Immigration becomes KKK rallying point

[jfuh]

The Ku Klux Klan is stepping up its activities in some parts of the country, a trend that its leaders and opponents tie to anti-immigrant sentiment. In the past year, the Klan has rallied or distributed fliers in Bloomington, Ind.; Amarillo, Texas; Denison, Iowa; and elsewhere. In each case, the white-supremacist group denounced illegal immigration or targeted communities with growing immigrant populations.
"It surprised me they came," says police Sgt. Randy TenBrink in Amarillo, site of a rally in August by the Texas chapter of the Empire Knights of the KKK. It is the only local KKK rally he knows of in 30 years. "The content of their message surprised me. It was so disjointed."
The Anti-Defamation League, a group that fights anti-Semitism and racism, released a report this week citing "a surprising and troubling resurgence" of KKK activity by long-standing and new groups. "They use this immigration issue to bring in others who feel like America is under siege," says Deborah Lauter, the ADL's national civil rights director. "It's easy for hate to spread."
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, also has charted an overall increase in KKK activity and says anti-immigrant sentiment is a primary driver, says Mark Potok, director of the center's tracking operation. The number of KKK groups rose from 110 in 2000 to 179 in 2005 but fell to about 150 last year, Potok says.


<snip>
"Everyday that our government allows this Illegal Mexican Invasion to continue, our membership numbers continue to grow in the KKK," he says in an e-mail responding to questions.

source



To those on this site that just love posting their hate messages about immigration - just a little heads up as to who you sound like.

 

[bhkad]

source



To those on this site that just love posting their hate messages about immigration - just a little heads up as to who you sound like.

Who, Ron Paul?

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ[/YOUTUBE]

 

[jamesrage]

source



To those on this site that just love posting their hate messages about immigration - just a little heads up as to who you sound like.

By your logic you concede to the fact that then everyone who is against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are on the same side as terrorist?After all terrorist are against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.I know that you are at least against the war in Iraq and I am pretty sure that there is a huge possibility that you are also against the war in Afghanistan,so that must mean you are admitting you are a terrorist sympathizer/supporter.After all your logic is that if you support the the same things scum support then that makes you exactly like them.

 

[jfuh]

By your logic you concede to the fact that then everyone who is against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are on the same side as terrorist?After all terrorist are against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.I know that you are at least against the war in Iraq and I am pretty sure that there is a huge possibility that you are also against the war in Afghanistan,so that must mean you are admitting you are a terrorist sympathizer/supporter.After all your logic is that if you support the the same things scum support then that makes you exactly like them.

:lamo classic, spin it completely out of proportion by responding with something that has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[scourge99]

source



To those on this site that just love posting their hate messages about immigration - just a little heads up as to who you sound like.

What are you trying to say?

I happen to disagree with illegal immigration just like the KKK does. However, my rationale for such a stance is much different than that of the KKK's. Are you implying it isn't?

 

[jamesrage]

:lamo classic, spin it completely out of proportion by responding with something that has nothing to do with the topic.

Bull sh!t, what I see is you trying to paint those who are against illegal immigration on the same boat as scum."Look racist/xenophobes are against illegal immigration,you must be a racist and xenophobe too since you are against illegal immigration".You have the absurdity to claim you are against illegal immigration,most likely your solutions for solving the illegal immigration problem is just let illegal immigration be legal.

 

[jfuh]

What are you trying to say?

I happen to disagree with illegal immigration just like the KKK does. However, my rationale for such a stance is much different than that of the KKK's. Are you implying it isn't?

