Robert ranted:

>>Mexico and Central America, though we have illegal immigrants from all
>>over the world.
>
> That's why we are called "Americans". We claim the continenent of North
> America, Central America and South America, which we shorten it to us
> Americans.

Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor do people south
of our border. BTW, the US has no claim on Central or South America, and
most of North America is comprised of Mexico and Canada. Go figure.

> Give us your unwanted, poor etc.

No, please don't. Give us your industrious and wise instead.

>>>We have a immigration
>>>problem in the UK, but they do not take our jobs, they are not here to
> work,
>>>just to scrounge off the social security system and turn the UK into a
>>>Muslim state.
>>
>>It's the "religion of peace."
>>
>>/sarcasm
>>
>>
>>>That's not racist it's realist.
>>
>>I agree with you on that. What's the use in having laws if they're not
>>enforced? And what's the use in letting in people who don't or won't
>>work? It costs less to feed and house them in their countries of origin.
>
> Then it is OK for people to work and take jobs away from citizens so that
> arguement is gone.

No, I didn't say that.

> The jobs should go to the most qualified.

They usually do, sparky.

> Lets talk realism here, when we have 2 kids per family and with the baby
> boomers going on to retirement, then we don't have enough people to cover
> their care.

Yes, and we should abolish Ponzi schemes like Social Security and
Medicare immediately so they'll still have time to stash some money in
their 401(k)s and IRAs.

> We need a large working force to pay for the care and Social
> Security.

FU. We don't need Social Security. Or "the care," whatever the hell that is.

> The only way to do is through immigration.

No, there are other ways that make a lot more sense -- especially with
so many unassimilated immigrants here already.

> The economics will cover themselves as if people can't work then the
> government will cut back on benefits and money.

What are you smoking, Bob?

> What the UK is saying is
> that because you are a UK citizen then you have a right to free money in our
> socialist system.

I don't think that was ever the intention of the UK scheme, just one of
the unintended results of government programs gone awry.

> The immigrant has the advantage as they come from countries where they have
> no government programs giving people money so they have learned to do
> without and with very little help compared to home grown citizens.

How the hell is that an "advantage"?

> There is no communist system in their country of origin usually.

Irrelevant. The issue isn't communism or socialism, per se. You're
forgetting how much foreign aid and private relief benefits third-world
slackers.

> You work you get to eat and if you don't then you don't eat.

Not always. In fact, rarely.

> I would hope that this
> reward system would be strived for instead of complaining that people are
> taking Welfare money.

What reward system are you prating about now?

> You will never see a person on Welfare go work in the fields.

Why should they? You already give them money not to work. Suppose your
giving someone $300 a week not to work right now and he's offered a job
at $400 a week. In effect, he's only being offered $100 a week to work.
Would YOU leave YOUR home every morning and work forty hours for $100?

Most people on welfare have that kind of incentive NOT to work. You'll
get people out in the fields and off welfare when you stop giving them
welfare in the first place.

> Instead they complain about foreigners taking benefits and jobs.

I don't know where you live, but illegal immigrants are causing a lot of
problems down here along the border. We have to educate their children,
we have to provide medical care, and we house and clothe and feed them.
That eats into state and local budgets for EVERY program designed to
benefit people who are here *legally*.

The fastest way to get California's budget balanced would be to send
illegals back home when they're caught. In fact, they'd have a big ass
surplus.

> As far as taking the UK into a muslin state, what kind of state are you now
> with the Catholics killing the Protestants.

That's in Northern Ireland. Catholics and Protestants seem to get along
quite well in the rest of the UK.

> It reminds me of the Alamo
> heroes that gained Texas their independance from the dictator of Mexico.
> One of the arguements was that Mexico did not allow religious freedom. Once
> they gained their independence they put the black man in chains, instituted
> slavery and proclaimed Texas a free state.

You clearly don't know much about history. I'm most ****ed off about
your claim that Texas was declared a free state, though that's not your
only flaw. Just remember, Texas was declared a FREE *REPUBLIC*.