Kramer the racist... (now the illegal immigration thread)

[matthewk]

I am an inmigrant, LEGAL, an d I am sorry to tell you that you need more information aobut this issue.

Not to be rude, but I think you are the one that needs to get their information correct.

First fo all. The majority of those illegal inmigrant, if they were legal they will receive ax money, because a big percentage is earning $5.95 per hour.

Huh? So are you saying that if they were legal, we'd be GIVING them tax money? They would pay less taxes, but no matter how little you make LEGALLY, you pay a percentage of that in taxes. I made min. wage back in high school, and I had taxes taken out just like every other LEGAL citizen.

I also bet that if they lived here and paid taxes, suddenly that $5.95 an hour wouldn't look so appealing to them. They want the best of both worlds. Tax free money and access to all of the benefits we built up using our tax dollars.

Second, they are paying indirect taxes: For the rent, the gas, food, even for the money that they send to their families in other countries.

I pay sales tax too. I also pay income tax. Why should crimals get out of paying income tax? SO it's alright because they still pay SOME taxes? No way.

I assume the last sentence refers to being taxed by their LEGAL country when money comes in. Just how does that happen when they likely run back across the border with the cash? IS there a Mexican toll booth set up on the other end that requires them to pay taxes? Doesn't matter to me either way. You are taking money from our country and exporting it back. If that money was taxed here, I don't care. But if you are going to use our schools, roads, hospitals, etc... ehere, then you should be paying tax like the rest of us.

Yes the inmigration is a racial issue. I don't here anything about the more than 200,000 illegal inmigrant that comes from Eastern Europe countries? Maybe because all of them look like Dakota Fanning!!!.

200,000 is a lot different than 11 million. You know what, the 200,000 should be sent back home as well. Either that of become a citizen legally.

[pk500]

My stance on immigration is simple: If you enter this country legally, you must pay taxes and in turn receive services and benefits for those taxes. If you enter this country illegally and don't pay taxes, then you receive no services.

I have a VERY hard time with providing health benefits, etc., to illegals when those same services sometimes aren't even provided to citizens.

My ancestors entered this nation legally from Ireland and Germany and then worked their asses off to stay here, following the rules of this nation and learning English (in the case of the Germans) like those who already lived here.

I don't know why that dynamic has changed or should change. Enter the country legally, work hard, pay taxes, learn the native tongue, become a citizen if you stay here and love this country, and enjoy every bit of prosperity that this great nation offers to those who pursue the American dream, whether they were born in this country or not.

Otherwise, stay home.

I'm a staunch supporter of legal immigration; I'm a staunch foe of illegal immigration. Every country has the right to secure its borders and determine who enters and stays in the country and who cannot enter and stay in the country.

America should be the land of opportunity, not the land of entitlement.

Take care,
PK

[JRod]

You can have an anti-illegal immigration stance but you better know HOW you enter the country legally. So answer me this how many of you know how to get into this country...LEGALLY.

I bet most don't know. I'll follow-up with a few thoughts afterward on this.

[Naples39]

IMO, illegal immigration is more a cultural issue than a race issue. I think a lot people resent MASSIVE numbers of people coming into the US, and bringing with them foreign, language, food, customs etc...

In general having a cultural melting pot is laudable, but the difference between the historical immigration that shaped the country and what is happening now is that a large proportion of the Latin American immigrants have no desire to become 'american,' but maintain a separate cultural identity and send money back out of the country. Maybe history will tell us that in a generation or two none of this will matter as those people will fully become 'american,' but I don't think you can blame people for being concerned. It may well not happen the same way because Mexicans can go back and forth or send money back, whereas traditional immigrants pretty much cut ties with the mother country out of necessity. That and the simple numbers of Mexican immigrants.

Those concerns don't even touch on the practical concerns of governing the nation, which are even more significant. As had been said, controlling immigration and borders is a necessary, fundamental purpose of governing.

Second, the idea of 'indirect' taxes on gas and food is kind of ridiculous. When you buy these goods or services you are making a deal with a private citizen and receiving a direct benefit in return. Merely being a market participant does essentially nothing to support gov't systems, such as health care, schools, police, transportation--all things illegal immigrants benefit from at the expense of the tax paying public.

And JRod, you can't be against an illegal activity unless you know the ins and outs of how to do it legally? That sounds like a pretty absurd argument to me. The whole point is whether or not the activity is controlled at all, as opposed to a free-for-all. No matter how great or bad the legal immigration system is, it is practically irrelevant until illegal immigration is contained. Isn't it always easier to walk across the border than file any paper work, no matter how streamlined the system may become?

[MizzouRah]

He was on Letterman. It actually felt like an after school Letterman special.

here's his apology on letterman...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dufHYw-W6j4

..and people were laughing in the auidence... wild......... I guess they thought is was all one big joke.. I bet most of them didn't even see his tirade..

[pk500]

You can have an anti-illegal immigration stance but you better know HOW you enter the country legally. So answer me this how many of you know how to get into this country...LEGALLY.

I bet most don't know. I'll follow-up with a few thoughts afterward on this.

And the relevance of this to anyone's stance on illegal immigration is?

