DescentBB

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnbcA1

hmmm, this is tough on certain folks' narratives, huh?

No it isn't. It's tough on certain people's handling of the economy the people from dirt poor countries decide it is better to live there than here.

Just making it up as you go along, eh woody?

And making a ignorant reply as usual eh Ferny.

So there are fewer and fewer of them on the other side of the border?

Ferno wrote:Just making it up as you go along, eh woody?

Guess so:

The slow recovery of the U.S. economy after the Great Recession may have made the U.S. less attractive to potential Mexican migrants and may have pushed out some Mexican immigrants as the U.S. job market deteriorated.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/m ... o-the-u-s/

Too bad your knee is still twitching.

'may have'? You are posting speculation?

callmeslick wrote:'may have'? You are posting speculation?

At least it is someone elses speculation, unlike the vapors you post at time that rise like a miasmal fog from your cranial lobes.

further, what data do YOU posess that we are talking solely about Mexican immigrants? Last I checked, Asians made up nearly a quarter of all illegal immigrants living and working here. Lord knows, the DHS housing in Berks County, PA, where I used to live had as many Asians from eastern cities as Mexicans.

Considering your link is looking primarily at Latino's, I'm not sure what deflection you are attempting?

woodchip wrote:And making a ignorant reply as usual eh Ferny.

no, just making note of another one of your 'blame obama' posts.

First you're bagging on immigrants, saying they shouldn't be here; you want them to go back to where they came from. Now you're bagging on the president because you're essentially getting you wanted.

hilarious, really.

Just to clear up a misconception you seem to have Ferny, I'm not against immigration...just illegal sneak over the boarder type immigrants. And what I blame Obama for is by Presidential fiat, he is trying to make those self same illegals legal.

woodchip wrote:he is trying to make those self same illegals legal.

I was wondering why you see that as a problem and then I realized, you wouldn't have it to ★■◆● about.

you don't want illegals here, but you don't want them to be legal by fiat.

No, I want illegals to get in line like everyone else. Or do you not mind having waited in line to see a favorite rock band perform, a group of people cut in front of you and when you finally get to the venues doors, they are shut in your face as the place is now full. Knowing how you think I suspect you won't even understand this simple example.

woodchip wrote:No, I want illegals to get in line like everyone else. Or do you not mind having waited in line to see a favorite rock band perform, a group of people cut in front of you and when you finally get to the venues doors, they are shut in your face as the place is now full. Knowing how you think I suspect you won't even understand this simple example.

um, illegals aren't kids who try to cut in line, immigration isn't a rock concert, and a country isn't a venue.

Do you live near a place called the "United States of Madison Square"?

woodchip wrote:I want illegals to get in line like everyone else

I think this is a spot where conservatives need to rethink their position.

Most of the time we're all about small government, and getting rid of bad laws and bad regulations. And in this circumstance, the US's immigration laws are absolutely bad laws and bad regulations and a terrible system that doesn't even remotely match up with the reality on the ground. We don't have millions of illegals because they're just bad people who want to break our laws; we have millions of illegals because we have a broken system that doesn't bring in enough people legally to fill the economic demand and that doesn't keep families together effectively and so on. We have a bunch of illegals because big government is doing a bad job of managing immigration, so why are we siding with big government?

I don't think we need illegals to "get in line", and I don't think we need to punish illegals. That's like trying to hand out speeding tickets to everyone who's ever been over the limit, on a stretch of road with a stupidly low limit. If the law is wrong, you don't retroactively punish people; you fix the law. We need to rewrite the immigration system such that it allows people in who can find work, and gets them documented and above-board so they're paying their own taxes instead of someone else's and so that we the taxpayers don't end up on the hook for costs that their employers are passing on to us by paying under the table and ignoring the requirements the rest of us are forced to live by. And if that means we need Reagan-style (Simpson-Mazzoli) amnesty, then let's stop treating amnesty like a bad word, and let's do the right thing by bringing the government in line with reality and giving up our support for big, bad, overbearing government.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:No, I want illegals to get in line like everyone else. Or do you not mind having waited in line to see a favorite rock band perform, a group of people cut in front of you and when you finally get to the venues doors, they are shut in your face as the place is now full. Knowing how you think I suspect you won't even understand this simple example.

um, illegals aren't kids who try to cut in line, immigration isn't a rock concert, and a country isn't a venue.

Do you live near a place called the "United States of Madison Square"?

I guess you don't get out often as there are adults going to rock concerts also. Immigration is not a rock concert but our country has the attraction of one.

Lothar wrote:

woodchip wrote:I want illegals to get in line like everyone else

I think this is a spot where conservatives need to rethink their position.

