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.
>
> Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which the US said exactly that.

No, it didn't. The Monroe Doctrine was about European colonization in
the Western Hemisphere, not about US claims on other nations. You're
again showing your ignorance of history.

> It has the right to do what ever it wants in the Americas.

That's not the case at all. If it were, we'd have Mexico paying us to
take care of their citizens who've flooded our border states.

>>>Give us your unwanted, poor etc.
>>
>>No, please don't. Give us your industrious and wise instead.
>
> Canada offered citizenship to Hong Kong nationals who had $100,000 at hand
> for Canadian citizenship right after the turnover to China.

Canada also takes in many from all over the world who lack resources and
want asylum.

>>>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.
>
> Any system you come up with is dependant on the young who are working.

No, only those which tax and spend. The issue of dependence, though, is
fundamental in any program which taxes and spends since it diminishes
workers' savings.

> It's
> a pyrimide where you need productive growth.

"Productive growth" isn't a function of population growth, which is at
the core of your argument.

> No growth and productivity
> results in great loses and the old dependent on 401's goes down the tube.

Productivity has increased in most industries even with fewer workers.
Profits have continued to grow because of such efficiency. Your argument
is baseless.

>>>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.
>
> Take a class in economics dude.

I've actually taken several courses in economics, including some taught
by the kinds of people who like socialist programs like "the care" and
Social (in)Security. What is undeniable is that SS programs and others
are inefficient, and the inefficiencies are unrelated to demographics.

The program was not designed as a pension plan. Its use as one has
wrecked it and harmed our economy, and in order for it to succeed the
economy must be strong. More workers and/or more efficiency will only
float an inefficient transfer system for so long. SS outlays are
expected to increase some 15-25% per year for the next thirty years. If
we allow or encourage the US population to compound at the same
exponential rates, we'll have almost two billion people in that amount
of time. And in another thirty years, the population would be in excess
of 1,350,000,000,000 people. Where the **** will you put 1.3 *TRILLION*
people on this continent?

> You need need a young working class that
> keeps cost down and immigration does the trick.

Costs will compound regardless of population and immigration.

> Without them the price of
> production becomes too high and you will see more jobs leave this country
> where foreign workers get paid $2.00 an hour.

That's already happening. The real cost in the US of a $30,000 employee
to an employer in traceable costs (taxes, benefits, etc.) is about
$45,000; that's without considering nontraceable costs (lost or
diminished productivity, etc.), specialized training, etc. The SS burden
to employers is the same as employees, and doubled up on self-employed.
We don't need immigration reform, we need tax reform.

> This is a world economy with free trade and all.

Not quite free trade, but we may get there some day.

>>>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.

Like tax reform. Eliminate all corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.
That would be a good start. Increase the maximums for IRA and other
retirement programs.

The way it stands now, Congress will likely increase tax rates as the
baby boomers mature. This will skim a lot off the tax-deferred savings
of those who were wise enough to save for retirement to benefit those
who weren't. That would be wrong, but that's what I expect to happen
because of government's inherent shortsightedness and preference for big
programs over self-sufficiency.

>>>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?
>>
>>
>>>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"?
>
> They get paid less

Only in the black market. Once they go on the books, they get the
benefits everyone else does.

> and the job stays here

Not in every industry. Relocation will still occur with increasing
frequency, and for the same reasons. Labor is a commodity, and
efficiencies can be had by hiring from pools where it costs
significantly less. With our current business tax and regulatory
climate, that means elsewhere.

> plus the work they do can not be
> done by these people who are spoiled as citizens here are.

Wrong. It can be done. They won't do it so long as you pay them not to
work. This is why we should end welfare rather than "mend" it.

>>>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.
>
> Foreign aid my friend is payoffs to corrupt leaders.

Much of it yes, all of it no. Besides, I said private relief. That has
always had more accountability tied to it than federal relief programs,
whether it's for domestic or foreign use. End foreign aid and encourage
private relief efforts.

> It never gets to the
> people nor does the US care where it goes as long as it can buys influence.

Bullshit.

