Tancredo wins round 1 to build Mexico fence

WorldNetDaily ^ | December 17, 2005 | WorldNetDaily

[Accygirl]

Well, my relatives came over from Europe during the 19th century for purely economic reasons, and unlike during World War II, none of these requirements applied. And they were extremely poor as well. My grandfather's ancestors were day laborers in Germany, so there's no way that they'd have even been literate, let alone know English. However, despite that, in a few generations, they had built a successful small business in Chicago and were highly productive citizens.

As for the restrictive immigration during WWII, I don't think that that's something that any American should be proud of because many of the people turned away were sent back to their almost certain deaths in European concentration camps.

[winner3000]

Tancredo is the new Wilson (used to be Republican Governor of California). I hope he doesn't succeed in turning the Hispanic vote to the Democrats for a generation like Wilson did.

There is a way to get the same thing accomplished without sounding like you have Mexicans.

[Accygirl]

America isn't overcrowded:
- Europe is actually becoming less populated and much older because A. most women don't want to stay at home and pop out ten kids, like in the 1950s, and B. they don't allow immigration. In contrast, America isn't facing this problem because it's replacing its population through immigration.

- Certain states, like Nebraska and Iowa, are trying to encourage people to settle in their states.

Furthermore, in the 19th century, most immigrants lived in slums and probably would have been on welfare if such a thing had existed back then. However, these original immigrants' children and grandchildren became productive members of society.

[WatchingInAmazement]

Let's hear some numbers. How many illegal aliens would you allow into the country? How many legal immigrants should be allowed yearly?

[VRWC For Truth]

Add a canal too so it could compete with the Panama Canal.

[Borax Queen]

After all, if things are going well in their homeland, then they wouldn't have wanted to leave.

My parents and relatives sure didn't want to leave, but the United States/FDR gave away their countries to Stalin and it was either that or Siberia. Many of my relatives went to the Siberian death camps, and most didn't come back. The rest waited in displaced persons' camps throughout Europe.

At any rate, they were economically much better off before the war than starting over in whichever country would admit them. Welfare and other socialist programs existed here, but there was no way, no how, not one that went on those.

But that was then, this is now, and it's interesting that you think we still need more people in this country. How many more "immigrants" do you think we "need"?

[Borax Queen]

"Between 1800 and 1965," Mr. Tancredo writes in his statement on the bill, "the annual number of people admitted as immigrants averaged about 200,000. Since 1990, that number has been over one million—and that doesn't count illegal immigrants."

With more than a million legal immigrants entering every year, there is no way the federal bureaucracies that deal with immigrants and national security threats could handle the problem.

It would take an army larger than any in the world simply to keep track of the aliens who are already here.

But national security, an obvious and immediate threat, is only part of the problem with mass immigration. The larger problem is the impact the immigration numbers have—on the economy, the culture, the educational system, crime and social institutions generally. And even larger than that is the number problem by itself.

Mr. Tancredo in his statement remarked "The Census Bureau projects that U.S. population will hit 400 million by 2050 and 571 million by 2100"—up from 280 million in the 2000 Census.

But the congressman's numbers were outdated only weeks after he cited them. This month the Census Bureau announced that by 2050, the national population will stand at 420 million, 17 million more than the previous estimate.

If you like sitting in traffic, standing in line, paying skyrocketing rents and home prices, and watching natural resources vanish to sustain this level of human numbers, you'll think the America of the future is a utopia.

Excerpted from 2003 article The Tancredo Moratorium Bill

[Dante3]

Of course this country is overcrowded. While there are many unsettled areas, most of them do not have the water supply to support a town. Back in the early days there was a need for more immigrants, but not any more - certainly not immigrants who are from hostile countries and refuse to even learn English but demand all kinds of special services.

I know of many historical and scenic areas that have been destroyed for tacky housing developments. The population has been growing and growing (if you don't believe me, just look up the statistics) while the amount of land remains the same and certain resources are dwindling.

An interesting discussion of overcrowding can be found in "The Pump House Gang" by Tom Wolfe, Ch. 15 (O Rotten Gotham - Sliding Down into the Behavioral Sink)

[Dante3]

Good points!