I don't know the EXACT legal difference between manslaughter and murder, but I still think taking someone else's life is wrong. I don't know the legal hoops that someone needs to climb through to enter the country legally, but I still think entering the country illegally is wrong, which is pretty damn redundant, if you think of it.

Take care,
PK

[matthewk]

You can have an anti-illegal immigration stance but you better know HOW you enter the country legally. So answer me this how many of you know how to get into this country...LEGALLY.

I bet most don't know. I'll follow-up with a few thoughts afterward on this.

I entered the country legally via my mother. How's that for 'ya?

Edited: I had more, but I don't think your post deserves any more of a response than what's above.

[James_E]

..and people were laughing in the auidence... wild......... I guess they thought is was all one big joke.. I bet most of them didn't even see his tirade..

I think they laughed because he said "AFRO American" not "African American". I didn't laugh... I thought it was pathetic that he said afro american.

[DivotMaker]

I didn't laugh... I thought it was pathetic that he said afro american.

Ditto. African American would certainly be more appropriate.

[Teal]

In 20 more years, African American will no longer be acceptable, either. I've been a 'cracker' for decades now, and I'm okay with it not changing...

This thing by Richards was stupid, insanely stupid on his part. The 'apology' seemed as much a stunt as the tirade did, to me.

But the guy has the right to be a dumbass, like it or not. Either there ARE limits to free speech, or there aren't. People need to make up their minds. I'm getting dizzy. And we as a society are going nowhere if the rules keep changing and are subject to situational or content analysis...

[FatPitcher]

What's up with people saying the TN vote was about race? Ford shot himself in the foot long before the supposedly racist commercial (would there have been any fewer accusations of racism if the woman had been black? hardly).

Anyway, this guy is probably more juvenile than racist. Reminds me of kids just being as hurtful as they can when they get pissed. But calling someone names isn't as big as deal as other acts of racism, like stuff related to employment, personal rights, etc. That's why it's the cold-blooded, thought-out racism that's the worst. Stuff like the KKK and this dude:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWp_LWzSjZE

[SoMisss2000]

There's also some empowerment that comes along with reclaiming the N word. Gays and lesbians have done this along the same lines with the word "queer",

I've been married to Mrs. Z for 20 years and I can probably count the number of times she's used the N word on both hands. It's usually used in conjunction with her step-father's relatives.

I wish "honky" would come back into vogue. It's really one of the great underutilized racial epithets.

Tune in to Galloway and Co. on espn1033.com from 3-6m here in Dallas, you'll hear Randy Galloway, a white country texan use honky all the time. Just today, he referred to Jeremy Shockey as the "tatooed honky".

[emelki]

I also bet that if they lived here and paid taxes, suddenly that $5.95 an hour wouldn't look so appealing to them. They want the best of both worlds. Tax free money and access to all of the benefits we built up using our tax dollars.

Are you telling me that a person earning 5.95$ can live in this country? Give me a break. With taxes or without taxes it is impossible to live only with the minimum. That is why they live in big groups.


I pay sales tax too. I also pay income tax. Why should crimals get out of paying income tax? SO it's alright because they still pay SOME taxes? No way.

I assume the last sentence refers to being taxed by their LEGAL country when money comes in. Just how does that happen when they likely run back across the border with the cash? IS there a Mexican toll booth set up on the other end that requires them to pay taxes? Doesn't matter to me either way. You are taking money from our country and exporting it back. If that money was taxed here, I don't care. But if you are going to use our schools, roads, hospitals, etc... ehere, then you should be paying tax like the rest of us.

Ah, I got it, "Mexicans". That is the idea that you have of inmigrations. Maybe, just maybe if the american companies that own a big part of the land in "Mexico" and other latinamerican countries (with the help that they had from the dictators that CIA put in the middle of the XX century) were paying a fair salary and not a salary close to slavery, maybe nobody would want to come here. So, blame all the rich people who owns those companies and is taking advantages of other countries.


200,000 is a lot different than 11 million. You know what, the 200,000 should be sent back home as well. Either that of become a citizen legally.[/quote]

As I said before, you have to be better informed. 200,000 is not the total. It is the amount per year that does not come from the Arizona borders.

And please, for everybody. Just go to the roots of the problems, not just this one. We have to ask to ourselves. Why the people is coming to "my country" and no stay in theirs?. In Spain we have a lot of inmigrations problems with Morroco and Senegal, but nobody goes to the roots of the problems. Because right now that is not economicaly worth it for the big companies...the real governors of the countries.

[emelki]

Sorry tha in my last message I did not use the quotes. My bad.

Alex

[matthewk]

200,000 was the number you gave, not me. I just reused it. Regardles of the "informed" number, there are a hel of a lot more Mexicans coming in illegally than 'Dakota Fannings", as you put it. That is why the focus is on Mexico.

Again, before you go saying that I need to be better informed, you need to get your information straight when trying to make a point.

As for the $5.95: I did not say that $5.95 was a livable wage in this country. Far from it. My point was that if they had to pay taxes on that $5.95 then they would want more. The reason no one in this country will take those jobs for $5.95 is exactly the reason you stated: it's not a livable wage here.

