Ths US should allow more immigrants from all over the world.

[Nascar_James]

I am sorry if this is the right place to discuss.
But I think this place is the most suitable than others.

The US shoud obviously be more leniant to accept more immigrants from worldwide.
People who goes to US are usually people who have no future in his own country and dream on new life with American Dream.
However, most people face injustice, hatred, racism,.......

I know that Americans don't trust foreigners and have distrust for years...And immigration law is getting much strict.
However, not all foreigners are distrustful.
I say this because I wish I lived in the US and start new life over there.

The US already accepts more immigrants than any other country around the world each year. We are a country of immigrants. As the US is the most respected country around the world, it is naturally the number one destination choice for immigrants. We get more immigrant applications than all other countries. There are many steps involved in selecting the right candidates. Citizens from countries that openly support terrorism are generally eliminated (ie. Syria, Iran ..etc).

Folks who immigrate here generally want a better life for themselves and are willing to work hard and become a success and are willing to wait for processing of their paperwork and undergo background checks. Once here, they embrace their new country and assimilate into American society. Arnold Schwarzenegger is an excellent example of a good role model and success story for future immigrants coming to America.

[hdm]

Eric Blair - 11Dec05 10:51 pm

I don't think capitulation is the right term.

While their motives might be different, Pat Buchanan supports moving the US in the <i>exactly</i> same direction as Osama bin Laden demands. It sure looks like capitulation to me.

I've read numerous Buchanan columns, and I find him very reasonable.

I've read some of Pat Buchanan's columns from time to time, and have heard him on TV, C-Span etc., and strongly object to his policy of US isolationalism, his clear anti-Israel policies, and borderline racist beliefs.

Last I read, Buchanan advocated a balanced position vis-a-vis Arab-Israeli-US relations. I don't see this as a problem. Not all Arabs are maniacs. And I've noticed that quite a lot of them live in the area.

The US foreign policy is to facilitate conflict resolution between Israel and its Arab adversaries through peaceful negotiations.

That's balanced in my books.

How Pat Buchanan and the Arab world define "balanced" is for the US to push Israel into accepting something <i>they</i> -- not the Israelis -- define as a fair solution.

2) I'd have to see wher he said such a thing. 3)+ 4) per above. Not my understanding. Would you refer me to his statements?

You're the first to challenge me on this, so I do not have anything at this time other than my <i>personal</i> recollection of his statements on various TV interviews.

rgds, hdm

[JBG]

re: <b>JBG</b> - 11Dec05 9:42 pm

Basically, anyone who gets into the US, even illegally, gets to stay if they work and don't seek to leave the country, and don't seek government benefits. That's fine by me.

Problem is they do use government benefits like the health system, if they have kids that are born in the country the kids are automatically American citizens and get free schooling, they pay almost no taxes, and most send their money out of the country to Mexico. Those are the good ones that are "law-abiding". The bad ones spread disease and commit crime. Uncontrolled immigration would be a disaster. canada's "controlled" immigration is bad enough.

Not really. They contribute far, far more than they take. It's an economic fact that our area would grind to a halt without them.

[freedominoes]

re: <b>JBG</b> - 11Dec05 9:42 pm

Basically, anyone who gets into the US, even illegally, gets to stay if they work and don't seek to leave the country, and don't seek government benefits. That's fine by me.

Problem is they do use government benefits like the health system, if they have kids that are born in the country the kids are automatically American citizens and get free schooling, they pay almost no taxes, and most send their money out of the country to Mexico. Those are the good ones that are "law-abiding". The bad ones spread disease and commit crime. Uncontrolled immigration would be a disaster. canada's "controlled" immigration is bad enough.

Not really. They contribute far, far more than they take. It's an economic fact that our area would grind to a halt without them.

Are you referrring to canada or the USA? Are you referring to legal or illegal immigrants? What area do you live in and in what way would the economy grind to a halt without "them"?

[JBG]

Are you referrring to canada or the USA? Are you referring to legal or illegal immigrants? What area do you live in and in what way would the economy grind to a halt without "them"?

The New York City area. Our labor costs are extremely high and illegal Caribbean and Hispanic immigrants provide vital worker supply in services and child care. Some are, indeed illegal.

I am sponsoring one for legal status.

[Eric Blair]

While their motives might be different, Pat Buchanan supports moving the US in the exactly same direction as Osama bin Laden demands. It sure looks like capitulation to me.

Not to me. Unless the goal is to kill anyone who opposes your world view, I see nothing at all wrong with the US withdrawing from the middle east, with few exceptions. Why would it matter if Iraq invaded Kuwait? It was a border drawn by an Englishman in the 1920's, who cares if Arab A is there, versus Arab B?

I've read some of Pat Buchanan's columns from time to time, and have heard him on TV, C-Span etc., and strongly object to his policy of US isolationalism, his clear anti-Israel policies, and borderline racist beliefs.

If you are going to brand a man as a 'racist' who would talk to a Mexican immigrant for hours about why illegal immigration would hurt him and his family, I'm not sure what I could offer that would reason to you. Buchanan is not a racist. He is an American, who believes in controlled, contributing Americans. Painting broadly, an immigrant who buys into America as a concept. A vietnamese has as much a claim to this concept as someone of British/European ancestory.

