By ELIZABETH GREEN, Staff Reporter of the NY SunAmerica is "committing mass suicide" by putting restrictions on immigration, Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday.
He made the remarks after announcing an initiative that is aiming to lure Americans into the fields of math and science, which Mr. Bloomberg termed "the industries of the future."
Moving aside from education, Mr. Bloomberg painted immigration as a short-term way to lure engineers to America, where they could innovate and create new jobs.
"There are people around the world who want to come and create here and add jobs and excitement and innovation, and we're keeping them in Canada and in Europe and Asia and not letting them here," Mr. Bloomberg said.
He termed the restrictive policies "insane."
In the past, Mr. Bloomberg has strongly criticized efforts to crack down on illegal immigration, saying the American economy depends on immigrants to survive.
91 comments:
If our economy needs immigrants to survive, we are in deep trouble.
Maybe its more accurate to state: the machine needs immigrants to survive.
Insane for those who need nannies and gardeners and goes to restaurants every night and have someone clean their house ....
For the rest of us, the vast block of middle American taxpayers its insane for them to come in and have us support them with our taxes (while the rich undermine middle class incomes as they exploit them as workers and tennants. You know, its a bit like developers making tons of money of real estate projects while the middle class makes it happen by subsidizing tax breaks and infrastructure costs.)
This land thief see no problem with those who break the law to enrich themselves at the expense of those who obey the law.
Commissar death and taxes believes that with the right amount of power at your disposal, you should break whatever laws prevent you from getting what you want.
In his boring, humorless way, he laughs at all the "Little People" who work hard and follow the rules.
The machine certainly needs more immigrants (legal ones) for votes.
Importing your votes is a long established practice of ward healing pols going back to the days of boss Tweed !
"Insane"....eh?
I'm going to send "hizzoner" a fresh new bag of marbles.
I think he's already lost his!
Bloomberg is absolutely correct. The smartest, most talented people in the world want to come here, but we limit them. They should be here, helping American companies and adding to the American economy, but because of the small-minded views of people like those on this blog, they go to other countries and help those companies and economies. Immigrants are a main factor why the American economy is holding up and remaining relatively strong.
Yes, let's allow unchecked immigration. Just what the city of 8 million needs. Can't handle the people here now, but bring on millions more!
Yes, the economy is in the toilet, there aren't enough jobs for everyone, so let's open up the doors to everyone throughout the world who is finding the same situation where they're from.
I support legal immigration by green card but illegal immigration by jumping the fence over the border - no way Jose!
We are all immigrants but most of us or frefathers and Mothers did it the hard way; legally! Send the border jumpers home with a free ride ticket on the back of a truck.
I know an awful lot of people who were geniuses in their home countries, but come here and sell hot dogs or drive cabs. Not sure who Bloomie is talking about. If there are others who are legitimate, then why are we giving visas and green cards to the others but not to them? Don't we need engineers more?
Why do American companies need foreign "geniuses" to come here to revitalized their output since they've already moved their plants to Mexico and the like?
Keep genius Jose right there in Mexico where he's needed by Polaroid,
Frigidaire, etc.!
The smartest, most talented people in the world want to come here, but we limit them. They should be here, helping American companies and adding to the American economy, but because of the small-minded views of people like those on this blog, they go to other countries and help those companies and economies. Immigrants are a main factor why the American economy is holding up and remaining relatively strong.
------------
If importing people to be exploited is the main reason we are strong then images of ancient Rome come to mind and we are in deep trouble.
If this economy cannot be maintained by its citizens, we are in deep trouble.
If American needs its vitality and strenght based on a system of exploiting people, we are in deep trouble.
If the citizens of this country have to compete with third world wages we are deep trouble.
If students that are coming out of school cannot find jobs because of the economy, then have to compete with third world types (whose own countries desperately need their talents) then we are in deep trouble.
In other words, my friend, you are full of crap.
Hey, Mayor Mike, did you check to see if that Latino "genius" that's wiping your ass with Charmin each morning
in your well appointed east side townhouse bathroom has a green card?
H-m-m-m...c'mon now!
Stop tugging our Waldos!
Moving aside from education, Mr. Bloomberg painted immigration as a short-term way to lure engineers to America, where they could innovate and create new jobs.
"There are people around the world who want to come and create here and add jobs and excitement and innovation, and we're keeping them in Canada and in Europe and Asia and not letting them here," Mr. Bloomberg said.
Bloomberg is absolutely correct!
If it wasn't for America's racist immigration policies, all those hard-working aeronautical engineers, chemical engineers, architects, fashion designers, computer engineers, etc. from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, etc., wouldn't have to go to Canada, Europe, and China, and work for our "competitors" instead of in the United States.
Why, all those brilliant rocket scientists from the Yucatan are forced to go work for the European Space Administration instead of working for NASA!
Change our immigration laws NOW!
Vote Bloomberg for President!
Nothing like an immigration post to show all the grade-school level commentary and bigotry of the people who support this site.
Man, the xenophobia! I expect better from the residents of Queens, the most diverse plot of land in the WORLD.
Not to deal in clichés, but this IS a nation of immigrants. They've always come and they've always ended up enriching the country, both materially and culturally. And there have always been bigots who have always been proven wrong. Please people, you're embarrassing yourselves and your city. Get on the right side of history, or move to some whitebread suburb.
Not to deal in clichés, but this IS a nation of immigrants.
Yes and we are the offspring of immigrants and can talk from our families' experiences.
Experiences and backgrounds we are proud of. We have every right to comment without being slandered as xenophobic. We are American citizens and American taxpayers, two titles better than any goddamn hyphenated crap that the PC types tout.
Now if it does not jibe with the pablum thrown out by the clubhouse, tuff shit.
Tuff shit.
Nothing like an immigration post to show all the grade-school level commentary and bigotry of the people who support this site.
------
Translation, if you do not support the clubhouse you are an idiot.
I will support the clubhouse when the goals of the clubhouse are my goals thank you.
Yes, look at all those scientists and PhDs that mill around the street corners looking for work.
Its a damn shame. Damn shame.
ANONYMOUS: We have every right to comment without being slandered as xenophobic.
Of course you have the right to say whatever you want. Just as this proud American citizen, this mutt descended from the former scum of Europe, has every right to point out that what you’re saying is closed minded and ugly. Rights RAWK!
ANONYMOUS: Now if it does not jibe with the pablum thrown out by the clubhouse, tuff shit.
Question: Just what IS this “clubhouse” that I keep hearing about? Where is it? It seems to be all powerful. How can I join?
Question: Just what IS this “clubhouse” that I keep hearing about? Where is it? It seems to be all powerful. How can I join?
-----
Hmmm, from your postings you seem to already have....
ANONYMOUS: Hmmm, from your postings you seem to already have....
I WISH I was part of some all powerful cabal that makes xenophobes paranoid. Seriously, where do I send my membership dues?
Queens has been welcoming immigrants for centuries and we have lived peacefully together for the most part. So take your "Archie Bunker" labels and shove them up your ass.
There are more than enough people in America to fill these jobs. Corporations just do not want to pay them. Plain and simple. We need to take care of our own first!
Frank - do you call the ignorant bigots commenting on this post "peaceful"? The more you all talk, your small-minded views become more and more apparent.
“…if any of these said persons come in love unto us, we cannot in conscience lay violent hands upon them, but give them free egresse and regresse unto our Town, and houses, as God shall persuade our consciences, for we are bounde by the law of God and man to doe good unto all men and evil to noe man.”
-- The Flushing Remonstrance
WISH I was part of some all powerful cabal that makes xenophobes paranoid.
-------------
So much Freedom of Concsience from Mr Ridgewoodian, eh?
Now we are labeled xenophobes. Sounds like a bacteria found under rocks.
So, Ridgewoodian, you're willing to open up your living room to the first 30 "undocumented guest workers" that show up tonight at 6:00PM, right?
After all, if you wish to prove your "moral superiority" over us "Archie Bunker-esque" white people, and demonstrate your adherence to your religious principles, you should put your money where your mouth is!
Naw, if you want xenophobes its the clubhouse talking about (and playing up to) ethnic tensions.
A Xenophobe is something that flourishes in smoke filled rooms in the corners of the clubhouse.
After all, post Civil War, Progessive Era, Depression, Post War, no matter the mix, generation after generation its the Irish that controls Queens politics....
Xenophobia is a bullshit word made up by liberals to use when they are out of ammo.
First off a good 90% of these wetback and OTM's jumping our borders are CRIMINALS NOT IMMIGRINTS!
These criminals can’t hold a candle to the pre 1965 immigrants who built this country. Most of Queens’s ancestors were ship builders, steel workers, brick layers, doctors, tunnel builders.
They were checked out, inoculated, went through due process.
Over 90% of our "Nation of Immigrants" were not drunks, rapists, child abusers, perverts, disease carriers. NOW It’s THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
They turned my old neighborhoods like Bushwick, Ridgewood, Maspeth into sh*t !!!
It was Kennedy who dropped the bar to street garbage with the Immigration Act of 1965.
We don’t need no stinking Liberal asshat like Bloomberg to drop the bar any lower then we already have it.
If change was so good 8 million New Yorkers would not be against it!! Ship his ass back to Boston where he can dig another 9 Billion $$ useless tunnel.
This guys worse the John Lindsay and Robert Moses put together
-Joe from Ridgewood
Thanks for proving my point about ignorant bigots Joe.
Sounds like a bacteria found under rocks.
--------------------
Hahaha LOL it is, its a mutant blog word made up by Berkley college professors....Caugh Chaugh former Timothy Leary flock.
