wrote in message
oups.com...
Our ancestors came here LEGALLY. They assimilated by learning ENGLISH
and becoming Americans. These new immigrants just want to take and
epect us to cater to them. Put them in cargo containers and drop them
into the ocean!!!


When they arrived at Ellis Island, did they stay there until they achieved
citizenship? I honestly don't know, so I'm asking you.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...

Are you ready for $8.00 per pound lettuce & broccoli?
I doubt it would go that high. I think those two crops, for one things,
are things that *do* lend themselves to more mechanization.

You can stop saying that now. It's getting old, and it is in no way
connected with the reality of how things grow.

I don't care if it's getting "old" or not. It is very
*much* connected with the reality of how some things grow.


How do you think that would affect low income people?
Worse than it would affect higher income people. Most price increases
affect poor people more than rich people.

You're not suggesting that massive illegal immigration is countenanced as
a policy goal of providing cheap food for poor people, are you?


No, but is sure as hell is the way the economy has been structured over the
past 50-75 years.

The economy has not been "structured" in any such way,
and large-scale illegal immigration has not been going
on for any 50-75 years.

Where do you come up with this crap, anyway?


When meat heads wail about throwing out migrant workers,
they don't consider that it'll take quite some time to adjust.

I don't know if it would or wouldn't. Personally, I'm
not all that keen to expel the illegally resident
aliens who are here. I want to stop the flow, and I
want to get the citizenship clause of the 14th
amendment to be properly understood to get rid of the
phenomenon of "anchor babies".


The biggest
adjustment will be convincing people that someone has to do "that kind of
work",

No such adjustment is needed. People already
understand that some amount of labor is needed in
agriculture.


and I don't care WHAT you pay them - you won't be able to accelerate
the cultural adjustment.

What kind of "cultural adjustment" is needed to make
people understand that labor-intensive work needs
laborers for the work to get done? Are you nuts?

On Mar 9, 3:39 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message

link.net...





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Hardly a reason to let them come in. If they were tossed out for
being illegal, then three things would happen. Some things wouldn't
get
done because at "real" wages (w/o the extra illegals) they just aren't
profitable.
Conscripted people will work for minimum wage. No need to see jobs
vanish
and things not get done.

Can we at least pretend to stay within the confines of reality?

Which part of the ABOVE do you consider to be a departure from reality?
18 year olds already work **** jobs and they're happy to get them. They
rarely stick around for more than a year anyway.

They don't do it at the point of a gun.

In other instances, the wages and to a greater or larger
extent prices would go up.
Not if legal replacement workers receive the same wages as illegals.
But that is assuming a repeal of the laws of supply and demand.
Again try to keep it kinda sorta real.

We're discussing a hypothetical situation he All the meat heads who
want the illegals out - they get their wish and they're gone tomorrow,
just in time for planting season across much of America. How do you
replace them, and what do you pay them?

Farmers just have to pay higher wages, that's all.

Are you ready for $8.00 per pound lettuce & broccoli? How do you think that
would affect low income people?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Apparently you never heard of Bush's proposal of a guest worker
program, did you? Turn off the cartoons and watch the news for a
change.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...

Are you ready for $8.00 per pound lettuce & broccoli?
I doubt it would go that high. I think those two crops, for one things,
are things that *do* lend themselves to more mechanization.

You can stop saying that now. It's getting old, and it is in no way
connected with the reality of how things grow.

I don't care if it's getting "old" or not. It is very *much* connected
with the reality of how some things grow.


Last time I'll type this: 2-3 years back, I got curious about this. I
contacted two farm machinery manufacturers and asked about this. Identical
response: If we could invent machines do address more needs, you'd see them
already. We'd love to, but...." Nobody has yet figured out how to pick
about half of what you see in the produce department.

Any gardener can point out 20 vegetables that'll be ruined when handled
roughly.









How do you think that would affect low income people?
Worse than it would affect higher income people. Most price increases
affect poor people more than rich people.

You're not suggesting that massive illegal immigration is countenanced
as a policy goal of providing cheap food for poor people, are you?


No, but is sure as hell is the way the economy has been structured over
the past 50-75 years.

The economy has not been "structured" in any such way, and large-scale
illegal immigration has not been going on for any 50-75 years.

Where do you come up with this crap, anyway?


When meat heads wail about throwing out migrant workers, they don't
consider that it'll take quite some time to adjust.

I don't know if it would or wouldn't. Personally, I'm not all that keen
to expel the illegally resident aliens who are here. I want to stop the
flow, and I want to get the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment to be
properly understood to get rid of the phenomenon of "anchor babies".


The biggest adjustment will be convincing people that someone has to do
"that kind of work",

No such adjustment is needed. People already understand that some amount
of labor is needed in agriculture.


and I don't care WHAT you pay them - you won't be able to accelerate the
cultural adjustment.

What kind of "cultural adjustment" is needed to make people understand
that labor-intensive work needs laborers for the work to get done? Are
you nuts?

I'll tell you what: Ask 20 teenagers if they'd be interested in working a
farm field when it's 93 degrees, and they have to bend over for 10 hours
cutting broccoli. Let me know what they say.

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
jerryl wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
But do you set arbitrary limits on the front door? Do you have a
sign posted on your lawn saying "Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse
of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed, to
me" --
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit




Just because the sign is there doesn't mean they don't have to follow
the laws. Under your interpretation if I see a sign "Highway", I'd be
allowed to drive on it even if I didn't have a license. We are a
nation of laws and if you want to live here you have to obey those
laws. We have immigration laws and if immigrants bypass them, they
are illegal.

