexico, who would like to get a legal visa to come and work. Since getting one is insurmountable, they end having to come here illegally. That problem is exacerbated by those who send for them illegally so they will not have to pay them what they would have to, if they came legally. They did make laws, in the 70’s, that an employer had to prove that the person was legal and show papers for that person. Big corporate farms continue to disregard this law and when money talks, decency walks. We, as consumers, so not ask the person who shows up to mow our lawn if he has papers. We assume American Yards did that, but did they? Again, greed, our biggest sin, rears its head.

          Reply
          1. Dominick Vila December 26, 2013

            Sad but true. I would add that in addition to greed, which is obvious, a solution to this problem becomes almost an impossibility as a result of century-old cultural intolerance. The latter influences the decisions made by our politicians with predictable results.
            Contrary to what some people believe, we benefit from immigration, including that from Mexico and Central America. The latter is an important factor in the relatively low cost of living that we enjoy, compared to that in other industrialized nations, and it fills a void in sectors of our economy that do not appeal to most Americans, not because we are lazy, but because of the expectations that are part of an affluent society. Some opine that if we deported all Latinos the work they do will be performed by American born citizens. There is no evidence to support that claim.
            I am not in favor of amnesty, not because of lack of compassion, but because I believe those who violate our laws should be punished for doing so, and because it would send the wrong message to others in similar circumstances.
            I support the issuance of a green card or the guest worker program proposed by Sen. McCain, which would legalize the status of illegal immigrants currently living in the USA, and would force them to pay taxes like everyone else. I definitely oppose the deportation of the so-called “anchor babies”. In fact, I believe that proposal is abhorrent and reminiscent of what happened in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and South Africa in the apartheid era.
            The real solution, however, depends on our willingness to change our immigration laws to ensure all immigrants enjoy the same rights and privileges, regardless of ethnicity and/or education.

            Reply
          2. CPAinNewYork December 27, 2013

            I resent your charge that I’m greedy. I’m not a business person who hires illegal aliens. I’m for prosecuting those business persons who hire illegals and pay them off the books. They belong in jail.

            We passed immigration laws to keep our country from being overrun by a horde of Latin American beggars who are being oppressed by their rulers. To do so is our right. We’re not obligated to support these people.

            Reply
          3. WhutHeSaid December 27, 2013

            And they aren’t obligated to support you. So why are you fueling the situation by buying cheap-labor products, lying hypocrite?

            Reply
          4. CPAinNewYork December 27, 2013

            I buy from established businesses and see no illegals in their places of businesses. If i did, i would not patronize those businesses. So, how does that constitute hypocrisy?

            You have no compelling arguments, so you descend into name calling. Pathetic.

            Reply