|
Post by Educate Me on Dec 30, 2005 19:09:44 GMT -5
this will bite the republicans in the ass, for they will lose completely the latino vote
If that helps democrats to win, then good I say
And also, the plan of the USA for the continental free zone will be pretty much killed, other countries will be able to say, what integration do you mean when you keep the farm subsidies and build a wall to keep the mexicans out?
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Dec 30, 2005 19:19:10 GMT -5
Drooperdoo you know Hispanics are predicted to be 25% of the U.S population in 2050.What do you think of that.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Dec 30, 2005 19:26:58 GMT -5
That's the distressing truth So what is your solution, mass deportations? lol damage control i.e., an immediate change in policy
|
|
|
Post by wadad on Dec 30, 2005 19:44:17 GMT -5
So what is your solution, mass deportations? lol damage control i.e., an immediate change in policy See, Im all for curbing illegal immigration (drooperdoo pay atention too) thats not what this is about, its about Birth right citizenship. However when it comes to illegal immigration, Let me ask are Americans willing to live without illegal immigrants? Once damage control is implemented, say hello to INFLATION unless you can find me an American willing to take a Mexican's job for the same hours and pay. Bush KNOWS this..or he would have had a harder stance on illegal immigration. I think Americans need Illegals just as much as Illegals need America This is what Bush said to the Border Patrols (aka racist rednecks) Basically he's telling them to only chase the bad guys, but to ease up on the illegal immigrants. I know its because he knows Americans wont find a replacement for Conchita to babysit their rowdy kids "We want our Border Patrol agents chasing, you know, crooks and thieves and drug-runners and terrorists, not good-hearted people who are coming here to work. And therefore, it makes sense to allow the good-hearted people who are coming here to do jobs that Americans won't do a legal way to do so. And providing that legal avenue, it takes the pressure off the border."
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Dec 30, 2005 19:55:59 GMT -5
damage control i.e., an immediate change in policy I know its because he knows Americans wont find a replacement for Conchita to babysit their rowdy kids ;D
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Dec 30, 2005 20:09:47 GMT -5
Today how many White and Black Americans are willing to pick lettuce huh Drooperdoo.Would they do it if all of the Beaners were kicked out.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Dec 30, 2005 20:31:26 GMT -5
Americans are willing to do any job if they are paid the correct wage for their efforts. If illegal immigration was curbed then businesses that once hired illegals would have to offer better wages. I don't see how this would affect inflation in any way. I probably wouldn't even have to worry about a signifcant rise in prices for things such as lettuce for the reason that these businesses would still have to compete with each other for customers. The only "damage" done would be to lower profits for those businesses that had once used cheap labor. It wouldn't even come close to running them out of business.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Dec 30, 2005 20:35:07 GMT -5
you wouldnt have to worry about lettuce becoming more expensive because in the USA farmers are subsidized like crazy
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Dec 30, 2005 20:40:23 GMT -5
you wouldnt have to worry about lettuce becoming more expensive because in the USA farmers are subsidized like crazy Subsidization raises prices since there is no competition to speak of. It's a form of welfare. Taking from those who produce and handing it over to people who can't compete in the market against others to make sure their farm, business, etc. survives. If America went back to its free trade roots this wouldn't be a problem since free trade lowers prices because of competition and weeds outr the inefficient. Also, government subsidies are unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Dec 30, 2005 20:40:54 GMT -5
At my local Walmart it seems like half of the employees are Beaners.
|
|
|
Post by wadad on Dec 30, 2005 21:02:11 GMT -5
you wouldnt have to worry about lettuce becoming more expensive because in the USA farmers are subsidized like crazy Subsidization raises prices since there is no competition to speak of. It's a form of welfare. Taking from those who produce and handing it over to people who can't compete in the market against others to make sure their farm, business, etc. survives. If America went back to its free trade roots this wouldn't be a problem since free trade lowers prices because of competition and weeds outr the inefficient. Also, government subsidies are unconstitutional. ahh...but if we are really talking open markets and free trade then the market would always favour the cheaper Mexican lettuce pickers to any American farmer, no? Same law of supply and demand. This goes back to why I believe as do alot of economists that illegal immigration suppresses inflation
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Dec 30, 2005 21:05:36 GMT -5
Question: Was America more prosperous or less--before the recent avalanche of illegal aliens? Answer: America was more prosperous 50 years ago, when Americans did all the jobs now taken over by illegal aliens.
I love listening to the propaganda of the Left, that America would die without illegal aliens, that fruit wouldn't be picked, that all civilization would end instantly if undocumented workers disappeared.
Funny, I remember the same arguments being made by racists who didn't want to abolish slavery. If we freed the blacks, then all industry would stop, all progress would grind to a halt.
Thank God no one listened to the slave masters. Because the cotton crop actually increased after slavery was abolished. It didn't diminish; production soared. Why?
Innovation. Something called the cotton-gin.
The cotton-gin existed for years, but slave-masters didn't want to bother with innovation. Why trouble yourself? Just like Rome, the greatest labor-saving device was the slave. So why innovate?
Meanwhile the cotton-gin sat on the shelf as lazy slave-masters whipped captive Africans.
When the slaves were freed, they were forced to fall back upon innovation; and--wonder of wonders!--production increased. It was higher after the Civil War than before.
And you know what? --It was done without slaves and with zero Mexicans.
America grew into the world's industrial giant, came into unexampled prosperity . . .and all without black slaves or Mexicans.
So don't buy the lie: We need slaves or all industry will grind to a halt.
It's the old slave-master's rhetoric, and we as a society have to decide what we want: The cotton-gin, or a South American-style two-tiered society with white masters and docile brown Indians picking fruit; do we want a 21st Century economy based on innovation, technology and industrialization, or do we want a 19th Century economy based on slavery . . . with the difference that we're replacing Ol' Black Joe with Li'l Brown Julio?
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Dec 30, 2005 21:16:06 GMT -5
You would probably see on some chair,saying "Execute Order 66" ..then all illegal's and undesirables will we slaughtered in my bid for world dominations..
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Dec 30, 2005 21:16:25 GMT -5
the thing is, most likely no one would be picking up lettuce in the usa without the subsidies because it would be imported from countries were its production is cheaper.
" In April 2004 the WTO ruled that 3-billion dollars in US cotton subsidies violate trade agreements and that almost 50% of EU sugar exports are illegal. In 1997-2003, US cotton exports were subsidised by an average of 48%.[3]
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has extracted commitments from the Philippines government, making it lower import barriers to half their present levels over a span of six years, and allowing in drastically increased competition from the industrialised and heavily subsidised farming systems of North America and Europe. A recent Oxfam report estimated that average household incomes of maize farmers will be reduced by as much as 30% over the six years as cheap imports from the US drive down prices in the local markets. The report estimates that in the absence of trade restrictions, US subsidised maize could be marketed at less than half the price of maize grown on the Philippine island of Mindanao; and that the livelihoods of up to half a million Filipino maize farmers (out of the total 1.2 million) are under immediate threat."
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Dec 30, 2005 21:18:02 GMT -5
|
|