I like your highway idea. Now how would you feel if the politicians
decided that we have too many cars on the road and because building
highways is expensive and cars pollute we are going to limit who can
drive. We will allow 80% if the people in Road Island to drive and maybe
10% if those in Texas. California may get 15%.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit




No dice Joe. If all the drivers have legal licenses you can't discriminate
against any of them. But they sure as hell can tell those without legal
licenses to stay off the road.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 9, 3:39 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message

link.net...





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Hardly a reason to let them come in. If they were tossed out
for
being illegal, then three things would happen. Some things wouldn't
get
done because at "real" wages (w/o the extra illegals) they just
aren't
profitable.
Conscripted people will work for minimum wage. No need to see jobs
vanish
and things not get done.

Can we at least pretend to stay within the confines of reality?

Which part of the ABOVE do you consider to be a departure from
reality?
18 year olds already work **** jobs and they're happy to get them.
They
rarely stick around for more than a year anyway.

They don't do it at the point of a gun.

In other instances, the wages and to a greater or larger
extent prices would go up.
Not if legal replacement workers receive the same wages as illegals.
But that is assuming a repeal of the laws of supply and demand.
Again try to keep it kinda sorta real.

We're discussing a hypothetical situation he All the meat heads who
want the illegals out - they get their wish and they're gone tomorrow,
just in time for planting season across much of America. How do you
replace them, and what do you pay them?

Farmers just have to pay higher wages, that's all.

Are you ready for $8.00 per pound lettuce & broccoli? How do you think
that
would affect low income people?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Apparently you never heard of Bush's proposal of a guest worker
program, did you? Turn off the cartoons and watch the news for a
change.


Believe me, that will NOT satisfy the most rabid opponents of foreign
workers.

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
jerryl wrote:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or
that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public." Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

I reserve my right to disagree.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit



Now just what does that have to do with illegal aliens?

Well maybe if you had not snipped out the preceding section of the
message, it would make sense.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit




I sure wish you'd answer my previous question. Do you hire illegals in your
business? Simple question. I just think that someone that advocates the
illegal entry into our country and work force has an ulterior motive.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...

Are you ready for $8.00 per pound lettuce & broccoli?
I doubt it would go that high. I think those two crops, for one things,
are things that *do* lend themselves to more mechanization.
You can stop saying that now. It's getting old, and it is in no way
connected with the reality of how things grow.
I don't care if it's getting "old" or not. It is very *much* connected
with the reality of how some things grow.


Last time I'll type this: 2-3 years back, I got curious about this. I
contacted two farm machinery manufacturers and asked about this. Identical
response: If we could invent machines do address more needs, you'd see them
already. We'd love to, but...." Nobody has yet figured out how to pick
about half of what you see in the produce department.

I don't believe that for vegetables. Corn, beans,
peas, carrots, potatoes - those are all mechanically
harvested. Pretty much every root crop, and every crop
where the entire plant is harvested, like the corn and
beans and peas.

A quick web search on "mechanical harvesters" showed a
few I wouldn't have thought existed: for sweet
cherries, citrus and olives.


Any gardener can point out 20 vegetables that'll be ruined when handled
roughly.

So, I guess the prices of those things would have to
rise as more expensive domestic labor is used, wouldn't
they?

How do you suppose Western Europeans get these crops
harvested, given that they don't have a large pool of
illegally resident aliens equal to some 6-7% of their
population to do it? Food prices in Europe are higher
than here, but they're not paying any $8.00 per pound
for broccoli.


How do you think that would affect low income people?
Worse than it would affect higher income people. Most price increases
affect poor people more than rich people.

You're not suggesting that massive illegal immigration is countenanced
as a policy goal of providing cheap food for poor people, are you?

No, but is sure as hell is the way the economy has been structured over
the past 50-75 years.
The economy has not been "structured" in any such way, and large-scale
illegal immigration has not been going on for any 50-75 years.

Where do you come up with this crap, anyway?


When meat heads wail about throwing out migrant workers, they don't
consider that it'll take quite some time to adjust.
I don't know if it would or wouldn't. Personally, I'm not all that keen
to expel the illegally resident aliens who are here. I want to stop the
flow, and I want to get the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment to be
properly understood to get rid of the phenomenon of "anchor babies".


The biggest adjustment will be convincing people that someone has to do
"that kind of work",
No such adjustment is needed. People already understand that some amount
of labor is needed in agriculture.


and I don't care WHAT you pay them - you won't be able to accelerate the
cultural adjustment.
What kind of "cultural adjustment" is needed to make people understand
that labor-intensive work needs laborers for the work to get done? Are
you nuts?

I'll tell you what: Ask 20 teenagers if they'd be interested in working a
farm field when it's 93 degrees, and they have to bend over for 10 hours
cutting broccoli. Let me know what they say.

It would depend on the wage, wouldn't it?

"Terry" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 09:21:06 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:33 am, wrote:
If you know of employers who hire ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS of ANY
NATIONALITY...
...
NOW I KNOW BETTER NOWand SO DO YOU.

FYI

greg

Why do you see so much hate and fear?

Why is our reaction always negative?

Why don't we remember that this country was founded on the principle
of
immigrants being welcome Why can't we remember that nearly all of us here
have ancestors who were immigrants and who would have been illegal under
the
current restrictive laws?

Why don't we welcome them and insist that our government eliminate the
hateful fearful barriers?

Why can't people realize that most immigrants are some of the best
people who are looking for a better life and are willing to work for it.


Have you seen the TV show Cops lately?

Is that the one where bald headed steroid infested thugs in silly costumes
go around beating people up with sticks and other dangerous things?

"jerryl" wrote
I welcome all legal immigrants. It's the illegals I resent and want
deported. The legals had to jump through hoops, prove their health is
satisfactory and prove that they have no criminal records. They also have
to prove that they won't be a burden on society. The illegals come in with
no such proof. They flood our medical system, education system and prison
system. Look at the prison populations in the western cities.

All of the negative things you mentioned are caused by the politicians you
vote for.
In effect YOU are your own problem.

