Studies show immigrants are much less likely to seek welfare benefits than their American counterparts. This is easily verifiable. The main benefits are related to schooling and things of that sort, which everyone has access to.

Again, why does that even matter? They are not citizens! As long as we have a welfare state and a security problem, encouraging illegal immigration is a bad iodea.

I agree illegal immigration should be controlled. The question is how you can do that. The best way to do that, IMO, is to increase the number of immigrant and non-immigrant visas available every year. The number of temporary guest workers is very low... the economy needs more. If you do those things, illegal immigration will undoubtedly go down. I would say 99 percent of all illegal immigrants come here because they want to work and there are jobs for them. That's the bottom line. Any policy that doesn't recognize that basic fact is doomed to fail.

I agree illegal immigration should be controlled. The question is how you can do that. The best way to do that, IMO, is to increase the number of immigrant and non-immigrant visas available every year. The number of temporary guest workers is very low... the economy needs more. If you do those things, illegal immigration will undoubtedly go down. I would say 99 percent of all illegal immigrants come here because they want to work and there are jobs for them. That's the bottom line. Any policy that doesn't recognize that basic fact is doomed to fail.

No way. People never follow those visas. They just stay here.

 

Get rid of all welfare, man the borders, increase legal immigration, and start defending the US border with force. That way you know that whomever is crossing illegally is a foreign enemy, criminal, or drug runner. That's how you fix the immigration-defense problem.

I agree illegal immigration should be controlled. The question is how you can do that. The best way to do that, IMO, is to increase the number of immigrant and non-immigrant visas available every year. The number of temporary guest workers is very low... the economy needs more. If you do those things, illegal immigration will undoubtedly go down. I would say 99 percent of all illegal immigrants come here because they want to work and there are jobs for them. That's the bottom line. Any policy that doesn't recognize that basic fact is doomed to fail.

No way. People never follow those visas. They just stay here.

 

Get rid of all welfare, man the borders, increase legal immigration, and start defending the US border with force. That way you know that whomever is crossing illegally is a foreign enemy, criminal, or drug runner. That's how you fix the immigration-defense problem.

 

Terrorist are more likely to enter through US-Canadian border than US-Mexico border. I don't see the Canadian border getting any attention......

Things have worked out alright. I am okay with it. None of our recessions or depressions have been caused by this.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's really not that important. I trust the market.

Well, the Great Depression was caused by a combination of tariffs, bad fiscal and monetary policy, immigration restriction, and according to keynesian economists an unequal distribution of wealth.

 

But the Fed's deflationary policies in the late 20s and early 30s played a role.

 

 

There are so many things put into place that what happened in 1929 wont happen again.

 

 

Hell, there's about a 99.99% chance that doesnt happen again.

 

 

Milton Friedman himself said that the Fed didnt cause the Great Depression.

A much more compelling case can be made for the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in the Depression than the Fed.

A much more compelling case can be made for the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in the Depression than the Fed.

 

 

 

there are a number of more compelling cases for the Depression than the Fed.

There are so many things put into place that what happened in 1929 wont happen again.

 

 

Hell, there's about a 99.99% chance that doesnt happen again.

 

 

Milton Friedman himself said that the Fed didnt cause the Great Depression.

Well geez, I guess that settles it. Case closed. The Fed contracting the money supply it had inflated in the preceding decade had no effect whatsoever on the Depression.

 

Every depression in US history was the result of over-inflation and subsequent contraction of the money supply, mostly artificially, either by the old central banks or the congress inflating the currency for war-time overspending.

 

Again, do you then honestly think that giving unelected financial elites the ability to inflate (and thus devalue) our money without restriction is a good thing? Again, look back at the only time this nation ever paid off its debt in full. It's not a coincidence what happened to the Second Bank of the US.

Again, do you then honestly think that giving unelected financial elites the ability to inflate (and thus devalue) our money without restriction is a good thing? Again, look back at the only time this nation ever paid off its debt in full. It's not a coincidence what happened to the Second Bank of the US.

 

I'm also almost positive the country sank into a major depression following Jackson's policies.

There are so many things put into place that what happened in 1929 wont happen again.

 

 

Hell, there's about a 99.99% chance that doesnt happen again.

 

 

Milton Friedman himself said that the Fed didnt cause the Great Depression.