More in a bit.

[freedominoes]

Are you referrring to canada or the USA? Are you referring to legal or illegal immigrants? What area do you live in and in what way would the economy grind to a halt without "them"?

The New York City area. Our labor costs are extremely high and illegal Caribbean and Hispanic immigrants provide vital worker supply in services and child care. Some are, indeed illegal.

I am sponsoring one for legal status.

Labour costs are high because of liberals imposing minimum wages and all sorts of other bullshit taxes and regulations on business. I can assure you that in the aggregate illegals are a net drain on your society. However for unscrupulous employers they are a net positive for the individual or business that hires them (most of whom are rich and therefore the government doesn't do anything about it)

[JBG]

Are you referrring to canada or the USA? Are you referring to legal or illegal immigrants? What area do you live in and in what way would the economy grind to a halt without "them"?

The New York City area. Our labor costs are extremely high and illegal Caribbean and Hispanic immigrants provide vital worker supply in services and child care. Some are, indeed illegal.

I am sponsoring one for legal status.

Labour costs are high because of liberals imposing minimum wages and all sorts of other bullshit taxes and regulations on business. I can assure you that in the aggregate illegals are a net drain on your society. However for unscrupulous employers they are a net positive for the individual or business that hires them (most of whom are rich and therefore the government doesn't do anything about it)

Please come to Port Chester, New York (the next town over to mine), smaple some of the marvelous restaurants, and tell me that they're a net drain. They aren't.

[Eric Blair]

The US foreign policy is to facilitate conflict resolution between Israel and its Arab adversaries through peaceful negotiations.

That's balanced in my books.

Mine, too. I suspect every reasonable agrees this is balanced.

How Pat Buchanan and the Arab world define "balanced" is for the US to push Israel into accepting something they -- not the Israelis -- define as a fair solution.

I'm not sure this is true. I've ever seen Buchanan advocating a pro-Arab position. I've seen him advocating a disengagement from ME disputes. Not taking sides is not anti-Iraeli.

[freedominoes]

They're a net drain on the economy no matter how good they can cook. Why the hell do you think California is in such deep shit? I mean besides being run by liberals which other states are as well.

[backhoe]

<P>For "Thunder on the Border," <B>click the picture:</b>
<P><A href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1380062/posts"><IMG src="http://worldnetdaily.com/images2/mexicobillboard.jpg"></A><P>

[black jacques shellack]

Are you referrring to canada or the USA? Are you referring to legal or illegal immigrants? What area do you live in and in what way would the economy grind to a halt without "them"?

The New York City area. Our labor costs are extremely high and illegal Caribbean and Hispanic immigrants provide vital worker supply in services and child care. Some are, indeed illegal.

I am sponsoring one for legal status.

So you're saying that the New York economy is built on an assumption of a pool of cheap illegal labour? That sounds like a great way to build an economy. Very solid. Very respectable.

If true, the whole thing should be cleaned up.

[JBG]

So you're saying that the New York economy is built on an assumption of a pool of cheap illegal labour? That sounds like a great way to build an economy. Very solid. Very respectable.

If true, the whole thing should be cleaned up.

Any economy has some need for inexpensive labor.

[hdm]

re: <b>Eric Blair</b> - 11Dec05 11:46 pm

While their motives might be different, Pat Buchanan supports moving the US in the exactly same direction as Osama bin Laden demands. It sure looks like capitulation to me.

Not to me.

Your opinion.

It Unless the goal is to kill anyone who opposes your world view, I see nothing at all wrong with the US withdrawing from the middle east, with few exceptions.

So you're saying that because I support US military involvement in the Middle East, it therefore means I have the goal of "killing anybody who opposes my world view?" Please expand on this.

Why would it matter if Iraq invaded Kuwait? It was a border drawn by an Englishman in the 1920's, who cares if Arab A is there, versus Arab B?

Of course, to an isolationalist, such a thing won't matter. Famine, war, natural disaster, hundreds of thousands killed in some other spot of the globe, a second holocaust. It's somebody elses' problem.

Buchanan is not a racist. He is an American, who believes in controlled, contributing Americans.

Controlled? How so?

Please refer to some of Mr. Buchanan's comments and writings on Neoconservatives and Jews. Maybe it means Mr. Buchanan is a racisist, maybe it doesn't. That is why I settle for the term <i>borderline</i> racist in describing his beliefs.

rgds, hdm

[hdm]

re: <b>Eric Blair</b> - 11Dec05 11:57 pm

I'm not sure this is true. I've ever seen Buchanan advocating a pro-Arab position. I've seen him advocating a disengagement from ME disputes. Not taking sides is not anti-Iraeli.

Supporting a peace agreement based on the mutual consent of the parties involved does not <i>equate</i> to taking sides in the Israeli-Arab conflict.

The US, however, does need to <i>engage</i> both parties in order to facilitate an agreement.

US withdrawal from the Middle East is less likely to bring peace than it is to bring further conflict, terrorism, hegemony. But of course to an isolationalist, that shouldn't be the US's problem, I suppose.

rgds, hdm