"Terry" wrote
That is the way it works at my house. You are welcome coming in the
front door. You get shot trying to come in the back door.

As long as you don't set those dictates on property that doesn't belong to
you there should be no problem.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote
No, and neither does the U.S. That's a nice, quaint little poem, but it
is not national immigration law - nor should it be. We do not, and should
not, simply abolish immigration law.

WE don't make laws.
Politicians do, and they are usually wrong.

"jerryl" wrote in message
.. .

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
jerryl wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
But do you set arbitrary limits on the front door? Do you have a
sign posted on your lawn saying "Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse
of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed, to
me" --
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit




Just because the sign is there doesn't mean they don't have to follow
the laws. Under your interpretation if I see a sign "Highway", I'd be
allowed to drive on it even if I didn't have a license. We are a
nation of laws and if you want to live here you have to obey those
laws. We have immigration laws and if immigrants bypass them, they
are illegal.

I like your highway idea. Now how would you feel if the politicians
decided that we have too many cars on the road and because building
highways is expensive and cars pollute we are going to limit who can
drive. We will allow 80% if the people in Road Island to drive and maybe
10% if those in Texas. California may get 15%.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit




No dice Joe. If all the drivers have legal licenses you can't discriminate
against any of them.

First you say they can't.....

But they sure as hell can tell those without legal
licenses to stay off the road.

....then you say they can.
You must be one of those people that falls for that Nigerian scam over and
over and over and....... LOL

"jerryl" wrote in message
news:MnhIh.5146$B7.3412@bigfe9...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
jerryl wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...

..

I welcome all legal immigrants. It's the illegals I resent and want
deported. The legals had to jump through hoops, prove their health is
satisfactory and prove that they have no criminal records. They also
have to prove that they won't be a burden on society. The illegals
come in with no such proof. They flood our medical system, education
system and prison system. Look at the prison populations in the
western cities.

I don't know about your ancestors, but I doubt if mine could have made
it though all those hopes today. In fact I doubt if I could if I did not
already have US citizenship. Not only hoops, but limits on the numbers
are used to keep them out.

As for flooding our medical, educational and prison systems, I assure
you that if you removed all non US borns from those institutions, there
would still be a flood.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit




Well, my ancestors came over in the late 1800's and early 1900's and had
to jump through all of those hoops before they were allowed in. They had
to have someone here sponsor them. They had to have a place to live and a
job, BEFORE THEY WERE ALLOWED IN. They were not allowed to go on any
welfare or relief systems. If they couldn't support themselves then their
sponsors had to.
If my ancestors had to do it, along with all the millions of tired and
poor that were accepted to this country, then there's no reason for the
illegals to be allowed to remain here.
You are a contractor. Do you hire illegals to work for you?

You are making it a habit of speaking for other people, as above, your
ancestors you never knew, foreigners that you hate, etc.
And yet you don't even know anything about what you are yammering about.
All you can do is squeal illegal, Illegal, ILLEGAL like a puppet.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...

Are you ready for $8.00 per pound lettuce & broccoli?
I doubt it would go that high. I think those two crops, for one
things, are things that *do* lend themselves to more mechanization.
You can stop saying that now. It's getting old, and it is in no way
connected with the reality of how things grow.
I don't care if it's getting "old" or not. It is very *much* connected
with the reality of how some things grow.


Last time I'll type this: 2-3 years back, I got curious about this. I
contacted two farm machinery manufacturers and asked about this.
Identical response: If we could invent machines do address more needs,
you'd see them already. We'd love to, but...." Nobody has yet figured
out how to pick about half of what you see in the produce department.

I don't believe that for vegetables. Corn, beans, peas, carrots,
potatoes - those are all mechanically harvested. Pretty much every root
crop, and every crop where the entire plant is harvested, like the corn
and beans and peas.

A quick web search on "mechanical harvesters" showed a few I wouldn't have
thought existed: for sweet cherries, citrus and olives.


Any gardener can point out 20 vegetables that'll be ruined when handled
roughly.

So, I guess the prices of those things would have to rise as more
expensive domestic labor is used, wouldn't they?

How do you suppose Western Europeans get these crops harvested, given that
they don't have a large pool of illegally resident aliens equal to some
6-7% of their population to do it? Food prices in Europe are higher than
here, but they're not paying any $8.00 per pound for broccoli.


How do you think that would affect low income people?
Worse than it would affect higher income people. Most price increases
affect poor people more than rich people.

You're not suggesting that massive illegal immigration is countenanced
as a policy goal of providing cheap food for poor people, are you?

No, but is sure as hell is the way the economy has been structured over
the past 50-75 years.
The economy has not been "structured" in any such way, and large-scale
illegal immigration has not been going on for any 50-75 years.

Where do you come up with this crap, anyway?


When meat heads wail about throwing out migrant workers, they don't
consider that it'll take quite some time to adjust.
I don't know if it would or wouldn't. Personally, I'm not all that keen
to expel the illegally resident aliens who are here. I want to stop the
flow, and I want to get the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment to
be properly understood to get rid of the phenomenon of "anchor babies".


The biggest adjustment will be convincing people that someone has to do
"that kind of work",
No such adjustment is needed. People already understand that some
amount of labor is needed in agriculture.


and I don't care WHAT you pay them - you won't be able to accelerate
the cultural adjustment.
What kind of "cultural adjustment" is needed to make people understand
that labor-intensive work needs laborers for the work to get done? Are
you nuts?

I'll tell you what: Ask 20 teenagers if they'd be interested in working a
farm field when it's 93 degrees, and they have to bend over for 10 hours
cutting broccoli. Let me know what they say.

It would depend on the wage, wouldn't it?

