We Need More Immigrants Without Politics While Stopping Illegals at the Border

from: To Solve Our Immigration Problems, We Need More Reason, Less Politics http://www.investors.com/politics/c...n-problems-we-need-more-reason-less-politics/

DENNIS NIXON 3/21/2017


The issue of immigration and border security is more complex than the political debate in Washington and on cable television would lead the public to believe. It is also easier and far less costly to solve than many of the plans introduced by leading politicians and pundits.

The current reality on the Texas-Mexican border as well as much of the border outside of Texas is that the flow of immigrants who illegally enter the U.S. has declined dramatically in recent decades, from 1.6 million to about 400,000.

Today, the border is still faced with an illegal entry problem...


...there's a much greater and more real threat to American prosperity and national security. The U.S. is now at around 1.9 births per female, well below replacement level. And with 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day, the demographic outlook is bleak.

Without population growth and the prospect of new workers, economic growth is just not likely...


...there are two things the U.S. Border Patrol seeks along the Texas-Mexico border: visibility of the river and access to the river. Both can be easily achieved simply by cleaning up the riverbank along the Rio Grande...


...with modern technology such as motion detectors and infrared sensors, this enhanced natural buffer zone is a far more effective barrier to entry than any man-made barrier...


...cases of children and families from Central America seeking asylum has led to the further escalation of wait times...


...Congress would need to double the number of immigration judges...


... we must look to reasonable and productive solutions that benefit the United States and Mexico. As Texas' largest trading partner and our neighbor, we must support a border security plan with Mexico that continues to foster economic development and our good-neighbor policies that have been in place for generations.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Somehow I don't see any way around these conclusions; anyone see something I'm missing?

 

The entire anti-immigrant effort is run by loud mouthed, under-educated morons that really believe in the National Socialist swill they spew.

Their problem is, they do not understand the economics of their own country. For example:

"An open letter to President George W. Bush in 2006, signed by around five hundred economists (including five Nobel laureates) stated the following: “While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...984-illegal-immigrants-benefit-the-us-economy

Do you think that the anti-immigrant lobby will listen to 500 economists?

 

Huh, actually saying there's an economic benefit from breaking the law. What's next, "Rape Benefits the Economy"? How about "Murdering Minorities Benefits the Economy?"

Come on, where are we going to draw the line and say "NO WAY IN HELL!"?

 

Do you have qualifications greater than 500 economists? Do tell.

 

I quit reading right there as the rest of your answer is the same old political BS that has little to no basis in reality.

I have yet to see a policy that is anti immigrant. Unless you can accept the fact that the subject is illegal border crossings and illegally overstating visas, you don't have a solution.

YOU CANNOT HAVE A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM IF YOU CANNOT FIRST DEFINE THE PROBLEM.

I'm bored so went back and read your response, I was right.

 

Really I don't give a damn what you personally like or dislike about my opinions. This is a discussion board and we are all equals here. You don't want to consider my posts, that is your prerogative. Your view has no basis in reality.

The anti-immigrant lobby claims that there is a problem with "illegal" border crossings and then they oppose any efforts to update and modernize the laws so as to anticipate the reasons millions of people are here without human registration papers.

Your view is that if I don't agree to your concept of a POLICE STATE and accept your solutions, I'm not intelligent. Well Seig freaking Heil. I'm not your goose stepping, brain dead, dumb ass that has to toe the line in order to participate in any conversation. NOBODY puts forth the propositions I do relative to this, so this is NOT a discussion of the same old political B.S. - except for the crap you're peddling... and that would be the same program David Duke came out with in 1977 with Border Watch.

Is there an addressable issue here? Yep. Can you resolve it with neo-Nazi solutions? Not unless you are advocating that we become a socialist nation... and that will the ONLY solutions you will put on the table.

 

I know this is a long post, but it is well worth your time if you are interested in the topic at all. First a couple of definitions:

bigot - a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc

prejudice - a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinionc : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/

When a poster starts their posting with "I quit reading at..." then they have formed an opinion outside of any consideration for their fellow poster. It then becomes an issue of prejudice and bigotry, challenging the credibility of the poster who has no consideration for their fellow posters.

IF a problem exists with "illegal" border crossings, it behooves us to explore WHY such a condition exists as a prerequisite to offering up any instant solutions. The anti-immigrant lobby does not want to explore the facts. They want to force feed you their solutions. The fact is, the extreme left (consisting of National Socialists) merely took advantage of an opportunity provided by the mainstream in order to sell people on the idea of a militarized border. Here is how it works:

Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. Or put another way:

In the late 1990s the far left wanted a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. To that end they needed a scapegoat. Foreigners became an easy target. So, the problem was created - (THESIS)

Having created the problem, National Socialists then wanted to feed you the solutions (ANTI-THESIS) and that gave them what they were after all along (SYNTHESIS.) If you research Hegelian Dialectics you will get the drift.