Well geez, I guess that settles it. Case closed. The Fed contracting the money supply it had inflated in the preceding decade had no effect whatsoever on the Depression.

 

Every depression in US history was the result of over-inflation and subsequent contraction of the money supply, mostly artificially, either by the old central banks or the congress inflating the currency for war-time overspending.

 

Again, do you then honestly think that giving unelected financial elites the ability to inflate (and thus devalue) our money without restriction is a good thing? Again, look back at the only time this nation ever paid off its debt in full. It's not a coincidence what happened to the Second Bank of the US.

 

 

 

Nowhere was it said that the Fed were innocent in the Depression.

 

It just wasnt due to the Fed that the Depression happeened in and of itself.

 

These financial 'elites' may be unelected, but they are appointed by the President, who is elected.

 

I mean this isnt even an issue if we are in 2000.

There are so many things put into place that what happened in 1929 wont happen again.

 

 

Hell, there's about a 99.99% chance that doesnt happen again.

 

 

Milton Friedman himself said that the Fed didnt cause the Great Depression.

Well geez, I guess that settles it. Case closed. The Fed contracting the money supply it had inflated in the preceding decade had no effect whatsoever on the Depression.

 

Every depression in US history was the result of over-inflation and subsequent contraction of the money supply, mostly artificially, either by the old central banks or the congress inflating the currency for war-time overspending.

 

Again, do you then honestly think that giving unelected financial elites the ability to inflate (and thus devalue) our money without restriction is a good thing? Again, look back at the only time this nation ever paid off its debt in full. It's not a coincidence what happened to the Second Bank of the US.

 

Nowhere was it said that the Fed were innocent in the Depression.

 

It just wasnt due to the Fed that the Depression happeened in and of itself.

 

These financial 'elites' may be unelected, but they are appointed by the President, who is elected.

 

I mean this isnt even an issue if we are in 2000.

The US President does not appoint the shareholders or Presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks and the appointments made are made with the approval of the shareholders. Niether the President nor any other elected official has any power to control the policy of the Fed or to remove or punish its leaders.

 

You are correct that it hasn't been an issue for a very long time. But I would ask you why do you think that is? I mean look at what so many members of Congress who were there during the early years of the Federal Reserve said about it. Or how about this little quote from that small-time businessman Henry Ford - "It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." What happened to this debate, that was so debated during the first 50 years of our history and was also fiercely debated when the Fed came into power? How did the opposition dissappear? I am too cynical to believe there is a real consensus based on understanding of this issue when most people don't even realize that the Fed isn't part of the government, that it answers to shareholders. And I believe the reasons why there is no debate is pretty close to the same reason that there is no debate in our support of Israel over the Palestinians.

There are so many things put into place that what happened in 1929 wont happen again.

 

 

Hell, there's about a 99.99% chance that doesnt happen again.

 

 

Milton Friedman himself said that the Fed didnt cause the Great Depression.

Well geez, I guess that settles it. Case closed. The Fed contracting the money supply it had inflated in the preceding decade had no effect whatsoever on the Depression.

 

Every depression in US history was the result of over-inflation and subsequent contraction of the money supply, mostly artificially, either by the old central banks or the congress inflating the currency for war-time overspending.

 

Again, do you then honestly think that giving unelected financial elites the ability to inflate (and thus devalue) our money without restriction is a good thing? Again, look back at the only time this nation ever paid off its debt in full. It's not a coincidence what happened to the Second Bank of the US.

 

Nowhere was it said that the Fed were innocent in the Depression.

 

It just wasnt due to the Fed that the Depression happeened in and of itself.

 

These financial 'elites' may be unelected, but they are appointed by the President, who is elected.

 

I mean this isnt even an issue if we are in 2000.

The US President does not appoint the shareholders or Presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks and the appointments made are made with the approval of the shareholders. Niether the President nor any other elected official has any power to control the policy of the Fed or to remove or punish its leaders.

 

You are correct that it hasn't been an issue for a very long time. But I would ask you why do you think that is? I mean look at what so many members of Congress who were there during the early years of the Federal Reserve said about it. Or how about this little quote from that small-time businessman Henry Ford - "It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." What happened to this debate, that was so debated during the first 50 years of our history and was also fiercely debated when the Fed came into power? How did the opposition dissappear? I am too cynical to believe there is a real consensus based on understanding of this issue when most people don't even realize that the Fed isn't part of the government, that it answers to shareholders. And I believe the reasons why there is no debate is pretty close to the same reason that there is no debate in our support of Israel over the Palestinians.