You know the old flower-power, incense-burning, acid-dropping, tie-dye-wearing, peace-and-love-vibing Eastern-influenced Kathmandu Pipe Dreamers chanting "Hey man pass the shrooms" !!
Diversity, NO THANKS I Seen almost a half century of it and it only gets worse. What a heap of stinkin Crap'ola at its worst !!!
-Joe
Is was that great Soviet Commissar, Death and Taxes who will not publicly make the distinction between legal and illegal.
Because the Commissar wants (A) to keep the morons confused about immigration, (B) then exploit both citizens and immigrants and aliens by stirring up Ku Klux Klan mentalities.
The term "Illegal Alien" is used by EVERY nation to specify someone who entered that country without first asking and obtaining permission. Try invading Mexico, see what happens. Ask the Guatemalans who shoots at them every day, all day as they try to cross into southern Mexico.
No permission, you're an invader. Just another criminal trying to steal jobs (food, clothing and homes) from legal immigrants and citizens.
There is now, and always has been a procedure to request permission to enter this country. Every nation has similar procedures. Try France, the "enlightened people".
Why does Commissar Death and Taxes persist in refusing to recognize that fact? Because it doesn't support his lying.
Why are NYC schools so crowded? Why are more than half the classrooms filled with kids who have never spoken a word of English, and have no intention of doing so? Because Commissar Death and Taxes invites all the illegal aliens into the city to use all city services while we pick up the tab. He, in turn has the cooks, maids, gardeners, etc., for himself and his wealthy, indifferent "friends".
ANONYMOUS: So much Freedom of Concsience from Mr Ridgewoodian, eh?
I suppose I should start putting the word “irony” in big bold letters at the end of every sentence that is supposed to be taken ironically, so that our slower friend can’t possibly miss the point.
ANONYMOUS: …no matter the mix, generation after generation its the Irish that controls Queens politics....
Those evil Micks! IRONY You just can’t trust the Catholics. IRONY They’re almost as bad as those Red commie, bloodsucking, rich as Rothschild, Zionist occupying, cosmopolitan Jews! IRONY Still, if they run things, best to get right with them, right? IRONYFrom now on it’s “Danny Boy” and plenty of whiskey for me! IRONY
ANONYMOUS: Now we are labeled xenophobes.
I could label you something much ruder and more anatomical, if you want.
-JOE FROM RIDGEWOOD: Xenophobia is a bullshit word made up by liberals…
Really? According to the Oxford English Dictionary it’s first attested in print on March 13, 1909 in a publication called Athenæum. I’ve been unable to discover anything as to that publication’s political leanings but maybe you have?
-JOE FROM RIDGEWOOD: Over 90% of our "Nation of Immigrants" were not drunks, rapists, child abusers, perverts, disease carriers. NOW It’s THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
Funny, that during that great wave of immigration through Ellis Island during the last century the teeming, the poor, the wretched refuse were often described precisely as drunks, rapists, etc. etc. But far be it from me to dismiss a man’s well founded beliefs out of hand. I assume that you have solid peer-reviewed statistics to back up your 90% figure?
-JOE FROM RIDGEWOOD: …asshat…
A great and noble word that, lamentably, doesn’t yet appear in the Oxford English Dictionary (although it has 16 entries in the Urban Dictionary). If you can track down its earliest mention in print you can get it into the next edition and earn yourself a bit of immortality.
WADE NICHOLS: So, Ridgewoodian, you're willing to open up your living room to the first 30 "undocumented guest workers" that show up tonight at 6:00PM, right?
Ah, but then I’d have to illegally subdivide my apartment and I would run the risk of incurring the wrath of every anti-developmentaholic on this site. And I would hate to do that. Unless they were really cute Swedish illegals with blond hair, large bosoms, and loose morals. In that case: yes.
It seems to me, though, that what the Mayor is talking about is much more reasonable. If we were to let them in LEGALLY they could find their own apartments as easily as any other New Yorker. Which isn’t easily, but that’s another problem entirely. They could also join the above ground economy, pay taxes, not be exploited by unscrupulous employers (too badly, anyway), and just generally do the whole pursuit of happiness American Dream thing, like generations of immigrants before them.
WADE NICHOLS After all, if you wish to prove your "moral superiority" over us "Archie Bunker-esque" white people, and demonstrate your adherence to your religious principles, you should put your money where your mouth is!
I’m not morally superior to you all because you’re white. I’m plenty white myself. I’m not morally superior to you because I have religious principles. Actually, I’m a thoroughgoing atheist. (I put that quote and that link in there to show the moral courage our borough has been capable of in the past.) No, I’m morally superior to you because I’m not an utter asshat.
Anonymous said "We are all immigrants but most of us or frefathers and Mothers did it the hard way; legally! " Until the 1920s, there were NO immigration laws. Anyone who wanted to come here simply bought a ticket and sailed here. There was no such thing as "legally" compared to today's immigration policies. Those who traveled in steerage were processed through Ellis Island and checked for disease, and often quarantined, or sent back to their own countries. Those with tickets never went through Ellis island. They simply debarked.
" He termed the restrictive policies "insane." " (HE being Commissar Death and Taxes)
What are rules against smoking? Against trans-fats (even artificial trans fats)? Requiring calorie counts for each item on a menu as well as for every combination?
Would Commissar Death and Taxes call those "restrictive policies"?
And, aren't they insane?
Oh! Yeah! The Beloved Commissar is the one who labels all things. We citizens (legal ones at that) simply have no say in the running of our lives and the government we own. He certainly is the Dear One.
"We are all immigrants but most of us or our fathers and Mothers did it the hard way; legally!" Until the 1920s, there were NO immigration laws.
Yes, but you needed to have a sponsor and a job waiting for you. Also, our fathers and mothers generally are young enough to have come here after 1920 and probably never saw the inside of Ellis Island, either.
"Until the 1920s, there were NO immigration laws. Anyone who wanted to come here simply bought a ticket and sailed here. There was no such thing as "legally" compared to today's immigration policies."
Um, ever heard of the Chinese Exclusion Act (May 6, 1882)?
I also see that Savatore is in "superior" form today.
It's ok to pick and choose which laws to obey and which to ignore.
And if we choose to confront those that enter illeglly, we are the bigots.
"There was no such thing as "legally" compared to today's immigration policies."
Maybe because back then there was a lot of open land and we needed a lot of manual labor. Today we are a service-oriented economy and we would be deluged with people we couldn't take care of if we allowed unchecked immigration.
Taxpayer wants to be able to sit in a restaurant and blow his cigarette smoke around for everyone else to endure. I should have known. He is so out-of-touch that he has no clue that the smoking ban is enormously popular. If you want to smoke, go do it in your own space and don't expose me to it. Typical attitude from Taxpayer.
ANONYMOUS: Well said! Our lungs aren't Taxpayer's ashtray!
ANONYMOUS: Well said! Our lungs aren't Taxpayer's ashtray!
And the United States isn't a giant third world toilet bowl either!
Or perhaps that should be "turd world"!
Read the book Camp of the Saints for a view of our wonderful vibrant and diverse future!
Aw....
just give that "wetback" a towel to dry off with and a key to the city at my expense!
He's now an American by right of trial and tribulation.
(Ps-s-st, and enter him on the Olympic swim team's roster)!
Yeah....it sounds like 'ol buddy "Salvatore" has got his nuts strangled by his panties again (posting under a different name this time)!
Ah, but then I’d have to illegally subdivide my apartment and I would run the risk of incurring the wrath of every anti-developmentaholic on this site. And I would hate to do that. Unless they were really cute Swedish illegals with blond hair, large bosoms, and loose morals. In that case: yes.
You actually have a point here, but probably not one you'd wish to admit publicly. Laws no longer apply to the Tweeded, they're only for legal American citizens. The city would arrest your ass for illegal subdivision in a minute!
As for your phoney attempt on race pandering regarding "Swedish illegals", give me a break! Sweden is still a lovely, relatively homogeneous country, despite the many crimes committed by immigrants. Why would a Swede want to come to the U.S., where things are even worse!!!
I’m not morally superior to you all because you’re white. I’m plenty white myself. I’m not morally superior to you because I have religious principles. Actually, I’m a thoroughgoing atheist. (I put that quote and that link in there to show the moral courage our borough has been capable of in the past.) No, I’m morally superior to you because I’m not an utter asshat.
The point is that the battle is not between white Americans and illegals...oh excuse me...undocumented guest workers, the battle is between white Americans who believe in the rule of law, and smug jerks such as yourself who, deep down inside, really don't care much for illegals, but are simply using them as props in a battle against us Americans who still believe in the rule of law, realize that there's a fine line between civilization and anarchy, and don't want this country to become like Zimbabwe or some other banana republic crap hole that you would never wish to live in yourself.
Wade and Joe should go grab a beer together and revel in their prejudices. The fact is that most "illegal" immigrants have committed no crimes, and that immigrants in NY add far more to the NY economy than they detract. The original point of this post is that we should be allowing for more legal immigration and opening our doors for more talented, educated people who want to come here.
"The fact is that most "illegal" immigrants have committed no crimes"
Being here illegally is a crime punishable by deportation.
WADE NICHOLS: …the United States isn't a giant third world toilet bowl either! Or perhaps that should be "turd world"!.... there's a fine line between civilization and anarchy, and don't want this country to become like Zimbabwe or some other banana republic crap hole that you would never wish to live in yourself.
