Reciprocity, and the illegal immigration problem.

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by tacmotusn, Jul 26, 2010.


  1. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    This is how we should handle the illegal immigration problem here in the good old USA.<!-- end .rate -->

    1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
    * * * * * * * *
    2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
    * * * * * * * *
    3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.
    * * * * * * * *
    4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are
    here.
    * * * * * * * *
    5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.
    * * * * * * * *
    6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food
    stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will
    be deported.
    * * * * * * * *
    7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least
    equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
    * * * * * * * *
    8. If foreigners come here and buy land... Options will be restricted.
    Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens
    naturally born into this country.
    * * * * * * * *
    9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a
    foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his
    policies. These will lead to deportation.
    * * * * * * * *
    10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted
    &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All
    assets will be taken from you.
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    TOO STRICT?
    .
    .
    .
    Guess what? These are Mexico's Laws and how they deal with foreigners and illegal aliens. Illegals here have NOTHING VALID to complain about with our laws or immigration policies.
     
  2. testhop

    testhop Monkey+

    I THINK THAT OUR IMMIGRATION LAW SHOULD BE THE SAME.
    WHY SHOULD A NATIVE AMERICAN HAVE TO LEARN SPANISH IN HIS OWN COUNTRY.
    WE SHOULD BUILD THE FENICE. REQUARE ALL PERSONS TO BE E VERIDE EVERY BODY THAT NO ONE CAN CLAIM DISCRAMATIONAND IT WILL CATCH THE DEADBEAT DADS
     
  3. CraftyMofo

    CraftyMofo Monkey+++

    I'll probably be the only one who will take up opposition to this.

    I can agree with number 6, but not much else. I'm not sure I'd want to live in a country where I don't have the freedom to sell my property or investments to whomever I choose. I don't see anything wrong with having some pride in your heritage. In fact, there was a group of Germans I work with who were quite visible with their country's flags, etc. during the World Cup.

    I think at some point during each of our family's history in this country, we had other groups of people who were not happy about our presence here.
     
  4. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    I think you might have missed the point of all this. The most vocal opponents to immigration laws are the illegals who have come across our southern border. I was simply pointing out in detail MEXICAN LAWS. Their President who came here recently chastised the USA for the way we were treating Illegal immigrants. He also strongly objected to the Arizona immigration law due to go into effect on 29 July 2010. I was only suggesting tongue in cheek that we actually accept Mexico's immigration policies for our own. My point was that unless we exceed the Mexican Laws (which as a soveriegn country we have the right to do) he should keep his pie hole shut!!! Do you now understand? And, how do you feel about the original post now?
     
  5. pcc

    pcc Monkey+

    # 4 is too loosely worded

    #'s 7, 8, 9, & 10 Since you're talking about reciprocity, I would be happy with having immigrants held to the same standards as an American that moved to their country.. IIRC for natives of mexico these would be generally stricter than what you have listed.
     
  6. CraftyMofo

    CraftyMofo Monkey+++

    Nope, I think you may have missed the point of my response.

    Sorry, I thought you were serious about this.

    Here's my point. As a Libertarian, my view is that if a person is desperate enough to risk life and limb to get to this country for a chance economically, socially, politically, or for religious freedom, great. My preference would be for a legal avenue, but if that is not available (elimination of the guest worker program in the 60's) I have no problem with it. Remember, I said I'm right on board with #6.

    The reason the line is so short to get into Mexico and so long to get into this country(figuratively speaking) is precisely because of their laws versus ours. If they gave real freedom to their people and a chance at prosperity, as we enjoy here, the problem would definitely recede. I certainly wouldn't advocate adopting their gun laws, either.
     
  7. gomer

    gomer Hooligan

    This is already true in the US.

    $54-57 MXN depending on the state. Average $55.5 MXN (~$4.38 USD) x 40,000 = $175,228 USD.

    We don't have an official language at the federal level and 20 states won't recognize one.


    • Connecticut
    • Delaware
    • Maine
    • Maryland
    • Michigan
    • Minnesota
    • Nevada
    • New Jersey
    • New Mexico
    • New York
    • Ohio
    • Oklahoma
    • Oregon
    • Pennsylvania
    • Rhode Island
    • Texas
    • Vermont
    • Washington
    • West Virginia
    • Wisconsin
    What about states that are officially or de facto bilingual?

    • Louisiana (English and French legally recognized) (1974)
    • Maine (English and French)
    • New Mexico (English and Spanish)
    • Hawaii (Officially English and Hawaiian) (1978)


    Nice copypasta, BTW.