Now me, not wanting to play the game, admit that we have some addressable issues, but the militarization of the border, the nutty wall idea, and trying to criminalize the behavior of people engaging in a free market are "solutions" that nobody who cherishes Liberty would ever consider. There are better ideas.

The anti-immigrant lobby will not have any part of a solution that they didn't dream up. From here, forward, the discussion will be about personalities and it will be about the popularity of their proposed "solutions" (as if regression is a solution.) Their objective is to create the illusion of a win. If they have to destroy the Constitution, well, that is the price they are willing to pay.

So, how many of you are really interested in a discussion of the issues? OR do you prefer the prejudice and bigotry offered by the anti-immigrant lobby?

 

Look I know you disagree but imho if there are 500 economists saying that the economy needs more rape and murder the we got 500 very sick economists and they're wrong.

 

Nobody is advocating rape or murder. The anti-immigrant side (and you're coming awfully close to identifying with them) wants to imply that foreigners are all rapists and murderers. There is a reason you cannot have a cogent and civil discussion of the subject matter. It's either you agree with every aspect of their position or you are "for the illegals" (sic) or you are one of them, or you are a liberal, etc., etc.

The anti-immigrant position has its genesis in National Socialism. So, you have to toe the line and chant the mantra OR be attacked. If that is all you have, you are not qualified to be in any serious discussion of what is really going on nor what it takes to resolve the issues.

 

Let's get the issues on the table:

The bulk of the American public (those who spew the "illegals" swill included) do business with people they know to be undocumented foreigners. They buy from them, sell to them, rent to them, and frequent businesses they KNOW FOR A FACT, employ undocumented foreigners. Why?

The availability of cheap labor is profitable for America. Every non-partisan study makes that conclusion - and the few that haven't, will say that IF the undocumented cost the American taxpayer, it is a "modest" amount.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

Economists look at the big picture:

http://business.time.com/2013/01/30/the-economics-of-immigration-who-wins-who-loses-and-why/

There are those who cannot accept the facts. So, they demand an absolute POLICE STATE wherein many constitutional protections are scrapped. But, they don't care. It is all about the illusion of winning and the delusion that America will be white again one day. But, rest assured, since the first colonists arrived in America we have had indentured servants, slaves, and imported cheap laborers from foreign countries. And, at the end of the day, even those who will be cursing me and calling me names will be partaking of the fruits of the poisonous tree, for lack of a better analogy. We can regulate the practice, but those who think we will eliminate foreign laborers are two french fries short of a Happy Meal.

 

Why do you call those against illegal border crossings "anti immigration"? No one on this forum is against legal immigration. However we are against illegal aliens crossing the border.

 

That is the worst B.S. lie they can tell you. The "legal immigration" laws largely consist of ways to discriminate against whites, giving preference to non-white immigrants. In addition, it presumes that everybody wants to be or needs to be a citizen in order to participate in the free market. Adding insult to injury, the current laws do not anticipate the FACT SITUATION whereby MILLIONS of people find themselves coming here.

When you have laws that discriminate against whites as immigrants, give some employers the ability to partake of foreigners in the labor market (as workers NOT citizens) and do not provide a credible, legitimate and honest program to accommodate employers and Guest Workers equally, the law is patently UNCONSTITUTIONAL. When people to claim to be for that, they are either ignorant, dishonest, or xenophobes (part of the anti-immigration lobby.)

The build the wall / man the border / they're all "illegals" talking points originated with David Duke, former Nazi Party member turned Ku Klux Klan leader. The man who provided Duke with his research and political rhetoric is John Tanton. Tanton is the financial power and primary founder of Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), FAIR, NumbersUSA and about a dozen other anti - immigrant nonprofit 501 (c) organizations.

The reality is, you claim that you don't want people "illegally" crossing the border, but the fact is, bottom line, almost to a man, you don't want the law changed to allow them to come here either - and when they do, they still expect undocumented immigrants to become citizens. NOBODY wants us to have more new citizens each year than we have, so the anti-immigrant lobby is simply playing verbal prestidigitation and literary semantics to hide what is really going on.

IF America operated the way you expect, then we would never have had Rosa Parks. But, even our own United States Supreme Court has opined that "No one is bound to obey unconstitutional laws." The reality is, we're not talking about protecting borders. It's all about declaring people to be something less than human and refusing to allow them to partake of the free market.