 

 

 

well the simple answer to why this is suddently an issue....

 

 

we are staring at a recession. people dont give a damn when times are good to the banking system. when things are bad people tend to point fingers and other than the President, this is the easiest finger to point.

 

 

I still dont see what the real problem is, other than its the easy answer.

I agree illegal immigration should be controlled. The question is how you can do that. The best way to do that, IMO, is to increase the number of immigrant and non-immigrant visas available every year. The number of temporary guest workers is very low... the economy needs more. If you do those things, illegal immigration will undoubtedly go down. I would say 99 percent of all illegal immigrants come here because they want to work and there are jobs for them. That's the bottom line. Any policy that doesn't recognize that basic fact is doomed to fail.

No way. People never follow those visas. They just stay here.

 

Get rid of all welfare, man the borders, increase legal immigration, and start defending the US border with force. That way you know that whomever is crossing illegally is a foreign enemy, criminal, or drug runner. That's how you fix the immigration-defense problem.

 

Terrorist are more likely to enter through US-Canadian border than US-Mexico border. I don't see the Canadian border getting any attention......

It certainly should.

No way. People never follow those visas. They just stay here.

 

Get rid of all welfare, man the borders, increase legal immigration, and start defending the US border with force. That way you know that whomever is crossing illegally is a foreign enemy, criminal, or drug runner. That's how you fix the immigration-defense problem.

 

Defending the US border with force, huh?

 

So we're going to shoot people for trying to come into our country?

 

Man, I'm really hoping you aren't of Eastern European, Irish, German, Japanese, Chinese, Cuban, South American, or Italian descent, because if you are, you are a gigantic hypocrit.

Again, do you then honestly think that giving unelected financial elites the ability to inflate (and thus devalue) our money without restriction is a good thing? Again, look back at the only time this nation ever paid off its debt in full. It's not a coincidence what happened to the Second Bank of the US.

 

I'm also almost positive the country sank into a major depression following Jackson's policies.

Yes, because the Second Bank had over inflated the currency during its charter before it was killed off. Over-inflation leads to contraction of the money supply (unless you go all the way and debase a currency into uselessness). It happened again when Congress did it to fund the Civil War, and then later contracted the money supply. I'm not saying that central anks are the only ones who can do it. But if you do have a gold standard, that kind of intentional artificial inflation becomes impossible.

 

I still dont see what the real problem is, other than its the easy answer.

Debt is the problem. Every year Congress spends more than it can tax and more than it can borrow from overseas (another problem), and each time they do, they call up the Fed to create new money for them. But then that money is owed. Every new dollar that is created and introduced into our economy is owed back to the Fed, with interest. And so we get taxed more and more to pay off this debt to private shareholders of a private bank for no reason. Congress could do exactly the same thing as far as making up shortfall in their budget by introducing new money and artificially manipulating interest rates through the money supply, and Congress could do it without creating any new debt. Our government has literally CHOSEN to create new debt for the profit of a few at the expense of most of us.

No shooting people trying to come into the country, thanks.

 

Do we need to increase border security? Obviously. However, violence is not even close to warranted.

 

I also agree with the comment that the US/Canadian border needs to be better protected, as there has at least been a case of a terrorist caught trying to get explosives through that border.

I also agree with the comment that the US/Canadian border needs to be better protected, as there has at least been a case of a terrorist caught trying to get explosives through that border.

 

Yeah, but it seems sort of silly to get all xenophobic about Canadians. But, Mexicans? There's some xenophobia I can get behind!

No way. People never follow those visas. They just stay here.

 

Get rid of all welfare, man the borders, increase legal immigration, and start defending the US border with force. That way you know that whomever is crossing illegally is a foreign enemy, criminal, or drug runner. That's how you fix the immigration-defense problem.

 

Defending the US border with force, huh?

 

So we're going to shoot people for trying to come into our country?

 

Man, I'm really hoping you aren't of Eastern European, Irish, German, Japanese, Chinese, Cuban, South American, or Italian descent, because if you are, you are a gigantic hypocrit.

