During the 20s and 30s many of these areas grew up, one of the major differences between then and now was that the school systems taught in english, and each new citizen was required to take a test for citizenship where they had to demonstrate at least a small amount of knowledge of American history, some english language skills, etc. also we at least knew who was in our country and why. Legal immigration changes the culture some, but not as drastically as the current illegal immigration wave has.
I'd say that's strictly a matter of numbers - if you have more people come in at once, you change the mix more than if you have fewer come in. Since we're looking at a difference of 1 to 2 orders of magnitude, the numbers provide sufficient explanation -- the process of arrival wouldn't make much difference, otherwise.
On this point I agree. I am not usually for the expansion of government, but in the case of law enforcement, the military, and the safety of our borders, I would be willing to see them increase some. I do however believe that the money should be taken from other programs that are over bloated and filled with pork projects made for the sole purpose of rewarding cronies.
This is something I don't get about the "small government" concept - if you give a group of people with political power free reign to increase their military power, then they will never relinquish one shred of either, ever. Our constitution forbids a permanent standing army -- that was worked around pretty easily, as you can see.
I think the expenditures for the DHS, the military, and a goodly chunk of "Emergency Services" (including police) by the federal government fall under your descriptions of programs that contain a lot of unnecessary bloat. Might be better to pay for increased security spending in some areas by cutting it in others, rather than going off and messing with other stuff.
No, I do not have those numbers. It only stands to reason however that if we had less of a burden on the economy due to so many illegals, there would be more willingness by the people and hopefully their representatives to increase the immigration numbers. When this is done, naturally you would get more skilled workers. These are the ones who typically go about obtaining proper permits to be in this country legally. They are also more apt to contribute to society in a positive way.
I don't think that stands to reason at all. Skilled workers are more likely to successfully, legally immigrate because there aren't a lot of visa classifications that give priority to the "low-skilled" who aren't asylum seekers or being reunified with family members. If in-demand skills weren't a CRITERION for succesful immigration, then you wouldn't have as high a proportion of legal immigrants who were as skilled or educated from the outset. Oh, and qv racism/xenophobia.
As a citizen of the United States, and a taxpayer, a part of a representative Democracy and so forth I am entitled the right of my opinion, and the impact my opinion has on my local community is what it is.
US laws don't speak much one way or the other about opinions. They don't deny non-citizens the right to them or enshrine citizen's rights to them. Our government has not yet ever been arrogant enough to try to regulate what people THINK but do not EXPRESS, citizen, alien, foreign, criminal, or law-abiding. Unfortunately, I suspect this humlity will last only as long as does the practical impossibility of regulating unexpressed ideas.
And you don't get a handwave with regard to your impact on your community because you're legal or law-abiding, BTW. If it's positive, great, and if it's negative, that sucks, but you're answerable to that regardless.
If someone comes into that community in a legal manner and works to obtain the same rights I have, then they are entitled to have the same impact that I do on the community, whether I agree or disagree.
Well, that's not quite right. You're each entitled only to have the level of impact that you are practically capable of having, and that'll vary a lot between individuals based on skill, funding, and connectedness.
If the community changes too drastically, then I have the choice of moving, or adapting to it, since it is the will of the majority of the legal citizens of that community.
I dunno - I think negative impacts on the community suck and should be acting against regardless of who's causing them. If you think it's bad, then f' the majority - our system tries to curb against the 'tyranny of the majority' where is can.
I do not fear change, Many who hold my opinion just grow sick of people who are illegally here causing (in my opinion and that of those in question) negative changes to the area in which they live, they and I, are being branded (fairly or unfairly) as racists or xenophobes.
Well, what kinds of changes do you classify as negative? If it's the language on the street signs or the composite complexion or the music played in passing cars or the types of floats you see in the annual parade that are the primary objectionable changes? It'd be difficult to beat the racism rap. Also, nothing says racism is the only component of the process of objection. You can be a racist who opposes immigration and have perfectly reasonable, non-racist reasons thrown in the mix. Of course, you don't have to be a racist to oppose immigration. But it plays a part, and a big one, in current immigration discussions.
I am all for cultural diversity and learning new cultures. When I was stationed in Germany, I tried to learn some of the language and culture. I was not a citizen of Germany and would never expect them to adapt to my needs.
Well, you'd be a top grade asshat if you expected most people to change how they lived their own lives to suit your preferences whether you were a citizen or not. However, if what you were looking for was an accomodation for doing your own thing so long as it didn't mess up others lives, then you'd have a pretty reasonable case.
I think one of the things that makes this whole bill and the new bill being proposed is that it is being proposed by legislators who are not even from the areas involved. Last I checked Massachusetts did not have a big problem with illegals, nor does NY.
I don't know about Massachusetts, but NY has plenty. They may not ENTER through NY (though there are smuggling routes for humans and other contraband, running mainly through border reservation properties and other harder-to-patrol spots of the northern border), but plenty wind up there. NJ, too.
One of the reasons for wanting amnesty is that it increases the voting block eventually, and those who supported it hope to win a large voting block to their party.
I have trouble believing that legislators from New England are part of a conspiracy to naturalize, segregate, and ghettoize hispanic immigrants to increase their political influence. Mostly because it wouldn't do a damned thing to benefit them personally and is prone to backfiring. In short- it's too stupid, even for government.
Perhaps the reason I have not done all my homework on the issue is because it is not a big problem yet in NJ either.
You apparently don't live in the same New Jersey I live in. Weird. I guess it depends on how you define "big" and "problem". Your stance on illegal immigrants in NJ seems to run counter to your stance on illegal immigrants elsewhere.
I do know many who live in Texas, California and Arizona. These friends tell me constantly about how negatively their area is impacted. It is hard for me living here to get all of the facts you are asking for without giving my mostly second hand opinion.
You made statements, and I asked you to back them up somewhat. If your statements are based on what people you know personally have told you, maybe I should just ask what those people said? What sorts of negative impacts are they seeing?
You and I are not going to solve this issue, however labeling me, and those who hold a similar opinion to me, a racist or xenophobe because I disagree with this bill is hardly productive.
Agreed, on both counts. It's a conversation worth having because even if I don't change your position, I've made sure your points don't stand unchallenged in a space where others can encounter them.
There is a movement amongst some Mexican fringe groups to try to take back several portions of the US because they feel we unfairly took their territories. They do not respect our laws and in some cases incite violence, or try through intimidation to influence others that would not normally be prone to violence.
There is a movement among some American fringe groups to do the same. Is it actually more okay for the US citizens to incite violence and disrepect the laws? Is the distinction between "ABSOLUTELY not okay" and "ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY not okay" worth making in this case?
This is just one example. The rights of Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of happiness are pretty basic. When whole communities are being pressured to accomodate to the illegals that have moved in, that is a problem.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by accomodate. Put them up in their own homes for the night? I'd say that is a problem. Allow them to exist? Not quite so burdensome.
