Bush bashers are being disingenuous

Nick Douglas

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 31, 2000
3,688
15
0
48
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Bush is getting pummeled by right wingers on border security. Many people whose motives are to keep America as white as possible or who fear a possible Latino majority in this country are using, "security," as an excuse to put pressure on Bush to militarize the border.

Bush has proposed a great plan for border security. He understands that Mexicans and Central Americans just want a piece of the American economy, and that is why they are coming over in large numbers. He also understand that, even if we wanted a totally closed border, it's rediculous to think that we can be, to quote Jesse Jackson, "an island of prosperity in an ocean of poverty." In simpler terms, the natural progression of human nature will lead people towards entering America illegally at any cost.

Bush's plan is to offer temporary worker cards to illegals. This is brilliant. It is a far better solution for security than militarizing the border and it gives workers rights to help them avoid exploitation by prospective employers. Any person coming to America for "good" purposes (to find a better life economically, etc.) will sign up for their temporary worker card. The only ones left entering illicitly will be people who want to come to the country for bad intentions (terrorists, drug dealers, bangers, etc.).

It really strikes an analogy to gun control. Outlawing handguns or hunting rifles is stupid. People will always want guns, so outlawing them only makes it more difficult to track their illicit use. Same thing with the border. Taking a hardline stance with illegals only makes it harder to weed out those who may be coming into the country to cause trouble.

The argument about security for militarization of the border holds no water, yet conservatives continue to pound it because they are hiding their real reasons. Many, if not most, are racist against Mexicans and Central Americans. Many foolishly believe that America's future economic fortunes are somehow tied to a tight border (despite the fact that any economist understands the need for free trade [including humans] for economic prosperity).

My final statement is specifically pointing towards anyone reading this who supports border militarization. There is always outrage during times of excessive immigration, but through any large scale immigration pattern (Irish, Italians, Jews, Japanese, Chinese, etc.) America has grown economically stronger principally because we remain one of the more open countries in the world.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
whats your basis for calling this racist?

i am all for better border security, but also like that i can have the freedom to pass into mexico or canada in relative anonymity so am kind of split on the issue
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
nick...you are smarter than this...calling the issue of border security a racist issue is beyond ridiculous....

given the climate of terrorism....and just the plain fact that it`s the law....

this is why democrats will continually lose elections....by assigning labels and using buzz words and rhetoric to inflame emotions and obscure issues....

when the next "big" terrorist attack is traced to our lack of border security,things will change...until then,liberals will whine and illegals will continue to flood across the border while law abiding immigrants have to wait....


we have become a reactive country on certain issues....and a proactive country on others...

it`s so funny that liberal europeans are now clamping down on their own border control and immigration policies....and the u.s. continues to twiddle their diddle despite being the number one target in the sights of terrorists around the world....

and i`m not even talking about the economic drain on the economy and other ramifications in the southwest and on the west coast.....


illegal immigration causes an enormous drain on public funds...... the study of the costs of immigration by the national academy of sciences found that the taxes paid by immigrants do not cover the cost of services received by them............. we cannot provide high quality education, health care, and retirement security for our own people if we continue to bring in endless numbers of poor, unskilled immigrants.........

additionally, job competition by waves of illegal immigrants willing to work at substandard wages and working conditions depresses the wages of american workers, hitting hardest at minority workers and those without high school degrees............

and it always makes me laugh when liberals label border control proponents racists and make ridiculous accusations....

then turn around and bash big corporations like walmart...

when in truth,those in favor of foreign labor are the corporations who are addicted to cheap labor........ they are the ones who are benefiting........ but their benefit comes at the american tax payer's expense when you consider that the american tax payer is virtually subsidizing the labor costs of the greedy corporations by supplying the illegal foreign workers and their families with welfare, free education, free medical, WICs, housing assistance, etc....... something the corporations won't do...........


racists?.....lol ...sounds like common sense....and a respect for our immigration laws...
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
Great post Weasel.

In addition to everything you listed, I fear the lowering expectations of working class jobs from Bush's plan. If the minimum wage and overall benefits were improved along with legalizing the status of the immigrants, I'd have no problem. But if that happened, there wouldn't be much of a need for the whole thing because Americans would take these jobs.

It really just does seem like a way to bring in cheap labor that doesn't complain.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Bush was all for border security when Governor. His budget propsal is sure week on it.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Bush was all for border security when Governor. His budget proposal is sure week on it.
 

