It's up to citizens of United States to stop illegal immigration

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Exactly. No offense to peejay, but his statement sounds an awful lot like the rhetoric from NumbersUSA.com. Tancredo was closely tied to these fringe groups who's overall view is that they want a reduction of immigrants in this country, but their political strategy has been to keep the more controversial aspects of their agenda out of the radar and focus on illegal immigration.

Pro-illegal advocacy is primarily lead by ethno-centric fringe groups promoting lawlessness mascarading as "compassion" to make the more controversial aspects of their agenda more palpable to the gullible and naive among us.

Edited January 6, 2008 by Green-eyed girl

[Nessa 23]

what a success

[peejay 327]

Convenient how both of you left out his previous statement defining how that happens.

Yes it was.

I'm looking for the centric core of the mindset of these threads.

If I have to pick my way through the garbage to get to it, then so be it.

"Illegal and legal immigration going hand in hand" doesn't sound (to me) like commentary from someone who is pi$$ed off about illegals stealing SS numbers, using social services they aren't entitled to, or any of the other arguments used on a daily basis about those immigrants who are TRULY flying under the radar and disregarding the laws of our land. It smells more to me like isolationist fearmongering. God forbid anyone not native born live here - unless of course, they are 'your immigrant'.

Exactly. No offense to peejay, but his statement sounds an awful lot like the rhetoric from NumbersUSA.com. Tancredo was closely tied to these fringe groups who's overall view is that they want a reduction of immigrants in this country, but their political strategy has been to keep the more controversial aspects of their agenda out of the radar and focus on illegal immigration.

No offense taken. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why we need to add 120+ million to our population through legal and illegal immigration in the next 43 years. What is the rational? How does that improve the lives of most Americans?

So what if Tancredo, Joe Blow, or any other US citizen doesn't want mass immigration into the USA? US citizens have every right to express their views on the direction our country is going in. How many times does it have to be stated that immigration is a privilege...not a right? The American people can decide how much, how little, or if we want immigration at all. Immigration into the USA is not mandatory or a given. We can survive quite well with significantly reduced numbers. Other countries survive quite well with little or no immigration.

Mass immigration primarily benefits corporate interests and the immigrants themselves. Corporations are addicted to mass importation of people rather than exporting goods and services to make a buck. It really does little to nothing for the vast majority of Americans and in numerous ways reduces the quality of life in the communities most impacted by the sheer numbers imposed on our communities. Americans are awakening to this. It is quite noticable.

I'm not against immigration. I just think the numbers are way too high and need to be reduced significantly to more sane, rational, and sustainable levels. In 37 years (1970-2007) we have added 100 million to our population to bring us to our present 303 million. That's reality. If present trends continue we will be at 420 million by 2050 (43 years). That is a 220 million increase in our population in 80 years. Essentially doubling our 1970 population in 80 years primarily through mass immigration. That's another dose of reality. That's insane.

Nobody has yet to explain why we should be doing this. Countries like Mexico do it through Third World birthrates...the USA does it through mass immigration. It doesn't have to turn out this way in the USA. It is self induced through government policy that can be altered. Immigration was reduced significantly from 1924 to 1965 until Teddy Kennedy and crew unleashed it steadly upward after 1965. We need to put the cork back into the bottle.

I think too many Americans don't know the facts about where we are heading and are brainwashed to accept the status quo without realizing it doesn't have to continue in this direction toward 420 million.

[rebeccajo 14]

Peejay, may I ask you a question?

If someone's position is different than yours - if they do not believe that our laws need to be changed in the direction of lowering immigrant numbers - does that make them a "pro-illegal advocate"?

*edited for punctuation*

Edited January 6, 2008 by rebeccajo

[~Laura and Nick~ 5]

Who is employing them?

They are doing ####### jobs that Americans don't want to do. It's plain and simple.

Obviously where they are from is not sufficient enough to survive so they feel the need to come to America, work the ####### jobs that we refuse to do and whoever is employing them is letting it happen.

In Canada we have people from all over, Jamaica, Mexico, etc. coming up to work our tobacco fields. Why? Because Canadians don't want to do it.

It's a hard and dirty job. They come up here for the summer, work and make money and then take it back to their families and do it all over again the next summer.

I also agree kerewin21 about oil. We are far too dependent. Canada and the US has it completely wrong. We need to take a look at how the European countries do it. Our public transportation is a mess. Over there, they use it all the time, it's an easy and stress free way to get around.