I doubt it, but that's just me. I know people who refuse to ride a city bus
because ya know....there are (whispering) "those people - the kind that ride
buses a lot". I wonder if they'd want their kids working alongside "those
people" for any amount of money.

"Don" wrote in message
...

"jerryl" wrote in message
news:MnhIh.5146$B7.3412@bigfe9...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
jerryl wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...

..

I welcome all legal immigrants. It's the illegals I resent and want
deported. The legals had to jump through hoops, prove their health is
satisfactory and prove that they have no criminal records. They also
have to prove that they won't be a burden on society. The illegals
come in with no such proof. They flood our medical system, education
system and prison system. Look at the prison populations in the
western cities.

I don't know about your ancestors, but I doubt if mine could have
made it though all those hopes today. In fact I doubt if I could if I
did not already have US citizenship. Not only hoops, but limits on the
numbers are used to keep them out.

As for flooding our medical, educational and prison systems, I assure
you that if you removed all non US borns from those institutions, there
would still be a flood.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit




Well, my ancestors came over in the late 1800's and early 1900's and had
to jump through all of those hoops before they were allowed in. They had
to have someone here sponsor them. They had to have a place to live and a
job, BEFORE THEY WERE ALLOWED IN. They were not allowed to go on any
welfare or relief systems. If they couldn't support themselves then their
sponsors had to.
If my ancestors had to do it, along with all the millions of tired and
poor that were accepted to this country, then there's no reason for the
illegals to be allowed to remain here.
You are a contractor. Do you hire illegals to work for you?

You are making it a habit of speaking for other people, as above, your
ancestors you never knew, foreigners that you hate, etc.
And yet you don't even know anything about what you are yammering about.
All you can do is squeal illegal, Illegal, ILLEGAL like a puppet.

Rush Limbaugh say, monkey say. :-)

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
If the country needed soldiers badly enough, you'd be fine with
conscription.

People in favor of conscription should be the first to be conscripted.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote
Why are you opposed to Americans wanting to exercise their *right* to
control whom they allow into the country?

YOU don't have the right to control that which you don't own.
YOU don't own a country.

Don wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote
No, and neither does the U.S. That's a nice, quaint little poem, but it
is not national immigration law - nor should it be. We do not, and should
not, simply abolish immigration law.

WE don't make laws.
Politicians do, and they are usually wrong.

I meant "we" as a nation. For better or worse -
usually worse - our elected officials pass laws for us.
They are responsive to public opinion. However, the
public rarely hold a unanimous opinion.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...

Are you ready for $8.00 per pound lettuce & broccoli?
I doubt it would go that high. I think those two crops, for one
things, are things that *do* lend themselves to more mechanization.
You can stop saying that now. It's getting old, and it is in no way
connected with the reality of how things grow.
I don't care if it's getting "old" or not. It is very *much* connected
with the reality of how some things grow.

Last time I'll type this: 2-3 years back, I got curious about this. I
contacted two farm machinery manufacturers and asked about this.
Identical response: If we could invent machines do address more needs,
you'd see them already. We'd love to, but...." Nobody has yet figured
out how to pick about half of what you see in the produce department.
I don't believe that for vegetables. Corn, beans, peas, carrots,
potatoes - those are all mechanically harvested. Pretty much every root
crop, and every crop where the entire plant is harvested, like the corn
and beans and peas.

A quick web search on "mechanical harvesters" showed a few I wouldn't have
thought existed: for sweet cherries, citrus and olives.


Any gardener can point out 20 vegetables that'll be ruined when handled
roughly.
So, I guess the prices of those things would have to rise as more
expensive domestic labor is used, wouldn't they?

How do you suppose Western Europeans get these crops harvested, given that
they don't have a large pool of illegally resident aliens equal to some
6-7% of their population to do it? Food prices in Europe are higher than
here, but they're not paying any $8.00 per pound for broccoli.


How do you think that would affect low income people?
Worse than it would affect higher income people. Most price increases
affect poor people more than rich people.

You're not suggesting that massive illegal immigration is countenanced
as a policy goal of providing cheap food for poor people, are you?
No, but is sure as hell is the way the economy has been structured over
the past 50-75 years.
The economy has not been "structured" in any such way, and large-scale
illegal immigration has not been going on for any 50-75 years.

Where do you come up with this crap, anyway?


When meat heads wail about throwing out migrant workers, they don't
consider that it'll take quite some time to adjust.
I don't know if it would or wouldn't. Personally, I'm not all that keen
to expel the illegally resident aliens who are here. I want to stop the
flow, and I want to get the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment to
be properly understood to get rid of the phenomenon of "anchor babies".


The biggest adjustment will be convincing people that someone has to do
"that kind of work",
No such adjustment is needed. People already understand that some
amount of labor is needed in agriculture.


and I don't care WHAT you pay them - you won't be able to accelerate
the cultural adjustment.
What kind of "cultural adjustment" is needed to make people understand
that labor-intensive work needs laborers for the work to get done? Are
you nuts?
I'll tell you what: Ask 20 teenagers if they'd be interested in working a
farm field when it's 93 degrees, and they have to bend over for 10 hours
cutting broccoli. Let me know what they say.
It would depend on the wage, wouldn't it?

I doubt it, but that's just me.

Yes, that's just you, thoroughly unfamliar with labor
economics.


I know people who refuse to ride a city bus
because ya know....there are (whispering) "those people - the kind that ride
buses a lot".

Who can blame them, particularly if they can afford
personal transportation? There *are* a lot of weird
people on buses. Who wouldn't want more control over
his environment if he could afford it?


I wonder if they'd want their kids working alongside "those
people" for any amount of money.

If the kids or even adults want an income, and if the
wages are high enough, they'll do it.

Don wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
If the country needed soldiers badly enough, you'd be fine with
conscription.

People in favor of conscription should be the first to be conscripted.