Nick Douglas

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 31, 2000
3,688
15
0
48
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Read the whole post. Bush has clearly stated that long term security is better achieved through temporary worker cards. He is right. I call bullshit on people using the security excuse.

Only a person ignorant to large scale economics would claim that restricting trade and/or immigration would be helpful to the fiscal health of this country. There are myriad examples of large scale immigration boosting America's economic status and no examples of it harming American's economic status. Of course there will be some horror stories of some lazy ass crying over his $20/hour job going to someone who is willing to do it for $7/hr, but that's the free market, people. Free market = money and nobody can reasonably argue with that.

Again, I'll state that these border concerns are largely just thinly veiled racism. The bottom line is that border control in the southwest has essentially no effect on national security. Whatever miniscule effect it does have would be best solved with temporary worker cards, not militarization.

Here are a couple of telltale signs of racism. 1) The people calling for border control now are the same ones who have been doing it since well before the WTC and Pentagon attacks. 2) If the people coming across were the same race as the complainers, there would be no complaints.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
Nick Douglas said:
Of course there will be some horror stories of some lazy ass crying over his $20/hour job going to someone who is willing to do it for $7/hr, but that's the free market, people. Free market = money and nobody can reasonably argue with that.
....or a very hard working individual forced to downgrade their $10 / hr job to $5 because of this, no longer being able to afford his or her living without earned income tax credits - which are of course paid by all of us.

Yes - certain parts of America have always benifitted from an influx of immigrants working cheap jobs - but the working class itself is not one of those parts.
 

Nick Douglas

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 31, 2000
3,688
15
0
48
Los Angeles, CA, USA
The working class is, in fact, one of those parts. The fiscal standard of living for the middle (and even lower) classes has always gone up as a whole with free trade and immigration. These are just facts of life, people. You can always find a specific example to contradict this, but those are exceptions and economic growth is the rule.

Even lazy people who whine about losing their cushy jobs due to a market correction after increased immigration end up being better off. For most of them, it teaches them to work harder and teaches them two important life lessons: 1) Anything worthwhile in life requires hard work, and 2) Unions are a necessary evil.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
You seem to be talking down to the American worker. Not sure how former Maytag employees would feel about that. You think workers in the rust belt don't already know your "life lessons"? Gimme a break, man.

No way does everybody benefit from unchecked free trade. It absolutely brings down pay and benefits in return for corporate profits. Sure, there is some trickle down and there are short term rewards by investors, but there is clear, long lasting deterioration to the guts of the country. You just have to visit any of many upper midwest company towns to see this.
 
P

PRO190

Guest
By Jerry Seper
The Washington Times, August 26, 2004
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040825-112521-6070r.htm

U.S. households headed by illegal aliens used $26.3 billion in government services during 2002 but paid only $16 billion in taxes, an annual cost to taxpayers of $10 billion, says a report issued yesterday by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

The report, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, also said if illegal aliens now in the country ? estimated at between 8 million and 12 million ? received amnesty, paid taxes and used services similar to households headed by legal immigrants, the estimated net deficit would increase from $10 billion to more than $29 billion.


This should just about cover your rationale on giving illegal aliens amnesty, Id's and temp working cards:

Go to these and get the facts, Not Opinion:

The High Cost of Cheap Labor
Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget

August 2004

By Steven A. Camarota

www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.html
 

Nick Douglas

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 31, 2000
3,688
15
0
48
Los Angeles, CA, USA
You don't know how to distinguish news from propaganda, PRO. From the CIS mission statement:

"The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted."

WHAT A SURPRISE!!!! A conservative paper (Wash. Times) writes a "news" story supported by "research" from a conservative think tank (CIS) claiming that open immigration hurts the economy. THERE IS NO OTHER CONCLUSION CIS WOULD EVER COME TO! Their whole entire existence is to further the cause of restricted immigration.

Their study is wholly flawed, anyway, and those flaws are even pointed out in the Times article (to their credit). The problem is, conservative news organizations like the Times love to slant their reporting by only mentioning the study that serves their agenda in the headline and in the opening paragraphs of the article.

How can you post this with a straight face, Pro? How can you just let people with an agenda spoon feed you their point of view, and then carelessly post it in a public forum without even being familiar with the source you are posting about. I have been in Las Vegas the past several days and once I got online back home it took me about 15 minutes of looking to uncover the CIS agenda.

