Extreme immigration laws [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

Jerk

4/6/2006, 05:50 PM

A Rant.

Listening to Rush today, he made some statement about making new immigration laws called "Limbaugh laws" or something like that. Anyway, they were over the top even for me and I am a right-wing bible-thumping rifle-toting nutcase, and so I thought Rush really lost it because I know I did a long time ago. Some of these proposals were nazi-like- such as "No immigrant can purchase waterfront property" and "every immigrant must invest X amount (extreme amount) into the economy" and "No immigrant can say anything bad about the government." Others were more reasonable, like "all immigrants must be skilled or professionals" and then the one I like: "No public assistance for immigrants"

Then Limbaugh said, "These are actually not my ideas, they are the current immigration laws in Mexico"

WTF? How come we're the ones that always get bent over? Like Kyoto, when they wanted to let China pollute the Earth into oblivioun, but of course, the United States' economy was to get hammered by restrictions which would have eventually had us all riding bicycles. But, come to think of it, if we would sign Kyoto, and wipe out our free-market system (and our prosperity) so we become a third-world cesspool (because it's only fair, right?) maybe the Mexicans would stay in Mexico. (ps- i have no problem with mexicans, I'm just sayin', if you come here, do it legally)

Jerk

4/6/2006, 05:57 PM

Well, that was about as coherent of a post as I've evar made.

royalfan5

4/6/2006, 06:08 PM

The mexican immigration laws are a defense mechanism as in no one wants to immigrat here, so we will make ridicoulous laws about it, it's like when a guy gets shot down a hot chick, and then is like she wasn't my type anyway.

Penguin

4/6/2006, 06:20 PM

I guess the no-waterfront-property clause keeps Americans from buying up Cancun or Acapulco?

Scott D

4/6/2006, 06:21 PM

apparently you need to go back in time about 300 years Jerk so you can convince them they needed restrictive immigration laws when they started the country.

Jerk

4/6/2006, 06:39 PM

apparently you need to go back in time about 300 years Jerk so you can convince them they needed restrictive immigration laws when they started the country.

As long as people move here legally, i have no problem with it. Are you worried that the democrats might not get to import more voters if the Senate grows a pair?

yermom

4/6/2006, 06:44 PM

apparently you need to go back in time about 300 years Jerk so you can convince them they needed restrictive immigration laws when they started the country.

which country we talking about here?

Octavian

4/6/2006, 07:22 PM

A Rant.

Listening to Rush today

this is as far as I made it...

dolemitesooner

4/6/2006, 07:24 PM

apparently you need to go back in time about 300 years Jerk so you can convince them they needed restrictive immigration laws when they started the country.
Thats great we are all here now ...lets kill the noob trespassers

sooneron

4/6/2006, 07:48 PM

A Rant.

Like Kyoto, when they wanted to let China pollute the Earth into oblivioun, but of course, the United States' economy was to get hammered by restrictions which would have eventually had us all riding bicycles.
I actually agree with most of your points, but I just found this one amusing. All they ride in China are bicycles! I don't know why, it just tickled me.

It seems that if they let some outsiders buy more waterfront property- set up more places to go in Mexico, there would be more jobs there.

dolemitesooner

4/6/2006, 07:49 PM

kill them all

sooneron

4/6/2006, 07:52 PM

dOleo bustre.

Scott D

4/6/2006, 08:17 PM

As long as people move here legally, i have no problem with it. Are you worried that the democrats might not get to import more voters if the Senate grows a pair?

I would care about democrats importing voters why? Should I make a mock comment now of how Republicans might not get to import any more maids, gardeners or limo drivers if the Senate grows a pair?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

4/6/2006, 08:19 PM

apparently you need to go back in time about 300 years Jerk so you can convince them they needed restrictive immigration laws when they started the country.We've ALREADY GOT THE LAWS! Millions have ignored them, and we have let them break those laws without effective deportation.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

4/6/2006, 08:21 PM

this is as far as I made it...Well then you shoulda gone farther, since his point really had nothing to do with Rush.

Scott D

4/6/2006, 08:24 PM

We've ALREADY GOT THE LAWS! Millions have ignored them, and we have let them break those laws without effective deportation.

yeah, shoulda closed the gates on Ellis Island too right?

