Reason Applied to Immigration
An excerpt: "Here’s something else that everyone knows: While a regime of no immigration quotas was a boon to America’s economy in the past, eliminating now the immigration quotas that have been in place since the 1920s would wreak havoc on America’s economy. In this knowledge, however, I believe that what everyone knows is incorrect."
There are areas here in Phoenix where store signs are in Spanish and schools where the population is 97% Mexican. Down around Tucson there are highway signs in metric.
I’ll read the article shortly but that needed to be said. It’s a damn able thing to feel like a foreigner in your own city.
Cities across the country are receiving these people, and groups are being FUNDED to provide housing for them. The public School system MUST take the kids.
15 Years ago, when my daughter was in 1st grade, she was placed at a table that had a translator for one of the kids... It was distracting her, and she HATED it. (Kid went to University at 14)... She stopped wanting to go to school.
The teacher put her there because she could AFFORD to fall behind. LOL. Everyone made to suffer.
I said. Put the translator in the furtherest corner of the room. Or Move our daughter, but this stops here...
So accommodating... We will let our best suffer...
1) the percentage of people in PRODUCTIVE employment has declined precipitously, that is, NOT EMPLOYED BY GOVERNMENT OR WASTEFULLY EMPLOYED ONLY TO PUSH PAPER TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.
2) a much larger percentage of GDP is being thrown away on neocon overseas misadventures, leaving much less for productive purposes, e.g., repairing and replacing infrastructure
3) the result of recent unlimited immigration is good only for the wealthy (and their paid propagandists, pet politicians, "experts", and "consultants") and very bad for those who were barely able to survive in mid to lower level employment which has been handed over to illegal invaders who work for much less (and live in slumlord rentals) as long as they aren't reported to INS.
The authors statistics are irrelevant when the effects on the "average American" is a decline in living standards and increasing debt slavery.
I will be interested to read his followup to his quote in view of Milton Friedman's quote "...A decade ago, Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman admonished the Wall Street Journal for its idée fixe on open-border immigration policy. "...It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state," he warned. This remark adds insight to the current debate over immigration in the U.S. Senate..."
reported here https://www.heritage.org/immigration/...
I had a lot of cyclical discussions with Dale over this topic and we parted in disagreement each time. Landowners in an area bind together by agreement to make a town. Towns bins together by agreement to make counties. Counties bind together via agreement to make a state. States bind together to make a nation. Without private ownership of individuals in full none of the structures of the above can exist. It is just that simple.
Sure, you can never truly own land. Still, you can own it for the 100 years you live ion this earth and you can pass it down to your kids. Shall we scrap that too?
I remember the Hallings well, Dale and his wife ..
That was how long ago? 5 or 10 years. They made a great contribution to the Gulch.
Dale argued well, especially on open borders. This was perhaps the only area I disagreed with him on. I suggested I was close to agreement provided he got the welfare state abolished first.
My position now is more rigid, it is not just a question of providing benefits which are rationally evaluated by immigrants, there has to be some basic level of cultural agreement for populations to live intermingled.
At that time, You must:
> Be sponsored.
> Have no Criminal record
> Have no Diseases
> Must not be a financial burden on the state for a period of at least five years.
During those five years, your sponsor was fully and legally responsible for your actions. Financial, legal and criminal.
Every six months or so you had to report to the local police station to ensure where you lived where you say you live, that there was not wants or warrants out on you, that you were financially self-sufficient.
In the 1950's, when it became clear to President Eisenhower that these rules were not being followed (for what ever economic reason employers were abusing the immigrants for) He initiated a mass deportation of people here not following the rules, including those sneaking over the border.
At what point did the rules stop being followed?
I seem the remember in 1965, a certain drunken Senator named Ted Kennedy was instrumental in violating one of the most sacred principles: ensuring whom ever came to this country, benefited this country.
1. The financial repression by the "state" is causing "natives" to have small or no families (can't afford it). This is causing the population to die out. Immigration is a way to replenish it. The state is predating on the population and replenishing it with immigration.
2. It is true that people on welfare are receiving income taken by force from someone else. I believe this is wrong. On the other hand, the financial repression is so high that even if the immigrants were productive, they would be unable to make it. One has to feed the pig before slaughtering it. Later generations of these immigrants would die out due to the financial repression that is destroying the current native population.
3. There is no need to have quotas or frivolous conditions. There are only some specific factors should be considered, like whether or not the immigrant is productive (produces more than they consume) and is law abiding/non-predatory. If accepting unlimited number of that type of immigrants makes the community prosper then why not do it? Who cares about culture? I thought America was about freedom and prosperity. Concepts like language, culture and ethnicity are a tool of the authoritarians of the "old world".
4. It is a bit hypocritical of Americans to impose immigration limits while their ancestors where unwelcome immigrants themselves, if you asked the natives at the time. In my humble opinion, one does not have the right to prevent another law abiding productive person from trying to make a life for themselves in a particular geographical area.
Today's (illegal) Immigrants are no match for yesterdays (Legal/illegal) Immigrants for the most part. There was no: "Gimmy, I need" back in those days.
Did we have border jumpers back then? probably . . . Did we have criminals escaping to our country back then? Probably; but probably not as pervasive as it is today, I bet.
Today, there is No where to escape to for freedom from the demented creatures on this planet.
Stay where you're at and fight to save the country you live in, These illegal immigrants are not helping us save the country, they are hurting our chances to save the country.
Politics and demented ideology always makes things worse.
PS, sorry again, for calling you Surely. LOL
The 10,000 foot view shows us that it is those very principles that are a danger to them in the next cycle. They wish to make sure those ideas never crop up again in some archeological dig in the distant future. No books of Enoch, no Noah, No Abraham, Isic or Jacob; No Plato, no Loche or Jefferson and all inbetween to awaken the offspring of survivors from this cycle.
Agreed on today's Platonist . . . they know Not the "mob rule" feature in demonocracy or what others have called the "Voting for MORE Bread and Circus".
In my experience, children of immigrants who don't grow up in ethnic enclaves do turn out just as American as those whose families were here for generations. I personally know several such.