Replies

"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.

Boy, where to start ...

First, you are abusing the term 'nihilist' mightily. Just because I disagree on your facts (not presented) and logic (imho exaggerating threats and making things black-n-white when the issues are complex) doesnt make me "nihilist". It just makes us in disagreement is all.

What you are reducing yourself to is name-calling.

This is an example of bunk:
"They must assimilate or destroy the culture they're in."
When my forebears came to this land, Know Nothings thought that Catholics would destroy America. Catholics didnt fully assimilate and become Protestants, and yet America survived. The Catholic Mexican workers here in the US have a challenge no greater than my great grandparents. You can maintain some differences in cultural backgrounds without 'destroying' the culture you are in.

This is an example of constructing a bogeyman wholly distinct from the proposal at hand:
"We're talking about rates hitherto unseen."
You may be talking about it, but it has nothing to do with the Bush proposal. We have already about 800,000 illegals each year coming across. We've had that for almost 20 years. People list out the horribles from immigration and I rightly point out that if that were so, we'd already be in the soup from the high levels of the past 20 years.

This Bush proposal creates nothing like what we've already had, and creates absolutely NO new incentives for illegal immigration. In fact, in my view it will - if and only if paired with law enforcement - help cut illegal immigration quite a bit. The legs to illegal immigration come from the abuse of documentation and the willingness of employers to 'turn a blind eye' to documentation fraud. End that, and you end large-scale illegal immigration.

"So, cliches and propaganda lines used as red herrings won't work with me." Truly an ironic comment.

I said that you engaged in hyperbole when you claim this would "destroy" our culture or "destroy" American. Then you say: "You really believe that has no impact at all on a culture?" Exactly my point! Of course immigration has *some* impact, but since when did "some impact on our culture" equate to "destroy our culture"? I think you are the one who needs to lay off the propagandistic phrases, my friend.

This is an example of strawman argumentation:
"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."

The visa is not "limitless" but limited by the willing employees who cant fill those jobs with Americans.
"relatively high-paying" is a euphemism for the fact that
many of the jobs may in fact be quite low wage jobs relative to *our* standard of living, and high-wage only relative to a Mexican peasant.

"Nah, there's nothing in the Bush proposal to suggest uncontrolled migration as a result of this."
Quite so. No need for sarcasm. A temporary visa program is a controlled manner of migration. Again, you may not want that particular provision in our immigration law, but it is certainly a *controlled* program.

"It is evident to me that you are predisposed to conclude that illegal immigration is a great thing;"
More extreme rhetoric contrary to everything I've written on immigration on this thread and elsewhere. I've proposed solutions to enforcing our immigration law here, specifcally ways to end the documentation fraud the underpins illegal immigration, and suggested that we must enforce the law. Your ad hominems are uncalled for. Just because I think America can handle this problem successfully you distort that into it not being a problem at all in my mind. Please, grab a clue and read my posts.

Still waiting for a culture destroyed by immigration.
Something so 'obvious' that you neglect to back up your claim.

Lastly, let us to distinguish legal from illegal immigration.
What level of legal immigration should we have in this country? 1 million, 2 million, zero people?