Should Mexican Immigrants Be Allowed Into The U.S Freely

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

From my experience I have every reason to believe that non-Mexican immigrants have far more resources than most Mexicans, simply based on that if you can afford to fly here or boat here and buy property right off the bat, you're probably doing ok. I do not see why you find the term border jumpers objectionable. It's a truthful assessment. And there's no way that paying some taxes makes it okay to not pay others. They pay something, but not what is legally required of them. So they are breaking the law. You don't want people to be hurting so much they turn to crime or drugs, but I'd like to see these people be hit with back taxes when applicable.

Fine back tax them but offer them legal immigration in return. But if you want to hit people with back taxes then hit the ones that owe $354 billion which is not a drop in the bucket. That money can do some good and perhaps even lower our taxes just a little if collected.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

I wasn't talking about hispanics in reference to people "starving to death". I was talking about what happens when nothing is done about population growth. You're not addressing the point I was making, which was that it is morally unacceptable to allow population growth to run rampant to the point of widespread poverty. I probably shouldn't have used the term "starving to death", but being dirt poor without enough money for clothing, medicine, and education is not an acceptable standard of living either, and we should not be allowing population growth to reach that point.

No, you didn't mention hispanics specificially but it's definetly implied. When you can worry about poverty from American citizens themselves and their so called "overpopulation" over time then you can worry about another country's poverty and overpopulation. What is morally wrong is you telling people they can or can't have any more children. That is their business and not yours. We already have so many problems with too much Gov't intervention in our society. Do not need to tell us what we can or can't do in our bedrooms. Poverty will always exist and "controlling" the population of this earth will not change that. If your so worried about overpopulation that will not happen in this country then cut your own ballz off. Practice what you preach.

Just because the U.S. is not overpopulated yet does not mean everything's "balancing out". As the article points out, the population is growing rapidly. Eventually, the U.S. will reach overpopulation if nothing is done about the birth rate. Sure, we don't have mass starvation here today - but if things continue at the rate they're going, it will happen eventually.

Wow, you really do not read reports. By 2042 our population more or less will be just under half a billion. Right now China and India are way over 1 billion. Which one of us is really overpopulated? and which one will definetly be so by 2042?

This is why I brought up the whole point of population control. We need to address population growth now, so that we don't reach a point where every unskilled worker in the U.S. (or anywhere in the world) has to live dirt poor, with no money for clothing, medicine, or education. That is not a world we should have to live in just because people don't feel like limiting the number of kids they have.

"Population control" again is immoral because you cannot tell nor control people to not procreate. It is none of yours or my business. If you think population control will eradicate poverty then your living in a fantasy world of your mind. Again if it concerns you then cut your own ballz off first and set the example.

The point is that the vast majority of Mexican immigration is of those who are dirt poor. And as I've already said multiple times now, I'm fine with immigration inasmuch as it goes toward filling those bottom-of-the-barrel job availabilities. But there needs to be a cut-off point in immigration somewhere so that there isn't a serious drop in the standard of living for all unskilled workers in the U.S.

Funny thing, this same argument was said during the late 1800's and early 20th century. I have said this many times and you ignore it many times. It wasn't true then and it wasn't true now. Poor immigrants come here for a better life. Immigration is a democracy. Nowhere does it say only the middle class and well to do are allowed to immigrate here. Certain income is not a requirement as much as you would like it to be to keep the "undesireables" out. And yes you imply that. Unskill workers whether immigrant or citizen can become "skilled". That is up to the individual to make themselves better for a better life. Only allowing well to do in and not the poor because they may or may not get a better life here is sounding very much like social darwinism to me.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

No, you didn't mention hispanics specificially but it's definetly implied. When you can worry about poverty from American citizens themselves and their so called "overpopulation" over time then you can worry about another country's poverty and overpopulation. What is morally wrong is you telling people they can or can't have any more children. That is their business and not yours. We already have so many problems with too much Gov't intervention in our society. Do not need to tell us what we can or can't do in our bedrooms. Poverty will always exist and "controlling" the population of this earth will not change that. If your so worried about overpopulation that will not happen in this country then cut your own ballz off. Practice what you preach.