So diversity = third/turd world? In other words, the mere presence of people of other racial, ethnic, cultural, and national backgrounds in and of itself is so toxic, so destructive that it will turn the United States into a poor, under developed country? (Aren’t you against over development, by the way?) Is this what you’re saying? I’m giving you an out, because if it is, I don’t see how it isn’t xenophobic – as much as you might hate the term – as well as racist, ahistorical, and just plain fucking stupid. But I don’t believe that’s what you really believe because if it was why would you torture yourself by staying in New York – a city where 36% of the people, more than one out of every three of our friends and neighbors, was born in foreign (inferior), countries. Especially when so many whitebread communities beckon. It must be hard for you to not explode into a puff of race rage every day. Unless you’re some kind of masochist. Is that it? You kinkster, you.
WADE NICHOLS: … Tweeded.
You know, I’ve been unclear as to the meaning of this term for months. Does it really just mean people with less money than you voting in a way that you would prefer them not to?
Do you mind if I call you “Reagan’d”?
WADE NICHOLS: As for your phoney attempt on race pandering regarding "Swedish illegals", give me a break!
See my last post, re: IRONY. Although, maybe, in this case I should say SARCASM.
WADE NICHOLS: Sweden is still a lovely, relatively homogeneous country, despite the many crimes committed by immigrants. Why would a Swede want to come to the U.S., where things are even worse!!!
Never actually been, alas. Although I don’t doubt that what you say is true. Any country that produces a Birgit Nilsson is okay by me. As to why a Swede would want to come to the United States: for the same reason that any foreigner would – because, despite its imperfections this is still the greatest country in the world, and affords almost limitless opportunities. True, not as many Swedes come over as used to, when Sweden was basically a “turd world” nation, but there are still some. I’ve tried to date one or two. I wonder if you would be so rabidly against immigration - or illegal immigration, to give you every benefit of the doubt - if it were large numbers of Olafssons washing up on our shores.
Oh, and what’s so great about homogeneity, by the way?
WADE NICHOLS: … undocumented guest workers…
If they’re a “guest worker” then they’re documented, hence legal. If they’re not documented then they’re illegal and they’re not a guest worker. I don’t know if you were trying to be sarcastic or just not using language very well.
WADE NICHOLS: …smug jerks such as yourself who, deep down inside, really don't care much for illegals, but are simply using them as props in a battle against us Americans who still believe in the rule of law…
Let’s be clear here, neighbor: this smug jerk is as American as you or anyone else, both by birth and inclination.
As for illegals, they’re here for one reason and one reason only: because it’s convenient for us for them to be here. Because they’re cheap, easily exploited, labor. I’m not saying that’s a good thing but that’s the way it is. You want change? Dry up the market. Jail the employers who hire them. Confiscate their property. Make the risk of hiring them greater than the reward. I’m not sure it would be worth it, and it would surely make a lot of things a lot more expensive, but at least we would be able to maintain our racial purity.
As for the rule of law, that’s one of the glories of this country, that it has been, for the most part, a country of laws. As I mentioned in another post somewhere, I carry around a copy of the Constitution with me wherever I go. I take the rule of law seriously. But, some laws are wise and some are foolish. And I find it difficult to work up a moral lather against illegals who for the most part are more sinned against than sinning, especially in the age of the PATRIOT Act and Guantanamo Bay.
WADE NICHOLS: Read the book “Camp of the Saints.”
I’ve just ordered it. See: I’m open to new ideas, as bad as I fear they’re going to be. But I’m going to hold you morally responsible for that $13.50. Before you go recommending The Turner Diaries as a follow-up, though: already read it.
If you welcome more people from "poor, under developed countries" than you do people from countries with real living standards, you will end up with a third world country, relocated. See post about Middle Village from 12:00 this morning.
ANONYMOUS: So you're saying that people from poor countries are innately "third world" in some way? That putting them in a more developed environment has no effect on them? That, in fact, they somehow reverse that development? That their children and grandchildren aren't as materially American as any descendent of the Mayflower? Why do you think that is?
Memo to Ridgewoodian:
You are the best friend this board has. By mouthing all those standard bromides, then getting shot down again and again, you hollow out the tiresome propoganda that the machine feeds us.
Keep doing it though. Sooner or later your handlers will tell you to stop.
Now as to your question.
Find a photo of any major shopping area say 1950. Read the adversting of the stores from that period.
Now take a picture of the same shopping area today. Read the adversting from the stores.
Even a hack like you will have an impossible time defending your position, but please, go ahead.
You are doing a fine job of blundering.
"So you're saying that people from poor countries are innately "third world" in some way?"
We're all products of our environment, are we not? Standards of behavior are different in many parts of the world than they are in this country. That's a major reason why so many third-worlders end up in jail, if the libs don't successfully use the excuse that "it's their culture" to spring them out.
I guess all those Italian immigrants from the early 20th century that set up shops in Little Italy entirely in Italian (no english) and who conducted all the mafia activity were from a third world country.
So diversity = third/turd world? In other words, the mere presence of people of other racial, ethnic, cultural, and national backgrounds in and of itself is so toxic, so destructive that it will turn the United States into a poor, under developed country? (Aren’t you against over development, by the way?)
If "diversity = strength", then why are almost all of the best countries in the world to live (in terms of standard of living, low crime rates, health, etc.) also the most "boring" as far as diversity goes? Sweden, Norway, Hong Kong, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, Finland, etc.? How come those "multicultural paradises" such as Brazil and India don't rate so high?
Do you mind if I call you “Reagan’d”?
Not at all! Reagan was one of our greatest presidents ever! Do you mind if I call you "Obamaite"? Or perhaps "Jimmy Carterite" is better suited to your political beliefs?
I wonder if you would be so rabidly against immigration - or illegal immigration, to give you every benefit of the doubt - if it were large numbers of Olafssons washing up on our shores.
Again with the race baiting! You know you're losing the argument when you start accusing others of "racism"! Why don't you do some internet research and see what the attitudes in England are towards workers from Poland? What about the attitudes of South Africans towards migrants from other African countries such as Zimbabwe, their so-called "African brothers and sisters"? What about the findings in this Pew Research Center report on global attitudes towards immigrants?
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=258
Report your findings here, and then try and call other people "racist" with a straight face!
I take the rule of law seriously. But, some laws are wise and some are foolish. And I find it difficult to work up a moral lather against illegals who for the most part are more sinned against than sinning, especially in the age of the PATRIOT Act and Guantanamo Bay.
Obviously you don't take the rule of law seriously, because you conveniently pick and choose which laws you wish to obey. Just like you say you're an atheist, but conveniently use religion (Quakers) when it suits your beliefs!
Wade, you have no clue. London is very diverse and has a great standard of living. So does Shanghai. Dublin's standard of living has increased tremendously with its recent increased immigration. Other European countries are stagnating in part because of their anti-immigration tendencies. Japan is dealing with a host of social issues resulting from population decline. Iceland has had a surge of immigration recently, mostly from Eastern Europe, because it did not have a large enough workforce. Half of Norway's population growth in the last few years has come from immigration. Sweden has had high levels of immigration since the 1980s, with 2006 being a record year for Swedish immigration. You also are trying to compare the world's superpower with countries of 5 million people. Try to educate yourself before you comment, you may not look so foolish. As for your bigotry,I can't help you there.
London is very diverse and has a great standard of living.
Great place to live if you're Madonna or Gwyneth Paltrow, and can afford to insulate yourself from the rest of the population in a townhouse in an exclusive neighborhood, can send your children to private schools, don't have to ride the Tube, etc. Google "Bloomberg chauffeur driven limousine liberal" for the New York City analogue.
And I suppose those members of the "religion of peace" who bombed the London Tube and the buses were forced to do so by people like me, right?
Shanghai
Here's what Wikipedia says about Shanghai:
The many migrants coming to Shanghai from inland China have raised tensions in the past decade, often they do not speak the local dialect and therefore use Mandarin as a lingua franca. Rising crime rates, littering, harassive panhandling, and an overloading of the basic infrastructure (mainly public transportation and public schools) associated with the rise of these migrant populations (over 3 million new migrants in 2003 alone) have been generating some ill will from the Shanghainese. Efforts have been made by the local Shanghai municipal government to provide adequate welfare for the migrant populations in Shanghai, while also being cautious not to further increase the burdens of the native-born population.
Wow! And I suppose you wish New York City would follow the lead of Shanghai! Maybe you hope New York City will take in 3 million immigrants this year? Be careful what you wish for!
Japan is dealing with a host of social issues resulting from population decline.
Japan deals with these issues by technological innovation - increased use of computers, robots, not by importing "wage slaves" from foreign countries.
Half of Norway's population growth in the last few years has come from immigration. Sweden has had high levels of immigration since the 1980s, with 2006 being a record year for Swedish immigration.
And where is the growth in Norway and Sweden's crime rates been concentrated? Google "Malmo crime" and report back with your findings.
Try to educate yourself before you comment, you may not look so foolish. As for your bigotry, I can't help you there.
No, educate yourself, and get your facts straight before you publicly display your diarrhea of the mouth! As for your stupidity and ad hominem attacks, I can't help you there!
Wade, your comments on London, Japan, Norway and Sweden are just ridiculously stupid. Is that the best you can do? Robots? Of course it is, you are an ignorant bigot.
As for Shanghai, I also saw this on wikipedia: The city is an emerging tourist destination renowned for its historical landmarks such as the Bund and Xintiandi, its modern and ever-expanding Pudong skyline including the Oriental Pearl Tower, and its new reputation as a cosmopolitan center of culture and design. Today, Shanghai is recognized as China's most important centre of commerce and finance, and has been called a future global city and the showpiece of the world's fastest-growing economy
ANONYMOUS: You are the best friend this board has.
Always trying to be friendly, friend.
ANONYMOUS: By mouthing all those standard bromides….
