Comments on: ‘Anti-Illegal Immigration’ is a euphemism for Anti-Immigrant

By: Prerna

Prerna — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:56:48 +0000

Phil – Your first two statements show a lack of understanding of history and the global political economy. There’s a certain monopoly of production, export-import in our system with manufacturing countries having an edge over more peripheral countries who have had their economies controlled by outsiders from colonial times, geared towards the making of primary products with power concentrated in the hands of a few. Now it is called neo-colonialism. With NAFTA, capital has the right to expand, cross borders and sue while labor doesn’t — and that adds to why migrants are losing their land and have to come looking for opportunity to America. Look into the development of underdevelopment. Wars led by the United States and the overthrowing of 61 democracies around the world also doesn’t help keep people in those countries i.e. Iraq.
I actually agree with your last statement.

Chaos — your entire gibberish–that shows absolutely no understanding of legal terms–has already been answered in my post and you add nothing to the discussion. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) broadly defines an immigrant as any alien in the United States, except one legally admitted under specific nonimmigrant categories (INA section 101(a)(15)). Legal or illegal entry/presence does not make one less of an ‘immigrant’ under the law.

A California PPIC non-partisan study has shown that most legal immigrants today were actually regarded as ‘illegal’ at one time. It isn’t a permanent immutable condition but an artificial category.

By: Chaos

Chaos — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:15:11 +0000

‘Anti-Illegal Immigration’ is a euphemism for Anti-Immigrant

Bullspit!
My neighbors are immigrants (Hmong to be exact and I’m not) and I have nothing against them. I think they are great people.

Let’s give you a few definitions to mull over before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

Alien is a person who comes from a foreign country.

Illegal means against the law. And that includes immigration law.
Which is the opposite of legal meaning authorized by or based on law.

Law-a rule or body of rules of conduct essential to or binding upon society.

Illegal alien, also known as an “Undocumented Alien,” which is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen “out of status” and is deportable.

Illegal alien is the correct term but some consider it derogatory.

Illegal immigration refers to immigration across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country. Illegal immigrants are also known as illegal aliens to differentiate them from legal immigrants.

Immigrants are different from illegal aliens in that the latter does not have legal status in the country in which s/he works.

Most of those you claim are “Anti-Immigrant”, are not .

What part of these concepts are you having problems comprehending?

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:36:19 +0000

If the U.S perpetuates a system of injustice all over the world
why is it that many countries are wealthy and advanced and educated while others are not.?
Why is it that some countries excell in education and industrializing
their countries and others fail?
Illegal immigrant pay 7 billion into social security but the U.S spends that much just on their education.
I=PAT
P in the equation stands for population.
The person who developed this equation promoted
Zero Population Growth so I think population growth
must mean something. The U.S would have zero
population growth if it weren’t for immigration.
Population growth is not important only if there are
unlimited resources to support an unlimited population.
I think the U.S should reduce immigration and develop
other countries economies so there would be no need
to immigrate

By: Prerna

Prerna — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:35:22 +0000

Your first fact distorts the reality of migration–the U.S. accepts less than 2% of migrants in the world each year.

You clearly need a crash course in political economy.

Population growth is a dumb argument to use against immigration, especially since:
1. I=PAT; consumption is the real issue and American consumption needs to be checked.
2. The SSA is arguing that we need an annual increase of 100,000 immigrants per year to save social security. Whose labor are the baby boomers retiring on?
3. The reality is that poor people will continue to have more babies especially in labor-intensive societies and when the U.S. perpetuates a system of injustice all over the world that drives those people from their homes, guess where they will come?

It really isn’t as simple as numbers.

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:47:42 +0000

The U.S excepts 2 million legal immigrants per year.
More than any other country in the world.
At this rate the U.S population will reach a billion in
250 years. Then what? Stop immigration altogether
or go for 2 billion. The U.S immigration system isn’t really
the problem. It is world ovepopulation and so
much of the worlds economies being undeveloped.
If we “fixed our broken immigration system” and raised
legal immigration to 10 million per year the U.S population
could reach a billion in just 60 years. 5 million would produce
a population billion in about 120 years.