No, hardly at all. You are still relatively new to this site so you may not have yet noticed. However the various other posters on this site that do indeed post anything on illegal immigration love nothing more than to vilify illegal immigrants with sound bite propaganda. Anyone that even remotely disagrees with thier stance is immediately - ie jamesrage here - an advocate for illegal immigration.
What I'm demonstrating with this post is to simply show these buffoons in their place as to the various other's that are screaming the same bullshit rhetoric - ie "they're stealing our jobs" "there's not enough space" "they don't speak our language" "they don't share our culture" bla bla bla bla bla. the same bs that anti-immigration advocacies have been screaming for the last 150 years. Same bullshit when the jews, the italians, the irish, the eastern european, the chinese, the japanese (add on internment camps) were immigrating to the US. But now what would NYC be without little italy, china town, irish pubs? Do we identify these unique culture centers in our major metropolitan cities as foreign? Or as an integral part of our own cultural identity?
Too many here in particular those that vilify illegal immigration have more an agenda than simply the illegal portion, they're focus is with the immigration part.
FYI I too am highly against illegal immigration because I don't think it's the least bit fair that simply because you're close by that you can short cut the immigration process that my family went through and worked to earn. Thus the solution to the problem would be to overrule the same legislations that created the problems to begin with - hence open up the quotas to allow for even more immigration.
Once you ask this question to the various posters on this site you'll often get the same irrelevant spin cycles. Then the insults of how you're pro-illegal.

 

[jfuh]

Bull sh!t, what I see is you trying to paint those who are against illegal immigration on the same boat as scum."Look racist/xenophobes are against illegal immigration,you must be a racist and xenophobe too since you are against illegal immigration".You have the absurdity to claim you are against illegal immigration,most likely your solutions for solving the illegal immigration problem is just let illegal immigration be legal.

And there you have it. You're not against the illegal part of the immigration problem; you're against the immigration all together.

 

[scourge99]

Thus the solution to the problem would be to overrule the same legislations that created the problems to begin with - hence open up the quotas to allow for even more immigration.

Have you thought of the consequences?

Zyphlin does a pretty good job of nailing down many of key issues with open immigration.

#2 is my greatest concern. I'm still undecided on the importance of assimilation.

As stated above, I'm not against Immigration, I'm against Illegal Immigration.

I'm also against irresponsible immigration laws. Completely open, anyone can come at any time, there are no restrictions on the number of people, there is no need to know the language, there is no using economical and logistic data to determine the impact of people coming in, is NOT responsible immigration and would be something I'd not agree with.

I disagree with illegal immigration for a number of reasons.

1) America is a country based on the rule of law. If your very first act inside the country is an illegal one it does not give me confidence in your desire to actually assimilate nor be an upstanding citizen. It is akin to being invited into a persons home and then kicking them in the nuts the moment you're there.

2) Unlike in the early days of our country, we now have a large population of citizens who are continually growing. An influx of people who are not legal causes a number of trouble. Welfare type services (Schools, shelters, hospitals, etc) are leached off of by these people without them paying into the general tax base in all the ways a citizen does. They take up jobs that actual citizens could be doing because they can be hired for a lower wage. (Yes, this is a problem with the employers, however its a two way street. Yes, the alien wouldn't get the job if the employer didn't break the law and give it to them...but the employer wouldn't have the chance if the alien didn't break the law and come here).

3) There is a security risk in not knowing whose in this country. I am not speaking just of terrorism as well, though that counts. Having people that are affectively unknown inside the country is a dangerous concept.

4) Often times Illegal Immigrants have no desire to assimilate but to simply use the good parts of America to their benefit, often at the expense of others. Immigration, legal immigration, has always been rooted in assimilation. You have left your country and chosen to come to America for a reason. You become a citizen. You are not an American. You should speak english. Yes, you may keep your private traditions to remember where you're from, but you should understand that you CHOSE to come to America and should adapt to its culture...not make it adapat to yours. The further degradation of English as the countries language and the striking and destruction of american culture and tradition both damage our country and are helped along due to illegal immigration.

