The Nehor Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 2 hours ago, bsjkki said: This is where the hyperbolic discourse gets us. To the scriptures? 1
The Nehor Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: The Emma Lazarus poem was written in a day when an influx of immigrants benefitted the nation. Times have changed. A pundit asked a hard question the other day in a Washington Post op-ed column: Why do we need more people in the country today? How does it benefit the nation? No one seems to have a good answer to that question. Ask me again when we are older and our birth rate means we get $100 a month in Social Security. I am also not sure why people think we are somehow “full” now as compared to then. Have you driven around the US? Pretty empty. 3
Calm Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 3 hours ago, bsjkki said: This is where the hyperbolic discourse gets us. That is Nehor's job. 1
Calm Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: The main resentment they have is that we treat them with disrespect. I saw this when we were in Russia in 95. Those younger who hated the US did so primarily because they felt that Americans always insisted things had to be done their way. (Not saying their government or people in general were any better). Russians have a huge pride in the Russian way, the Russian soul, their culture. Americans who didn't take the time to learn about that were seen as buffoons. I hate cliches, but the 'to get respect, you have to give respect' is true and it is not just being polite and learning proper greeting traditions, but taking the time to actually know people in their own life setting and not just be aware of who and what they are when they enter into your circle. Edited June 23, 2018 by Calm 3
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Ask me again when we are older and our birth rate means we get $100 a month in Social Security. I am also not sure why people think we are somehow “full” now as compared to then. Have you driven around the US? Pretty empty. Here’s how Michael Anton, author of the Washington Post piece, answered the Social Security argument: “Related is the claim that more people are necessary to solve our looming entitlement crisis. This quickly falls apart once you think it through. In 1967, future Nobel laureate Paul Samuelsonfavorably compared Social Security to a Ponzi scheme, arguing that it will be sustainable because younger people will always outnumber retirees. But does anyone really believe the United States — or any country — is capable of sustaining population growth without end? Somehow, the United States needs to find a way to meet its fiscal commitments without stuffing the land beyond the bursting point.” And you need more than open space in a country to sustain explosive population growth. You need arable land, schools, infrastructure, jobs that pay a livable wage and skilled workers to do them, health care professionals, etc Edited June 23, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
USU78 Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Here’s how Michael Anton, author of the Washington Post piece, answered the Social Security argument: “Related is the claim that more people are necessary to solve our looming entitlement crisis. This quickly falls apart once you think it through. In 1967, future Nobel laureate Paul Samuelsonfavorably compared Social Security to a Ponzi scheme, arguing that it will be sustainable because younger people will always outnumber retirees. But does anyone really believe the United States — or any country — is capable of sustaining population growth without end? Somehow, the United States needs to find a way to meet its fiscal commitments without stuffing the land beyond the bursting point.” And you need more than open space in a country to sustain explosive population growth. You need arable land, schools, infrastructure, jobs that pay a livable wage and skilled workers to do them, health care professionals, etc and lawyers. Don't forget the lawyers!
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 22 minutes ago, USU78 said: and lawyers. Don't forget the lawyers! Good point. Its not the skilled professionals that are coming from other countries.
Paiute Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Good point. Its not the skilled professionals that are coming from other countries. Drug Traffickers & Human smugglers Edited June 24, 2018 by Paiute Warning: Bad language
ttribe Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 On 6/22/2018 at 3:37 PM, Duncan said: Um, I live here, Hellooooo! I know. It was a call to action to my fellow Americans so we can exploit your goodness and resources. 3
Duncan Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 22 minutes ago, ttribe said: I know. It was a call to action to my fellow Americans so we can exploit your goodness and resources. FYi I HATE Maltesers and Cream Soda any flavour!