    Too Harsh You Say? « Bohography

    Immigration Laws of Mexico - snopes.com
     
  8. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    The following in Blue should clarify things a bit. This post seems to have a life of its own. I must have hit a nerve.

    People posting on SM cut and paste all the time. I am hardly the first, or the last. I found this in a comments section about a protest on the Arizona Immigration law. It was meant as tongue in cheek, and as a throw back at the Mexican President who felt fit to chastise our Congress when I posted it here. I actually agree with most of it, although I know most of the country will not.

     
  9. gomer

    gomer Hooligan

    That still doesn't answer the question, but raises a problem. In the bilingual states I mentioned, all speakers of the second language are natives as well as US citizens. Are you going to kick them out of where they were born and raised? And aside from the Creole, those folks were there first anyway. Should English-only speakers be forced to learn Hawaiian and, as you say, assimilate or be gone?

    I understood your point. Now I'm submitting my $.02.
     
  10. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    "5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office."
    No it isn't. Well, maybe on paper somewhere. Arnold Schwarzenegger is Austrian in case nobody knows. But anyway.

    This topic is crap to me because I have given up caring about a fantasy world. I know that people are too screwed up and complacent to actually FIX anything, so why even care? Burn it all and let Pan or Loki or Ghandi sort it all out.

    seesaw

    I know, I know -some people will say, "but that's exactly what's wrong today...", and I can only tell these people to grow up and get a clue. People, as a whole -SUCK. Life itself, as a whole -SUCKS. Each day I see even more of why some of these elitists and globalist warmongers fight for world governance and reinforce dictatorships -it's because they are sick of people, too. Maybe they will just decide to lock the doors to their underground city one day, release biotoxin-x into the atmosphere, open the HAARP floodgates, and let the earth burn. Maybe after a few years they will return to the surface with their clone army and start new. Maybe the world will be a better place, maybe not.

    But I do know that the world we live in right now is beyond "patch and repair" status. Only a drastic change will alter the course of events that have incrementally unfolded. Any chess player would agree with me. Check freaking mate.
     
  11. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    I got your point as well. However, use as many designated official languages as you want (as opposed to defacto, or patois of some flavor.) Taking my usual stance, learn one of them or go home.

    The point of OTM is also well taken, however, I'll get cranky if someone proposes that we adopt (par ex.) Croatian as official.

    Mandating printing forms in multiple languages is expensive (omitting the stupid factor.) All you have to do to see that is open the owner's manual for your sound system and see how many more pages it takes to get them all in. Granted, that is done by the mfrs that have to sell in many markets, and is an extreme example of what (again, par ex.) the census forms would look like if dot gov wanted to cover all the ethnic language bases we have here.

    If/when another culture conquers us, they will get to set the official language standards. In the meantime, English is what we have in common and should become official. That, too, can be done by Executive Order (maybe even at the State level) and will save untold millions in printing costs. Those that feel put off by it can get their own translators. Maybe, just maybe, some of the social organizations can provide translators as well as English teachers at local rather than national expense.
     
  12. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    Okay, you named 4 bilingual states. You will please note that English is one of the two languages listed. It should be the primary language. I have no problem with the schools teaching foreign languages as an non-required elective. Your point is moot anyway, as I was talking about illegal immigrants. Hawaiians voted and chose to become Americans. I have no problem with them clinging to their heritage and refusing to assimilate with their new country/statehood (over 50 years old now). I think I can safely assume there is no one in Hawaii under age 60 who does not understand english fully. All governmental business and schooling there as in any and every other state should be in english only. Foreign language elective and secondary only. Speak and write Klingon if it pleases you, but don't expect others to make special provisions for you. Legal immigrants used to be required to assimilate and learn english. They were tested for citizenship in english. Today quite frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the test was administered in 103 different languages and with free interpreters provided. That if it is the way it is doesn't mean I have to agree with wasting of tax dollars to do it.
     
  13. OzarkSaints

    OzarkSaints Monkey++

    except Austrians and Kenyans!
     
  14. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Schwartzie is naturalized, perfectly legal where he is now. The kenyan, well, we don't know. Yet.
     
  15. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    I am also a libertarian and have no problem with people coming here to better their lives. What I don't like is having to pay the bills for them to do this. The language thing would get better if they weren't illegal. Everyone in the community aids in helping their immigrants incorporate, learn the language, learn the customs...if they are here legally. If you are a migrant worker always on the dodge from the authorities, how can you find the time and community to help you learn the language? Put on Pancho's sandals and walk a mile or two, I think you might find the solution is almost always somewhere in the middle.
     