Octavian

4/6/2006, 08:40 PM

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

4/6/2006, 08:53 PM

where was all this outrage the last 20 years? :confused:

We had a Presidential election a year and a half ago...queer marriage and vag choice caught more attention than this...immigration reform twas not a major issue

From the backlash one would think we all just now noticed that the Mexicans were here...if you're ****ed but weren't pressing your democratically elected leaders before now...stay away from mirrors, you'll see someone partly to blameAll the marches and signs in Spanish, the waving of the Mexican flag, but mostly the willingness of the illegals to get into the faces of Americans, have caused the outrage. By the way, what is "vag choice"?

sanantoniosooner

4/6/2006, 08:58 PM

By the way, what is "vag choice"?
I believe it's the political platform that supports my wife's right to deny me relations.

sooneron

4/6/2006, 09:20 PM

Note to William Favor, DO NOT come to NYC on St Patrick's Day, they wave flags and such. And none of them are 'Merican!

BoogercountySooner

4/6/2006, 09:28 PM

I am not a Mexican but I have a Mess a Kin!!:D :D

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

4/7/2006, 12:59 AM

I believe it's the political platform that supports my wife's right to deny me relations.Since when did women need any political power to do the above?

TheHumanAlphabet

4/7/2006, 08:01 AM

Actually, Mexico's laws are not out of the norm for most countries in the world. Most are very xenophobic and don't want a mixture in the population...

I thought finally, someone letting the country on the extreme aspects of immigration around the world and not just open door policy we have. We need a strong, coherent and restrictive immigration policy that has actually teeth and consequences!!!

OU Adonis

4/7/2006, 08:18 AM

Note to William Favor, DO NOT come to NYC on St Patrick's Day, they wave flags and such. And none of them are 'Merican!

But they are waived by Americans, or at least a large percentage are.

Condescending Sooner

4/7/2006, 08:25 AM

yeah, shoulda closed the gates on Ellis Island too right?
.

This argument is so tiresome. We NEEDED immigrants back then, they were going through legal channels,and I believe there weren't too many terrorists in the 1800's.

Bu nevermind that, the world hasn't changed any. Since our ancestors immigrated, we should just open the borders and let everyone in.

mdklatt

4/7/2006, 09:03 AM

where was all this outrage the last 20 years? :confused:

Demagogy: The key to American politics.

TheHumanAlphabet

4/7/2006, 02:49 PM

.

This argument is so tiresome. We NEEDED immigrants back then, they were going through legal channels,and I believe there weren't too many terrorists in the 1800's.

Actually many coming into Ellis Island were probably illegal. That is where the term WOP (without papers) came from (typically Italian aliens...). However, the U.S. had an open policy to move people westward to fill up the spaces, we don't today...

TheHumanAlphabet

4/7/2006, 02:52 PM

I guess the no-waterfront-property clause keeps Americans from buying up Cancun or Acapulco?

Yep-er!

And speak to all those California retirees that bought ocean front land in Baja California which they though was a legal land sale, some Mechican libz comes along and says whoa, they can't own the land there (after they have houses and have lived there almost a decade). The Mechican gubment reposes the property and these retirees are SOL...

TheHumanAlphabet

4/7/2006, 02:53 PM

apparently you need to go back in time about 300 years Jerk so you can convince them they needed restrictive immigration laws when they started the country.

Why are you so pro-open border? I would be interested in your line of thinking...

Immigration laws are not immutable and can be changed...

TheHumanAlphabet

4/7/2006, 02:54 PM

I actually agree with most of your points, but I just found this one amusing. All they ride in China are bicycles! I don't know why, it just tickled me.

Not anymore...China is the fastest growing automobile market in the world today...

mdklatt

4/7/2006, 02:57 PM

However, the U.S. had an open policy to move people westward to fill up the spaces, we don't today...

But we supposedly have a red-hot economy and "full employment".

TheHumanAlphabet

4/7/2006, 02:59 PM

But we supposedly have a red-hot economy and "full employment".

Has nothing to do with the economy...

Stop the illegals, build the fence, put soldiers on the border with Border Patrol Agents (to arrest). Then provide a LEGAL means to allow these people into the country and track their entry, time in country and their exit...

OU Adonis

4/7/2006, 03:01 PM

But we supposedly have a red-hot economy and "full employment".

Only because we have welfare.

If we stopped paying people to do nothing, then maybe those low end jobs would be filled by americans that could no longer be dead beats.

mdklatt

4/7/2006, 03:08 PM

Only because we have welfare.

If we stopped paying people to do nothing, then maybe those low end jobs would be filled by americans that could no longer be dead beats.

