[Cersdog]

As politicians and their respective parties duke it out on just about every issue imaginable, there's no beef here......letting 1.1 million illegals pour in annually is A-O-Fucking-K.
The conservatives love their cheap labor....more profit with less employer obligations. This is pretty straightforward and easy to understand, althought it's illegal and unethical.
The liberals, on the other hand seem to have formed a "humanitarian" take on it much like the plantation owners had in early America ( we have brought these nigras from the jungle to civilization ) What hypocricy.....they approve of a new underclass which technically makes them racists!

[kesFockplek]

As politicians and their respective parties duke it out on just about every issue imaginable, there's no beef here......letting 1.1 million illegals pour in annually is A-O-Fucking-K.
The conservatives love their cheap labor....more profit with less employer obligations. This is pretty straightforward and easy to understand, althought it's illegal and unethical.

Nice to see this obvious point acknowledged.

The liberals, on the other hand seem to have formed a "humanitarian" take on it much like the plantation owners had in early America ( we have brought these nigras from the jungle to civilization ) What hypocricy.....they approve of a new underclass which technically makes them racists!

Indeed. It does strike me as very odd that 'American liberals' would be so generally supportive of illegal immigration (wanting to offer drivers licenses and other public amenities). We do appear to have the same phenomena in Canada, though the level of 'illegal' immigration up here is comparatively less.

With 'illegal immigration' up here, that describes our Immigration Department ignoring immigrants (or letting them in repeatedly) who commit felonies (and not bothering to deport them) - it is as if these foreign felons have some bizarre 'right' to live in Canada.

[fapourfasiark]

Did you happen to notice how this was a non-issue in our last presidential election? How can America ignore a 69 Billion dollar a year expenditure?

[sjdflghd]

Did you happen to notice how this was a non-issue in our last presidential election? How can America ignore a 69 Billion dollar a year expenditure?

I think both sides are afraid to touch this issue in our environment of negative campaigning. The opposing party would immediately jump on the opportunity to call the other candidate a racist and blanket the airwaves with that message.

Matt

[PNCarl]

I think both sides are afraid to touch this issue in our environment of negative campaigning. The opposing party would immediately jump on the opportunity to call the other candidate a racist and blanket the airwaves with that message.

Matt

Not to mention the politicians aren't the ones putting up the 9 billion.


voto para mí amigos !!!!! (insert vomiting emoticon )

[Nzmoafzn]

Did you happen to notice how this was a non-issue in our last presidential election? How can America ignore a 69 Billion dollar a year expenditure?

Yes, very much so...

It proves that both parties can come together across the aisle and agree that doing what is best for America is second to achieving personal political objectives. If we start wondering about it too much though, they'll just toss us another 'wedge' issue and watch us fight like Rotweilers over steak while forgetting why we were angry at the intruder.

[brorialsibers]

On March 23,2005 Bush, Fox of Mexico, and Martin of Canada committed their nations to a new economic and political union to be called North America. A task force, sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, is currently working on the process of implementing this plan by 2010.

It will include a common security perimeter around all three nations and a goal of open borders (a free flow of cheap labor, commerce, travelers, etc. among the three member states). So immigration will not be a problem, which is why Bush has done nothing about controlling illegal immigration. Only lately, because of pressure from governors on the border has he made any effort at all. It;s only smoke and mirrors. He still wants a guest worker program that does not include the 10 to 15 million illegals already here, and not counting their families.

A recent Pew poll found that 50 percent of Mexicans will cross the border into America if the guest worker program is passed by Congress. That is 50,000,000 Mexicans. Not a problem.

Bush has said that this new union is an example in order to show the rest of the hemisphere that the FTAA can work also. It will give free reign to multi- national corporations to do business throughout the Western Hemisphere and to bring cheap labor to the work site. Americans will be competing against 800,000,000 million others if the FTAA is passed.

Check out politics and illegal immigration at www.thesigintreport.com

[markkisil]

Did you happen to notice how this was a non-issue in our last presidential election? How can America ignore a 69 Billion dollar a year expenditure?

Because your Great Leader didn't want you to know about it because you might have voted against him during the elections.

Doh. How naive can you be!?

Campaign Politics 101. Read up.

[Hankie]

Because your Great Leader didn't want you to know about it because you might have voted against him during the elections.

Doh. How naive can you be!?

Campaign Politics 101. Read up.

errr, Netherboy, did you see Kerry using the Bush admin's inaction concerning the damage being done and the immense cost of illegal immigration as part of his platform?
NO, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T INTEND TO DO SHIT ABOUT IT EITHER!!!
For Christs sake read the opening statement.....doh. how ignorant of the subject matter can you be?

[jadabaad]

So, is anyone interested in my theory as to why our western politicians will constantly allow never ending increases in immigration (illegal or legal) no matter how much the majority of the citizenry may oppose it?

It really is quite simple... our economic system (and our political system) is based upon capitalism - and capitalism is on its last legs (dying a slow death). Capitalism does not seem capable of providing any real economic growth to our socieities any more and Capitalism needs growth to function well (and to justify itself).