In Mexico, the Mexican government sets the rules, not the American companies. If Mexico forced companies in their country to pay a fair wage, maybe it wouldn't be such a problem. You act as if we own Mexico. The rich American companies are abiding by the rules the Mexican government have set up. Why don't you blame them, and not the companies who are using the system as it is created.

FYI, most Americans don't like the ultra-cheap labor of Mexico either. You see, US jobs are lost because the work can be done in Mexico for a lot less. Now it's China and India that are taking over that role.

[RobVarak]

FYI, most Americans don't like the ultra-cheap labor of Mexico either. You see, US jobs are lost because the work can be done in Mexico for a lot less. Now it's China and India that are taking over that role.

[matthewk]

Glad to see you have someting constructive to add Rob.

[RobVarak]

Picture's worth a thousand words, Matt. Some more than that. But if my post was too nuanced for you, let me spell it out. The post to which I replied smacked of the populist demagoguery spun out by Emperor Windbag himself, the one and only Lou Dobbs.

[Leebo33]

I got it, Rob!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/21/Dobbs.Nov22/index.html

[pk500]

Here's my question about Lou Dobbs: Since when did he go from the dick reading the teleprompter about Wall Street news on CNNFN to the second coming of Huey Long?

The guy is a complete phony. He makes seven figures at CNN yet is Mr. Every Man.

Sure thing, Lou. How's the Beemer 7 Series running? Has your Breitling needed winding lately?



Take care,
PK

[matthewk]

In an atept to get this back on topic:

http://cbs.sportsline.com/columns/story/9822797

No mass outrage about this, is there?

[Inuyasha]

What's the deal going on with Dobbs? I actually like what he writes these days. He doesn't seem like a Dem or Rep and mostly a progressive.

I was sort of surprised he had a political column since all I knew he did was that CNN Money show. So what's the rap on him? He's a phony? Or he's the real deal?

[RobVarak]

What's the deal going on with Dobbs? I actually like what he writes these days. He doesn't seem like a Dem or Rep and mostly a progressive.

I was sort of surprised he had a political column since all I knew he did was that CNN Money show. So what's the rap on him? He's a phony? Or he's the real deal?

He was traditionally a Wall Street journalist. In the last 12-18 months he's morphed into a populist windbag of epic proportions. He's truly insufferable, IMO. He hasn't the slightest clue about economics though, and the louder he roars, the more evident his ignorance becomes. Moreover, he Geraldo-izes the issues he favors, such as immigration and outsourcing with sensational and inflammatory rhetoric and a complete lack of understanding of when a horse has been beaten dead.

In response to PK's query, I think it happened in response to Fox's increased editorial content. CNN's numbers were quite poor, and I think they took an "if we can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach. Fox has always let its anchors editorialized more than a traditional outlet would, and I think Lou was part of CNN's response.

[Inuyasha]

What's the deal going on with Dobbs? I actually like what he writes these days. He doesn't seem like a Dem or Rep and mostly a progressive.

I was sort of surprised he had a political column since all I knew he did was that CNN Money show. So what's the rap on him? He's a phony? Or he's the real deal?

He was traditionally a Wall Street journalist. In the last 12-18 months he's morphed into a populist windbag of epic proportions. He's truly insufferable, IMO. He hasn't the slightest clue about economics though, and the louder he roars, the more evident his ignorance becomes. Moreover, he Geraldo-izes the issues he favors, such as immigration and outsourcing with sensational and inflammatory rhetoric and a complete lack of understanding of when a horse has been beaten dead.

In response to PK's query, I think it happened in response to Fox's increased editorial content. CNN's numbers were quite poor, and I think they took an "if we can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach. Fox has always let its anchors editorialized more than a traditional outlet would, and I think Lou was part of CNN's response.

Thanks for the info.

I am not a fan of Fox News, but I got to give them credit on how they produce and promote their shows. It just looks better off the screen compared to cnn or msnbc. For someone on the run, their quick fire reporting fills the spot. Maybe CNN should try to do that instead of boring us with Aaron Brown, Cooper Anderson, and blah Larry King.

[matthewk]

What's the deal going on with Dobbs? I actually like what he writes these days. He doesn't seem like a Dem or Rep and mostly a progressive.

I was sort of surprised he had a political column since all I knew he did was that CNN Money show. So what's the rap on him? He's a phony? Or he's the real deal?

I like him. I don't think he's a phony, as he has made reference to his middle class upbringing once or twice. I highly doubt he's making that up, because it would be real easy to bust him on it. Yeah, he makes money now, but who on TV doesn't. At least he seems genuine in his caring about the topics he presents.

Being from a middle class family, and now being the next generation of middle class, a lot of what he says rings true. I've been through manufacturing companies and the layoffs. I see the health care costs and the lack of salary increases to keep up. A lot of my friends are in the same boat. Others can call him ignorant and a windbag, but for me he brings up issues that concern me personally.

If you are going to question his motives, go right ahead. You should question ANYONE who is front of a camera then. I happen to believe he is honest about what he is talking about. He speaks what a lot of people in this country are thinking about, and that is a refreshing contrast to most of the other faces I see on the news.