The Nehor Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Here’s how Michael Anton, author of the Washington Post piece, answered the Social Security argument: “Related is the claim that more people are necessary to solve our looming entitlement crisis. This quickly falls apart once you think it through. In 1967, future Nobel laureate Paul Samuelsonfavorably compared Social Security to a Ponzi scheme, arguing that it will be sustainable because younger people will always outnumber retirees. But does anyone really believe the United States — or any country — is capable of sustaining population growth without end? Somehow, the United States needs to find a way to meet its fiscal commitments without stuffing the land beyond the bursting point.” And you need more than open space in a country to sustain explosive population growth. You need arable land, schools, infrastructure, jobs that pay a livable wage and skilled workers to do them, health care professionals, etc Social Security was sustainable when it was implemented due to life expectancy being low. There is a horrible argument to be made that the obesity epidemic and other factors shortening lifespans are the best thing to happen with Social Security. We have plenty of arable land. Now if we could kill off the ethanol subsidy where we make that stupid inefficient corn fuel and stop dumping corn syrup into everything we eat . 3
Stargazer Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 On 6/22/2018 at 10:01 PM, jkwilliams said: I just read the article in El Universal. Talk about misrepresentation. Lopez did not say that. He said that he would defend immigrants against racism and injustice. And he never said immigrants must leave their towns. He said he would defend the rights of people who are forced (por necesidad) to leave their towns and find a life in the US. I’m not familiar with the Daily Caller, but I am not impressed with this blatantly dishonest reporting. The DC is a right-leaning news outlet. I've found their reporting to be generally believable, but they're not above slanting things, even to slant them wildly. Take what they say with a grain of salt. Maybe two grains.
Stargazer Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 On 6/23/2018 at 2:59 AM, sunstoned said: Anything from Fox news and entertainment I would take with a big grain of salt. LIke ABC, CBS and NBC News, and CNN are all a bunch of neutral observers. They most emphatically are not. Take them ALL with a grain of salt. 4
Stargazer Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 22 hours ago, CA Steve said: Well then I suppose it is time to remove the plague, swap out the torch for a stop sign and and tell the rest of the world they are paying to build a fence around the perimeter of Ellis island. Nowhere does Emma Lazarus's poem suggest that we should have open borders. When the statue was erected, we had immigration laws, and we enforced them. 2
Stargazer Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 8 minutes ago, Stargazer said: 23 hours ago, CA Steve said: Well then I suppose it is time to remove the plague, swap out the torch for a stop sign and and tell the rest of the world they are paying to build a fence around the perimeter of Ellis island. Nowhere does Emma Lazarus's poem suggest that we should have open borders. When the statue was erected, we had immigration laws, and we enforced them. Let me expand on this a bit. In 2016 I married a British citizen while she visited me in the US, on a visa waiver called an ESTA. She and I conducted a long-distance marriage for a number of months, with her coming over to the US for 2 and 3 week periods, as her employment and vacation hours permitted. She entered the country legally each time she came. Meanwhile, I applied for a 6-month tourist visa to visit the UK, and after I retired from my job, I came over to the UK on that visa, and stayed until the visa was almost expired, and then I went home. I then applied for a permanent spousal visa, which took 6 or 7 months to get approved, and the British government did criminal background checks on me, considered all the various angles, including whether or not ours was a sham marriage just to get me into the country. Finally they gave me leave to enter which I have to renew after three years, after which I will be given permanent leave to remain, and will even be able to apply for British citizenship if I like. Should we just have said "Screw the immigration laws!"? Should we have just taken Emma Lazarus's principle (as interpreted by you, apparently) to heart and did whatever we needed to do to avoid borders (like jumping off a ship passing by)? Or should we have proceeded exactly as we have proceeded? Granted that immigrants from Mexico might not pass the tests required for legal immigration, is that a justification for doing it illegally? 2
Stargazer Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Good point. Its not the skilled professionals that are coming from other countries. Don't be so sure. There are businesses here in the UK that specialize in helping professionals like doctors and nurses to gain legal immigration to the US. The UK has had such a "brain drain" in times past that an awful lot of medical people here are not British. My wife works as a theatre nurse (meaning she assists surgeons in procedures), and half of the surgeons she works with are not British. There's an Italian, a Maltese, two Iraqis (one Muslim, one Christian), and a few others. 1
Rajah Manchou Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 47 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Nowhere does Emma Lazarus's poem suggest that we should have open borders. When the statue was erected, we had immigration laws, and we enforced them. When she wrote the poem we essentially had an open border between Mexico and the United States. Mexicans and South Americans were exempt from immigration quotas for many decades after the Statue of Liberty was erected. Mexican migrants were welcome to live and work in America.