That ain't the Mexicans' fault. Why should we give preference to dead beats over hard workers simply because of where they were born? That's not the American way....mmmmmm--irony.

OU Adonis

4/7/2006, 03:10 PM

That ain't the Mexicans' fault. Why should we give preference to dead beats over hard workers simply because of where they were born? That's not the American way....mmmmmm--irony.

The American way is for Americans, not illegals.

Scott D

4/7/2006, 03:15 PM

Why are you so pro-open border? I would be interested in your line of thinking...

Immigration laws are not immutable and can be changed...

I'm not really pro-open border, however immigration and this country is a Pandora's Box. There should have been tighter restrictions in place at least at some point in the 1800s.

The problem now is you can't come in and make sweeping changes to the immigration laws. People are resistant to change, no matter how 'beneficial' it may be for them. If anything it would have been smarter to make a tweak here and a tweak there over the past say 10-12 years to get immigration laws to be at the level of restrictiveness that Congress wants to try to push through at once.

But then again, if Jerk could go back 300 years and convince them to tighten immigration back then we wouldn't have this 'issue' now, would we?

OU Adonis

4/7/2006, 03:17 PM

But then again, if Jerk could go back 300 years and convince them to tighten immigration back then we wouldn't have this 'issue' now, would we?

No, and we also would not of had anything west of the mississippi either.

TheHumanAlphabet

4/7/2006, 03:22 PM

I'm not really pro-open border, however immigration and this country is a Pandora's Box. There should have been tighter restrictions in place at least at some point in the 1800s.

The problem now is you can't come in and make sweeping changes to the immigration laws. People are resistant to change, no matter how 'beneficial' it may be for them. If anything it would have been smarter to make a tweak here and a tweak there over the past say 10-12 years to get immigration laws to be at the level of restrictiveness that Congress wants to try to push through at once.

But then again, if Jerk could go back 300 years and convince them to tighten immigration back then we wouldn't have this 'issue' now, would we?

Interesting take...I disagree.

Immigration laws are a function of state policy. In the 1800s, the U.S. had a policy to fill up the space, gave out a 160 acres and a mule...(don't know about the mule, but my German family got the 160 acres by homesteading space in Wisconsin). Many people partook of the expansion west. The immigration laws met the time and filled a need.

The problem so you eloquently state is that people are afraid of change, the government is so guilty of that...The government SHOULD change, it should delete outdated programs and it SHOULD change immigration laws to suit the current need or the current state policy. As I said before, immigration laws are not immutable.

It is time for a change and it should get more strict. We don't need the immigrants per se, we do need tougher laws to monitor people coming into the country and/or allow them a legal means to work without becoming citizens...

Other countries do it, why not us.

mdklatt

4/7/2006, 03:25 PM

The American way is for Americans, not illegals.

Tell that to the Indians. It's pretty sad that a country that is like 99.9% immigrant if you go back far enough--and was started by illegals when you think about it--is now trying to bring down such a ****storm on the newest wave of immigrants. I do not support amnesty because that's unfair to everybody who's been trying to work with the system. However, I don't think we need to throw the book at illegals since our cheap, lazy asses are the reason they're here to begin with. They are not freeloaders. They buy things. They pay taxes. They are not on welfare. I don't think we need to bend over backwards for them, but they're preferable to quite a few shiftless Americans. I'd like to see better border security to keep out the criminals and the terrorists, but let's keep the status quo of wink-wink nudge-nudge for people coming here for a better life.

1stTimeCaller

4/7/2006, 03:29 PM

Tell that to the Indians. It's pretty sad that a country that is like 99.9% immigrant if you go back far enough--and was started by illegals when you think about it--is now trying to bring down such a ****storm on the newest wave of immigrants.

If you go back far enough you'll see that all countries were formed by immigrants, illegal immigrants most likely. How far do think we should look back in time?

mdklatt

4/7/2006, 03:32 PM

If you go back far enough you'll see that all countries were formed by immigrants, illegal immigrants most likely. How far do think we should look back in time?

500 years.

1stTimeCaller

4/7/2006, 03:32 PM

why 500?