Immigrants that wish to come into our country legally, assimilate, and live life as an American citizen I welcome in. However, due to our population and the world we live in, I do not want it completely open. I think limiting the number of immigrants each year we can take on is smart. I believe that detailed background checks is smart. I believe that teiring the number of people we allow in so that we allow in X amount with Y education level, X amount with Z education level, etc...is smart. Yes, we should open ourselves up to some that were unlucky where they were from and are trying to come to America to get a better chance. But I think we ALSO need to be focusing on those people that can significantly add to America. I am in favor of trying to speed the process up a bit though

 

[jfuh]

Have you thought of the consequences?

Zyphlin does a pretty good job of nailing down many of key issues with open immigration.

I'm not advocating outright open borders, I'm advocating opening and expanding the immigration quotas thus we're not having automatic citizenry for anyone fresh off the boat. The process as it already is would start even before they get on the boat then would continue to them establishing themselves via minimum standards of residency so they NOT be a burden on society. These are already the standards in place to gain residency through the legal process today. I'm simply saying to increase the numbers rather than to restrict - which is the primary causes of illegal immigration today. They can't get here not because they're not qualified, but because the quota has already been filled.

#2 is my greatest concern. I'm still undecided on the importance of assimilation.

#2 has nothing to do with immigration as well as being partially flawed. In this country for all citizens equally applicable are minimum wage laws. So how is it possible for the same job that someone who's a legal immigrant would be paid less than a native citizen? That whole point is at best fallacious and at worst dishonest. Welfare is another fallacy because that is the problem with the welfare system's distribution itself rather than any immigration problem. Hate the game not the player.

#4 is another fallicy. Assimilate to what? Define what american culture is exactly that they are supposed to assimilate into? Listening to britney spears? Watching MTV? Driving cars? believing in christianity? Being republican/democrat? getting fat? celebrating a few holidays? We are a free open society with freedom of speech, religion being the most coveted of our societal beliefs. Our society is a meld of a plethora of cultures and ethnicities. As an American I'm also irish, italian, french, german, russian, spanish, greek, arab, chinese, indian, japanese, korean hell take your pick of ethnic culture. This is a nation built on the foundations of immigration thus the culture is the best of every culture - sadly sometimes also the worst. But to say that an immigrant because of a difference of culture then has not assimilated is merely an excuse to deny immigration - it's simply xenophobia.
Degradation of English? Frack the english we speak today is a FAR cry from the english spoken by the 13 colonies. We spell with z's over s's and say color as opposed to colour. Degradation of english as a reason for disallowing more immigration? What a joke.
Too many of the rational are simply stereotypes and generalizations of the worst of immigration and only from the vilinization of immigrants with -13year old girl killed by drunken illegal immigrant national headlines that wouldn't even be headlines were it not because of the socially sensitive topic of illegal immigrants.
As for Zyp's argument that we already have a growing population? Go to any take your pick state in the great planes region - what population? Up state New york - what population? Anywhere outside of the metropolitan areas of CA - what population?
China has a relatively equal acreage to the US they have 1.3billion we just broke 300 million.
Aerable land? China 0.10 hectares per populace. US? 0.64 hectares per populace source
Japan has 145K square miles with a population of 127million, we have around 127M square miles with just 3 times the populace - not enough space? Get real. These are all just sound bite excuses from people that are either ignorant or don't care to really look into the topic. Thus only responding from emotional outbursts.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

I don't agree with anything at all about the KKK. However I think its time to put our Troops on the border.
WE ARE BEING INVADED AND WE DON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT???

 

[scourge99]

#2 has nothing to do with immigration as well as being partially flawed. In this country for all citizens equally applicable are minimum wage laws. So how is it possible for the same job that someone who's a legal immigrant would be paid less than a native citizen? That whole point is at best fallacious and at worst dishonest. Welfare is another fallacy because that is the problem with the welfare system's distribution itself rather than any immigration problem. Hate the game not the player.

#2 talks of the increased burden of over population immigration directly causes. It mentions nothing about what you have stated. You need to understand our medical, education, waste facilities, etc, (infrastructure) do not have infinite capacity and capabilities. They take time to grow and expand. Is that so hard to understand?

#4 is another fallicy. Assimilate to what?

