How is the US being "unfair" to Mexicans who want to get in?

[Little-Acorn]

I keep running into weird argument after weird argument when the subject of illegal aliens is discussed. I'm beginning to think the people who want to eliminate immigration laws and open the borders, have NO rational arguments on their side.

Latest one seems to be, that laws limiting our immigrants are somehow "unfair" to those who don't get the chance to get in.

We built a country here, that everyone else wants to get into. We made laws saying only so many immigrants per year could get in. That's considered "unfair".

Suppose we had built a country instead, that was like, say, Mexico, whose people are risking death by the millions to cross deserts to get OUT of the country. And suppose we then made our country even worse than that somehow. Now NOBODY wants to get in. We set the same immigration quotas... but now they go unfilled because nobody wants to get in.

Are the quotas unfair now? I'd imagine the reconquistas would now say NO.

So what's the difference? Quotas are the same in either case. The only difference, is in one case we built an attractive, desireable country and we're UNFAIR. But in the other case we built a third-world-style shithole, and that makes us FAIR.

So, building a nice country people like enough to want to get in, is UNFAIR???

Tell me, what exactly did we do to the people outside, that was so unfair? If the land that's the United States had sunk under the sea a million years ago and the country we have today never existed, would present-day Mexicans have been better off?

By building a nice country and putting immigration quotas in place, we haven't done a THING to the people south of us. If there was nothing here at all, they still wouldn't have been able to move north.

So stop griping, you reconquista whiners. The only thing that's UNFAIR, is the way your own country is treating you. It's so bad there, that you are killing yourselves in droves trying to get out. Why don't you take your protests there, instead of biting the hand that treats it people right?

You have a country of your own. Don't blame us because you f*cked it up. And now that you've f*cked it up so badly, the LAST thing we want is for you to come here and try to run ours.

We'll let in a few hundred thousand a year, because that's how many we can handle and train to become Americans. And we want those immigrants to become Americans, not stay Mexican, because we don't want you to do to our country, what you've done to yours.

The problem is not that we want to take in a few hundred thousand. The problem is that you want to send millions. And please exuse me, but that's YOUR problem, not ours. You need to fix the reasons why millions want to flee your country and come to ours.

We fixed it here, as you immigrations desires prove. You'll have to fix the problem there. Or else you'll always have the problem, no matter what we do.

[Pale Rider]

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Little-Acorn again.

Mexico screams we're unfair, all the while NOT ALLOWING ANYONE TO IMMIGRATE TO THEIR COUNTRY. You can TASTE the hypocrisy.

[manu1959]

[Kathianne]

Mexico screams we're unfair, all the while NOT ALLOWING ANYONE TO IMMIGRATE TO THEIR COUNTRY. You can TASTE the hypocrisy.

I must say that I enjoyed this very much:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...hlMmFlMWU1ZmM=

Sticks & Stones

By Fred Thompson

It bothers Americans when we’re told how unpopular we are with the rest of the world. For some of us, at least, it gets our back up — and our natural tendency is to tell the French, for example, that we’d rather not hear from them until the day when they need us to bail them out again.

But we cool off. We’re big boys and girls, after all, and we don’t really bruise that easily. We’re also hopeful that, eventually, our ostrich-headed allies will realize there’s a world war going on out there and they need to pick a side — the choice being between the forces of civilization and the forces of anarchy. Considering the fact that the latter team is growing stronger and bolder daily, while most of our European Union friends continue to dismantle their defenses, that day may not be too long in coming.

In the meantime, let’s be realistic about the world we live in. Mexican leaders apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens, while complaining about U.S. immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own. The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo.

Russia, though, takes the cake. Here is a government apparently run by ex-KGB agents who have no problem blackmailing whole countries by turning the crank on their oil pipelines. They’re not doing anything shady, they say. They can’t help it if their opponents are so notoriously accident-prone. Criticize these guys and you might accidentally drink a cup of tea laced with a few million dollars worth of deadly, and extremely rare, radioactive poison. Oppose the Russian leadership, and you could trip and fall off a tall building or stumble into the path of a bullet.