Actually, any bromides that I might be displaying here are WRITTEN, not mouthed. But point taken. I think we’re all guilty of re-hashing the arguments of our respective sides. But since my arguments are on the side of the best of our national traditions and yours are small-minded, poor of spirit, and frankly un-American, if I’m going to be clichéd I take comfort in the fact that my clichés are the clichés of the angels.
ANONYMOUS: …then getting shot down again and again…
Not sure where I’ve been shot down. I’ve barely even been answered. Shooting me down would be Joe from Ridgewood backing up his “90% of immigrants are rapists, drunks, etc.” claim with some hard data.
ANONYMOUS: …you hollow out the tiresome propoganda that the machine feeds us.
You know, this hack (see below) doesn’t think that “hollow out” is really the phrase you’re looking for. But judge not a man’s style…
The Machine… The Clubhouse… My oh my you all live in a world of nefarious enemies. Might as well throw the System, the Organization, and the Internationale in there as well.
ANONYMOUS: Sooner or later your handlers will tell you to stop.
I’m not sure who you mean by that. The only person who’s going to tell me to stop is Crappy, if he bans me (as I’ve heard he’s done to others). Until then – and though I’ve often disagreed with him I will admit he’s taken no action against me, which I admire him for – I’m just a citizen trying to uphold American values and, what’s more important, NEW YORK values against the forces of intolerance.
ANONYMOUS: Find a photo of any major shopping area say 1950…. etc.
I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be looking for here. What? Prices are higher now? Color photography is more prevalent? Another anonymous poster seems to think that there are signs in other languages now. Is that it? Is that what you’re getting at? Because if it is it’s a pretty weak point. As the other poster has pointed out, new immigrants have conducted businesses in their native languages (until they become assimilated) since time immemorial. To which I would add: and what’s the problem with that? Doesn’t break my legs or take money out of my pocket. If I don’t want to go into such establishments there are plenty of others that operate in English. And if I do I might actually learn about something I hadn’t known before. OOOOOOOhhhhh! Can’t have that! That’s the death of American Democracy!
I sincerely hope that you meant something else that I just didn’t get because I honestly hope that that wasn’t the best you could come up with. Because if it was…what are you, a closet Québécois? Who’s the hack, Hack?
"An emerging tourist destination" does not make a livable city. It makes money off people just passing through. The economy of Mexico is based on tourism. Would you want to live there?
Didn't think so.
"The only person who’s going to tell me to stop is Crappy, if he bans me (as I’ve heard he’s done to others)."
There's no "ban" button on Blogger so I am not sure what you are talking about.
As for Shanghai, I also saw this on wikipedia: The city is an emerging tourist destination renowned for its historical landmarks such as the Bund and Xintiandi, its modern and ever-expanding Pudong skyline including the Oriental Pearl Tower, and its new reputation as a cosmopolitan center of culture and design. Today, Shanghai is recognized as China's most important centre of commerce and finance, and has been called a future global city and the showpiece of the world's fastest-growing economy
Well, what are you waiting for! Pack your bags and shuffle off to Shanghai! At least you won't have to deal with us "Archie Bunkers" here in Queens any more!
And the best part - you won't ever feel like you've left Queens, since the whole country is just like cosmopolitan downtown FLUSHING!!!!!
If life is so wonderful in these other countries, then why are so many of their citizens moving here? And why is life so shitty there? Should we be welcoming people who are "part of the problem" somewhere else, who would rather leave than help strengthen their homelands?
CRAPPY: There's no "ban" button on Blogger so I am not sure what you are talking about.
There's a whole other blog full of people who say their posts here never go up. But, as I said, I've not had that problem, disagree with you on the issues though I may. For which I thank you.
"There's a whole other blog full of people who say their posts here never go up."
You read and believe one of Pinky's blogs and you expect to be taken seriously? How do I "ban" people? Please show me how, because I haven't figured it out yet.
Let Bloomberg move into Corona and see if he still thinks our immigration policy is "insane".
MS13 will teach him a thing or two.
Now please tell us that this vicious Salvadoran gang doesn't claim to operate in this neck-o-the woods
"Ridgewoodian" (a.k.a. Salvatore).
Yeah, right!
Do Immigrants Make Us Safer?
By EYAL PRESS
Published: December 3, 2006
Although the midterm election failed to render a clear verdict on illegal immigration, the new Democratic Congress may enact sweeping legislation tightening border controls and allowing more guest workers next year. If that happens, the rancorous debate about how undocumented workers affect jobs and wages in the United States will be rejoined. So, too, will an equally rancorous, if less prominent, debate: Do immigrants make the U.S. more crime-ridden and dangerous?
In an age of Latino gangs and Chinese criminal networks, the notion that communities with growing immigrant populations tend to be unsafe is fairly well established, at least in the popular imagination. In a national survey conducted in 2000, 73 percent of Americans said they believe that immigrants are either “somewhat” or “very” likely to increase crime, higher than the 60 percent who fear they are “likely to cause Americans to lose jobs.” Cities like Avon Park, Fla., have considered ordinances recently to dissuade businesses from hiring illegal immigrants, whose presence “destroys our neighborhoods.” Even President Bush, whose perceived generosity to undocumented workers has earned him vilification on the right, commented in a speech this May that illegal immigration “strains state and local budgets and brings crime to our communities.”
So goes the conventional wisdom. But is it true? In fact, according to evidence cropping up in various places, the opposite may be the case. Ramiro Martinez Jr., a professor of criminal justice at Florida International University, has sifted through homicide records in border cities like San Diego and El Paso, both heavily populated by Mexican immigrants, both places where violent crime has fallen significantly in recent years. “Almost without exception,” he told me, “I’ve discovered that the homicide rate for Hispanics was lower than for other groups, even though their poverty rate was very high, if not the highest, in these metropolitan areas.” He found the same thing in the Haitian neighborhoods of Miami. In his book “New York Murder Mystery,” the criminologist Andrew Karmen examined the trend in New York City and likewise found that the “disproportionately youthful, male and poor immigrants” who arrived during the 1980s and 1990s “were surprisingly law-abiding” and that their settlement into once-decaying neighborhoods helped “put a brake on spiraling crime rates.”
The most prominent advocate of the “more immigrants, less crime” theory is Robert J. Sampson, chairman of the sociology department at Harvard. A year ago, Sampson was an author of an article in The American Journal of Public Health that reported the findings of a detailed study of crime in Chicago. Based on information gathered on the perpetrators of more than 3,000 violent acts committed between 1995 and 2002, supplemented by police records and community surveys, it found that the rate of violence among Mexican-Americans was significantly lower than among both non-Hispanic whites and blacks.
In June, Sampson and I drove out to a neighborhood in Little Village, Chicago’s largest Hispanic community. The area we visited is decidedly poor: in terms of per capita income, 84 percent of Chicago neighborhoods are better off and 99 percent have a greater proportion of residents with a high-school education. As we made our way down a side street, Sampson noted that many of the residents make their living as domestic workers and in other low-wage occupations, often paid off the books because they are undocumented. In places of such concentrated disadvantage, a certain level of violence and social disorder is assumed to be inevitable. As we strolled around, Sampson paused on occasion to make a mental note of potential trouble signs: an alley strewn with garbage nobody had bothered to pick up; a sign in Spanish in several windows, complaining about the lack of a park in the vicinity where children can play. Yet for all of this, the neighborhood was strikingly quiet. And, according to the data Sampson has collected, it is surprisingly safe. The burglary rate in the neighborhood is in the bottom fifth of the city. The overall crime rate is nearly in the bottom third.
The safety of neighborhoods like these has received little attention in the debate about immigration — or, for that matter, the debate about crime. Ever since cities like New York began cracking down on panhandling and loitering in the mid-1990s, a move that coincided with a precipitous drop in violence, policy makers have embraced the so-called broken-windows theory, which emphasizes the deterrent effects of punishing such minor offenses. Lately, though, scholars have begun to question whether “broken windows” deserves all the credit for diminishing crime after all. Some researchers have linked progress to the cessation of the crack epidemic. Others point to an improved economy, community-policing initiatives or even the legalization of abortion, which reduced the number of poor, unwanted children growing up in high-risk neighborhoods.
Sampson’s theory may be the most provocative yet. Could America’s cities be safer today not because fewer unwanted children live in them but because a lot more immigrants do? Could illegal immigration be making the nation a more law-abiding place?
There are, to be sure, scholars who take issue with this rosy picture. Wesley Skogan, a political scientist at Northwestern University, has spent the past 13 years tracking violence and social disorder in the white, black and Latino communities in Chicago. In a new book, “Police and Community in Chicago: A Tale of Three Cities,” just out from Oxford University Press, Skogan concludes that the big success story took place not in immigrant areas but in African-American ones, where participation in community-policing programs was highest and violence fell the most. “About two-thirds of the crime decline in Chicago since 1991 took place in black neighborhoods,” Skogan says. In Hispanic communities, by contrast, Skogan found that the fear of crime, as measured in surveys of residents, and real social disorder — gang activity, loitering — actually became worse as the foreign-born population increased. Skogan acknowledges that Hispanic immigrants don’t show up much in arrest records, but he says he believes part of the explanation for this rests in the fact that those who are undocumented go to enormous lengths to “stay off the radar.” Many also come from a country, Mexico, where distrust of law enforcement is endemic, which is why he suspects they underreport crime and participate less in community-policing programs, as his study found.
