Posted on 05/29/2006 8:16:18 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
If you replace "immigrant" with "slave" in that article it reads exactly like the arguments the apologists for slavery used in the 1840s.
"Clearly, the immigration of a high-skilled worker can increase wages for Americans. Google, Yahoo and Sun Microsystems? All founded by immigrants. "
LEGAL IMMAGANTS, ya twit! Get it straight. We are not against legal immagration. Most republicans are for it. Its the illegal part that gets me.
Thank you for posting this.
btw, you might find this of interest:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/Amnesty_From_Government.htm
True! But then I didn't know to many slaves that were so desperate for an improved life that they were willing to pay human smugglers to get here.
Then would you support policy that made it easier to immigrate legally through raising the annual limit?
TABLE 7.5 Average Fiscal Impact of an Immigrant Overall and by Education Level (1996 dollars)
Post #44 via the research on immigration from Julian Simon.
Excellent observation! I thought the same thing, but you articulated it far better than I could have.
"....... but unlike the general public they also know that immigration can increase wages."
____________________________________________________
Hell, if 15 million or so uneducated peasants are good for our economy.....we should bring over a few hundred million more from India, Africa and South America!
If a little is good...a lot must be GREAT!
:)
'Then would you support policy that made it easier to immigrate legally through raising the annual limit?'
Legal immagration quota can rise and fall with the needs of the economy. Sure I would. Whos here and where are they.
Folks it either that or some of our citizens need to get off their lazy butts an be birthin' some babies!!! (I've done my share!)
What happens in a capitalist society when you import poverty faster than it can be absorbed into the economy? You get alot of immigrants who will end up being unhappy with their economic status. (Opportunities take longer to develope.)
You have alot of eventual voters who are being taught they can vote themselves "property" for the "havenots" from the "haves". (Promoted by the Marxicans)
On the contrary. There were millions of them! They were called "indentured servants" which is why the 13th Amendment bans both slavery and indentured servitude. They sold themselves into what was essentially "slavery" for a fixed period of time (usually seven years) in exchange for free passage over here. According to this: "One half to two thirds of all immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants. At times, as many as 75% of the population of some colonies were under terms of indenture."
Good! I bet that many 'round these threads wouldn't share your view though.
Besides, revisionist history is replete with anything that tries to have America look bad...the teaching of 'indentured servitude' is but one of the revisionist attempts to make early settlers look to be evil and capitalists. Equating immigrants coming to America -- on their own accord, with much to risk in search of a better life -- to slavery is preposterous. Interesting how you've "moved the bar" in the argument, though.
Same goes for "pointing it out". If you're going to waste a post by pointing out that it's a duplicate, but not providing the link to the "duplicate", you're not really helping out.
Second comment, (noted before) when my mother was researching her family tree she was thrilled to learn a couple of "famous" relatives as well as the ship that brought her favorite branch of the family over (late 18th century). Having found the ship's manifest in order to reference the names, she found two words..."Irish labor"...covering the enrire manifest. (think about it)
When looking into my father's far less renowned heritage we found reference to arrival in 1636 in which half or more of the passengers were cited as "manservant or maidservant" to the two or three families who'd paid for the travel.
IF it's the same lineage, Dad's folks paid for their own trip.
Yet, at various times during America's history (as early as 1973), service in the United States Armed Forces was many times compulsory. Will you call this "slavery" also or do you reserve that term for indentured servitudes in the Colonial Period and recent illegal immigrants who come here voluntarily?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.