That's true for a lot of things. One of my pet peeves
is law-and-order (that's pronounced as one word,
"lawnorder") suburbanites angrily voting for new
prisons and "get tough on crime" laws, then furiously
opposing the construction of prisons near them. New
prisons should always be built in the voting precincts
that voted the highest for the new prisons. If that
turns out to mean Beverly Hills or Hillsborough or
Pacific Heights, then so ****ing be it.

Don wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote
Why are you opposed to Americans wanting to exercise their *right* to
control whom they allow into the country?

YOU don't have the right to control that which you don't own.
YOU don't own a country.

The citizens of a country *do* "own" it in a manner of
speaking. They *DO* have the legal, moral and
political right to control immigration. Whether or not
they have the practical ability to do so is another matter.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...

Are you ready for $8.00 per pound lettuce & broccoli?
I doubt it would go that high. I think those two crops, for one
things, are things that *do* lend themselves to more mechanization.
You can stop saying that now. It's getting old, and it is in no way
connected with the reality of how things grow.
I don't care if it's getting "old" or not. It is very *much*
connected with the reality of how some things grow.
Last time I'll type this: 2-3 years back, I got curious about this. I
contacted two farm machinery manufacturers and asked about this.
Identical response: If we could invent machines do address more needs,
you'd see them already. We'd love to, but...." Nobody has yet figured
out how to pick about half of what you see in the produce department.
I don't believe that for vegetables. Corn, beans, peas, carrots,
potatoes - those are all mechanically harvested. Pretty much every root
crop, and every crop where the entire plant is harvested, like the corn
and beans and peas.

A quick web search on "mechanical harvesters" showed a few I wouldn't
have thought existed: for sweet cherries, citrus and olives.


Any gardener can point out 20 vegetables that'll be ruined when handled
roughly.
So, I guess the prices of those things would have to rise as more
expensive domestic labor is used, wouldn't they?

How do you suppose Western Europeans get these crops harvested, given
that they don't have a large pool of illegally resident aliens equal to
some 6-7% of their population to do it? Food prices in Europe are
higher than here, but they're not paying any $8.00 per pound for
broccoli.


How do you think that would affect low income people?
Worse than it would affect higher income people. Most price
increases affect poor people more than rich people.

You're not suggesting that massive illegal immigration is
countenanced as a policy goal of providing cheap food for poor
people, are you?
No, but is sure as hell is the way the economy has been structured
over the past 50-75 years.
The economy has not been "structured" in any such way, and large-scale
illegal immigration has not been going on for any 50-75 years.

Where do you come up with this crap, anyway?


When meat heads wail about throwing out migrant workers, they don't
consider that it'll take quite some time to adjust.
I don't know if it would or wouldn't. Personally, I'm not all that
keen to expel the illegally resident aliens who are here. I want to
stop the flow, and I want to get the citizenship clause of the 14th
amendment to be properly understood to get rid of the phenomenon of
"anchor babies".


The biggest adjustment will be convincing people that someone has to
do "that kind of work",
No such adjustment is needed. People already understand that some
amount of labor is needed in agriculture.


and I don't care WHAT you pay them - you won't be able to accelerate
the cultural adjustment.
What kind of "cultural adjustment" is needed to make people understand
that labor-intensive work needs laborers for the work to get done?
Are you nuts?
I'll tell you what: Ask 20 teenagers if they'd be interested in working
a farm field when it's 93 degrees, and they have to bend over for 10
hours cutting broccoli. Let me know what they say.
It would depend on the wage, wouldn't it?
I doubt it, but that's just me.
Yes, that's just you, thoroughly unfamliar with labor economics.


I know people who refuse to ride a city bus because ya know....there are
(whispering) "those people - the kind that ride buses a lot".
Who can blame them, particularly if they can afford personal
transportation? There *are* a lot of weird people on buses. Who wouldn't
want more control over his environment if he could afford it?


I wonder if they'd want their kids working alongside "those people" for
any amount of money.
If the kids or even adults want an income, and if the wages are high
enough, they'll do it.


Kids can get jobs now, in nice air conditioned places.

They can? All of them? At high wages?

I don't think so.


Why on earth would
they want to work in a field, in the hot sun, getting filthy and swinging a
very sharp knife in the vicinity of their ankles?

Because it pays more, and they didn't get the minimum
wage job handing out tickets at the multi-plex cinema?
Just a guess.

On Mar 9, 4:08 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Mar 9, 3:39 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message

thlink.net...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Hardly a reason to let them come in. If they were tossed out
for
being illegal, then three things would happen. Some things wouldn't
get
done because at "real" wages (w/o the extra illegals) they just
aren't
profitable.
Conscripted people will work for minimum wage. No need to see jobs
vanish
and things not get done.

Can we at least pretend to stay within the confines of reality?

Which part of the ABOVE do you consider to be a departure from
reality?
18 year olds already work **** jobs and they're happy to get them.
They
rarely stick around for more than a year anyway.

They don't do it at the point of a gun.

In other instances, the wages and to a greater or larger
extent prices would go up.
Not if legal replacement workers receive the same wages as illegals.
But that is assuming a repeal of the laws of supply and demand.
Again try to keep it kinda sorta real.

We're discussing a hypothetical situation he All the meat heads who
want the illegals out - they get their wish and they're gone tomorrow,
just in time for planting season across much of America. How do you
replace them, and what do you pay them?

Farmers just have to pay higher wages, that's all.

Are you ready for $8.00 per pound lettuce & broccoli? How do you think
that
would affect low income people?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Apparently you never heard of Bush's proposal of a guest worker
program, did you? Turn off the cartoons and watch the news for a
change.