The hundreds of demonstrators the Kremlin has had beaten and arrested in the last few weeks alone, we are told, were not pro-democracy activists but common criminals — like world chess champion Garry Kasparov. Demonstrating without a permit is a serious crime and, luckily for the Kremlin, it turns out that pro-government youth groups seem always to have permits for rallies at the exact times and places that anti-government protesters gather.

Another group that seems to be having trouble with permits is the media. Newspapers and television stations that aren’t smart enough to know that America is the enemy and that things are great in Russia can’t seem to get their paperwork in order. It’s some sort of IQ test, I guess.

President Vladimir Putin, though, shows no sign that he feels defensive about his remarkable string of luck. He knows who’s really to blame for “meddling” in Russian “internal affairs.” It’s the United States.

He’s lambasting us for yielding too much power. One example of this excessive power is the missile defense radar system we want to install in Poland and the Czech Republic — to give the free world early warning of a missile attack by terrorists or a rogue nation like Iran. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that the Russians have been supplying Iran with both nuclear and missile technology while using their U.N. veto to block sanctions that would force Tehran to back down. Regardless, we’re clearly at fault, he says, for putting a defense system close to Mother Russia.

So I wouldn’t worry too much about the criticisms we receive. We make mistakes and at times the “carping” may even be on target, but it seems to me that we ought to look at a lot of the complaints as a badge of honor.

[Hugh Lincoln]

Nice Thompson article.

L-A, you hit all the right points. To me it comes down to white guilt. There is no way on earth that Americans would tolerate 20 million SWEDES flooding in here, demanding we all speak Swedish, marching in the street waving the Swedish flag, etc. We'd say, "Sven, you must be joking." But because the illegals are non-white, they can manipulate white guilt by saying, 'if you oppose us, you're racist.' This is a very powerful weapon. It has worked, is working and will continue to work. Any immigration reforms we may get will be paltry sops. The damage is done. The 20 million illegal Mexicans here won't be deported, and they will multiply by breeding and bringing in relatives. America's over, white people... question is what the next step will be.

[Little-Acorn]

Timely bump.

[Yurt]

I keep running into weird argument after weird argument when the subject of illegal aliens is discussed. I'm beginning to think the people who want to eliminate immigration laws and open the borders, have NO rational arguments on their side.

Latest one seems to be, that laws limiting our immigrants are somehow "unfair" to those who don't get the chance to get in.

We built a country here, that everyone else wants to get into. We made laws saying only so many immigrants per year could get in. That's considered "unfair".

Suppose we had built a country instead, that was like, say, Mexico, whose people are risking death by the millions to cross deserts to get OUT of the country. And suppose we then made our country even worse than that somehow. Now NOBODY wants to get in. We set the same immigration quotas... but now they go unfilled because nobody wants to get in.

Are the quotas unfair now? I'd imagine the reconquistas would now say NO.

So what's the difference? Quotas are the same in either case. The only difference, is in one case we built an attractive, desireable country and we're UNFAIR. But in the other case we built a third-world-style shithole, and that makes us FAIR.

So, building a nice country people like enough to want to get in, is UNFAIR???

Tell me, what exactly did we do to the people outside, that was so unfair? If the land that's the United States had sunk under the sea a million years ago and the country we have today never existed, would present-day Mexicans have been better off?

By building a nice country and putting immigration quotas in place, we haven't done a THING to the people south of us. If there was nothing here at all, they still wouldn't have been able to move north.

So stop griping, you reconquista whiners. The only thing that's UNFAIR, is the way your own country is treating you. It's so bad there, that you are killing yourselves in droves trying to get out. Why don't you take your protests there, instead of biting the hand that treats it people right?

You have a country of your own. Don't blame us because you f*cked it up. And now that you've f*cked it up so badly, the LAST thing we want is for you to come here and try to run ours.