> Iraq is a good example.

How much did we give Iraq in the 1980s?

> How much aid did we give the Phillipines with
> Marcos during those years and all it got was shoes for Imelda Marcoes.

You tell me. How much aid did we give the Philippines (spell it
correctly next time) in the 1960s-80s? What did we get for it besides
use of bases? What about the jobs to locals our bases provided? And the
local economic activity of all those US servicemen and servicewomen and
their families?

> Every time we want to go to war we offer aid for bases like Turkey remember.

Not always. We didn't offer aid to the Saudis in the 1990s. We also
offer aid whether we have bases or not. The offer to Turkey wasn't for
aid, but increasing it. Pay attention to the news next time.

> Give us bases and get aid or don't give us bases and no aid. Going to the
> people? Boy are you naive.

Everywhere we've had bases, there's been a boom in the economy. Many
Filipinos wanted the US out of the Philippines; the most vigorous
defenders of America in the Philippines continue to be those living in
and around our bases. Those people benefitted from the economic activity
provided. That's true even in places like Saudi Arabia, where some
business people want us to remain though Wahabis want us out. I think
you're the naive one.

>>>You will never see a person on Welfare go work in the fields.
>>>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*.
>
> All children are educated and we start ESL special ed programs aimed
> primarily for illegals. Everyone knows this.

Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity. Before certain Supreme Court
rulings, schools didn't have to offer ESL or educate children who
should've been in a different country.

> Medical care, we don't want
> infectious diseases spread

That's NOT why we provide free medical care to criminal aliens. They
could receive such care in their native countries and await visas and
come here legally.

> and we want to encourage illegals in coming here
> so we provide free child prenatal care so they can have babies here.

That's NOT why we provide such treatment. We do it because the Court has
required care to be administered without consideration of legal status.

> Most
> of these people are working the money goes into the federal withholding that
> they never see again.

They should work and pay taxes in their homelands. We have processes for
legal immigration. They're in violation of our laws. Many of them do NOT
pay withholding taxes because they must have green cards to work
legally. You apparently are not familiar with immigration status as it
relates to taxation. At best, the only taxes illegals pay are sales taxes.

> All these programs are here to help the illegals as
> they always have a "don't ask don't tell" policy concerning legal status.

Bullshit. Healthcare programs exist for the benefits of legal citizens
and legal aliens.

> If a police officer finds an illegal he does not call the border patrol,

He used to do that.

> why?

Because most police departments are (a) too overburdened with illegal
immigrants to do the job of the INS and (b) tired of INS releasing
illegals while their status hearings are pending. The INS doesn't
automatically deport every illegal alien. And most illegals never show
up for their status hearings.

> Why not investigate people before benefits are given out and it's the
> same answer.

Why not defend our borders and enforce our laws?

>>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.
>
> All that is rhetoric as California is dependant on illegal farm workers.

No, most farm workers are American citizens and those with green cards
(meaning LEGAL aliens). Illegals take jobs from migrant farm workers.

> The fields would rot or they would have to pay people $30.00 an hour and it
> would cost you $20.00 for a head of lettuce.

Hyperbole. Even at $30/hour, a head of lettuce wouldn't cost $20/head.

> Remember Orange county as how
> many oranges do you see now? Where do you think most oranges come from now
> and it's not Florida?

Improved and cheaper transportation and trade agreements are more
responsible for the availability of non-domestic produce.

> For somebody who lives in California you sure don't know the states economy.

I live in Texas. We, too, have a very large citrus industry, and it's
doing pretty well.

> Even Governor Reagan back then wanted to break the United Farm Workers Union
> and encourged illegals here to take their jobs.

What's your source for this information?

>>>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*.
>
> You can count the minutes that it was a Republic.

Try years. Two weeks short of a decade.

> Let me ask you a question here, who is the Secretary of State?

US? Colin Powell. Texas? Geoff Connor. California (since you seem to
think I live there)? Kevin Shelley, iirc.

> I suppose I would have to tell you what State right?

It depends on the context of your question, not on semantics.