Believe me, that will NOT satisfy the most rabid opponents of foreign
workers.- Hide quoted text -


It doesn't have to satisfy the most rabid opponents. All it has to do
is get passed and work. But, what a guest worker plan clearly
wouldn't satisfy is the liberals in Congress. They are the ones that
opposed it, because they figure if enough illegals come here and can
eventually vote one way or another, they will keep the liberals in
power.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 9, 4:08 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Mar 9, 3:39 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message

thlink.net...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Hardly a reason to let them come in. If they were tossed
out
for
being illegal, then three things would happen. Some things
wouldn't
get
done because at "real" wages (w/o the extra illegals) they just
aren't
profitable.
Conscripted people will work for minimum wage. No need to see
jobs
vanish
and things not get done.

Can we at least pretend to stay within the confines of
reality?

Which part of the ABOVE do you consider to be a departure from
reality?
18 year olds already work **** jobs and they're happy to get them.
They
rarely stick around for more than a year anyway.

They don't do it at the point of a gun.

In other instances, the wages and to a greater or larger
extent prices would go up.
Not if legal replacement workers receive the same wages as
illegals.
But that is assuming a repeal of the laws of supply and
demand.
Again try to keep it kinda sorta real.

We're discussing a hypothetical situation he All the meat heads
who
want the illegals out - they get their wish and they're gone
tomorrow,
just in time for planting season across much of America. How do you
replace them, and what do you pay them?

Farmers just have to pay higher wages, that's all.

Are you ready for $8.00 per pound lettuce & broccoli? How do you think
that
would affect low income people?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Apparently you never heard of Bush's proposal of a guest worker
program, did you? Turn off the cartoons and watch the news for a
change.

Believe me, that will NOT satisfy the most rabid opponents of foreign
workers.- Hide quoted text -


It doesn't have to satisfy the most rabid opponents. All it has to do
is get passed and work. But, what a guest worker plan clearly
wouldn't satisfy is the liberals in Congress. They are the ones that
opposed it, because they figure if enough illegals come here and can
eventually vote one way or another, they will keep the liberals in
power.

You'd be surprised how some of them will vote. The "left" here is the
"right" elsewhere. You've been drooled on and trained to use words that are
meaningless.

"jerryl" wrote in message
.. .

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
jerryl wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
But do you set arbitrary limits on the front door? Do you have a
sign posted on your lawn saying "Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse
of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed, to
me" --
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit




Just because the sign is there doesn't mean they don't have to follow
the laws. Under your interpretation if I see a sign "Highway", I'd be
allowed to drive on it even if I didn't have a license. We are a
nation of laws and if you want to live here you have to obey those
laws. We have immigration laws and if immigrants bypass them, they
are illegal.

I like your highway idea. Now how would you feel if the politicians
decided that we have too many cars on the road and because building
highways is expensive and cars pollute we are going to limit who can
drive. We will allow 80% if the people in Road Island to drive and maybe
10% if those in Texas. California may get 15%.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit




No dice Joe. If all the drivers have legal licenses you can't discriminate
against any of them. But they sure as hell can tell those without legal
licenses to stay off the road.

Why not? Is that not what our current immigration laws do? We have
quotas for the number of people who may come into the US legally. Some
countries get lots some few. It seems that if you are from a country with
money with a mostly white population and speak English you get a large
allocation. If you are from somewhere else that lacks those
characteristics, or is not on good terms politically, you get less.

Note: After my current responses I will make one more set of responses
in about 48 hours. I am doing this because this really does not fit in this
newsgroup and I think it is time to come to an end. I will try to give
everyone a chance to ask for one more response and of course anyone is
welcome to respond after my last response.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
...

I like your highway idea. Now how would you feel if the politicians
decided that we have too many cars on the road and because building
highways is expensive and cars pollute we are going to limit who can
drive.

We already do that, stupid. They're called toll roads, or peak load
pricing.

Thank you for your kind well though out response.

"jerryl" wrote in message
news:MnhIh.5146$B7.3412@bigfe9...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
jerryl wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...

..

I welcome all legal immigrants. It's the illegals I resent and want
deported. The legals had to jump through hoops, prove their health is
satisfactory and prove that they have no criminal records. They also
have to prove that they won't be a burden on society. The illegals
come in with no such proof. They flood our medical system, education
system and prison system. Look at the prison populations in the
western cities.

I don't know about your ancestors, but I doubt if mine could have made
it though all those hopes today. In fact I doubt if I could if I did not
already have US citizenship. Not only hoops, but limits on the numbers
are used to keep them out.

As for flooding our medical, educational and prison systems, I assure
you that if you removed all non US borns from those institutions, there
would still be a flood.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit




Well, my ancestors came over in the late 1800's and early 1900's and had
to jump through all of those hoops before they were allowed in. They had
to have someone here sponsor them. They had to have a place to live and a
job, BEFORE THEY WERE ALLOWED IN. They were not allowed to go on any
welfare or relief systems. If they couldn't support themselves then their
sponsors had to.
If my ancestors had to do it, along with all the millions of tired and
poor that were accepted to this country, then there's no reason for the
illegals to be allowed to remain here.
You are a contractor. Do you hire illegals to work for you?


Do you really believe that the same rules are applied today as then?
Are the hoops the same or have they changed?

I am not a contractor. To the best of my knowledge no one I every hired
was in the US illegally. The only non-citizen I ever hired was Russian.

Note: After my current responses I will make one more set of responses
in about 48 hours. I am doing this because this really does not fit in this
newsgroup and I think it is time to come to an end. I will try to give
everyone a chance to ask for one more response and of course anyone is
welcome to respond after my last response.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

wrote in message
oups.com...
Our ancestors came here LEGALLY. They assimilated by learning ENGLISH
and becoming Americans. These new immigrants just want to take and
epect us to cater to them. Put them in cargo containers and drop them
into the ocean!!!


Are you somehow afraid of someone not speaking English? Do they make
you feel inferior? Do you feel bad because many of them are doing better
than you do, because they are willing to work harder?