"Population control" again is immoral because you cannot tell nor control people to not procreate. It is none of yours or my business. If you think population control will eradicate poverty then your living in a fantasy world of your mind. Again if it concerns you then cut your own ballz off first and set the example.

I'm sorry, but the above two paragraphs are idiotic and completely miss the point of my argument. If you cannot understand simple concepts such as scarcity of natural resources, nor comprehend the social and environmental irresponsibility of letting population growth run rampant, this is useless to debate further.

Wow, you really do not read reports. By 2042 our population more or less will be just under half a billion. Right now China and India are way over 1 billion. Which one of us is really overpopulated? and which one will definetly be so by 2042?

Did you not read what I posted? Eventually the U.S. will become overpopulated if the current growth trends continue unchecked. Not in fucking 2042, but at a later time.

Funny thing, this same argument was said during the late 1800's and early 20th century. I have said this many times and you ignore it many times. It wasn't true then and it wasn't true now. Poor immigrants come here for a better life. Immigration is a democracy. Nowhere does it say only the middle class and well to do are allowed to immigrate here. Certain income is not a requirement as much as you would like it to be to keep the "undesireables" out. And yes you imply that. Unskill workers whether immigrant or citizen can become "skilled". That is up to the individual to make themselves better for a better life. Only allowing well to do in and not the poor because they may or may not get a better life here is sounding very much like social darwinism to me.

This one I'm going to wait for until tomorrow, because it brings new points into the debate, and while they seem to have some potential, I don't have time to think about them right now since I'm going to bed.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Overpopulation/population control does not have a place in this debate. The US does not have an overpopulation problem to anywhere near the degree that other nations do. This is not what people are concerned about regarding immigration. There is a wealth of housing in this country, and it's easy to plow some houses and build condos to create more. Or maybe build housing in the massive open expanse of the 3rd largest country on earth. There's room for millions and millions more people. This is a debate on how do deal with the problem of people leeching onto a system they do not contribute to, and how to integrate them or not. Only an ignorant fool would say that we should let everyone who wants to come in do so. There is certainly room to discuss how to handle people here illegally best, while discouraging others from illegally crossing.

 

[Cythraul]

Or maybe build housing in the massive open expanse of the 3rd largest country on earth.

More urban sprawl to accommodate a group of people who can't seem to wrap their heads around the concept of 'contraception = less babies' sounds fucking fantastic for our world! Sign me up.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Overpopulation/population control does not have a place in this debate. The US does not have an overpopulation problem to anywhere near the degree that other nations do. This is not what people are concerned about regarding immigration. There is a wealth of housing in this country, and it's easy to plow some houses and build condos to create more. Or maybe build housing in the massive open expanse of the 3rd largest country on earth. There's room for millions and millions more people. This is a debate on how do deal with the problem of people leeching onto a system they do not contribute to, and how to integrate them or not. Only an ignorant fool would say that we should let everyone who wants to come in do so. There is certainly room to discuss how to handle people here illegally best, while discouraging others from illegally crossing.

I think the question of overpopulation does have a place, but I'm not sure we're all using the same definition of overpopulation, and I probably haven't been clear enough when I use the term.

For one, I don't think overpopulation has anything to do with how much space there is for more housing in the country. If there's not enough economic infrastructure to support more people, we don't have to have homes carpeting 100% of our land area in order to be overpopulated. I'd say that if there are more people than there are steady job openings, and a large number of those people end up dirt poor because of the lack of jobs, then that constitutes overpopulation as well. This is why I keep emphasising that we should tailor our immigration flow to the number of available jobs.

Why this concept seems so unthinkable to Unfaithfully I have no idea, but since his alternative seems to be letting immigration go on unrestricted, I don't find his criticisms very valid.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Wow do you not read where i told you they do pay taxes in other forms (hint: sales tax and indirect income taxes)? Do you just plainly ignore some statements and only pay attention to others? No I don't think illegal immigration is acceptable but i can sympathize and empathize why they do so. Can you?. I didn't say illegal immigrants not paying taxes is right but again they are paying taxes in OTHER FORMS SUCH AS SALES TAX AND INDIRECT INCOME TAXES. I can't say it any plainer. So i guess to you $354 billion dollars of unpaid taxes by American citizens is minor compared to illegal immigrants and their evasion of minuscule wage payroll taxes. If you are going to bring up the tax issue then I will give you a rebuttal showing others that evade taxes as well but people like you do not bring those people up. Make sense?