Sampson doesn’t deny that crime may be underreported in immigrant neighborhoods. Nonetheless, he is quick to note that as the ranks of foreigners in the United States boomed during the 1990s — increasing by more than 50 percent to 31 million — America’s cities became markedly less dangerous. That these two trends might be related has been overlooked, he says, in part because immigrants, like African-Americans, often trigger negative associations regardless of how they actually behave. Not long ago, Sampson and Stephen W. Raudenbush, a sociologist who teaches at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment to test this idea. The experiment drew on interviews with more than 3,500 Chicago residents, each of whom was asked how serious problems like loitering and public drinking were where they lived. The responses were compared with the actual level of chaos in the neighborhood, culled from police data and by having researchers drive along hundreds of blocks to document every sign of decay and disorder they could spot.
The social and ethnic composition of a neighborhood turned out to have a profound bearing on how residents of Chicago perceived it, irrespective of the actual conditions on the streets. “In particular,” Sampson and Raudenbush found, “the proportion of blacks and the proportion of Latinos in a neighborhood were related positively and significantly to perceived disorder.” Once you adjusted for the ethnic, racial and class composition of a community, “much of the variation in levels of disorder that appeared to be explained by what residents saw was spurious.”
In other words, the fact that people think neighborhoods with large concentrations of brown-skinned immigrants are unsafe makes sense in light of popular stereotypes and subliminal associations. But that doesn’t mean there is any rational basis for their fears. Such a message hasn’t sat well with everyone. As the debate about immigration has grown more heated and polarized, Sampson has found himself barraged with hate mail. “Vicious stuff,” he told me, “you know, thinly veiled threats, people saying, ‘You should just come and look at the Mexican gangs here.’ ” But Sampson has also won some far-flung admirers. In Mexico, one of the nation’s leading dailies, La Reforma, published a story hailing his findings, under the triumphal heading, “Son barrios de paisanos menos violentos que los blancos ” (“Neighborhoods of our countrymen are less violent than white ones”).
If immigrants really are making America safer, why is this so? “That,” Sampson says, “is the $64,000 question.” In discussing the persistence of poverty and the causes of crime, sociologists on the left often emphasize the importance of “structural” factors like unemployment and racism, while scholars on the right tend to focus on individual behavior like having an illegitimate child and using drugs. Sampson prefers to focus on the nature of the social interactions taking place in particular neighborhoods. At one point in Little Village, we strolled past a house where a couple of young girls were playing outside. It didn’t seem that anybody was supervising them. Next door, however, an elderly woman was standing just inside the window. The window was open, and as Sampson and I passed by, her eyes did not leave us. “Did you notice that?” asked Sampson as we proceeded down the block. She was making sure the two strangers who had appeared weren’t dangerous. It was an example of the kind of informal social control that Sampson says can prevent even the poorest neighborhoods from spiraling into chaos and that he suspects may distinguish many tightknit immigrant communities.
But Sampson also notes the importance of another factor, one often stressed by conservatives: Mexicans in Chicago, his study found, are more likely to be married than either blacks or whites. “The family dynamic is very noticeable here,” Sampson remarked as we passed a girl with long braided hair clutching her mother’s hand. Her father followed a few steps behind. Sampson does not believe family structure explains everything: the data showed that in immigrant neighborhoods, even individuals who are not in married households are 15 percent less likely to engage in crime. Yet neither did he discount its significance.
To the extent a strong family structure does play a role, it has left Sampson understandably mystified why the most strident opponents of immigration so often come from the right. Shouldn’t conservatives concerned about the breakdown of traditional values be celebrating these family-oriented newcomers? This is indeed what David Brooks argued not long ago in a column in The New York Times, gently chiding his fellow conservatives for reflexively assuming foreigners have had a corrosive impact on the nation’s moral fiber. “As immigration has surged, violent crime has fallen 57 percent,” Brooks noted in the column, which was titled “Immigrants to Be Proud Of.”
Sampson wrote Brooks a note complimenting him on the piece. But he is under no illusions that his views on crime and immigration will endear him to Republicans clamoring for America’s borders to be sealed. On the other hand, it might not make his colleagues on the left any happier. The flip side of the impulse to demonize immigrants is, after all, the tendency to romanticize them as hard-working Horatio Alger types who valiantly lift themselves out of poverty — with the implication that if they can avoid falling victim to drugs, gangs and other inner-city scourges, those who succumb to these forces have only themselves to blame. In calling attention to the virtues of immigrant communities, there is a risk that Sampson’s work will be taken by some as a commentary on the high crime rate in some poor African-American communities.
Of course, comparing the experiences of Mexican immigrants and African-Americans may seem grossly unfair, not least because studies have shown that many employers are willing to hire foreigners (on the assumption they work hard) but not blacks (on the assumption they don’t). Yet the fact that it is unfair hardly means such comparisons won’t be made — even though immigrants commit less crime not only than African-Americans in inner-city neighborhoods but less than American-born white people as well.
Before anyone rushes to conclude that crime would vanish from America’s cities if only more foreigners moved here, it is worth considering something else Sampson’s study uncovered. It is a finding as troubling as his basic thesis about immigrants is hopeful. Second-generation immigrants in Chicago were significantly more likely to commit crimes than their parents, it turns out, and those of the third generation more likely still.
Opponents of immigration frequently charge that Mexican immigrants threaten America’s national identity because of their failure to assimilate. A more reasonable concern might be the opposite of this: not that foreigners in low-income neighborhoods refuse to adopt the norms of the native culture but that their children and grandchildren do.
The sociologists Alejandro Portes and Rubén G. Rumbaut conducted a multiyear longitudinal study of immigrant children in Miami and San Diego. The offspring of foreigners who grow up in impoverished ghettos, they have argued, particularly Mexican-Americans exposed to racial as well as economic discrimination, often lose the drive and optimism their parents had and come to share the widespread attitude among their inner-city peers that survival depends on brandishing an oppositional stance toward school authorities and, more broadly, a culture that looks down on them. “The learning of new cultural patterns and entry into American social circles does not lead in these cases to upward mobility but to exactly the opposite,” Portes and Rumbaut contend, a process of “downward assimilation” that has created a new “rainbow underclass.” Astoundingly, in a recent paper, Rumbaut and several doctoral students found that the incarceration rate among second-generation Mexicans was eight times higher than for the first generation; among Vietnamese, it was more than 10 times higher. Where the first-generation immigrants in their data were less likely to wind up in prison than native-born whites, the second (with the exception of Filipinos and Chinese) were more likely.
Such findings suggest the class and race divisions that cleave America’s social landscape may prove decisive after all. In Sweden, a country with markedly less inequality and more generous social welfare policies — and far less violent crime — studies have shown the rate of offending tends to be lower for the second generation of immigrants than for the first. Of course, America has historically done an admirable job of assimilating newcomers, and the theory of “downward assimilation” has not gone unchallenged. Recently, a team of researchers completed a study in New York of more than 2,200 second-generation immigrants and 1,200 native-born Americans that allowed them to compare the rate of offending among various groups, West Indians versus African-Americans, for instance, or Russians versus American-born whites. According to John Mollenkopf, a political scientist at the CUNY Graduate Center, the arrest rates among the children of immigrants were the same or lower in every case. “The second-generation immigrants are doing better, on the whole, than the native-born,” he said.
Clearly, the debate over assimilation will continue, as Sampson acknowledges. When I asked him why he thought the positive trends he and his colleagues had discovered in Chicago seemed to become diluted by the second and third generations, he paused.
“That’s another $64,000 question,” he said, chuckling softly. Part of the explanation, he went on to speculate, may rest in the exposure subsequent generations have to the things that often lure young people in America’s cities to engage in illicit activities: drugs, cash, cars, contraband. Part of it, as well, might be the adoption of streetwise attitudes that lead people to react quickly to insults in the United States. One thing it is difficult for Americans to realize, he said, is how unusually violent their country is, particularly in light of its inordinate wealth. Recently, scholars have become increasingly interested in the historical origins of American violence. Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan and others have traced our “culture of violence” back to the valorization of retribution and dueling among Scotch-Irish immigrants in the American South, suggesting that antique folkways have become encoded into the nation’s DNA.
It is a dark view, perhaps, but Sampson is hopeful that the good news about crime in recent years can continue, albeit under certain conditions, among them less alarmism about the supposedly dangerous foreigners in our midst. Sampson shook his head when describing some of the correspondence he has received from people absolutely certain that immigrants are sowing mayhem in our streets. In the last few years, he noted, such people have had somewhat less cause for worry, since the numbers show the flow of newcomers has subsided a bit. Meanwhile, the crime rate in some cities has begun to creep back up. Sampson, for one, does not think this is a mere coincidence. Those clamoring for America to close its borders in order to prevent violence-prone strangers from flooding our shores may well get their way, he acknowledged, but they ought to be careful what they wish for.
Eyal Press, a contributing writer for The Nation, is the author of “Absolute Convictions: My Father, a City and the Conflict That Divided America.”
NewsMax.com:
Monday, March 27, 2006 11:39 a.m. EST
Justice Dept. Figures on Incarcerated Illegals
One of the more popular claims by illegal immigration proponents is that those who enter the U.S. by breaking the law are invariably "hard-working" and "law-abiding" once they get here.
That argument, however, has one major flaw. According to Justice Department statistics and the analysis of immigration experts, the "law-abiding" claim often isn't true.
As Investors Business Daily reported in March 2005:
"The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003. Of those, 108,000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California's prison population, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces."
Story Continues Below
Citing an Urban Institute study, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies Steven Camorata noted in 2004: "Roughly 17 percent of the prison population at the federal level are illegal aliens. That's a huge number since illegal aliens only account for about 3 percent of the total population."
