Replies

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.

"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!! "

Ummm, they're here for three years. Doesn't matter what you call them. They must assimilate or destroy the culture they're in. Besides, we've already pointed out in this forum that faithfully "returning" to their "country of origin" is highly unlikely.

"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*."

Okay.

This to me is beyond hype.. Get serious! Does hispanic TV "destroy your culture"? Whatabout Chinese restaurants? Or the ethnic neighborhoods in Chicago?

Bravo! You're catching on. Yes, if the rate at which this occurs is high enough. Again, you keep referring to the past. We're talking about rates hitherto unseen. So, cliches and propaganda lines used as red herrings won't work with me. Try sticking to the point. We're not talking about today or yesterday. We're talking about future policy. But in any case, it's funny you'd call this "hype"...taken from a favorite propaganda manual? The process of cultural change by mass and dramatic influxes of very different peoples is manifest even to a child; the proverbial elephant in the living room. But you don't see that. You really believe that has no impact at all on a culture? Who needs to get real, here?

"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."

A limitless spigot opened to allow anybody and his entire extended family a relatively high paying job in the United States, the wealthiest country in the world and to do so without fear of deportation. Nah, there's nothing in the Bush proposal to suggest uncontrolled migration as a result of this.

"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."

IMHO, your view is fundamentally nihilistic. The data and facts speak for themselves. see below.

"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."

Cliches, cliches. I swear it sounds like you've been trained to use cliches. Fascinating. So, you're suggesting that an infinite rate of immigration is sustainable by any nation? Oh, that's right, you think the rate won't change. see below.

"Like where? And dont say the Romans. I know my Roman history, and that's bunk."

Hmmm, funny. I figured you'd say that. I'm not your teacher. Go read a history book. It is not my job to educate you, it is your job to know the facts when you enter a discussion. There are so many examples of it you could choke on it. It's plain as day in any entry-level University textbook. You're attempting to drop a red herring in so you don't have to explain your nihilism or lack of reason. But this doevetails nicely into my point about nihilists. It is evident to me that you are predisposed to conclude that illegal immigration is a great thing; almost certainly because of some personality bias. A nihilist ignores facts and reality, insists on having others educate them and ignores solid reason (like the definition of 'rate' or a 'derivative'). You folks are all the same. If you actually take the time to tear apart their arguments you only find that they're internally inconsistent babble, full of red herrings and founded on nihilism. I'm not sure what to tell you but I assure you propaganda put on this forum will be thrashed.