OU Adonis

4/7/2006, 03:38 PM

Tell that to the Indians. It's pretty sad that a country that is like 99.9% immigrant if you go back far enough--and was started by illegals when you think about it--is now trying to bring down such a ****storm on the newest wave of immigrants. I do not support amnesty because that's unfair to everybody who's been trying to work with the system. However, I don't think we need to throw the book at illegals since our cheap, lazy asses are the reason they're here to begin with. They are not freeloaders. They buy things. They pay taxes. They are not on welfare. I don't think we need to bend over backwards for them, but they're preferable to quite a few shiftless Americans. I'd like to see better border security to keep out the criminals and the terrorists, but let's keep the status quo of wink-wink nudge-nudge for people coming here for a better life.

Wars suck, but to the victor goes the spoils. War isn't the best solution sometimes, but it usually resolves an issue. In this case the indians lost. Is it something to be proud of? No, not really, but I tend not to dwell on stuff that happened 150 years ago.

Illegals might not be lazy, but they are criminal.

mdklatt

4/7/2006, 03:40 PM

why 500?

Why not?

It doesn't matter which number you pick. America is a melting pot more than just about any other country on the planet, so we shouldn't be so aghast that somebody is trying to add some more cumin.

1stTimeCaller

4/7/2006, 03:41 PM

500 is as good as any, I guess. I was just wondering.

TheHumanAlphabet

4/7/2006, 03:42 PM

since when does hard working = legal. One can be hard working and still be illegal. Why can't people get over the fixation of anything else.

It is a matter of legal vs. illegal, nothing more!

TheHumanAlphabet

4/7/2006, 03:44 PM

America is a melting pot more than just about any other country on the planet,

WAS, not anymore...

so we shouldn't be so aghast that somebody is trying to add some more cumin.

Why not, as I said it is a question of legal vs. illegal...Plus the issue of terrorists sneaking into our border and blowing stuff up here...

jeremy885

4/7/2006, 03:47 PM

Yep-er!

And speak to all those California retirees that bought ocean front land in Baja California which they though was a legal land sale, some Mechican libz comes along and says whoa, they can't own the land there (after they have houses and have lived there almost a decade). The Mechican gubment reposes the property and these retirees are SOL...

They never "bought" the land. They leased it from a Mexican corporation that was setup to own the land legally. The Mexican government didn't like that, so they pretty much ruled that the Americans owned the land indirectly and took it from them.

SCOUT

4/7/2006, 04:10 PM

Actually many coming into Ellis Island were probably illegal. That is where the term WOP (without papers) came from (typically Italian aliens...). However, the U.S. had an open policy to move people westward to fill up the spaces, we don't today...

I think that is actually an urban legend. I think the term WOP is a slang term of guappo.

I always thought what you wrote was true but when I tried to cite it once but I found that most documentation doesn't support it.

TheHumanAlphabet

4/8/2006, 12:54 PM

I always thought what you wrote was true but when I tried to cite it once but I found that most documentation doesn't support it.

I pride myself on accuracy. I saw a pic of an Ellis Island person with WOP written on their forehead refering to "without papers".

Have never heard the term guappo. Can't say I haven't been wrong or will be wrong in the future. I do try to be accurate however...I have been caught in a few urban legends...

EDIT...

From Wikipedia, I guess we're both right...(also a very good place to look up slang racial terms :texan: )

Wop (U.S. & UK Commonwealth) an Italian or other Southern European, especially an immigrant; probably originated in the U.S., but later spread to other countries. Probably derives from the Neapolitan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neapolitan_language) slang term guappo! (pretty/handsome one), often used by the first immigrants from Italy to address or call to each other. Popular etymology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_etymology) gives the origin as "WithOut Passport", although some believe the acronym derived from "WithOut Papers" or "Without Official Papers", suggesting illegal immigration. This folk etymology sometimes associates combines the term with "guinea" to form "Giny Wop," with Giny being an acronym for Going Into New York, hence "Going Into New York Without Official Papers".

StoopTroup

4/8/2006, 01:24 PM

OUinFLA

4/8/2006, 01:38 PM

well, #10 is gonna play heck with reducing the population of West Virginia.

Condescending Sooner

4/14/2006, 02:45 PM

Actually many coming into Ellis Island were probably illegal. That is where the term WOP (without papers) came from (typically Italian aliens...). However, the U.S. had an open policy to move people westward to fill up the spaces, we don't today...

Ellis Island was the official screening location for immigrants. If they were illegal, we could have sent them back. They were not sneaking in. Besides, I think your defintion of WOP is suspect.

BajaOklahoma

4/14/2006, 03:23 PM

THA is correct. I've also heard WithOut Papers.