Former California Gov. Pete Wilson places the percentage of illegal aliens in U.S. prisons even higher. In 2001, he told Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly:
"We had problems related to the costs of educating children who were acknowledged to be in the country illegally, healthcare costs. One in five in our prison population were illegal immigrants who had been convicted of a felony after entering the country illegally."
The Federation for American Immigration Reform also turned to the Justice Department to get statistics on criminal aliens. They report:
"In March 2000, Congress made public Department of Justice statistics showing that, over the previous five years, the INS had released over 35,000 criminal aliens instead of deporting them. Over 11,000 of those released went on to commit serious crimes, over 1,800 of which were violent ones [including 98 homicides, 142 sexual assaults, and 44 kidnappings].
"In 2001, thanks to a decision by the Supreme Court, the INS was forced to release into our society over 3,000 criminal aliens [who collectively had been convicted of 125 homicides, 387 sex offenses, and 772 assault charges]."
Up to a third of the U.S. federal prison population is composed of non-citizens, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics - but not all non-citizen prison inmates are illegal aliens.
As to the "hard-working" claim, CIS notes: "The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 24.5 percent compared to 16.3 percent for native households."
Investor's Business Daily concurs: "Once [illegals] get here, they are 50 percent more likely to be on welfare than citizens."
Myths and lies of illegal immigration
Articles
By Kathy McKee; January 4, 2004; published in The Sonoran News
Because the pro-illegal alien lobby has a bottomless pit of money and can hire PR people to spin (and fabricate) anything any way, there are an undue number of myths and lies that the public (and many politicians) has bought into. The FACTS are:
1. It is NOT racist to call these people "illegal aliens" In fact, "illegal aliens" is the only term used in federal laws and regulations to describe criminals (and they ARE criminals) who come into our country illegally. They are not illegal immigrants, not undocumented immigrants, not migrant workers, and not day laborers - they're ILLEGAL ALIENS.
2. Mexico is NOT a poor country. By sending its teeming masses to our country, that status keeps on rising. Mexico has more resources per square mile than the U.S. and plenty of money to take care of its own people. Why should the taxpayers of this country subsidize Mexico's corruption?
3. Illegal aliens are NOT necessarily coming here to work. Lou Dobbs recently reported that 33 percent of our prison population is now comprised of non-citizens. Plus, 36 to 42 percent of illegal aliens are on welfare. So, for a good proportion of these people, the American dream is crime and welfare, not coming here to work.
4. Illegal aliens are NOT doing work Americans won't do. What jobs won't Americans do? In most states, Americans still clean their own houses, do their own landscaping, clean hotel rooms, work in restaurants and fast food places, paint houses, DO CONSTRUCTION WORK, work in airports, etc. - just like we have the past 200 years before "our" government allowed these people to invade our country. There are 18 million Americans who cannot find a job, so illegal aliens who are coming here to work do so at peril to American workers.
5. Illegal aliens absolutely do not contribute more than they cost. Certainly the millions in prison and on welfare aren't contributing a dime to our economy, and the ones who are working often are paid in cash with no deductions for taxes at all. The ones who use fraudulent social security numbers and qualify to pay taxes and social security have so many deductions for dependents that they pay little if any taxes. We have seen them pay less than $100 in taxes and get back $4,000 refunds (thanks to earned income tax credits and multiple dependents).Some bargain, eh?
6. The economy does NOT depend on illegal aliens. Sure, greedy CEOs (making $50 to $150 MILLION a year) and business owners depend on illegal aliens, but due to #3, #4 and #5 above, the only thing illegal aliens are contributing to is the collapse of our economy and making the rich richer.
7. Without illegal aliens, the price of agricultural products and other goods and services will NOT soar. The definitive study on this subject is the University of Iowa's "How Much Is That Tomato?" The study concludes that 'since labor is such a small component of the end-price of agricultural products (which includes price to the growers, transportation costs, processing /storage costs, grocers' profit, etc.), using minimum wage workers instead of illegal aliens would increase prices of agricultural products by approximately 3 percent in the summer and 4 percent in the winter ... hardly the making of $10 heads of lettuce, $25 hamburgers, $1,000 per night Days Inn hotel rooms like the pro-illegal alien lobby claims.
8. Consumers are NOT benefiting from lower labor costs. Again, it's CEOs and business owners who benefit from taxpayer subsidies for their illegal alien workers. The Big Three automakers say they moved so many jobs to Mexico because their labor costs are 80 percent less than in America. Anybody notice the price of new cars spiraling downward under NAFTA?
So, before you believe the prevalent pack of lies perpetuated by the illegal alien lobby, which makes billions off this government-sanctioned criminal activity, ask yourself who's saying this garbage and look at what they have to gain. Citizens Against Illegal Immigration, just like Protect Arizona NOW, is an all-volunteer, totally grass-roots organization of citizens who are making nothing and have nothing personal to gain from their efforts to fight this corruption. Whose side are you on, and what are YOU doing to save your state and country from this evil?
Holy crap, Crappie. This board has soared to new heights in the past day or so.
Good contributions by all!
ANONYMOUS: We're all products of our environment, are we not?
Sure we are, to an extent. Not 100%, but I won’t deny its importance. And when we move from one environment to another we generally accommodate ourselves to our new surroundings. When in Rome we do as the Romans do, unless we’re really obnoxious tourists. Same goes for New York. Some other poster complained that Flushing is becoming indistinguishable from Shanghai. Well, I’ve never been to Shanghai (I doubt that poster has, either) but I know people who have and they’ve consistently failed to remark as to how similar the two places are. And I wouldn’t really expect them to be. You know why? Because Shanghai is in CHINA and Flushing is in the UNITED STATES and those two places are very, very different. For example: China is arguably a fascist state whereas the United States, despite these last eight disastrous years, isn’t. The people who move from one to the other accommodate themselves to that difference. Maybe not as quickly as you or some others would prefer but who are you to judge? A hundred years ago it was the “dirty Jews,” the “greasy I-talians” who were going to sink America in their squalor and depravity. (And let’s remember, the term “third world” wasn’t invented until much later but the shtetls of Eastern Europe and the impoverished villages of Italy and Sicily were as third as any world has ever been.) Didn’t happen then and there’s no particular reason to think the Mexicans, the Dominicans, the Chinese are going to do it to us now.
ANONYMOUS: Standards of behavior are different in many parts of the world than they are in this country.
True. But this country is remarkably successful at assimilating arriving cultures – much more so than Europe has been - especially when it comes to retaining what’s really good about them and discarding the rest. Sure, there are occasional atrocities like honor killings and genital mutilations but, sensational as they are, they’re also vanishingly rare. To be geeky for a moment we’re a somewhat less evil Borg. That’s our strength.
CRAPPY: You read and believe one of Pinky's blogs and you expect to be taken seriously?
And I’m supposed to know that that’s “Pinky” how? This is the web. We’re all anonymous. There are lots of mistaken identities (see below). Christ, way to take a compliment, friend.
ANONYMOUS: Now please tell us that this vicious Salvadoran gang doesn't claim to operate in this neck-o-the woods "Ridgewoodian" (a.k.a. Salvatore).
I actually lived on the Elmhurst/Corona border for about eight years in the 90s and the early 00s, coming and going at all hours, and I never had any problems with gangs. Of course, I moved to Ridgewood seven years ago and I’ve seldom been back since, so I don’t know if it’s changed.
As for this Salvatore person, I think you must have mistaken me for someone else (must be a handsome devil, though). The only Salvatore I know, the Uncannonized Saint of Norwich, CT, died four years ago; I went to his funeral. If I were a praying man I’d be asking him for favors in heaven.
WADE NICHOLS: Again with the race baiting!,
You know, you’re right. Just because you seem not to have any use for anyone who’s not….SAY, just who DO you have a use for? Anyone? Or do you only like dang foreigners when they STAY foreign? Would you exclude everyone in the world from these halcyon shores or would some happy few meet the Wade Nichols standard for admission?
And since, if I'm reading you right, you believe that the best societies to live in are the least diverse (you bring up Sweden, Japan, Denmark, and others) does it follow that you think this country would be better off if it were less diverse? If that’s what you think (and if you don’t could you explain the contradiction), who has to go? And how would you go about getting them gone? Sealing off the borders? Wouldn’t really do much for those pesky undesirables who are already here. Deportation? Expensive. Forced sterilization? Take a long time for the effects to manifest. Extermination? Just how committed are you?
Oh, and a thought: Several of the countries that you mentioned are social democracies, at least to some degree. Maybe that’s why they’re so livable? I’m not saying it is, necessarily. Your thoughts?
WADE NICHOLS: Why don't you do some internet research and see what the attitudes in England are towards workers from Poland? What about the attitudes of South Africans towards migrants from other African countries such as Zimbabwe, their so-called "African brothers and sisters"?
I’m not entirely sure what that has to do with immigration policy here in this country. The English are notorious for their attitude that, “the wogs begin at Calais.” If they or the South Africans are as xenophobic or racist as you seem to imply, well, shame on them.
WADE NICHOLS: Obviously you don't take the rule of law seriously, because you conveniently pick and choose which laws you wish to obey.
Well, first of all, I’d never trust a man who hasn’t broken a single law in his entire life. And I certainly wouldn’t want to have a beer with such a dullard. But more seriously, there’s a long tradition of distinguishing between things that are wrong in themselves, like murder, rape, robbery, and torture, and things that are wrong because they’re prohibited, like driving 61 in a 60 zone or crossing an invisible line in the dirt. That doesn’t mean that there might not be valid reasons for prohibiting those things but they’re not evil in themselves. So, while I recognize the need for a country to reasonably control its borders I can’t work myself up into a high dudgeon over those who slip across that border without permission, provided they otherwise comport themselves lawfully. Are they criminals? Sure. Call them criminals. But does that make them as bad as rapists, murderers, and torturers? Not by a long shot. And it’s idiotic to say that it does.