All I'm saying is that paying some but not all taxes does not cut it. You seemed to be suggesting that everything's fine if they're only paying some of the taxes, which it isn't. And yes, of course it's wrong that there are legal citizens dodging taxes as well. So maybe we can both just agree that everybody should pay their taxes no matter who they are plzkthx?

Funny thing, this same argument was said during the late 1800's and early 20th century. I have said this many times and you ignore it many times. It wasn't true then and it wasn't true now.

From my understanding, you just admitted earlier on that immigration is not going to create more jobs than it takes away, so you're just contradicting yourself here.

Poor immigrants come here for a better life. Immigration is a democracy. Nowhere does it say only the middle class and well to do are allowed to immigrate here. Certain income is not a requirement as much as you would like it to be to keep the "undesireables" out. And yes you imply that. Unskill workers whether immigrant or citizen can become "skilled". That is up to the individual to make themselves better for a better life. Only allowing well to do in and not the poor because they may or may not get a better life here is sounding very much like social darwinism to me.

...Dammit, I have class in 5 minutes. This'll have to be short.

Let me just point out that I made NO CLAIMS about who should be immigrating and who shouldn't, so your accusations here are groundless. I don't care what the immigrant's income is as long as they get here before our jobs fill up. A first-come-first-serve basis is fine with me.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

I'm sorry, but the above two paragraphs are idiotic and completely miss the point of my argument. If you cannot understand simple concepts such as scarcity of natural resources, nor comprehend the social and environmental irresponsibility of letting population growth run rampant, this is useless to debate further.

Before you make such statements show the forum/board that we will have scacity of natural resources now or in the future however far into the future. If you cannot then your argument/point is mute.

As far as I remember whenever a tree is cut a new one is planted in it's place. When fish are being depleted by the commercial fishing industry the gov't steps in and bans or limits fishing those particular fish till the population is recovered enough to fish it again. These are just two examples. I am sure other people here can show other examples. But it shows that our natural resources are not and more likely never be scarce because we take care of them. About the only natural resource that we are scarce of for our population now is oil because we live in the hemisphere with the least of it. We do have major reserves but those are for usage in case of war. We can do drilling but no matter what politicians say those new areas of drilling will never be enough and we will always be dependent of foreign oil. Plus those drilling areas won't produce anything for another 7 to 10 years. But anyways that is the only natural resource that should be of concern.

Did you not read what I posted? Eventually the U.S. will become overpopulated if the current growth trends continue unchecked. Not in fucking 2042, but at a later time.

Have proof of that? If not then your point is mute. I showed you a study of 2042, now you show us one of yours for further then that. And you fail to take technology in those years into consideration. We may colonize Mars or other areas of space by then. Who knows. Alleviating our population on this planet so your point is pointless if that happens.

This one I'm going to wait for until tomorrow, because it brings new points into the debate, and while they seem to have some potential, I don't have time to think about them right now since I'm going to bed.

No problem.. take your time.. I don't think you sleep though much like me because I see you on here like 3 or so in the morning like last night lol But I probably have insomnia as I get older.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

As far as I remember whenever a tree is cut a new one is planted in it's place.

We may colonize Mars or other areas of space by then. Who knows.

This pretty much sums up why this debate is pointless by now. You're just spewing random shit and outlandish scenarios for the purpose of dragging this on and on. Good day, sir. And good luck finding someone else here who will take your posts seriously.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

Overpopulation/population control does not have a place in this debate. The US does not have an overpopulation problem to anywhere near the degree that other nations do.

That is what I have been saying all along. We would never be overpopulated like China and India etc.

This is a debate on how do deal with the problem of people leeching onto a system they do not contribute to, and how to integrate them or not. Only an ignorant fool would say that we should let everyone who wants to come in do so. There is certainly room to discuss how to handle people here illegally best, while discouraging others from illegally crossing.