I haven't taken the time to analyze the assimilation argument. I believe there are other more important issues than assimilation that should be considered.

As for Zyp's argument that we already have a growing population? Go to any take your pick state in the great planes region - what population? Up state New york - what population? Anywhere outside of the metropolitan areas of CA - what population?
China has a relatively equal acreage to the US they have 1.3billion we just broke 300 million.
Aerable land? China 0.10 hectares per populace. US? 0.64 hectares per populace source
Japan has 145K square miles with a population of 127million, we have around 127M square miles with just 3 times the populace - not enough space? Get real. These are all just sound bite excuses from people that are either ignorant or don't care to really look into the topic. Thus only responding from emotional outbursts.

Space isn't the problem. The infrastructure to handle the increased amount of people within a space is the problem. Why do you consistently avoid this issue?

 

[jfuh]

#2 talks of the increased burden of over population immigration directly causes. It mentions nothing about what you have stated. You need to understand our medical, education, waste facilities, etc, (infrastructure) do not have infinite capacity and capabilities. They take time to grow and expand. Is that so hard to understand?

I haven't taken the time to analyze the assimilation argument. I believe there are other more important issues than assimilation that should be considered.

Space isn't the problem. The infrastructure to handle the increased amount of people within a space is the problem. Why do you consistently avoid this issue?

I'm not avoiding the infrastructure issue by any stretch. In fact how much do you think our infrastructure can handle? I can tell you exactly how much - none. In fact as is our infrastructure is already overstretched beyond capacity as of 20 years ago (see NO levee system). Why don't we hear anyone saying to stop births?

Frack China has a better infrastructure in place today than we do.
But is that a problem caused by immigration? No, that's a completely separate issue all together that tells us we should be spending more money on infrastructure so as to accommodate a growing population both native and migrant. It's simply not reason to prevent immigration.

 

[scourge99]

I'm not avoiding the infrastructure issue by any stretch. In fact how much do you think our infrastructure can handle? I can tell you exactly how much - none. In fact as is our infrastructure is already overstretched beyond capacity as of 20 years ago (see NO levee system). Why don't we hear anyone saying to stop births?

Because our birth rate isn't much higher than our death rate.

Estimates of the Components of Population Change for the United States,

July 1, 2005 to July 1, 2006
Births = 4,151,889
Deaths = 2,464,633
Net International Migration = 1,204,167

I couldn't find whether this study accounts for illegal immigrants or not. With unrestricted immigration how many more millions will come here? if you think the infrastructure is bad now then imagine it when our population is increasing twice as fast!

Frack China has a better infrastructure in place today than we do.

How so?

But is that a problem caused by immigration? No, that's a completely separate issue all together that tells us we should be spending more money on infrastructure so as to accommodate a growing population both native and migrant. It's simply not reason to prevent immigration.

So more people don't create overcrowding of our schools or more strain on our sewage, water and medical facilities? Now imagine that the majority of the people coming here are poor. How is our infrastructure going to keep pace when the people who use it the most can hardly contribute anything to improve it?

 

[NguyenRhymesWithWin]

Okay. The Ku Klux Klan is against Illegal Immigration. That's not a surprise.

As someone who is also against Illegal Immigration, what should this article mean to me?

As someone who is not against Illegal Immigration, what should this article mean to that person?

 

[jfuh]

Because our birth rate isn't much higher than our death rate.

I couldn't find whether this study accounts for illegal immigrants or not. With unrestricted immigration how many more millions will come here? if you think the infrastructure is bad now then imagine it when our population is increasing twice as fast!

Nevertheless the birthrate is still twice that of the death rate as noted the infrastructure can not support any more. That's not an issue of immigration that's a matter of spending on infrastructure itself. Completely different issue all together.

How so?

Take a trip to China, get a rental car and drive on just about any of their freeways and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about - smooth pavement without a single bump - similar to the German Autobahn.

