Posted on 04/20/2006 3:01:32 PM PDT by Spiff
Your point is quite valid, only if this labor pool remains unskilled in perpetuity.
The idea is and has been to allow them access to the education system which will increase their productivity as with the domestic population. However, there is a lag time, due to cultural assimilation.
This is why assimilation is so very important.
While this is true, it didn't entirely workout that way.
It was soon recognized that there were significant numbers of individuals who weren't using the internet to become better informed, but, instead, were associating in groups at particular websites that allowed the to hear what they wanted to hear.
FR is such a website and you are an excellent example of such an individual. It becomes evident that a separate reality develops that is based on self-deception/self-denial morphed into collective deception/denial.
Hillary Clinton's position on border security, port security, immigration policy, and other related issues is a good example of how the "collectively deceived reality" develops at FR.
By examining Hillary's votes in the Senate and her statements in the media, it is evident that she has a very consistent and well defined position that is compatible with the official democratic party position.
For most people, Hillary's non-famous statement, "I am, you know, adamantly opposed to illegal immigration", was entirely consistent with her overall position. But for others, those participating in the separate reality, her statement took on an entirely different meaning.
On the numerous FR threads related to her statements, it was universally accepted that she
"was going to get tough on the illegals"
"was going to deport the illegals"
"was to the right of the republicans on immigration"
was to the right of Bush on immigration"
"was going to steal the issue from the republicans"
and other similar statements
On these same threads, there were a few individuals who were trying to point out that these conclusions were faulty. There was even one individual who would post her entire senate voting record on immigration related legislation as proof that these conclusions were faulty. Of course, this "actual reality" gets ignored because it is not what people "want to hear"-"want to believe". Instead, there is a constant barrage of enforcement-reenforcement of mis-info to the point that the faulty conclusion becomes accepted fact to those participating in the collective deception.
Consequently, later, when Hillary makes a public statement, such as the one in which she indicated her support for McKennedy, those participating in the collective deception get thrown for a loop and believe that she is "talking out of both sides of her mouth" or that she has "flipped her position"
I use this example of Hillary only as one example of how the collective self-deception/collective re-enforcement works. There are numerous examples and they all combine to create a separate reality that has no basis in actual fact. And those, such as yourself, who are participating in the collective separate reality will never comprehend the events shaping policy and legislation. Instead, you will always fall back on the explanation that "they" are "selling us out" or "trying to destroy America".
You need to stop, back up a few spaces, and get your feet on the ground.
Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance. Your supercilious attitude is a feigned attempt to appear knowledgeable. You fail to support your suppositions with fact. You are the one who needs to use the internet to support your contentions with fact.
By examining Hillary's votes in the Senate and her statements in the media, it is evident that she has a very consistent and well defined position that is compatible with the official democratic party position.
What is that position and what votes are you using to define it? How do those votes square with her public statements?
For most people, Hillary's non-famous statement, "I am, you know, adamantly opposed to illegal immigration", was entirely consistent with her overall position. But for others, those participating in the separate reality, her statement took on an entirely different meaning.
Oh, come now. It is called pandering to your audience. How naive can you be? As I amply documentented to you, she makes different statements in front of pro-immigtration rallies.
I use this example of Hillary only as one example of how the collective self-deception/collective re-enforcement works. There are numerous examples and they all combine to create a separate reality that has no basis in actual fact. And those, such as yourself, who are participating in the collective separate reality will never comprehend the events shaping policy and legislation. Instead, you will always fall back on the explanation that "they" are "selling us out" or "trying to destroy America".
How can anyone write so much and say so little. Your disjointed and unsubstantiated gibberish is meaningless. In my exchanges with you over the past several days, you fail to use data and hard facts. A question to you is answered by another question. Basically, you don't know what you are talking about. Your observations have more to do with what you feel and think than what you know. It is not worth my time to carry on this discussion any further. You are hopeless.
Hillary's position is a matter of public record and is available on the internet. Even you could take the effort to look it up. But you won't, because it is not what you want to hear. Instead, you will continue to deceive yourself with "she is talking out of both sides of her mouth".
LOL. Check my posts #169, #170, and #171 and the links they contain. I was the one who provided you the links on the Internet that provide her public record on immigration. You have provided NOTHING. I went to the effort of locating that information, which apparently you have not read and refuse to acknowledge. As I said previously, you are hopeless.
You are the one who is confused on Hillary's position, not me. I know exactly how she will vote. I know exactly where she stands on funding the Coast Guard and I know how she is trying to benefit the NY Port Authority because that enhances he political power.
The problem is that we get new unassimilated ones faster than the ones here assimilate.
Past a certain critical mass, they do not assimilate, because the culture of their enclaves is the local dominant culture
Thank you for challenging the lies!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.