We'll let in a few hundred thousand a year, because that's how many we can handle and train to become Americans. And we want those immigrants to become Americans, not stay Mexican, because we don't want you to do to our country, what you've done to yours.

The problem is not that we want to take in a few hundred thousand. The problem is that you want to send millions. And please exuse me, but that's YOUR problem, not ours. You need to fix the reasons why millions want to flee your country and come to ours.

We fixed it here, as you immigrations desires prove. You'll have to fix the problem there. Or else you'll always have the problem, no matter what we do.

Did you write this?

[nevadamedic]

Did you write this?

If they want to be here, they need to do it the right way, period.

[Yurt]

If they want to be here, they need to do it the right way, period.

Um, ok, and, um, what did that have to do with my post....

[Dilloduck]

It looks to me that if Tancredo doesn't get the GOP nod, he'll me a mighty tempting VP choice. Even getting his support would be a prize.

[Kathianne]

Did you write this?

Well maybe great minds think alike?


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

Titus

Senior Member

Date Posted: May/01/2007 11:21 PM
Email Thread Print Thread Text Format
Here is what i wrote about it today!

I keep running into weird argument after weird argument when the subject of illegal aliens is discussed. I'm beginning to think the people who want to eliminate immigration laws and open the borders, have NO rational arguments on their side.

Latest one seems to be, that laws limiting our immigrants are somehow "unfair" to those who don't get the chance to get in.

We built a country here, that everyone else wants to get into. We made laws saying only so many immigrants per year could get in. That's considered "unfair".

Suppose we had built a country instead, that was like, say, Mexico, whose people are risking death by the millions to cross deserts to get OUT of the country. And suppose we then made our country even worse than that somehow. Now NOBODY wants to get in. We set the same immigration quotas... but now they go unfilled because nobody wants to get in.

Are the quotas unfair now? I'd imagine the reconquistas would now say NO.

So what's the difference? Quotas are the same in either case. The only difference, is in one case we built an attractive, desirable country and we're UNFAIR. But in the other case we built a third-world-style sh!thole, and that makes us FAIR.

So, building a nice country people like enough to want to get in, is UNFAIR???

Tell me, what exactly did we do to the people outside, that was so unfair? If the land that's the United States had sunk under the sea a million years ago and the country we have today never existed, would present-day Mexicans have been better off?

By building a nice country and putting immigration quotas in place, we haven't done a THING to the people south of us. If there was nothing here at all, they still wouldn't have been able to move north.

So stop griping, you reconquista whiners. The only thing that's UNFAIR, is the way your own country is treating you. It's so bad there, that you are killing yourselves in droves trying to get out. Why don't you take your protests there, instead of biting the hand that treats it people right?

You have a country of your own. Don't blame us because you f*cked it up. And now that you've f*cked it up so badly, the LAST thing we want is for you to come here and try to run ours.

We'll let in a few hundred thousand a year, because that's how many we can handle and train to become Americans. And we want those immigrants to become Americans, not stay Mexican, because we don't want you to do to our country, what you've done to yours.

The problem is not that we want to take in a few hundred thousand. The problem is that you want to send millions. And please excuse me, but that's YOUR problem, not ours. You need to fix the reasons why millions want to flee your country and come to ours.

We fixed it here, as you immigrations desires prove. You'll have to fix the problem there. Or else you'll always have the problem, no matter what we do.

Cheers,

T

[Yurt]

Well maybe great minds think alike?


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

Maybe L.A. is T on that site. Interesting. We shall soon see where this came from.....

[Little-Acorn]

Maybe L.A. is T on that site. Interesting. We shall soon see where this came from.....

L.A. is not titus on that site or any other. I wasn't aware that site existed until now.

Hmmm. I may need to have a little talk with titus. I don't mind people reprinting stuff I write, in fact I'm flattered. But it's polite to give credit where credit is due. A link (such as Kathianne provided) is plenty. But I don't see one on titus' "original" post.

For those curious about which came first, check the date and time on each.

'Nuff said.