So more people don't create overcrowding of our schools or more strain on our sewage, water and medical facilities? Now imagine that the majority of the people coming here are poor. How is our infrastructure going to keep pace when the people who use it the most can hardly contribute anything to improve it?

To which now you're argument has shifted from being against illegal immigration to against immigration period. Here's the reality. we could stop immigration all together today, and hault all births all together - STILL no one is going to spend a penny on infrastructure. Why? Because the senators and congressmen in power are too obsessed with their own pet projects in their home states to give a damn about national interstate infrastructure. Schools? sewage? water? medical facilities?
These are the very same issues that were brought up by native born american's nearly a century ago against immigration. It's simply not a reason at all.

 

[Cold Highway]

By your logic you concede to the fact that then everyone who is against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are on the same side as terrorist?.

Funny that same logic is used by Aqua, Navy, ToT, Stinger, Reverend Hellhound, Rhinefire, Gottahurt and other right wing pieces of scum on this board.

Okay. The Ku Klux Klan is against Illegal Immigration. That's not a surprise.

As someone who is also against Illegal Immigration, what should this article mean to me?

As someone who is not against Illegal Immigration, what should this article mean to that person?

I believe the point is that the Klan, the Neo-Nazi's and other right wing groups do more harm for those of us who want the immigration problem solved.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Jfuh,




How can one be for a secure border without some leftist cackling that one is a racist?


Thank you in advance for your reply.

Sincerely,


The Good Reverend Hellh0und.......

 

[scourge99]

Nevertheless the birthrate is still twice that of the death rate as noted the infrastructure can not support any more. That's not an issue of immigration that's a matter of spending on infrastructure itself. Completely different issue all together.

Immigration adds peoples which adds additional strain on the infrastructure. Immigration is ONE of the issues that further strains our infrastructure. There is a DIRECT correlation. More people means more people using the infrastructure. More people using the infrastructure without contributing significant taxes to increase that infrastructure is not a future I care to see.

Take a trip to China, get a rental car and drive on just about any of their freeways and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about - smooth pavement without a single bump - similar to the German Autobahn.

Roads are the best thing you can come up with? Last time I checked the roads I drive on are fine. I'm not crashing, ruining my car, or having an uncomfortable ride because of them so I can't complain.

To which now you're argument has shifted from being against illegal immigration to against immigration period.

Illegal immigration is immigration beyond quotas. The quotas are made for a reason, part of that reason, I believe, is to limit the strain on infrastructure to give it time to adapt.

Here's the reality. we could stop immigration all together today, and hault all births all together - STILL no one is going to spend a penny on infrastructure. Why? Because the senators and congressmen in power are too obsessed with their own pet projects in their home states to give a damn about national interstate infrastructure. Schools? sewage? water? medical facilities?

Your idea on open immigration is reckless and shortsighted. We cannot simply open the borders unless you like the prospect of 90 kids per teacher in every classroom and your water and garbage services working only three weeks out of four and adding longer lines to hospitals and emergency rooms and paying higher taxes to support welfare and social services to those who can't contribute to the system they rely on.

 

[jfuh]

Jfuh,How can one be for a secure border without some leftist cackling that one is a racist?

Simply, act more talk less, in particular by not vilifying the issue. focusing on the illegal part of the matter rather than the immigration part.

 

[jfuh]

Immigration adds peoples which adds additional strain on the infrastructure. Immigration is ONE of the issues that further strains our infrastructure. There is a DIRECT correlation. More people means more people using the infrastructure. More people using the infrastructure without contributing significant taxes to increase that infrastructure is not a future I care to see.

How would immigrants not contribute taxes to pay for expanding infrastructure?

Roads are the best thing you can come up with? Last time I checked the roads I drive on are fine. I'm not crashing, ruining my car, or having an uncomfortable ride because of them so I can't complain.

So no pot holes? No cracks? You must live in a nice state and city then or you simply have low expectations.
But among roads alone, there's city planning, avionic tracking, airport systems, railway systems; and a public transportation system with the capacity for moving 1.3billion people. Shall I go on?