Most of the time we're all about small government, and getting rid of bad laws and bad regulations. And in this circumstance, the US's immigration laws are absolutely bad laws and bad regulations and a terrible system that doesn't even remotely match up with the reality on the ground. We don't have millions of illegals because they're just bad people who want to break our laws; we have millions of illegals because we have a broken system that doesn't bring in enough people legally to fill the economic demand and that doesn't keep families together effectively and so on. We have a bunch of illegals because big government is doing a bad job of managing immigration, so why are we siding with big government?

I don't think we need illegals to "get in line", and I don't think we need to punish illegals. That's like trying to hand out speeding tickets to everyone who's ever been over the limit, on a stretch of road with a stupidly low limit. If the law is wrong, you don't retroactively punish people; you fix the law. We need to rewrite the immigration system such that it allows people in who can find work, and gets them documented and above-board so they're paying their own taxes instead of someone else's and so that we the taxpayers don't end up on the hook for costs that their employers are passing on to us by paying under the table and ignoring the requirements the rest of us are forced to live by. And if that means we need Reagan-style (Simpson-Mazzoli) amnesty, then let's stop treating amnesty like a bad word, and let's do the right thing by bringing the government in line with reality and giving up our support for big, bad, overbearing government.

So the gist of your logic is we should just have open boarders, have no checks on what infectious diseases people coming into our country may have, don't worry about what criminal background they may have and certainly don't have a care about how the flood may affect our economy. Tell me something Lothar, does the Morman faith allow people in without going through a baptism into the faith? Why not just let everyone in without any baptism? And when thousands join up and they then firgure the Church has to take care of them...what then? In short I think your explanation is short sighted and based too much on emotion. After-all, you will not have to take care of the millions of immigrants that would flood our country.
Tell me this, at what point would you start feeling uncomfortable about immigrants flooding through our gates once they learn they all can come here with no hindrance. 10 million? 100 million? Would you have second thoughts if 5 million immigrants set up shanty towns in Salt Lake City on the grounds of of your temple and surrounding areas? I don't think you or other church members would be very tolerant.

under his, or ANY logical thinking, the economic supply and demand laws would make that a non-starter, Woody.

Only if you think of immigrants as a commodity.

callmeslick wrote:under his, or ANY logical thinking, the economic supply and demand laws would make that a non-starter, Woody.

I think that would depend on whether living here on social services would be better than where they came from, if they can’t find employment.

My problem with amnesty is this…it’s not giving people amnesty, but having to do it every so many years, because the system is broken.

woodchip wrote:Only if you think of immigrants as a commodity.

huh? No, they are coming to work. If there are jobs offered to 3 or 4 million, that many will eventually get here(this is the sort of reality we've had for, well, forever). But, your scenario of tens of millions and massive tent camps on public areas or some such twaddle isn't going to happen. They can find better conditions elsewhere with no need for that.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:under his, or ANY logical thinking, the economic supply and demand laws would make that a non-starter, Woody.

I think that would depend on whether living here on social services would be better than where they came from, if they can’t find employment.

My problem with amnesty is this…it’s not giving people amnesty, but having to do it every so many years, because the system is broken.

well, we haven't really done that since Reagan, so hardly a regular occurance.

woodchip wrote:So the gist of your logic is we should just have open boarders, have no checks on what infectious diseases people coming into our country may have, don't worry about what criminal background they may have and certainly don't have a care about how the flood may affect our economy

No. The gist of my logic is that our border policy should be sensible, and match the economic realities of supply and demand, as well as the social realities of families etc. I'm not an "open borders" advocate. I'm an advocate for a properly balanced system. Not "less regulation" or "more regulation" but "correct regulation". Right now we have a system that is legally overly restrictive, and that as a result misdirects resources toward detaining and deporting harmless people instead of keeping out the true troublemakers.

Tell me something Lothar, does the Morman faith allow people in without going through a baptism into the faith? ..... Would you have second thoughts if 5 million immigrants set up shanty towns in Salt Lake City on the grounds of of your temple and surrounding areas? I don't think you or other church members would be very tolerant.

I'm not Mormon. Mormonism is a cult group (technical definition of a cult: a group which uses religious terminology from one religion to disguise its completely different beliefs. A new religion masquerading as a part of another religion.) It's based on the teachings of known con man and child rapist Joseph Smith. I'm pretty sure Mormons wouldn't tolerate immigrants near Temple Square, since the religion itself is actually a business, much like scientology, and it wouldn't make them happy to have poor people disrupting the profitability of their upscale mall.

Humm, I always thought a cult was a group that worshiped a person rather than a deity, normally an offshoot of a true religion.

IE: Buddhism
Christianity
Islam…etc

But, I can see the adapting the terminology part.

woodchip wrote:
I guess you don't get out often as there are adults going to rock concerts also. Immigration is not a rock concert but our country has the attraction of one.

Adults have always been going to concerts. Your argument is invalid.

Snake logic.