Stargazer Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 1 minute ago, Rajah Manchou said: When she wrote the poem we essentially had an open border between Mexico and the United States. Mexicans and South Americans were exempt from immigration quotas for many decades after the Statue of Liberty was erected. Mexican migrants were welcome to live and work in America. Does that mean that what was done a hundred years ago should be what we do for the rest of our history? Nothing has changed, so the old policy should be the now policy? And as another has pointed out, does her poem constitute immigration law? I do not believe that Mexican immigration is forbidden. People who are Mexican citizens can enter the US as tourists and even as immigrants, if they want, and if they obey US law. You could check the laws and correct me on that, if you want. And even if Mexican immigration is now restricted (as opposed to open), it is not restricted preferentially. When my son married a Canadian citizen she could cross the border to live in the US only if she got a visa to do so. Which she did. She's now a legal immigrant. Why should Canadians be required to apply for legal residency, but Mexicans be given free reign to come and stay without applying for it? Just because it was done in the past? Shouldn't the United States be allowed to admit whom it wants to admit? It's a right that every other country on earth demands. Why should the US be excepted? 2
Rajah Manchou Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 1 minute ago, Stargazer said: Shouldn't the United States be allowed to admit whom it wants to admit? It's a right that every other country on earth demands. Why should the US be excepted? Immigration laws are most often based on reciprocity, meaning if Country A requires citizens of Country B to have a visa, then Country B will require citizens of Country A to have a visa. Mexico allows Americans to cross freely into Mexico, no visa required, in return America wants Mexico to pay for a wall on the border. I'm not saying America doesn't have the right to do what it wants, but I do think its pretty lame to be so strict about Mexicans coming into America. Unlike the UK and Canada, its difficult for Mexicans to get a visa to America, and only becoming more difficult. Meanwhile Americans can cross over to Mexico with no problem. My family just took a holiday to the beach there. No visa, or passport, required.
Stargazer Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 16 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: Immigration laws are most often based on reciprocity, meaning if Country A requires citizens of Country B to have a visa, then Country B will require citizens of Country A to have a visa. Mexico allows Americans to cross freely into Mexico, no visa required, in return America wants Mexico to pay for a wall on the border. Please don't drag Mr. T into this. There was, by the way, already a wall there -- it just doesn't extend all the way across. 16 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: I'm not saying America doesn't have the right to do what it wants, but I do think its pretty lame to be so strict about Mexicans coming into America. Unlike the UK and Canada, its difficult for Mexicans to get a visa to America, and only becoming more difficult. Meanwhile Americans can cross over to Mexico with no problem. My family just took a holiday to the beach there. No visa, or passport, required. I'm well aware that Mexico allows Americans to enter freely into Mexico, since like you, I've done this occasionally myself, but is this because they like Americans, or because Americans will spend lots of money in Mexico? Also, I'm pretty sure they are pretty darned sure that the gringos will go back home eventually. The US isn't getting an exclusive privilege on this, by the way. Mexico does not require a visa from people entering Mexico from a long list of countries, including the USA, Germany, Canada, and so on. For the complete list, see HERE. Many or most of those countries do not reciprocate on the visa non-requirement, any more than the US does. Even without a visa, beyond the 35-mile "free zone" Mexico requires that you get a visitor permit: "If you arrive in Mexico by land or sea and intend to travel beyond the ~35 km ‘free zone’ you will need to get a visitor’s visa known as Forma Migratoria Multiple, or FMM." This costs about $22, and they expect you to go back home before 180 days have expired. You cannot extend your permit, you have to go leave Mexico and come back in with a new FMM. If you do this repeatedly, they may question your intention, and it is possible they may deny your application for a new permit, or require that you get a temporary or permanent residency permit. And you may not work in Mexico without a work permit, and you have to have an actual job offer in hand in order to get one of those. I'm trying to tell you that if Americans cross the border illegally, like many Mexicans do into the US, they don't like it any more than the US does. Remember the case of