Illegal immigration is immigration beyond quotas. The quotas are made for a reason, part of that reason, I believe, is to limit the strain on infrastructure to give it time to adapt.

infrastructure has nothing to do with quotas and yes I agree illegal immigration is beyond quotas - which is why via expansion of the quota's we prevent undocumented people from coming in.

Your idea on open immigration is reckless and shortsighted. We cannot simply open the borders unless you like the prospect of 90 kids per teacher in every classroom and your water and garbage services working only three weeks out of four and adding longer lines to hospitals and emergency rooms and paying higher taxes to support welfare and social services to those who can't contribute to the system they rely on.

Significant expansion of the immigration quotas is a far far cry from an open border policy.

 

[scourge99]

How would immigrants not contribute taxes to pay for expanding infrastructure?

Lets say Joe makes 100k a year and John makes 20k a year. Lets say there is a flat tax of 25%. That means Joe is paying 25k in taxes and John is paying 5k in taxes. If the entire city consists of Joe and John then their combined income tax is 30k. Obviously it costs the city and nation that Joe and John live in some amount of money to run their infrastructure. If the cost is less than 30k then Joe and John are fine. If the cost is grater than 30k Joe and John will experience a drop in their availability or quality of infrastructure.

Now lets put this on a broader scale. It is estimated that the infrastructure costs for each person living in Joe and John's town costs 10k. So what happens when we add more Johns and Joes to our city?

2 Johns and 2 Joes = 70k in taxes.
70k - 10k/per person * 4 ppl = 30k surplus.

4 Johns and 2 Joes = 80k in taxes
80k - 10k/per person * 6 ppl = 20k surplus

10 johns and 2 Joes = 110k in taxes
100k - 10k/per person * 12 = 20k deficit

I'm sure you get the picture. So what are the solutions assuming you hit a deficit? The town can either charge more for taxes, lower the availability or quality of the infrastructure, or make Joe pay more taxes since he makes more money (which is usually the case).

I am merely stating that this is a very real possibility and should be considered before blindly flooding our country with people who will not (or can't) contribute more than they use.

So no pot holes?

No pothole in China??!! Surely you jest!

No cracks?

Nothing so significant that it affects my driving. If there is it is usually fixed ASAP.

You must live in a nice state and city then or you simply have low expectations.

Phoenix and Tucson are nice. So is San Jose (except for the cost of living). But I wish there were shorter lines in emergency rooms and less kids per classroom. Its becoming ridiculous.

But among roads alone, there's city planning, avionic tracking, airport systems, railway systems; and a public transportation system with the capacity for moving 1.3billion people. Shall I go on?

Other than an efficient mass transit system we seem to have all that too. But I think your comparing apples to oranges. Demographics, culture, and type of government all affect these things. But it is possible you are right and they have a better infrastructure.

infrastructure has nothing to do with quotas and yes I agree illegal immigration is beyond quotas - which is why via expansion of the quota's we prevent undocumented people from coming in.

Once again, how many people can our infrastructure support? If we can quantitatively evaluate our infrastructure's limits we should base quotas on the results. Simply hoping it will all work itself out is reckless and shortsighted. Surely you can acknowledge that??

 

[Panache]

Now lets put this on a broader scale. It is estimated that the infrastructure costs for each person living in Joe and John's town costs 10k. So what happens when we add more Johns and Joes to our city?

2 Johns and 2 Joes = 70k in taxes.
70k - 10k/per person * 4 ppl = 30k surplus.

4 Johns and 2 Joes = 80k in taxes
80k - 10k/per person * 6 ppl = 20k surplus

10 johns and 2 Joes = 110k in taxes
100k - 10k/per person * 12 = 20k deficit

I'm sure you get the picture. So what are the solutions assuming you hit a deficit?

This would make sense if not for a few key factors which you are ignoring.