This is the problem with the news today (both liberal and conservative). Too much of it is driven by think tanks. The press from either side (example: MSNBC on the left, Fox News on the right) needs something to talk about to satisfy the biased views of their viewer base. They just take statistics, polls and research from these think tanks at face value without considering their flawed and slanted nature.

As for my own argument to what you specifically posted, you are looking at things far too much in the short term. I would never argue that the immediate impact of temporary IDs or worker cards would be anything but a fiscal loss to the country. I can't see how it could be argued any other way. You have to look at the impact once these people get educated and are able to become productive parts of the system. It can only help current Americans who have a leg up on education, property ownership, etc.
 
P

PRO190

Guest
Nick Douglas said:
You don't know how to distinguish news from propaganda, PRO. From the CIS mission statement:

"The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted."

WHAT A SURPRISE!!!! A conservative paper (Wash. Times) writes a "news" story supported by "research" from a conservative think tank (CIS) claiming that open immigration hurts the economy. THERE IS NO OTHER CONCLUSION CIS WOULD EVER COME TO! Their whole entire existence is to further the cause of restricted immigration.

Whenever you people can't dispute the facts you cut it down as Propaganda : Hey what a SURPRISE, A MASSIVE INCREASE to the tune of $29 BILLION in government services CAUSES some people to want to restrict ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!

If you are so damn philanthropic then crack open that wallet of yours a little wider but stay the hell out of mine!
 

yyz

Under .500
Forum Member
Mar 16, 2000
42,927
2,075
113
On the course!
"How can you just let people with an agenda spoon feed you their point of view......"


Good point, Nick. That's why I don't listen to you.
 

Nick Douglas

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 31, 2000
3,688
15
0
48
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Pro,

You miss the point. The $29 million figure is pure conjecture concocted by people who earn their living promoting immigration restriction. Don't you think there's just a chance they might use estimates that are greatly biased in favor of their argument? Of course. That is why I rightly accuse this of being propaganda. Show me an impartially researched study from an unbiased organization and I guarantee you that the numbers from CIS will be shown to be immensely bloated.

The main point, as it has always been, is that in the long run, there is absolutely no sensible large scale fiscal argument that can be made against open immigration. That is just a fact. Any major change to a system will cost money. Anyone with common sense knows that. Whatever short term cost we have will be dwarfed many times over by future financial gains from a more open immigration policy. Again, that is an indisputable fact.

My point remains. PRO190 is posting conservative propaganda and passing it off as fact. The study is flawed and not accepted by ANYONE except those whose ideology it supports.

yyz, you, like PRO190, are out of your league. Let's keep this forum for folks who take the time to stay well informed on political events and stop blindly pasting biased news stories that just happen to support our political agenda.
 

yyz

Under .500
Forum Member
Mar 16, 2000
42,927
2,075
113
On the course!
Don't worry, Nick. I usually stay as far away from this area of the forum as I can!

Arguing politics is like two guys pissing on an electric fence. The one who lasts longest, thinks he is the winner, while everyone else looking on knows that both guys are losers.

Have you ever changed someones opinion here? No. No one ever does.

It's always sad to see people who think if things favor them, it is all on the up and up, but if it is information "from the other side", it is propaganda! (Everything is propaganda, Nick. It just depends on what side of the shit slinging you stand on.)

Outta my league? You can have the league, sport.........
 

Nick Douglas

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 31, 2000
3,688
15
0
48
Los Angeles, CA, USA
There is a big difference between propaganda and balanced research.

I have no idea if I've ever changed someone's opinion, but I can say that ironlock changed mine about a great many things a few years ago.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
yyz said:
Arguing politics is like two guys pissing on an electric fence. The one who lasts longest, thinks he is the winner, while everyone else looking on knows that both guys are losers.
:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

Nick, I don't know if you change my mind on anything - but I definitely appreciate your knowledge and point of view. I understand your point on this particular issue, but overall I don't agree.

In some ways the country advances economically when it takes advantage of foreign labor. Some people get rich, some people move from working class to white collar, but also many people have to fall back on the government for help. Minimum wage stays low, people can't live on their wages without support from the government (in other words us), and entire communities suffer economic depression.

We do have a standard here that I want to protect. I don't like it that manual labor jobs are regarded so low. I don't like it that poor people in other countries accept their role as a lower class. I don't like our valuing of labor being diluted by a global belief in class and caste systems. Yet - for the last 30 years in this country we've seen a widening of gap between working folks and the wealthy. Plans like Bush's only further this divide.
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top