Note: After my current responses I will make one more set of responses
in about 48 hours. I am doing this because this really does not fit in this
newsgroup and I think it is time to come to an end. I will try to give
everyone a chance to ask for one more response and of course anyone is
welcome to respond after my last response.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com...
Our ancestors came here LEGALLY. They assimilated by learning ENGLISH
and becoming Americans. These new immigrants just want to take and
epect us to cater to them. Put them in cargo containers and drop them
into the ocean!!!


When they arrived at Ellis Island, did they stay there until they achieved
citizenship? I honestly don't know, so I'm asking you.


No.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com...
Our ancestors came here LEGALLY. They assimilated by learning ENGLISH
and becoming Americans. These new immigrants just want to take and
epect us to cater to them. Put them in cargo containers and drop them
into the ocean!!!


When they arrived at Ellis Island, did they stay there until they
achieved citizenship? I honestly don't know, so I'm asking you.


No.
Joseph Meehan


OK - so that was sort of the front desk for check-in. Got it. They then
entered society and began to work, perhaps without knowing English.

Just checking, because it sounds familiar.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
Rudy Canoza wrote:
Joseph Meehan wrote:
bill allemann wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
theodoric3@lyc
Joe
You should diversify your news sourcing. You are misinformed to a
spectacular extent.
Would you like to challenge any of the specific statements I made
What "specific statements"? You posed a set of
sophomoric and loaded questions that, taken together,
indicate you think there should be no limit on
immigration; no rules at all. Your sophomoric and
loaded questions indicate an astonishingly naive
misunderstanding.

So does that mean you really don't know if any of my statements are
true or are false, only that you disagree with them or want them to be
false?

You didn't make any statements, joey. You posed a bunch of sophomoric and
loaded questions. Your questions can't be tested for truth or falsity
because they weren't statements. They were a bunch of value judgments
that you reworded into questions.

Why do you see so much hate and fear?

* Many people are expressing hate and fear by trying to build a wall
around the US.

Why is our reaction always negative?

* Many people have chosen to tear down and hid rather than look forward
and build.

Why don't we remember that this country was founded on the principle of
immigrants being welcome Why can't we remember that nearly all of us here
have ancestors who were immigrants and who would have been illegal under the
current restrictive laws?

* Many people have lost perspective as the sons and daughters of
immigrants.

Why don't we welcome them and insist that our government eliminate the
hateful fearful barriers?

* We should welcome them rather than build walls

Why can't people realize that most immigrants are some of the best
people who are looking for a better life and are willing to work for it.

* Most immigrants are good people. Some are not, just as many US born
citizens are not.

Why have we forgotten the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty?

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe
free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless,
tempest tossed, to me"

What has happened to this country?

* I like the ideals suggested in the above statement. Where did we go
wrong and loose them?



Note: After my current responses I will make one more set of responses
in about 48 hours. I am doing this because this really does not fit in this
newsgroup and I think it is time to come to an end. I will try to give
everyone a chance to ask for one more response and of course anyone is
welcome to respond after my last response.
--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

Note: After my current responses I will make one more set of responses
in about 48 hours. I am doing this because this really does not fit in this
newsgroup and I think it is time to come to an end. I will try to give
everyone a chance to ask for one more response and of course anyone is
welcome to respond after my last response.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit


wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 9, 5:33 am, wrote:
If you know of employers who hire ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS of ANY
NATIONALITY....write your Mayor, your Governor, your local and State
Representatives, and Senators ...and turn that business in. It's easy
to write a simple letter about the matter, and easy to find the postal
and email addresses on the 'net.
There are Legal Americans able to work those jobs that are NOT getting
a chance to do so. And please, contract with LOCALLY BASED businesses
in your residential area to keep your money spent in YOUR COMMUNITY.

Consider the house-roofing "industry"....After the hurricanes in
Florida in 2004, I needed new roof-shingles. The home was 10 years
old, and I had lost many but luckily did not sustain any further
damage from wind/water. I contracted with a roofer who was working in
my area, meeting with his Caucasian 'sales representative' to make the
deal. (Actually, it wasn't any 'deal": $11,300 for re-shingling a 2600
sq. ft home, but paid for by State Farm Insurance).

On the day that the work started, 12 Hispanic workers showed up, and
only the 'group leader' spoke any English and limited at that. I
didn't see the Caucasian agent again until the work was completed,
inspected, and he came to get the check. I wasn't even THINKING about
illegal immigrants back then, but now I wonder how many of the workers
up on my roff those 2 days may have been ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and how
many of those positions could/should have been filled by local, or at
least LEGAL workers. I found out later that the roofing contractor
was really based in Oklahoma, had only come into the area to do storm-
damage work, and was long gone from the area within the following
year. In hindsight, I SHOULD have contracted with a LOCALLY BASED
roofing contractor to keep the money "at home", rather than having a
good portion of it (I'm sure) sent out of the country. Next time, I
will insist that all workers that show up on MY job-sight show PROOF
OF LEGAL CITIZENSHIP.

NOW I KNOW BETTER NOWand SO DO YOU.

FYI

greg

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Our ancestors came here LEGALLY. They assimilated by learning ENGLISH
and becoming Americans. These new immigrants just want to take and
epect us to cater to them. Put them in cargo containers and drop them
into the ocean!!!


Really? Then why are there still enclaves of Yiddish, Polish, etc.
speaking communities today in NYC? Chinese in LA/SF? A hundred years
(and 5 generations) after their ancestors came here?

Would you really call Chinatown assimilated? (And did you ever study
the history of the SF earthquake? After the records holding the birth
certificates of the Chinese laborers were lost, it turned out that
*every* Chinese person in that area was a son or daughter of someone who
could find his certificate....)