[Walkingfeather]

Fences are too expensive. We should just use metalstorm technology.

http://www.metalstormserver.com/freedomweb/index.php?src=photo&srctype=lister&album=Area%20Denial%20Weapons%20Systems%20%28ADWS%29&submenu=Graphics&albumpos=0,100000,3&category=Photos&PHPSESSID=87805a35c293a6fa20a209d1eef63c51

[Borax Queen]

The numbers are even worse than I thought, and that's only legal immigration stats! And since 1990... so it hasn't been my imagination that the schools, libraries, roads, and hospitals are getting much more crowded.

[Dante3]

I have observed this decline in our quality of life for some time. Bringing in hordes of certain kinds of immigrants is a sure way to turn this country into a 3rd World country - President Johnson started the trend.

[Accygirl]

Here's a map of U.S. population density, you can see all the yellow out west; that's all not populated. http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/512popdn.pdf Furthermore, without immigration, the U.S. population would be aging at a considerable rate and would be depopulating just like Europe because most American women don't want to stay at home with ten kids.

As for the so-called "tacky" suburbs, those are populated American citizens (generally of the white trash variety), not immigrants. Moreover, the issue of urban sprawl has more to do with improper planning on the part of municipalities than it has to do with too many people. City and county governments are too busy counting the $$$ from developers to understand that more people = more schools, more roads, more hospitals, etc.

[Dante3]

A lot of those areas cannot support communities because of lack of sufficient water. Surely you do not want the entire country covered with asphalt and people piled on top of each other.

The fact is that most of the new immigrants (not all) are undesirables, many from hostile countries. In addition, hordes of illegal aliens are invading the country.

I recommend you read "Moment in the Sun." by Robert Rienow, an immigrant and a Holocaust survivor, who grew to love this country. Although the statistics are out of date, the issues are relevant still today.

[Coleus]

way to go.

[Accygirl]

I'm shocked that a Holocaust survivor would be supportive of restrictive immigration policies, because it was those restrictive immigration policies that led the U.S. to turn away refugees and led to their deaths in concentration camps.

As for your other points, A. states like Nebraska, Iowa, the Dakotas, etc. are trying to encourage people to move to their states, because all the natives are leaving. B. The U.S. birthrate is declining, and the best way to replace population is through immigration. (The other way, kicking women back into the kitchen, is too disgusting to even fathom). S

Since there's really no population argument, I think that the whole debate comes down to who is coming into the country more than the fact there's immigration. If there was a sudden influx of immigrants from Canada, I don't think that anyone would mind. (In fact, the Canadian border is wide open and easy for terrorists to use, but I don't here anyone griping loudly about that). The whole thing has a racial/ class based element that I think is unfortunate.

[Balding_Eagle]

Suggesting the replacement of legal citizens with criminal invaders won't cut it here at FR. No moral equivalence, not matter how much you spin.

You’re definitely going to earn your Soros money if you intend to keep up that angle.

[investigateworld]

"The whole thing has a racial/ class based element that I think is unfortunate."

Sorry madame, but P.C. buzz words don't cut here.
Try again.

[Jim_Curtis]

I cannot understand what is so adorable about these illegal aliens that states offer special perks to attract them - such as reduced college tuition, free medical care (at our expense, of course), translators, etc.

Democrat politicians love illegal aliens because they hold down the wages of, and take jobs from the poorest people so that those poor people remain dependent on government.

I think that the pro-illegal Republicans are about 1/3 actually Democrats who were elected by pretending that they were Republican, 1/3 beholden to their contributors that employ illegals and 1/3 have anti labor sentiments that sprout from usually appropriate anti union sentiment but then leads to being knee-jerk anti worker. In the process, they screw over the business that insists on using legal workers because those businesses end up taking less profits by paying their employees more but at the same time their prices must compete with the cut wage illegal employer. I've seen this happen with my own eyes with construction contracting.

[Borax Queen]

It is unfortunate that Vincente Fox is successfully ethnic cleansing his own country so he and the few other ruling families can continue to control matters. He fortifies his own southern border and always asks us for more money to do so.