that US citizen that inadvertently crossed over into Mexico and got into a heck of a lot of trouble because he was carrying a firearm that was perfectly legal for him to have in the US? They stopped him because he entered Mexico illegally (even if unknowingly), not because they knew he had a gun. They have border laws, too, and they enforce them. The US gives special privilege to citizens of 38 countries which participate in the ESTA program, which permits entry without visas, but one must still apply for the ESTA permit. Citizens of most other countries (including Mexico) are required to get visas to enter the US. From the ESTA website, talking about visas: "Citizens of most countries need a visitor visa (B-1 Business Visa or a B-2 Tourist Visa) in order to enter the United States. The visa application process has become more complex over the recent years due to increased scrutiny of most applicants. The process of applying for a U.S. visa is completely different than ESTA. The visa application process includes multiple application forms and and an in-person interview at a U.S. consulate or embassy. Amongst a number of requirements you will be required to provide documentation proofing strong ties to your home country. " In other words, everyone from other than ESTA countries or Canada are required to get a visa in order to visit, even as a tourist. And Mexico gets the same treatment as those coming from any other country, because, surprise surprise! Mexican citizens have demonstrated an overwhelming propensity to either come over illegally, or overstay their visas. Canadians come to the US to shop, to do the tourism thing, and visit friends and relatives -- and some of them come for medical care that their socialized system won't provide on a timely basis -- but having come here, they actually want to go back home. That's why it is NOT lame to be strict about Mexicans coming into America. Because there is a documented history of Mexicans violating US immigration laws. 1
rodheadlee Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 My last trip to Mexico (April 2018) included a trip to the Port Captain, Immigration, customs and the Mexican army came aboard our vessel to inspect for drugs, guns and people. We had to have 4 copies of our passports, previous port papers, and crew lists Then we had to go to the border to get a Temporary Import Permit for the boat.. Then we had to do it all in reverse when we departed even though we we're going to another Mexican port. 3
The Nehor Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 3 hours ago, Stargazer said: LIke ABC, CBS and NBC News, and CNN are all a bunch of neutral observers. They most emphatically are not. Take them ALL with a grain of salt. I try to take all news with a grain of salt. With Fox I take it with the entire shaker.
The Nehor Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: Does that mean that what was done a hundred years ago should be what we do for the rest of our history? Nothing has changed, so the old policy should be the now policy? And as another has pointed out, does her poem constitute immigration law? I do not believe that Mexican immigration is forbidden. People who are Mexican citizens can enter the US as tourists and even as immigrants, if they want, and if they obey US law. You could check the laws and correct me on that, if you want. And even if Mexican immigration is now restricted (as opposed to open), it is not restricted preferentially. When my son married a Canadian citizen she could cross the border to live in the US only if she got a visa to do so. Which she did. She's now a legal immigrant. Why should Canadians be required to apply for legal residency, but Mexicans be given free reign to come and stay without applying for it? Just because it was done in the past? Shouldn't the United States be allowed to admit whom it wants to admit? It's a right that every other country on earth demands. Why should the US be excepted? The poem is not policy but we should really take it down if we do not intend to live by its message. It would be like leaving up a poem about driving the native Americans further westward to get us some more farmland.
Anijen Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 (edited) best lawyers= smack and usu78 Fox news= nationalization (i find this ok in some amounts, Murica!) CNN=false news (even their false news is false news) Time magazine = false light msnbc= everything against trump Ensign = pretty good, but a little biased in favor of lds. I get the best news from Nehor and Scott Lloyd (mainly Scott Lloyd, I just threw in the Nehor cuz no one wants to get on his bad side) Edited June 24, 2018 by Anijen 2
Scott Lloyd Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: The poem is not policy but we should really take it down if we do not intend to live by its message. It would be like leaving up a poem about driving the native Americans further westward to get us some more farmland. How is insisting on legal immigration not intending to live by the message of the poem?
Recommended Posts