Here, we talk on and on about saving our earth, but yet we do nothing to get us out of our cars.

We have these huge big box stores with outrageously sized parking lots, bigger highways and freeways, we make it so easy to drive our car and where is it getting us? No where.

[SMOKE 1,426]

what a success

yes...good job nessa!.....i see this getting very good very soon.

[LaL 418]

what a success

[peejay 327]

Peejay, may I ask you a question?

If someone's position is different than yours - if they do not believe that our laws need to be changed in the direction of lowering immigrant numbers - does that make them a "pro-illegal advocate"?

*edited for punctuation*

Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived — the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back1007.html

Since Bush took office roughly 1/2 of immigration into the USA has been illegal. Them's the facts.

Apparently you approve. You can hang whatever label on yourself that you want. A rose by any other name is still a rose and if it it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it might just be a duck. In reality though, labels are irrelevant to the facts.

How much higher do you want it...or is the sky the limit?

[rebeccajo 14]

Peejay, may I ask you a question?

If someone's position is different than yours - if they do not believe that our laws need to be changed in the direction of lowering immigrant numbers - does that make them a "pro-illegal advocate"?

*edited for punctuation*

Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived — the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back1007.html

Since Bush took office roughly 1/2 of immigration into the USA has been illegal. Them's the facts.

Apparently you approve. You can hang whatever label on yourself that you want. A rose by any other name is still a rose and if it it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it might just be a duck. In reality though, labels are irrelevant to the facts.

How much higher do you want it...or is the sky the limit?

You didn't answer the question.

[Alex+R 0]

what a success

Totally. What will the next one be about? I'm on my fourth day of the flu, so I need more entertainment here.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Peejay, since you said that legal and illegal immigration go hand in hand, what is your biggest concern of the flow of migration in and out of this country? It seems that at the core of your argument, it is about population control - yes?

[Alex+R 0]

Is the U.S. in danger of overpopulation?

[no name 1]

Peejay, may I ask you a question?

If someone's position is different than yours - if they do not believe that our laws need to be changed in the direction of lowering immigrant numbers - does that make them a "pro-illegal advocate"?

*edited for punctuation*

Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived — the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back1007.html

Since Bush took office roughly 1/2 of immigration into the USA has been illegal. Them's the facts.

Apparently you approve. You can hang whatever label on yourself that you want. A rose by any other name is still a rose and if it it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it might just be a duck. In reality though, labels are irrelevant to the facts.

How much higher do you want it...or is the sky the limit?

You didn't answer the question.

Nice baiting but he did answer it.

Apparently you approve. You can hang whatever label on yourself that you want. A rose by any other name is still a rose and if it it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it might just be a duck. In reality though, labels are irrelevant to the facts.

[peejay 327]

Peejay, may I ask you a question?

If someone's position is different than yours - if they do not believe that our laws need to be changed in the direction of lowering immigrant numbers - does that make them a "pro-illegal advocate"?

*edited for punctuation*

Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived — the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back1007.html

Since Bush took office roughly 1/2 of immigration into the USA has been illegal. Them's the facts.

Apparently you approve. You can hang whatever label on yourself that you want. A rose by any other name is still a rose and if it it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it might just be a duck. In reality though, labels are irrelevant to the facts.

How much higher do you want it...or is the sky the limit?

You didn't answer the question.

I believe I did. My answer is that labels are irrelevant to the facts. IMO people hang way too many labels on other people and situations to avoid looking at the facts. An example? Someone that doesn't believe that anyone and everyone that wants to come to the USA in unlimited numbers gets labeled anti-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, Nazi, fascist, blah...blah...blah....etc.

Look at the facts and see where they take us and leave the rest of the bullshit out of it.

My answer is...labels are irrelevant to the facts. You can put me, yourself, or anyone else into whatever basket you wish. IMO there is way too much guilt by association used to cloud the facts too. An example? If someone agrees with George Bush that the sky is blue or that leaves are green they get labeled neo-con, Republican, warmonger, etc., etc.

Unfortunately...we all are guilty of doing it (including myself). In saner moments I see that.

BTW...I don't agree with your position and stated my reasons all through the thread. Why do you feel we need the current level of legal immigration (augmented by illegal immigration)? If you love population density...why not immigrate to India or other such place?

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

Is the U.S. in danger of overpopulation?

check out how many states are bickering amongst themselves over water.