So if we had an open immigration policy and people still crossed the border, they should not be shot? I would not want you to be running border security in Iraq!

 

The fact of the matter is that until we get hit really big, we are going to live in border la la land. I would rather have the borders constitutionally protected than all my 4th amendmenmt rioghts sacrificed. And it appears that that is the strategy (which does not work) the government is taking and the people are supporting. We will officially not be America anymore when that happens.

No way. People never follow those visas. They just stay here.

 

Get rid of all welfare, man the borders, increase legal immigration, and start defending the US border with force. That way you know that whomever is crossing illegally is a foreign enemy, criminal, or drug runner. That's how you fix the immigration-defense problem.

 

Defending the US border with force, huh?

 

So we're going to shoot people for trying to come into our country?

 

Man, I'm really hoping you aren't of Eastern European, Irish, German, Japanese, Chinese, Cuban, South American, or Italian descent, because if you are, you are a gigantic hypocrit.

So if we had an open immigration policy and people still crossed the border, they should not be shot? I would not want you to be running border security in Iraq!

 

The fact of the matter is that until we get hit really big, we are going to live in border la la land. I would rather have the borders constitutionally protected than all my 4th amendmenmt rioghts sacrificed. And it appears that that is the strategy (which does not work) the government is taking and the people are supporting. We will officially not be America anymore when that happens.

 

Honestly, nothing you just said made any sense. So you are advocating shooting people for crossing the border. Honestly, that is frightening. Border security in America and border security in Iraq are two different things, namely in that Iraq is a war zone where people are constantly moving both in and out in an attempt to remove what they see as a police force, and America is a peaceful nation that has, for it's entire history has allowed immigrants in without so much as a second look until now.

 

And I'm not sure how border security has anything to do with the 4th ammendment, unless you are referring to warrentless wiretaps and the like, which I am wholly against.

 

But I am also against xenophobic policies that attempt to stop immigration even though all of the 9/11 attackers came in with visas. Trying to use terrorism as an excuse for "border security" doesn't hold any water.

and America is a peaceful nation that has, for it's entire history has allowed immigrants in without so much as a second look until now.

Legally.

and America is a peaceful nation that has, for it's entire history has allowed immigrants in without so much as a second look until now.

Legally.

 

Was it easier for immigrants from 1850-1930 to come here legally? Did they have more drive to do so? What is the reasoning behind so many immigrants coming in then?

 

This happens in our country every time there is a percieved "overflow" of immigration. It happened with eastern europeans in the 1920's, and it will continue to happen everytime the majority in our country feels threatened by a new, potentially economically and politically powerful ethnic group comes in. And then, that group will become a part of the country and in 50 years will be calling for immigration reforms on whichever new group is trying to come in.

and America is a peaceful nation that has, for it's entire history has allowed immigrants in without so much as a second look until now.

Legally.

 

Was it easier for immigrants from 1850-1930 to come here legally? Did they have more drive to do so? What is the reasoning behind so many immigrants coming in then?

 

This happens in our country every time there is a percieved "overflow" of immigration. It happened with eastern europeans in the 1920's, and it will continue to happen everytime the majority in our country feels threatened by a new, potentially economically and politically powerful ethnic group comes in. And then, that group will become a part of the country and in 50 years will be calling for immigration reforms on whichever new group is trying to come in.

 

 

:thumbup :thumbup

and America is a peaceful nation that has, for it's entire history has allowed immigrants in without so much as a second look until now.

Legally.

Do some research because you obviously have no clue what that means.

and America is a peaceful nation that has, for it's entire history has allowed immigrants in without so much as a second look until now.

Legally.

Do some research because you obviously have no clue what that means.

 

Explain.

and America is a peaceful nation that has, for it's entire history has allowed immigrants in without so much as a second look until now.

Legally.

Do some research because you obviously have no clue what that means.

 

Explain.

The United States of America did not have any laws excluding immigration from anywhere until the 1880s (about a 100 years into our history), and those laws only applied to Asians who were ineligible for citizenship based on their race. There was no distinction between illegal and legal immigration until the 20th century for non-Asians. To say that they immigrated "legally" is silly, because all immigration from non-Asians was legal. If we were operating under the immigration laws we had for most of our history (and that has admitted the vast majority of those foreigners who became Americans) then there would be nothing illegal about the immigrants coming here to work.