See the following from wikipedia:
Wop
(U.S. & UK Commonwealth) an Italian or other Southern European, especially an immigrant; probably originated in the U.S., but later spread to other countries. Probably derives from the Neapolitan slang term guappo! (pretty/handsome one), often used by the first immigrants from Italy to address or call to each other. Popular etymology gives the origin as "WithOut Passport", although some believe the acronym derived from "WithOut Papers" or "Without Official Papers", suggesting illegal immigration. This folk etymology sometimes associates combines the term with "guinea" to form "Giny Wop," with Giny being an acronym for Going Into New York, hence "Going Into New York Without Official Papers".

OUinFLA

4/14/2006, 05:14 PM

Stoop Dawg

4/14/2006, 06:00 PM

I'm not really pro-open border, however immigration and this country is a Pandora's Box. There should have been tighter restrictions in place at least at some point in the 1800s.

The problem now is you can't come in and make sweeping changes to the immigration laws. People are resistant to change, no matter how 'beneficial' it may be for them. If anything it would have been smarter to make a tweak here and a tweak there over the past say 10-12 years to get immigration laws to be at the level of restrictiveness that Congress wants to try to push through at once.

But then again, if Jerk could go back 300 years and convince them to tighten immigration back then we wouldn't have this 'issue' now, would we?

While he's back there in 1800, maybe he can prevent the welfare system that keeps so many Americans from working and opens up jobs for the illegals.

As many other have stated, illegal immigrants are ILLEGAL. They're already illegal. That's not a "sweeping change", it's been on the books forever. What I'm hearing now is that some nimrods want to make them "legal". Then they quit their jobs, go on welfare, and raise my taxes so I get to pay for even more lazy bastards.

I'm not sure we need to round up all 11 million of them and toss them over the border, but I'm very sure we don't need to start giving them government assistance for showing up in our country ILLEGALLY.

Stoop Dawg

4/14/2006, 06:04 PM

I do not support amnesty because that's unfair to everybody who's been trying to work with the system. However, I don't think we need to throw the book at illegals since our cheap, lazy asses are the reason they're here to begin with. They are not freeloaders. They buy things. They pay taxes. They are not on welfare. I don't think we need to bend over backwards for them, but they're preferable to quite a few shiftless Americans.

Can't say I disagree with any of that.

Stoop Dawg

4/14/2006, 06:05 PM

Interesting:

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/troosevelt.asp

lexsooner

4/14/2006, 06:22 PM

Maybe we should just get back to the basics on immigration.

You can become a US Citizen under these conditions. Some restrictions are also listed. :D

1) You are Human.
2) You can speak flutant English
3) You can pass an SAT and an ACT test with 100% ;)
4) You promise to never root for UT. :D
5) You promise never to drive in the US until you pass a drivers test and pay for one year of insurance in advance. Failure to do so will result in revocation of your citizenship.
6) Burning of the US Flag by any other means than proper disposal will result in your citizenship being revoked.
7) Using your duel citizenship to play for another country during the Olympic Games will result in your revocation of your citizenship.
8) Any violent or sexual felony will result in your revokation of your citizenship.
9) Any unpaid bounced checks or unpaid taxes will reuslt in your revokation of your citizenship.
10) If you are caught with more than 2 families or more than 5 other occupants or any vehicles parked anywhere besides your driveway in an owned or rented property, your citizenship will be revoked.

Feel free to add on any ideas any of you may have...

2.) "flutant" English? OK, buddy, you are out of here, pack your bags! ;)

Seriously, you might add some provision for imprisoning or deporting American citizens who hire illegals. THAT, is at the root of the problem. I think there is way too much focus on the illegals themselves and not enough on the Americans who hire them and give the illegals incentive to come to the U.S. illegally.

The laws for illegals need to be overhauled. However, the current LEGAL immigration laws are actually pretty reasonable. They give preference to legal applicants with education and skills, and those who have relatives in the U.S. and want to be re-unified with them. The legal immigrants I have known are generally very decent, hard-working folks trying to make it in this country, and their kids generally do well in school and quickly become Americanized.

The immigration service also needs overhauling. Needless to say. INS or ICE or whatever you want to call them, was and still is a mess. They are overwhelmed in trying to keep illegals out or deport them. They can't even process legal immigrants very well. I've been told they are the most inefficient and rudest bastages anyone has ever dealt with, according to people I know. For this I am truly sorry and embarassed, as an American. Legal immigrants should be welcomed, not treated in this fashion.