Fidelity to the law doesn’t mean unquestioning acceptance of every single law on the books. There are foolish laws and unjust laws. The Mayor seems to believe that the immigration laws as they currently stand are both. And so he’s called for those laws to be amended, which is a perfectly respectable thing for him to do and entirely within his rights. I think he’s probably correct to do so. But that doesn’t make either of us lawbreakers. Believe it or not I’ve never crossed a border illegally in my life and I’ve never knowingly harbored illegal aliens.
On the eve of the Glorious Fourth of July we would all do well to remember that some laws – and I don’t necessarily count the immigration laws among them, so don’t get all frothy at the mouth with me - are so unjust that an honorable man is practically duty bound to break them. You might not agree with me but I think George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Mohandas Gandhi, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Lech Walesa would. And, frankly, I find them more admirable than you.
WADE NICHOLS Just like you say you're an atheist, but conveniently use religion…when it suits your beliefs!
It’s been a long time since I’ve had to prove my athiestical bona fides. This is something my friend the Iraqi expatriate Communist artist professor security guard (another dang foreigner!) has said, which I’ve taken to heart: “I do not believe in God. And if he exists, I am AGAINST him! And I will tell him so – TO HIS FACE!” Convinced?
That said, even religion occasionally gets morality right and when it does, of course I make use of its insights. It’s called open mindedness and it’s an American virtue you should look into.
And when we move from one environment to another we generally accommodate ourselves to our new surroundings.
Yes, that's what we're talking about, however there are entire populations living within this country that don't. And you mean "acclimate".
Some other poster complained that Flushing is becoming indistinguishable from Shanghai. Well, I’ve never been to Shanghai (I doubt that poster has, either) but I know people who have and they’ve consistently failed to remark as to how similar the two places are.
I'd say that the businesses operating on top of each other selling cheap crap with signs exclusively in Chinese make Flushing the U.S. equivalent of Shanghai, and I don't have to go there to know that. Actually, there are probably more English signs in Shanghai...
"A hundred years ago it was the “dirty Jews,” the “greasy I-talians” who were going to sink America in their squalor and depravity."
I have read Queens newspaper reports and history books from 100 years ago and haven't found references to these types of biases. In fact, Queens opened its doors to those who were not welcome in Manhattan. Some of the first free blacks in New York were in Queens County. Immigrants from different countries generally lived side by side here in harmony. They would come and, yes, retain some of the old customs, but they didn't walk around expecting everyone to accommodate them because they spoke a different language. You forgot one on your list: There are still arranged marriages in Indian-American culture today, dowries paid and all. Go ask around in Jackson Heights.
Let's remember that the English and Dutch settled the area together and that the Flushing Remonstrance was critical to the birth of religious freedom in the colonies. Middle Village opened their arms to Jews seeking to escape the squalor of the Lower East Side. Somehow that history has been erased by a 30-year old sitcom and all native born whites are automatically labeled as Archie Bunkers now. As was mentioned previously, you don't see Amos and Andy or Hop Sing references applied to other races.
I can’t work myself up into a high dudgeon over those who slip across that border without permission, provided they otherwise comport themselves lawfully.
Ask those who came here legally if they are in a "high dudgeon" over line-jumpers. No one is more pissed over illegal immigration than legal immigrants who had to wait years to come here.
Now please explain why American tax dollars should go towards feeding, clothing, housing and helping alien lawbreakers.
Please explain to the woman who was raped in a swamp in Flushing Meadows Park by 4 illegal aliens while her boyfriend was tied up your stance on why it was perfectly ok for them to slip across the border in the first place. I'm sure she'd be happy to know how open-minded you are.
"I can’t work myself up into a high dudgeon over those who slip across that border without permission, provided they otherwise comport themselves lawfully."
How long do we have to wait to find out if they will obey the law or not? Oh, wait, the police are not allowed to find out their immigration status in order to have them shipped back, saving us a hell of a lot of money jailing them.
I posted the Eyal press article, which was published in the NY Times and cites research conducted by professors from Harvard and the University of Chicago to back its conclusions.
The Newsmax.com article relies on information from the Center for Immigration studies, a group that the Wall Street Journal wrote has ties to white supremists:
"During a immigration subcommittee hearing in March, Mr. Cannon had the gumption to question the executive di-rector of CIS, Mark Krikorian, as well as to challenge Roy Beck, who heads NumbersUSA and serves as "spokesman" for CFAW. After first denying it, Mr. Krikorian was forced to admit that CIS is a spin-off of FAIR.
In fact, CIS, FAIR, NumbersUSA, Project-USA -- and more than a half-dozen similar groups that Republicans have become disturbingly comfy with -- were founded or funded (or both) by John Tanton, a retired doctor in Michigan. In addition to trying to stop immigration to the U.S., appropriate population-control measures for Dr. Tanton and his network include promoting China's one-child policy, sterilizing Third World women and wider use of RU-486.
FAIR, where Mr. Krikorian once worked, is run by Dan Stein and shares advisers and personnel with CIS and other members of the Tanton nexus. As our Jason Riley noted in a March 15 op-ed, "By Dr. Tanton's own reckoning, FAIR has received more than $1.5 million from the Pioneer Fund, a white-supremacist outfit devoted to racial purity through eugenics."
The McKee article is just some person spouting off (who is she anyway??). She doesn't even attempt to back her OPINIONS with any research or facts.
Great thing about the US -- everyone is entitled to an opinion, however dumb or wrong it may be.
McKee is the state coordinator of Citizens Against Illegal Immigration, as well as director of Protect Arizona NOW. A former Quaker Sunday School teacher and Volunteer of the Year in a large metropolitan area, she has a 35-year record of charity work and philanthropy largely benefiting minorities.
As for quoting the NY Times as the paper of record, well, let's recall the Jayson Blair incident.
In Biting the Hand That Feeds You, Congressman Steve King of Iowa noted:
What would the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration boycott look like without illegal immigration?
* The lives of 12 U.S. citizens would be saved who otherwise would die a violent death at the hands of murderous illegal aliens each day.
* Another 13 Americans would survive who are otherwise killed each day by uninsured drunk driving illegals.
* There would be no one to smuggle across our southern border the heroin, marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines, which plague the United States, reducing the U.S. supply of methamphetamines that day, by 80%.
* Our hospital emergency rooms would not be flooded with everything from gunshot wounds, to anchor babies, to imported diseases, to hangnails, giving American citizens the day off from standing in line behind illegals.
* Eight American children would not suffer the horror as victims of sex crimes.
I'll bet you did not see Congressman King's comments on the evening news.
The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration
"The McKee article is just some person spouting off (who is she anyway??). She doesn't even attempt to back her OPINIONS with any research or facts."
Can't rebut what someone says? Try to insult who they are. Demand facts when you can't provide any yourself. There can't be solid numbers because we don't know how damn many people are here illegally, are not allowed to find out if they are legal after they are arrested and even when we find out they are illegal, we can't do anything about them.
Expect another major terrorist incident by foreign nationals on U.S. soil because of these inane policies and inane leaders like Mike Bloomberg.
"Can't rebut what someone says? Try to insult who they are. Demand facts when you can't provide any yourself. There can't be solid numbers because we don't know how damn many people are here illegally, are not allowed to find out if they are legal after they are arrested and even when we find out they are illegal, we can't do anything about them."
Chill out and stop being so defensive. I honestly don't know who McKee is. My whole point is the NY Times articles is based upon RESEARCH conducted by professors. McKee just states her OPINIONS. I guess facts are not important if they get in the way of your beliefs.
"McKee is the state coordinator of Citizens Against Illegal Immigration, as well as director of Protect Arizona NOW. A former Quaker Sunday School teacher and Volunteer of the Year in a large metropolitan area, she has a 35-year record of charity work and philanthropy largely benefiting minorities."
This is word for word taken from the end of this mysterious McKee's article in that paper of record, the Sonoran news. She could claim to be a brain surgeon, but would you want her operating on you?
"As for quoting the NY Times as the paper of record, well, let's recall the Jayson Blair incident."
You're right -- I'll read the Sonoran news to keep up with current events.
Hey you guys can post articles for and against illegal immigration until kingdom come, however, no one has successfully rebutted any of the points made by the anti-illegal side. How can homicide rates be confirmed as lower if you have a population that is often nomadic and contains members who can disappear easily because there was never documentation of their existence in the first place? Do you think crime victims and their families here illegally are going to go running to the police to report crime or disappearances?
"“The learning of new cultural patterns and entry into American social circles does not lead in these cases to upward mobility but to exactly the opposite,” Portes and Rumbaut contend, a process of “downward assimilation” that has created a new “rainbow underclass.” Astoundingly, in a recent paper, Rumbaut and several doctoral students found that the incarceration rate among second-generation Mexicans was eight times higher than for the first generation; among Vietnamese, it was more than 10 times higher. Where the first-generation immigrants in their data were less likely to wind up in prison than native-born whites, the second (with the exception of Filipinos and Chinese) were more likely."
I've been hearing that the immigrants are usually not very assimilated or successful but their offspring are. Thanks for clearing that up.
FRED: “And when we move from one environment to another we generally accommodate ourselves to our new surroundings.” Yes, that's what we're talking about, however there are entire populations living within this country that don't.