Leeching? I wouldn't go that far. They contribute billions to the economy with purchases. If you got rid of all the illegal immigrants watch how certain companies profits can be massively affected causing layoffs and/or bankruptcies and unemployment for those who are not illegal. I know you probably don't believe that but it is so. Consider there are roughly about 12 million illegal immigrants and most if not all work in some sort of off the books jobs earning some income. Some of that money is sent back home to their families but the rest of the money they keep with them they pay rent, food, clothing, etc. I don't know what the illegal immigrant spends on average in such things in this country but if you times that by 12 million or close to it then you get a idea of how much they contribute to the economy and i am sure it is a big number. Cut that number out and alot of businesses will suffer causing more havoc to our economy then it already is in.

I never said immigration to this country , be it legal or not, should be unrestricted or such. What I am saying is that it should be more fairer for all. Currently there is two ways to enter:

1.Immigration through a Family Member
2.Immigration through Employment

Does that seem fair? Because it doesn't to me for someone who has no family ties here or job ties but wants to immigrate for a better life and do it legally.

As for the illegal ones already here I would agree with Doden's post of paying a fine and/or back taxes in order to head towards the road of legal immigration. That is fair of course & to start paying taxes if they achieve legal status.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

This pretty much sums up why this debate is pointless by now. You're just spewing random shit and outlandish scenarios for the purpose of dragging this on and on. Good day, sir. And good luck finding someone else here who will take your posts seriously.

Tell me where in those two posts you quoted me it is not serious. We do conserve our natural resources and you do not know what technology will be like 50 or more years from now. Look at how much technology advanced in the first 50 years of the 20th century. Flight was invented as well as cars, computers etc. etc.. It is you who is spewing outlandish scenarios with nothing to back it up.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

So maybe we can both just agree that everybody should pay their taxes no matter who they are plzkthx?

I agree with this statement of yours. Just remember that I do.

From my understanding, you just admitted earlier on that immigration is not going to create more jobs than it takes away, so you're just contradicting yourself here.

I said most won't have the financial resources to create businesses and jobs but those who do will give them jobs. Imo Small businesses in this country put together give the bulk of the jobs to the population.

Let me just point out that I made NO CLAIMS about who should be immigrating and who shouldn't, so your accusations here are groundless. I don't care what the immigrant's income is as long as they get here before our jobs fill up. A first-come-first-serve basis is fine with me.

That is fine but you made it sound like the dirt poor should not be allowed to immigrate due to your "overpopulation" theory. If that is not what you said then my bad. But no one is allowed to immigrate here unless a family member sponsors them or a job sponsors them. Highly unlikely for someone with no ties here. And this is where I think it is not fair and causes illegal immigration.

Also if we help other countries , particularly Latin America, solve their poverty problems we would see less and less illegal immigration. And I know people will say it's not our problem about their poverty but in actuality it is because we end up with illegal immigration. It's funny we can pressure other Gov'ts in other countries to let us open up a Coke plant or sell our product there but we do not pressure them into paying attention to their poverty problems. That is why the richer get richer and the poorer poorer in such countries like Mexico and then we get "border jumpers" as you call them.

 

[Blind Guardian]

what european countries have an extreme immigration problem by a country filled with poverty?

Sweden - Middle east. Last year we took in more immigrants than the US and Canada combined,and our current population isn´t even ten millions,that percentage of immigration is sick.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

Sweden - Middle east. Last year we took in more immigrants than the US and Canada combined,and our current population isn´t even ten million,that percentage of immigration is sick.

More? But isn't your country very small?. What's the numbers vs ours and Canada's numbers?

 

[Blind Guardian]

Haha no just messing with you,but the point being that most countries in the west have the same problem.
Take a look at this vid,feels familiar right?

 

[Vimana]

Sweden - Middle east. Last year we took in more immigrants than the US and Canada combined,and our current population isn´t even ten millions,that percentage of immigration is sick.

Boohoo, almost 100% of our country is immigrants.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

What? No.

 

[aqnimal]

I say HELL NO!!!! That'd be a direct slap in the face to everyone trying to come here LEGALLY.

 

[Vimana]

@ V5:

In 2006, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that about 1.0 percent of the U.S. population was of American Indian or Alaska Native descent.

 

[Cythraul]

whitey's sure done a hell of a job over here.