Good grief, stop spouting this nonsense!

Our immigration laws are so screwed up, so racist, that it is damn near
impossible to come here legally, and yet our industry depends on these
workers.

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...


Do you really believe that the same rules are applied today as then?
Are the hoops the same or have they changed?

I am not a contractor. To the best of my knowledge no one I every
hired was in the US illegally. The only non-citizen I ever hired was
Russian.

It's not the same. It's easier to get into the country legally today than it
was 100 years ago. If you were standing in line to get into a movie for 45
minutes and someone just cut ahead of you without waiting I'm sure you would
be ****ed.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

You made a factually untrue statement that there have been limits on
immigration for most of the history of the U.S. The first immigration
law you cited, the Immigration Act of 1891, rather obviously came in
over a century after the conclusion of the War of Independence. It has
now been a little more than a century since that act, so in fact, what
you showed is that there has been some kind of limit placed on
immigration for about 50% of the duration of the country. Of course,
there was a century and a half of unrestricted immigration to the
colonies prior to the War of Independence.

Really? So was a black man free to immigrate here and 'assimilate'?
How about a Chinese coolie laborer? How about an Indian from South
America? Or perhaps a Mexican?

Basically, only people who were 'free' to immigrate here were whites.

And you want to keep it that way.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


The foods people might eat less of are exactly the ones they should eat more
of: Crops that are harvested by human hands. As far as crops and machinery,
certain crops CANNOT be harvested by any known machinery, and it has nothing
to do with whether farmers want the machinery or not. The companies who
design the stuff have never been able to figure out how to harvest certain
crops without damaging them beyond being saleable. You won't believe this,
so call John Deere, Massey Ferguson and whoever else you can think of, and
ask.



Food prices might not change that much if the illegals were
gone. A lot of stuff is imported anyhow.
Most of the money consumers spend at the grocery store doesn't go
to the growers. Growers get, at best, just over 25% of the money.
This is from the USDA/ERS: http://tinyurl.com/2n9fhm


Using the updated market basket data for fresh fruits and fresh
vegetables, ERS confirmed a gen-
eral trend: that the farm share of consumer food expenditures has been
shrinking. But the study
also found that the farm share for these two commodity groups has
decreased less than previous-
ly believed.
The updated estimates show a larger farm share than the current,
unadjusted data series. The
unadjusted data series estimates the 2004 farm share at 19 percent for
fresh vegetables and 20
percent for fresh fruit; the updated consumer baskets yield farm shares
of 23.5 percent for fresh
vegetables and 26.6 percent for fresh fruit. While the updated
estimates are lower than the farm
share estimates for 1982 (34 percent for fresh vegetables and 33 percent
for fresh fruit), they do
suggest that the existing (unadjusted) series has overstated the
decrease in farm share.
The unadjusted and updated consumer baskets differ in important ways.
The updated basket includes greater quan-
tities of high-value fresh vegetables, such as asparagus (with a
relatively high farm value in 2004 of $1.22/lb), bell
peppers ($0.34/lb), broccoli ($0.33/lb), agaricus mushrooms ($1.14/lb),
and romaine lettuce ($0.19/lb). By contrast,
celery ($0.15/lb), corn on the cob ($0.21/lb), iceberg lettuce
($0.17/lb), and onions ($0.11/lb) are included in the updat-
ed basket in smaller quantities than in the 1982-84 consumer basket.
End Quote.

A commentary on the effect of removing illegal workers from
agricultu http://tinyurl.com/2h2paw
This one talks about construction: http://tinyurl.com/yrd5es
From the bottom of the commentary:

And by increasing the supply of low-skilled labor relative to
high-skilled labor, illegal immigration effectively boosts the
purchasing power of the better-educated, more-skilled ‹ and richer ‹
portion of society.
The MIT study, by researcher Patricia Cortes, estimated that the
low-skilled immigration wave of the 1990s ‹ much of it outside the
bounds of immigration law ‹ raised the "real wages" of college graduates
by 0.71 percent, and of high-school graduates and people with some
college by 0.59 percent.
High-school dropouts? No discount for them: Cortes estimated that their
real wages were cut by 2.66 percent. But since most adult Americans have
at least a high-school diploma, Cortes concluded that most people
benefited from low-skilled immigration ‹ at least a little.
End quote.

Dean

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

jerryl wrote:
It's not the same. It's easier to get into the country legally today
than it was 100 years ago. If you were standing in line to get into a
movie for 45 minutes and someone just cut ahead of you without
waiting I'm sure you would be ****ed.

No, I'd shoot the miscreant.

Doing so would not only preserve by position in the queue but also serve as
a deterrent to others similarily inclined.

Joseph Meehan wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
..
I like your highway idea. Now how would you feel if the politicians
decided that we have too many cars on the road and because building
highways is expensive and cars pollute we are going to limit who can
drive.
We already do that, stupid. They're called toll roads, or peak load
pricing.

Thank you for your kind well though out response.

Sure, no problem; glad to help.

CptDondo wrote:
Rudy Canoza wrote:

You made a factually untrue statement that there have been limits on
immigration for most of the history of the U.S. The first immigration
law you cited, the Immigration Act of 1891, rather obviously came in
over a century after the conclusion of the War of Independence. It
has now been a little more than a century since that act, so in fact,
what you showed is that there has been some kind of limit placed on
immigration for about 50% of the duration of the country. Of course,
there was a century and a half of unrestricted immigration to the
colonies prior to the War of Independence.

Really? So was a black man free to immigrate here and 'assimilate'? How
about a Chinese coolie laborer? How about an Indian from South
America? Or perhaps a Mexican?

I don't know about the blacks. Up until the latter
half of the 19th century, the others didn't have a problem.



Basically, only people who were 'free' to immigrate here were whites.

False.


And you want to keep it that way.

False.