Ergo, one percent addition to the population by immigration produces at least 1% growth in the economy and this is apparently critical to prevent deflationary cycles.

Now if capitalism was half as robust as everyone likes to think, then we wouldn't need all this immigration (legal or illegal). Indeed, in the case of the USA, the political limits on legal immigration are the primary reason such a high level of illegal immigration is permitted. In Canada, we don't need such high levels of illegal immigration because we allow very high levels of legal ones. Ultimately, capital doesn't care if immigration is legal or illegal. And yes, rising birthrates can provide this 'boost' that capitalism needs but it is not apparently available, thus immigration.

And this has everything to do with the failing rate of average return on capital. We're down to single-digits now and still apparently falling. On this basis, a far smaller percentage of profit is available for re-investment (as a comparatively higher proportion of profit is 'returned' to the capitalist with the falling relative amount of profit available to any given capital enterprise).

[rarpAcconavox]

So, is anyone interested in my theory as to why our western politicians will constantly allow never ending increases in immigration (illegal or legal) no matter how much the majority of the citizenry may oppose it?

It really is quite simple... our economic system (and our political system) is based upon capitalism - and capitalism is on its last legs (dying a slow death). Capitalism does not seem capable of providing any real economic growth to our socieities any more and Capitalism needs growth to function well (and to justify itself).

Ergo, one percent addition to the population by immigration produces at least 1% growth in the economy and this is apparently critical to prevent deflationary cycles.

Now if capitalism was half as robust as everyone likes to think, then we wouldn't need all this immigration (legal or illegal). Indeed, in the case of the USA, the political limits on legal immigration are the primary reason such a high level of illegal immigration is permitted. In Canada, we don't need such high levels of illegal immigration because we allow very high levels of legal ones. Ultimately, capital doesn't care if immigration is legal or illegal. And yes, rising birthrates can provide this 'boost' that capitalism needs but it is not apparently available, thus immigration.

And this has everything to do with the failing rate of average return on capital. We're down to single-digits now and still apparently falling. On this basis, a far smaller percentage of profit is available for re-investment (as a comparatively higher proportion of profit is 'returned' to the capitalist with the falling relative amount of profit available to any given capital enterprise).

It would be interesting to look comparatively at the US and Canada's annual legal immigration figures.

MM, when a country sends it's manufacturing abroad, what happens to economic growth? Obviously, the capitalists are still lining there pockets with every container that hits our ports.
I don't claim to be an economist and welcome any insights you may have to offer.

[Ganoshenko]

It would be interesting to look comparatively at the US and Canada's annual legal immigration figures.

Canada's level equals approximately 1% of our population (300,000 per year quota) at the present time. The USA would have to have 3,000,000 per year legal to equal this same 1% figure. I don't know off-hand what the US figure is, but I suspect that it is about half or less of this figure. The rest is needed to be made up with the illegal variety to achieve the economic goal.

MM, when a country sends it's manufacturing abroad, what happens to economic growth? Obviously, the capitalists are still lining there pockets with every container that hits our ports.

Yes, this is an interesting phenomena. What happens is that GDP and the gross economic numbers continues to rise so everyone things things are going along just fine.

But the bottom line is that you've lost a bunch of working-class wages domestically. Sure, the profits that would have been derived from that labour is still accrued (and measured in GDP) but you do have unemployed workers standing around - and potentially defaulting on their mortgages and bank payments and whatnot.

And the general theory of outsourcing does seem to contain a logical flaw that is becoming apparently visible in the USA...

For example, let us assume that one-super corporation is able to outsource 100% of all production outside the USA. On paper, the GDP would still theoretically rise so everyone will agree that the US economy is doing fine because it is rising.

But in reality, your employment level would be very, very low (only that one super-corporation's head office and all that labour needed to handle the shipping containers and retailers to distribute it). So you'd have lots and lots of employable people (theoretically) standing around with nothing to do - and just going broke (since the wages in retail or as longshoremen is much lower than the wages for skilled manufacturing labour). Their poverty is the gain of the super-corporaton (figuratively, I'm not suggesting a pure zero-sum game).

The key question here, does the profit derived by the super-corporation and dispursed through dividends to the shareholders make up for all the lost wages? Does every small town in America have a chance to taste some of the drip-down from the lavish spending that is available to the super-corporation and its shareholders?

Essentially, the gross numbers stay the same (GDP), but 'real' wages fall. And a 'real' fall in wages hurts America in the small towns and wipes out the backbone of society - which is the family wage-earner, not the rich shareholders.

[nintenda]

The key question here, does the profit derived by the super-corporation and dispursed through dividends to the shareholders make up for all the lost wages? Does every small town in America have a chance to taste some of the drip-down from the lavish spending that is available to the super-corporation and its shareholders?

Essentially, the gross numbers stay the same (GDP), but 'real' wages fall. And a 'real' fall in wages hurts America in the small towns and wipes out the backbone of society - which is the family wage-earner, not the rich shareholders.

