Prev: March of the Titans (brief video re: White Race, 1 min, 30sec)
Next: What the heck is Tiger doing?
From: Jack Hollis on 6 May 2010 20:52
On Wed, 05 May 2010 19:17:49 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net>
>On Wed, 05 May 2010 21:06:38 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com>
>>>When you put your mother in a nursing home, or when you move into a
>>>retirement home, you will find immigrant workers keep costs from being
>>>as high as they would be otherwise.
>>I don't think that anyone around here is against immigrant workers.
>>That's what made this country what it is. It's illegal immigrants
>>that's the problem.
>That's the claim. But they get angry when they see people speaking
>foreign languages and living with different cultural values. They
>don't believe 2/3 of the immigrants are legal.
>Look at history, hatred of immigrants is very, very common - whether
>or not they are "illegal". A century ago, the claim was that we
>couldn't have Americans who were papists. But it was the same thing
>- they didn't act like "Americans", and they took jobs. We're not
>as mad now because we don't want the low skill jobs. But we feel
>That's the claim - and people like my wife even believe it when they
>claim it. But I think they are fooling themselves.
There's no doubt that anti illegal sentiment has been around to some
degree for a long time, but never to the point that legal immigration
was stopped. To some extent it's human nature to prefer people who
are more like you. You even see hatred between different immigrant
groups who have to compete for the same jobs. The rivalry between the
Irish and Italians in NYC in the early 1900s is well-known. Of
course, their kids went to the same Catholic schools and became
friends and even married each other and that rivalry disappeared in
In any case, it is possible to be against illegal immigration and not
be anti-immigrant. I'm all in favor of legal immigration. Of course,
a nation has to be in control of its borders and decidel how many
immigrants are allowed in and where they come from.
From: Jack Hollis on 6 May 2010 21:00
On Wed, 5 May 2010 19:53:11 -0700, "F. Kurgan Gringioni"
>"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 14:59:54 -0400, "Frank Ketchum"
>> <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
>>>I am not an advocate of drug use, but I can see this for what it is. Our
>>>current cure is worse than the disease.
>> Absolutely. The US doesn't have a drug problem, it has a drug problem
>Hey, I actually agree with you about something. :)
I'm an ex police officer and I saw the futility of drug laws first
hand. Putting people in jail for using drugs is idiotic. They should
legalize all drugs and immediately release all the people in prison
for possession of drugs, or possession with intent to sell, as long as
there were no extraneous circumstances like gun possession or
From: Jack Hollis on 6 May 2010 21:10
On Wed, 5 May 2010 20:39:37 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>On May 5, 8:21=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 10:22:09 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>> <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Closing the border and finding a fair and reasonable way to assimilate
>> >those who are here, expect those who have committed crimes in the U.S.
>> >Rounding up 7m people and herding them across the border is not a
>> >plausible solution.
>> If you make it impossible for them to work and get any type of
>> benefits, they'll go home on their own.
>What you don't understand is that it's impossible to work where they
>came from. That's why they're here.
Exactly, if it was impossible for them to work here they'd stay home.
Why would they make the trip for nothing.
From: dene on 6 May 2010 21:15
<bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
> On Thu, 6 May 2010 18:44:47 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> >I would use the US military to secure our borders. Anyone attempting to
> >cross at any point other than an official US border crossing will be
> >shot dead on sight.
> This kind of shallow thought is to be expected of you. The death
> penalty, without legal recourse?
> You're pitiful.
So you don't advocate shoot on sight orders for those who enter a military
base illegally or get too close to a warship?
If you do, what's the distinction between shoot on sight and Bert's
From: dene on 6 May 2010 21:17
"John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
On May 5, 8:21 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 2010 10:22:09 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >Closing the border and finding a fair and reasonable way to assimilate
> >those who are here, expect those who have committed crimes in the U.S.
> >Rounding up 7m people and herding them across the border is not a
> >plausible solution.
> If you make it impossible for them to work and get any type of
> benefits, they'll go home on their own.
What you don't understand is that it's impossible to work where they
came from. That's why they're here.
Employing them certainly isn't America's responsibility