Replies

"My basic point is that a guest worker program is one fashion of controlling the borders. You may like the idea or hate it, but it is a proposal for a law that controls the flow of workers from other countries to the US. That's 'border control'."

I see your point, but makeup on a pig is still a pig. In other words, the key word you used was "controls". If we assume that it actually "controls" non-citizens in a manner conducive to assimilation, you're correct. But by the very proposal I do not believe that to be the case. Even if "guest workers" they're still here and must assimilate; or destroy the culture that is supposed to assimilate them. Your point above can be too easily used as a red herring. The key here is assimilation.

"The rate of immigration to the US is high, but not much different from the rate between 1870 and 1910. The US was not destroyed by that in the least, but grew to the largest economy in the period. American history refutes your claim."

You've missed the point again. I was talking about the projected numbers. Yes, you are quite right, historically the rates were not sufficient to do harm. But that's not what we're talking about in this forum. We're talking about proposals for future policy.

"Note that first - THE PEOPLE YOU CLAIM THREATEN US ARE ALREADY HERE ... So if this wave of migration is to destroy us, it already should have destroyed us. Hmmm, but it hasnt. Despite all the problems, the costs of it, etc, our country has survived. Perhaps you underestimate the resiliency of USA. "

Characterize it as you like, but it's true. Again, you miss the point. I don't think there is any difference of opinion here as much as there is a lack of comprehension on your side. If the rate of immigration exceeds a certain threshhold it will destroy a nation. This has been proven time and again in history. The rate of immigration in the U.S. has never been as high as what we're discussing here.

I see your point, but makeup on a pig is still a pig. In other words, the key word you used was "controls". If we assume that it actually "controls" non-citizens in a manner conducive to assimilation, you're correct."

Whoa, the guest worker program encourages the workers to GO HOME, with the setaside for the money for soc sec ... thus serving exactly what you think would be appropriate. Non-assimilators return to country of origin!!

Now, I postulated in another post that this would likely lead to 3 streams of migrants: The 'stayers' who try to get green cards; 'revolving door workers'; and *deportees*.

"But by the very proposal I do not believe that to be the case. Even if "guest workers" they're still here and must assimilate; or destroy the culture that is supposed to assimilate them." This to me is beyond hype.. Get serious! Does hispanic TV "destroy your culture"? Whatabout Chinese restaurants? Or the ethnic neighborhoods in Chicago?

"I was talking about the projected numbers. Yes, you are quite right, historically the rates were not sufficient to do harm. But that's not what we're talking about in this forum. We're talking about proposals for future policy."

There is NOTHING in this Bush proposal that would come even close to the numbers of immigrants in the 1900 era. Any projections HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS PROPOSAL! So it is based on fearmongering IMHO.

"Characterize it as you like, but it's true."

A level of immigration no greater than we successfully absorbed before will destroy us? Hardly "true", more like a doomsday prediction that is contrary to our previous experience.

Look, I am for fixing the problems of illegal immigration. It's bad and we need to have the guts to enforce our laws. I am just against this specious, over-the-top chicken-little nonsense that the world will end because illegal alien workers that fix our roofs and mow our lawns are going to destroy America.

Get real, please.

"This has been proven time and again in history."
Like where? And dont say the Romans. I know my Roman history, and that's bunk.