I don't believe it even comes close to making up for the lost wages. It would seem to me that the only realisitc approach for the future of our country iss to become a nation of investors. Sure, there will always be jobs in the service sector, educators, law enforcment, etc. , but with manufacturing gone, the general population is going to have to do something.
Imagine ......a nation of day traders and speculators.

I also find it peculiar that many people think that investing is for the rich only.

[ëàìèíàò]

I don't believe it even comes close to making up for the lost wages. It would seem to me that the only realisitc approach for the future of our country iss to become a nation of investors. Sure, there will always be jobs in the service sector, educators, law enforcment, etc. , but with manufacturing gone, the general population is going to have to do something.
Imagine ......a nation of day traders and speculators.

I also find it peculiar that many people think that investing is for the rich only.

Yes, in the personal sphere, investing is the rational strategy. Unfortunately, successful investing requires capital, some brains and lots of luck. These three items are generally considered to be (inherently) in short supply.

But for the nation, I don't think that is good enough - since the USA will have (and are) growing disparity. If you grow disparity large enough, things get ugly. And it will be America the beautiful no more.

[pageup85]

Yes, in the personal sphere, investing is the rational strategy. Unfortunately, successful investing requires capital, some brains and lots of luck. These three items are generally considered to be (inherently) in short supply.

But for the nation, I don't think that is good enough - since the USA will have (and are) growing disparity. If you grow disparity large enough, things get ugly. And it will be America the beautiful no more.

We still have natural beauty in America, it's the cultural beauty that is (already) gone. Back to the economics, it would seem that we are destined to become a nation without a middle class.

[engacenus]

Back to the economics, it would seem that we are destined to become a nation without a middle class.

Exactly.

And democracy (even that feeble sham that we have) needs a middle class to function. No middleclass? No democracy.

[Hpdovoxm]

Exactly.

And democracy (even that feeble sham that we have) needs a middle class to function. No middleclass? No democracy.

[Genuine curiosity]Can you expand on this a bit[/Genuine curiosity]

[Cydayshosse]

[Genuine curiosity]Can you expand on this a bit[/Genuine curiosity]

Indeed, it is an important concept...

If one considers the true character of democracy, it is apparent that several elements need to exist for that democracy to function as a democracy.

The single most important element needed is the rule of law needs to be absolute - there is no room for any arbitrary rules. That is to say, the rule of law must apply to all, equally. This is categorical.

After that ground, the next most important element is egalitarianism. Without egalitarianism, there is too great of a disparity of the citizenry and this produces an unavoidable situation where the rich will find things much easier if they just purchase the votes of the poor. This makes a mockery of the democracy. This is only possible if a middle class is not in a majority. The middle class of course can have their votes 'purchased' but the price is too prohibitively large for it to be purchased on any regular basis (due to the size and economic resources of the middle class).

With respect to egalitarianism, it is not necessary that it be absolute (only a valued goal in theory). Democracy is a reasonably flexible system and thus, is capable of functioning with some practical and earned in-egalitarianism - as long as it isn't too extreme (that is to say, polarised).

That is the 'theoretical' argument. Another way of looking at it is from a 'practical' perspective (assuming humans are little money-grubbers out for themselves).

That is to say, democracy can only function well for the best interest of the people, if and only if, the citizenry has a vested interest in the best interest of the nation - and themselves. (Note: 'the nation' and 'the people' are identical in a true democracy)

It is understood that 'the rich' all have a strong vested interest in the operation and financing of government (for obvious reasons). However, the poor in many ways do not have any (or only very little) vested interest in the operation and finance of the government. On this basis, poor people very rarely ever actually pay much attention to the subject - or concern themselves with the enterprise unless it is perceived that it directly harms them. All they really care about is what they get from it (which is why they are so easily bought).

It is only a middle class in the majority (or the largest minority of the three) that has sufficient economic resources to be concerned about how government is financed and sufficient economic interests to be concerned about how government is operated. Without this middle class interest in the finance and operation of government, the rich will therefore dominate (because they do have a strong vested interest no matter what).

The rule of the rich may not be an entirely bad idea, but it is not democratic in any way. Indeed, it is always the 'default option'. It is, unless you choose and actively support otherwise.

[qd0vhq4f]

As politicians and their respective parties duke it out on just about every issue imaginable, there's no beef here......letting 1.1 million illegals pour in annually is A-O-Fucking-K.
The conservatives love their cheap labor....more profit with less employer obligations. This is pretty straightforward and easy to understand, althought it's illegal and unethical.
The liberals, on the other hand seem to have formed a "humanitarian" take on it much like the plantation owners had in early America ( we have brought these nigras from the jungle to civilization ) What hypocricy.....they approve of a new underclass which technically makes them racists!

Want to end the massive influx and migration of illegals? I have a simple solution, and I can just about bet using a hypothesis that even the so called conservatives will not like the idea as most of you are statist imperia teat suckling children.

End SS.

[Eujacwta]

Want to end the massive influx and migration of illegals? I have a simple solution, and I can just about bet using a hypothesis that even the so called conservatives will not like the idea as most of you are statist imperia teat suckling children.

End SS.

Then feel free to amaze us with your wonderful solution.