 

You are really going to use economists as a foundation for your argument? How well have those economists predicted anything? They missed every downturn starting with the Carter administration "oil crisis". They failed to predict the 1990 recession caused by the S&L crisis, the Y2K drop, the tech bubble, the housing bubble. They claim inflation is low. They continue to claim that the past 8 years were a "recovery" and go on and on about how great the economy is - until last November when Trump won, then overnight it was all gloom and doom.

You might as well use 500 psychics to back up your argument, you would have more credibility.

 

The anti-immigrant lobby is at least consistent. Everybody that disagrees with them is an idiot and John Tanton is God with all the answers with Donald Trump playing the role of Moses.

 

News quote- DENNIS NIXON 3/21/2017- "The issue of immigration and border security is more complex than the political debate in Washington and on cable television would lead the public to believe."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems simple enough to me, waddya say Mr Wayne?

"Tell Don Diego all the land north of the Red River is mine; tell him to stay off it!"

 

All of that sounds real cute except you forger a few things:

1) Probably half of the American people disagree with your position

2) The proposed solutions of the anti-immigrant lobby has far reaching precedents both seen and unseen that they refuse to consider

3) The political pendulum swings back and forth. One day the liberals will be in control and be able to use the consequences of the anti-immigrant's lobbying efforts against them

4) As Johnny Cash once sang in the Farmer's Almanac: "If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble."

 

That's an irrelevant response. Do you have a real, rational, response? Or are you totally out of your depth?

 

There is no real, rational response to idiocy. The anti-immigrant types want to pee down our necks and tell us it's raining. Everybody that disagrees with them is an "open borders nutcase" and ONLY the anti-immigrant lobby possesses the knowledge and the way to Heaven.

If I spent the next fifty posts asking you questions, you would dodge, deflect, and try to worm your way around realistic criticism that the left cannot provide. And you want to ask me about an answer you cannot process to ask me if I'm out of my depth???

Son, I manned the freaking border in the 1970s. I have done so many years of research on the subject and spoke on so many tv and radio programs over the issue, I can't count them any longer. I've worked in immigration law, lobbied for various bills, worked on every side of the issue and can tell you factually - on this subject I have NO superiors and damn few equals. That's not boasting, son. That is hard core fact.

Unlike my critics, when the subject came up I got involved. In the course of my life, I've done more than to regurgitate the talking points of neo-nazis that are being controlled by power brokers working on behalf of a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT / NEW WORLD ORDER.

So, what is your claim to fame?

 

From the OP's link:

"...we must support a border security plan with Mexico that continues to foster economic development and our good-neighbor policies that have been in place for generations."

We waste too much time worrying about the southern border and people who are an economic benefit to this country while worrying about the "legal" variety of foreigners that bring misery upon our country... both in their generation and the one that follows:

In 2009 an Army Major kills 13 people and injures 30 more in a shooting on at Fort Hood Army base in Texas

Dec. 2015 - 14 People are killed and at least 17 are wounded when two shooters go on a rampage in San Bernadino in California

In 2016 49 People are killed and 53 wounded when a security guard goes on a rampage in a gay bar in Orlando, Florida.

All these people were the next generation of legal immigrants that share a commonality. AND, they get to come here "legally" as the unenlightened in reality like to call it. We "needed" those people because they had white collar skills that the unenlightened in reality like to call it. We don't need to mention the fact that around a million people get to become citizens each year - many who would like to see this nation get pushed back to the dark ages.

Meanwhile, we have those who fret because some people come here to work and benefit our society without diluting our culture and becoming citizens.

 

First, I don't care what you claim to have done. Unless you are going to completely reveal your identity and provide verified details, your claims mean zip. The only thing that matters in this anonymous forum is what is posted in the forum. And what you have posted is weak.

Second, posts must stand on their own, using only open sources available to all. When I make an case, it stands on its own, independent of my personal credentials.

Third, all you have done is jump to hysterics (and you probably do the same to all people who disagree with you). Have you asked a question? Nope. Ask a real question, make a rational argument, and I will address it. I almost always reply when someone takes the time to present me with a rational argument and a rational question - its just courtesy.

Fourth, for all your claims, I have read a number of your posts, and they are not impressive at all.

 

Yes, you missed the central argument of the piece:

While immigration is a national obsession, there's a much greater and more real threat to American prosperity and national security. The U.S. is now at around 1.9 births per female, well below replacement level. And with 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day, the demographic outlook is bleak.

Without population growth and the prospect of new workers, economic growth is just not likely. Future GDP growth above 2% on a sustained basis will be an enormous challenge in the face of the demographic winter that will have a huge impact on the world over the next several decades. We need an immigration policy that addresses America's need for workers — about 600,000 to 650,000 low-skilled workers every year to keep our economy growing.