As I said elsewhere in that very post, if they’re not doing it on your timetable, well – who are you, exactly to be making timetables for them. How long would it take you to become thoroughly Chinese or French if you were plopped down in the middle of Shanghai or Paris? I’d do my best but I’m not sure I would ever speak the language entirely fluently, or give up my American habits: even if I were to take out citizenship and legally become some other nationality I’d always be an alien. But if I had children or grandchildren, unless I kept them locked in the basement and force-fed them hamburgers and Coke, by simple cultural osmosis they would naturally become Chinese or French or what have you. This is what happens here. Haven’t you seen any movies in the last, oh, forty years? From great art like The Godfather (I&II) to more middlebrow fare like The Joy Luck Club> and The Namesake this is a major theme, the making of Americans over generations. Take a look at the great, great first scene of Angels in America (which justifies Meryl Streep's entire career): from poor Jewish immigrant to grandchildren with goyische names, in three generations. (And about three minutes of screen time.) That’s how it works. Sure, the government lets you apply for citizenship after, what, five or six years. And that’s cool – I for one was thrilled to welcome David “Big Papi” Ortiz aboard a couple of months ago. But, really, it’s like graduating from grade school: it’s not the end of one’s journey, it’s the beginning. That’s just how it is, it’s probably how it’s always going to be. It’s a process that millions and millions of immigrants have gone through, successfully, in the past and that millions are going through now. So stop fucking bitching.
FRED: And you mean "acclimate".
No. If I had meant “acclimate” I would have written “acclimate.” I meant “accommodate.” To adapt, fit, suit, or adjust (one thing or person to another) either actually or in idea.
FRED:…I don't have to go there to know that.
“Without going out of my door
I can know all things of earth
With out looking out of my window
I could know the ways of heaven…
Arrive without traveling
See all without looking
Do all without doing”
Me, I don’t pretend to know anything about places I’ve never been to, except what I hear from reliable sources. But you must be more spiritually evolved than even George Harrison to be able to intuit such things so flawlessly. Would you mind overmuch if I were to meditate at your feet?
FRED: I'd say that the businesses operating on top of each other selling cheap crap with signs exclusively in Chinese make Flushing the U.S. equivalent of Shanghai….
Wow, cheap shit and signs in Chinese. That’s really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really awful. That rocks the very foundations of our beloved Republic.
Maybe it would suck if the WHOLE city were Flushing but it would suck if it were all Forrest Hills or Wall Street or the Upper West Side, too. Variety of neighborhoods is one of the things that makes this city great. And if you don’t like Flushing, how about this: stay away from it. More dim sum after Mets games for me.
FRED: Queens opened its doors to those who were not welcome in Manhattan.
Bravo for Queens. We should all remember its proud history, take it to heart, and try not to besmirch it.
FRED Ask those who came here legally if they are in a "high dudgeon" over line-jumpers. No one is more pissed over illegal immigration than legal immigrants who had to wait years to come here.
Well, let them work for reform, then. But just how do the “line jumpers” affect the legals? They’re entering the country in two unrelated streams. It’s not one line, it’s two. One “clicks through the turnstile” and is counted, the other goes out of its way to not be counted.
And isn’t it a huge market inefficiency to make people wait for years if there are willing buyers for the labor they’re selling? Isn’t this an aggressively capitalistic country?
FRED: Now please explain why American tax dollars should go towards feeding, clothing, housing and helping alien lawbreakers.
Historically, when immigrants have come here they’ve traditionally first been a source of cheap labor. Then, as they’ve established themselves, many of them go into business or at least graduate to higher paying jobs, both of which generate economic activity, from which all of society benefits. Then they might get some education, or, more likely, get their children educated. By the second or third generation they’re entering the professions, doctors and lawyers and architects and engineers. Each of these generates more economic activity, from which, again, all of society benefits. However much we might spend to feed them, clothe them, house them, etc. as they’re getting established is more than paid back in future years. And sure, there might be some who don’t work out but the ones who do – the Barack Obama Srs. and Jrs. of this world – pay back enough to cover the rest. We’re basically skimming off the most motivated, most creative people from dozens of other countries and setting them to work for us – for a pittance. Think of it as an investment. And if you can’t get beyond the fact that some of them are here illegally – despite the fact that they wouldn’t be here if there wasn’t a market for what they’re selling – then advocate for reforms to the law that would make them legal. If something is wrong only because it’s prohibited, if it’s no longer prohibited it’s no longer wrong. Elegant.
Anyway, even if we were to clothe, feed, etc. every alien in the country, legal and illegal, with absolutely no return ever – I still think that’d be a more noble use of our resources than, oh, say, our war in Iraq.
FRED: Please explain to the woman who was raped in a swamp in Flushing Meadows Park by 4 illegal aliens while her boyfriend was tied up your stance on why it was perfectly ok for them to slip across the border in the first place.
Well, we might as well end ALL immigration, both legal and illegal, and post soldiers every ten feet along the borders, with orders to put down anyone who comes within a hundred yards. That’ll make damn sure that no evildoers get through. Because you know, every single foreigner, every single OTHER in the world just wants to violate American womanhood, humiliate American manhood, and destroy American civilization. I don’t mean to make light of the crime committed against the particular woman – I truly hope the perpetrators have been captured and are being punished to the full extent of the law (rape being a thing that is evil in itself) – but as an argument her case proves what exactly?
"but as an argument her case proves what exactly?"
1) If they weren't in this country illegally, should wouldn't have been raped.
2) It's costing us megabucks to capture, prosecute, and then clothe, house and feed them.
3) Crime rate would be lower if we didn't have a sanctuary city policy.
Hey how about the huge burden we put on our police department when we allow people in with absolutely no records on file whatsoever?
"How can homicide rates be confirmed as lower if you have a population that is often nomadic and contains members who can disappear easily because there was never documentation of their existence in the first place? Do you think crime victims and their families here illegally are going to go running to the police to report crime or disappearances?
Are you seriously trying to say that immigrants hide dead bodies?
Fred, why don't you actually do some research before you post so you don't show everyone your lack of knowledge. You read a newspaper from 100 years ago and didn't find negative sentiment against Italians, so therefore people didn't think Italians were third-world inferior immigrant? That statement is a joke my friend.
See this from the Library of Congress:
Labor struggles were not the only conflicts Italian immigrants faced. During the years of the great Italian immigration, they also had to confront a wave of virulent prejudice and nativist hostility.
As immigration from Europe and Asia neared its crest in the late 19th century, anti-immigrant sentiment soared along with it. The U.S. was in the grips of an economic depression, and immigrants were blamed for taking American jobs. At the same time, racialist theories circulated in the press, advancing pseudo scientific theories that alleged that “Mediterranean” types were inherently inferior to people of northern European heritage. Drawings and songs caricaturing the new immigrants as childlike, criminal, or subhuman became sadly commonplace. One 1891 cartoon claimed that “If immigration was properly restricted, you would never be troubled with anarchism, socialism, the Mafia and such kindred evils!”
Italian American neighborhood, New Orleans, ca. 1906.
Attacks on Italians were not limited to the printed page, however. From the late 1880s, anti-immigrant societies sprang up around the country, and the Ku Klux Klan saw a spike in membership. Catholic churches and charities were vandalized and burned, and Italians attacked by mobs. In the 1890s alone, more than 20 Italians were lynched.
One of the bloodiest episodes took place in New Orleans in 1891. When the chief of police was found shot to death on the street one night, the mayor blamed “Sicilian gangsters” and rounded up more than 100 Sicilian Americans. Eventually, 19 were put on trial and, as the nation’s Italian Americans watched nervously, were found not guilty for lack of evidence. Before they could be freed, however, a mob of 10,000 people, including many of New Orleans’ most prominent citizens, broke into the jail. They dragged 11 Sicilians from their cells and lynched them, including two men jailed on other offenses. Italians worldwide were outraged, but the U.S. press generally approved of the action. It was the largest single mass lynching in U.S. history.
Anti-immigrant sentiment continued until the 1920s, when severe restrictions on immigration were put into place by the U.S. Congress. When this legislation passed, the great era of Italian immigration came
"You read a newspaper from 100 years ago and didn't find negative sentiment against Italians, so therefore people didn't think Italians were third-world inferior immigrant?"
No, anonymous asswipe, what I said is that it wasn't happening in Queens because the papers from that time would have reflected the sentiment. Thanks for the passage about New Orleans. Maybe you need to go back and study high school English and sharpen up those reading comprehension skills.
Without immigrants in this city, costs of just about everything would increase and the economy would suffer.
Some illegal immigrants commit crimes. So do American citizens. Italians run the mafia, maybe we should get rid of everyone with Italian heritage in this country. You all need to start making sense with your arguments, because this is getting silly.
Why will our city's economy suffer? What jobs won't Americans do? There are 18 million Americans who cannot find a job, so illegal aliens who are coming here to work do so at peril to American workers.
If anything, a wealth of low-paying jobs in this city would be opened up to hipsters and artists who will open the door to gentrifying downtrodden neighborhoods (just what the mayor has ordered) and families where the day job is just not enough to make ends meet.
As long as there is someone out there who needs money, you will always find someone to fill the job. We're talking about bussing tables, cooking and tearing down buildings. It's not rocket science. Most people are qualified.
As for cost of everything going up and the economy suffering, what else is new? What would have happened to our country had we not allowed them to come here in the first place? Do you think we would have ceased to exist? Hardly. Let's go after the people making money off of illegal immigration.
"Some illegal immigrants commit crimes. So do American citizens. Italians run the mafia, maybe we should get rid of everyone with Italian heritage in this country."
One of the dumbest analogies of all time. All illegal immigrants have committed at least one crime. What we need is better crime prevention. Close the borders, ship home those with expired visas.
New comments are not allowed.