  16. gomer

    gomer Hooligan

    ...holds US citizenship.

    One of the prerequisites for being bilingual is having two languages.

    Already is. But. You said assimilate or get out. Do as the Romans, so to speak, right? They were the Romans when we showed up, weren't they?

    No you don't. You're backpedaling.

    Proof?
     
  17. bnmb

    bnmb On Hiatus Banned

  18. CraftyMofo

    CraftyMofo Monkey+++

    This isn't really important to the thread, but the comment got me thinking. Here's a portion of the Wikipedia entry for how Hawaii came to be a part of the U.S.

    Annexation was after the overthrow of the Queen of Hawaii in 1893.

    Annexation — the Territory of Hawaii (1898–1959)
    After William McKinley won the presidential election in 1896, Hawaii's annexation to the U.S. was again discussed. The previous president, Grover Cleveland, was a friend of Queen Liliʻuokalani. McKinley was open to persuasion by U.S. expansionists and by annexationists from Hawaii. He met with annexationists from Hawaii Lorrin Thurston, Francis Hatch and William Kinney. After negotiations, in June 1897, McKinley agreed to a treaty of annexation with these representatives of the Republic of Hawaii.[41] The president then submitted the treaty to the U.S. Senate for approval.

    Bill Clinton issued an apology to the people of Hawaii during his administration.
     
  19. Hispeedal2

    Hispeedal2 Nay Sayer

    Wow is this getting off topic. Somehow we got to the birthplace of the POTUS and the origins of HI.....

    I agree with SC. I don't mind them coming here. Just do it legally and don't come here for welfare and health care.

    ETA: I do live on the border and have for various times in my life. I have been miles up in the mountains away from everything. Now, I am fit- no question. I cover about 20 mi daily at 7-8K feet in elevation. I have a proper map and travel just light enough so that I can refill water at the next spring (which I know where every spring is). I have passed many illegals making the run from Mexico North.They have at least the same distance to travel ahead of them to get to a vehicle. They have already traveled some 20+ miles to get to this point. They do not have any food left by this time. Water is scarce and they likely do not know where the next spring is. Most are traveling as families and just looking for a better opportunity. I don't know many Americans that would do that. I really don't. I believe the majority of illegals are these people that do extraordinary things to get here for a better opportunity. Unfortunate for them, a few illegals are coming here for more opportunity in crime. I have passed these on mountain trails as well. They have the crazy look of fear. I've seen it many times before in bad souls that really have no good reason even breathing (IMHO). My job is to hunt these type of people down. These are the wolves that LTC Grossman talks about. I really have to hold back because *these* wolves are not my job...yet. All I can say is God help the sheep that cross with these wolves.
     
  20. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    You can't turn back the clock on some things, or that far. If you even seriously consider it, where do you stop. Shall we all book passage on a ship back to europe. Shall we then continue to turn the clock back and crawl into caves and reestablish the wooly mamoths. Shall the nomadic native americans reverse their trek across the frozen land bridge in winter into asia? I think not. You move forward and attempt to be fair and honest and kind with your fellow man within the laws of the land. Laws change over time, evolve really as society changes.
    .
    here is what I was saying about the Hawaiians voting for statehood.
    .
    Political Changes of 1954 — the State of Hawaii (1959–present)

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    All representative districts voted at least 93% in favor of Admission acts. Ballot (inset) and referendum results for the Admission Act of 1959


    Main article: Democratic Revolution of 1954 (Hawaii)
    In the 1950s the power of the plantation owners was finally broken by descendants of immigrant laborers. Because they were born in a U.S. territory, they were legal U.S. citizens. The Hawaii Republican Party, strongly supported by plantation owners, was voted out of office. The Democratic Party of Hawaii dominated politics for 40 years. Expecting to gain full voting rights, Hawaii's residents actively campaigned for statehood.
    In March 1959, Congress passed the Hawaii Admission Act and U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed it into law. (The act excluded Palmyra Atoll, part of the Kingdom and Territory of Hawaii, from the new state.) On June 27 of that year, a referendum asked residents of Hawaii to vote on the statehood bill. Hawaii voted 17 to 1 to accept. The choices were to accept the Act or to remain a territory, without the option of independence.<SUP id=cite_ref-41 class=reference>[42]</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-42 class=reference>[43]</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-43 class=reference>[44]</SUP> The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization later removed Hawaii from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
    After statehood, Hawaii quickly modernized via construction and rapidly growing tourism economy. Later, state programs promoted Hawaiian culture. The Hawaii State Constitutional Convention of 1978 incorporated programs such as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to promote indigenous language and culture.
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7