Those Johns are both working for the Joes and paying for the goods and services provided by the Joes. Additionally the Johns are labour contributors, who can (and often do) work as infrustructure maintainers.

The availability of cheap labour reduces the cost of maintaining infrustructure, and provides both affordable labour and paying customers for employers like Joe.

Also, any time you have infrastructure, the cost per person will be reduced as the number of people goes up.

Suppose I own a swimming pool and keep it all to myself. The pool costs me $5K/yr to maintain. If I share the pool with my wife, am I going to have to pay $10K/yr to maintain it? Of course not. I will probably pay about $5K/yr. Now what if I share it with 100 other people in my neighborhood? Is it going to cost $500,000 to maintain a pool that only cost $50,000 to build? That would be silly.

Clearly if 100 people are using a pool, it will cost more to maintain than a pool that only one person uses, but it will cost less per person. Suppose the pool costs twice as much to maintain. That would be $100/person.
Joe, wins, John wins, everybody wins.


In addition to a reduced cost of maintaining infrastructure, if John produces $40k worth of revenue for Joe each year (since it wouldn't make sense for Joe to hire John if he wasnt benefiting from it), then your chart should look a bit different.

2 Johns and 2 Joes = 70k in taxes.
70k - 10k/per person * 4 ppl = 30k surplus.

4 Johns and 2 Joes = 90k in taxes
90k - 8k/per person * 6 ppl = 42k surplus

10 johns and 2 Joes = 150k in taxes
150k - 7k/per person * 12 = 66k surplus

You will notice that now that we have factored Joes benefit from employing John into the equation, along with the reduced cost per person to maintain, as the number of people using the infrustructure increases, the surplus increases as well.

Thus our infrastructure can hold as many people as will build and maintain it, and the additionaly Johns will be good for everyone involved.

 

[scourge99]

This would make sense if not for a few key factors which you are ignoring....

Your points are well taken. However, the example I created cannot be applied to the real world. It was merely created to spark awareness and highlight potential problems associated with unrestricted and large scale immigration.

Once again, how many people can our infrastructure support? If we can quantitatively evaluate our infrastructure's limits we should base quotas on the results. Simply hoping it will all work itself out is reckless and shortsighted. Surely you can acknowledge that??

 

[jfuh]

No pothole in China??!! Surely you jest!

None - places that do have them are places that have not yet been developed yet

Nothing so significant that it affects my driving. If there is it is usually fixed ASAP.

I know for a fact it's not true for San Jose.

Phoenix and Tucson are nice. So is San Jose (except for the cost of living). But I wish there were shorter lines in emergency rooms and less kids per classroom. Its becoming ridiculous.

Both of which have absolutely nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with the money that is spent on infrastructure.

Other than an efficient mass transit system we seem to have all that too. But I think your comparing apples to oranges. Demographics, culture, and type of government all affect these things. But it is possible you are right and they have a better infrastructure.

Of course it has everything to do with form of government - that's the whole point. And when a dictorial frack personal liberty and rights government like that of Red china has a better infrastructure than we do it's time to turn around and self examine the issue as to why it's become so. They're prepared for expansion and growth why aren't we??

Once again, how many people can our infrastructure support? If we can quantitatively evaluate our infrastructure's limits we should base quotas on the results. Simply hoping it will all work itself out is reckless and shortsighted. Surely you can acknowledge that??

I also acknowledge the fact that for the same reason that we do not limit birth rates we also should not limit immigration. The infrastructure has a problem you improve it. Before Rome built the aqueducts did it tell it's people, ok, no one comes in no one gives anymore births until we finish these aqueducts? Did New York say ok, no more immigration in the 19th and early 20 th century when it was working on it's subway and sewage systems even though waste was contaminating the streets?

If it's an issue of the infrastructure not being able to handle anymore of the population, you expand on it. It's absolutely ridiculous to attempt to stop population all together.

However who's dealing with the infrastructure today? Not a single person is even though this is a huge problem that we need to deal with regardless of immigration or not.