This is absolutely ridiculous. The idea that our economic growth depends on over half a million low skilled immigrant workers is absurd. Unless of course you think economic growth requires driving down wage rates.

 

Well little man, you don't impress me either. My claims are not claims, but rather fact. I've been through that B.S. on this board. I post some of the stuff I've done and immediately some POS that said the same, exact thing you just did posted my address and personal details. Then someone shot into my house, my cat was strung up in the back yard, over a tree branch. So, no I don't need to impress you by posting my personal information. I will, however, meet you in a public venue near my home where we can go talk to court personnel, lawyers, and the people I've worked with.

Now, let's get to some basic facts.

In Post # 5 of this thread, Jimmy79 wrote:

"I quit reading right there as the rest of your answer is the same old political BS that has little to no basis in reality.

I have yet to see a policy that is anti immigrant. Unless you can accept the fact that the subject is illegal border crossings and illegally overstating visas, you don't have a solution.

YOU CANNOT HAVE A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM IF YOU CANNOT FIRST DEFINE THE PROBLEM.

I'm bored so went back and read your response, I was right."


That set the tone for this thread. Having been down that road, the rhetoric the anti-immigrant wants to share with us is that they are not anti-immigrant, they are "anti-illegal immigrant." Then we can argue the law and the anti-immigrant lobby will try to argue in spite of the United States Supreme Court rulings. Since they claim to be the final arbiters of what the law is, what's the point with arguing with people who are out of touch with reality?

Today, I'll switch it up a bit for you, Battle3. The anti-immigrant lobby says that they demand the immigration laws must be obeyed as if they are the word of God with the most draconian interpretation possible. So, they are stuck with the current immigration laws. Those laws were put into place with the intent of wiping out the white majority. BTW, they were forced through Congress by Democrat Ted Kennedy. That means you are supporting anti-white liberal laws that allow for nearly a million new citizens every year.

By contrast, the anti-immigrant lobby wants to outlaw the Hispanics that come over here and take low end jobs that nobody else wants. Those people do not want to become citizens, so they are not the danger to our economy and our culture as the million new citizens (with a preference going to non-whites) AND many of those with an agenda aimed at destroying the Republic.

It is the anti-immigrant position that cannot define any problem other than an act is "illegal." Yet the United States Supreme Court has opined that "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act." Participating in the free market is NOT illegal. When you fail to create that mechanism to allow for participation in the free market on an equal basis, it is wholly unconstitutional.

What you're side is doing is aiding and abetting high end, white collar foreigners to displace the posterity of this nation while creating the ultimate POLICE STATE predicated upon the weakest B.S. lies that have ever been perpetuated on an unsuspecting public.

 

I am not Jimmy79. I have made 3 posts in this thread, none of which can be used to determine my position on immigration. You make unsubstantiated claims of expertise, yet cannot even tell people apart and even make wild assumptions about peoples position. I don't believe anything you have posted.

 

There is probably no reason in having a discussion with you. I quoted Jimmy79. I'm not a dumb a** son. I realize who I'm addressing. He more or less set the tone for the discussion.

Over the last few years we've had these immigration discussions and you and I both realize what the other is going to say. And, once you are factually proven wrong... you will still argue. I can quote the laws to tell you that we aren't dealing with criminal law and you'll argue against even United States Supreme Court rulings. You will argue that when it is clearly not in your favor - IF you wanted to deport foreigners. Your side has to be "right." Why, you've got the word of that is accepted by the MSM (usually through the talking heads at Fox - and those guys are on the payroll of the Council on Foreign Relations.)

You're going to give me all the little facts and figures that were provided by one of the John Tanton nonprofits (like Center for Immigration Studies, FAIR, NumbersUSA, etc.) and when I point out Tanton is a white supremacist (he used to provide David Duke's talking points) giving you a greater reason to rail against me, we will get mired in even more controversy.

You will probably tell us how the so - called "illegal aliens" don't pay taxes while the Chief Actuary of the Social(ist) Security Administration tells us that 75 percent of the undocumented foreigners get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the same taxes you do. We won't even get to that part where what you are bitching about is that the anti-immigrant side is unwittingly supporting the 16th Amendment which was illegally ratified and is nothing more than a plank from the Communist Manifesto.

I do these threads wholesale. I have offered a plan to remedy the problem and the fact is, nobody can give you anything better because the whole anti-immigrant lobby is stuck on stupid, not understanding the facts and stuck in a world of delusion where most of them suffering from cognitive dissonance. But, if you think you can bring something new to the table, sound off.

We can be civil or adversarial.

 

If you know it all, then answer this question: what is my position on immigration? Not Jimmy79, or John Tanton, or some other person who is not me. What is my position on immigration? And in case you are wondering, I've posted it many times in this forum.