On Oct 11, 2014, landmark wrote:
Fair comment. I can't offer proof, but I do offer these observations:

1)In NYC where I live, theoretically one of the more liberal parts of the nation, scarcely a day goes by where I do not hear some variation on the following about some of the people who live in my neighborhood:

a) Why don't those people learn to speak English!
b) They are all on food stamps and welfare.
c) They ignore Americans in their stores and serve their own kind first.
d) They are criminals.

BTW I hear all these comments about the Russian immigrants in my neighborhood. Now you will notice that none of those comments has anything to do with the legality of their immigration status. The essential complaint is not that they are illegal, but that they are different and plentiful and weren't here before. I don't think it unreasonable to think that the same kinds of conversations happen all over the US.

2) In many municipalities where laws and enforcement policies have been implemented to ostensibly target illegal immigrants, the dragnet fairly indiscriminately causes immense hardships to all immigrants regardless of legal status. It breaks up families, it puts people in a constant state of fear, it creates situations where racial profiling can't help but happen. I submit that we would not let this kind of hardship be allowed to happen to any other group of innocent people in the name of upholding the law. I think law enforcement and politicians get away with it, because immigrants from some countries are considered de facto second-class citizens.

3) In my neighborhood again, there live many immigrants from the Soviet union who were given visas for political reasons. No question that many under the Soviets suffered and deserve to go to the country of their choice. But why does the same logic not apply to the people of Haiti? Compared to the political terror that the Haitians have endured, the Soviet immigrants were leaving a paradise. No, instead, the Haitian immigration into the US for many is basically labelled "illegal" and those people are viewed as criminals. They have done nothing wrong except try to flee to a place where they can lead a better life. But there is a double standard, and again it is not about the legal status but about discrimination against the people themselves. A similar case can be made for El Salvador and Honduras where masses of people are living under terrible political conditions. In Mexico, many of the intended immigrants are families whose livelihoods have been destroyed by US trade agreements. If your family's business was suddenly wiped out, you would try to feed them as well. No one wants to cross a desert at night and leave their home to go elsewhere.

4)If the President and Congress said tomorrow that immigration could continue unrestricted--that is all immigration would now be legal--would people now be satisfied? After all, there would no longer be illegal immigrants. The argument "but they're breaking the law" would no longer exist. And yet I think we would both agree that there would still be anti-immigrant movements. Maybe even more. Clearly there is something more than the abstract legal status of immigrants that is troubling to many.

Anyway that's a few points to ponder.

On Oct 11, 2014, tommy wrote:
It's a matter of fact, not opiniom old boy. You can read their report and if you don't like it, you can lunp it.

On Oct 11, 2014, tommy wrote:
In the 1930s the people who planned the mass mixing we see today pondered. Way back then they perfectly understood it would cause culture clashes and trouble. They said that they could get over it by calling it racism. Nothing new in all this, no nations, no borders, one people, one world government idea. You are an old man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk

On Oct 11, 2014, landmark wrote:
For one who is so obsessed with the Nazi Muslim brotherhood, I find it fascinating that you uphold their theories about race and culture mixing. Good job, young man.

On Oct 11, 2014, tommy wrote:
It's a matter of fact, not opiniom old boy. You can read their report and if you don't like it, you can lunp it.

On Oct 11, 2014, tommy wrote:
In the 1930s the people who planned the mass mixing we see today pondered. Way back then they perfectly understood it would cause culture clashes and trouble. They said that they could get over it by calling it racism. Nothing new in all this, no nations, no borders, one people, one world government idea. You are an old man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk

On Oct 12, 2014, tommy wrote:
What I was talking about was The Royal Institute of International Affairs reports from their 1930s meetings. Where they discussed what they called world integration or something like that. Which was is a plan of mass immigration into all the Western countries by the end of the century and on. They had representatives there from every British Commonwealth country and other non-commonwealth countries, like the United States, Canada and all. They talked of the numbers from different countries, how many Britain would take and from where and all that. The point I was making about it was that they went into the problems foresaw in it all. The said culture clashes were bound to cause trouble. In short they did not want their policy blamed for it so for their politically reasons they said they could blame the people under the cloak racism. None of which means that racism does not exist but means these people, who long plan all this stuff, they are very tricky.

On Oct 12, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
My apologies then. But then what's your suggestion? Lock each culture in it's own area (ohh, what's that word, I know; ghetto) and keep them completely apart?

On Oct 12, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Ed to be fair many cultures have their own places which are not ghettos at all.

You may continue arguing now.

On Oct 12, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Oct 12, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
My apologies then. But then what's your suggestion? Lock each culture in it's own area (ohh, what's that word, I know; ghetto) and keep them completely apart?

Why does there have to be a "suggestion"? Can't there just be an observation that culture clash can cause problems?

On Oct 12, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Oct 12, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
My apologies then. But then what's your suggestion? Lock each culture in it's own area (ohh, what's that word, I know; ghetto) and keep them completely apart?

Why does there have to be a "suggestion"? Can't there just be an observation that culture clash can cause problems?

On Sep 28, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
And a long time ago I asked you for any PROOF of WMDs found in Irag.

There is none, the statement of an anonymous veteran notwithstanding. (Funny that he never said anything about that to the press, or they would have been all over it, as would the Bush administration.)

There were no WMDs found in Iraq. Even Bush himself finally admitted that.