Here is a great review of a book that exemplifies where stand on immigration. I do have a life other than this blog so I really don’t have the time to create the summary right now. Much of what is in this review has been debated on anti, very fairly and openly, with facts to support the suppositions. How about this, I will try to put this book up for debate on a thread next week and I hope you come back to debate.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/26115979.html

I don’t pretend to be an expert on immigration or econmics, I simply do my own research on come to my own conclusions. I have debated Save The MC fairly and respectfully.

Great response to Mando! I wonder if it will penetrate.

On a seperate note, how do you respond to the argument, “well, we just can’t save them all” , “we have to have control over the health and well being of our own country”, “opening our borders will contribute to the economic instability of the United States.”

I struggle with my own position regarding the best immigration policy and these are questions I have difficulty answering, even for myself.

The report said Arturo Chavez had a half-inch wound on the right side of his head, black eyes and marks on his back, but reached no conclusion as to how the wounds were inflicted.

“There is blunt trauma,” said Stephen Pustilnik, Galveston County chief medical examiner. “Whether you would call that a beating, I don’t know. He could have hit his head on something or something could have hit him in the head.”………………

Unsure about the cause of his black eyes, jail nurses placed Chavez in a special cell for prisoners with communicable diseases that prevents air from circulating to other parts of the lockup, according to sheriff’s reports.

Reports said he complained that his eyes hurt and that he seemed to be tolerating his cell even though he felt claustrophobic.

The cell is next to the padded suicide cells that are supposed to be under constant observation and checked every 15 minutes.

The reports show Chavez was screened, and his answers gave no indication of suicidal tendencies.

A guard reported that Chavez, referred to as Batentzun in the reports, and another inmate were watching Apollo 13 on television from their cells about 6:40 p.m.

Chavez asked the guard several times for permission to make a phone call, but was denied because he already had made a call that day, the report says.

About 10:19 p.m. the inmate across the hall from Chavez’s cell reported seeing him hanging in his cell.

Chavez had tied a blanket to a shower head, pulled it across a partition and tied the other end around his neck.

Guards and nurses cut him down, administered CPR and used a defibrillator in a failed attempt to restart the heart with an electrical jolt, all to no avail, the reports say.

A log sheet shows that he was taken to the University of Texas Medical Center at Galveston, where he was pronounced dead about 11:11 p.m.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5972950.html

It’s nothing less then a miracle that a bunch of poor and untrained peasents fought off the largest organized military in the know world. All at the expense of their families which went without while their husbands/fathers fought for a great cause against insane odds.

Once again, Mando, you completely leap over and entirely miss the point I clearly made. MANY of the Colonists in Washington’s army may have been poor, but not all of them were. MANY of the Colonists in Washington’s army may have been untrained, but not all of them were. As for “peasants”, you’ll really have to explain what in the world a “peasant” was in 1770’s America.

HOWEVER — and I hope you catch this point (though I have my doubts) — the poorness of some and the militarily untrained status of some does not at all translate into a war that was a fight for survival against hunger or poverty. The Revolutionary War was the military expression of the Colonists’ fight for political self-determination.

And just to punctuate this fact, nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, which made the case for revolution, is “hunger and poverty” mentioned as something which the Colonies were suffering and which they needed to fight against. Read for yourself by clicking here.

Today, Mexico (as just one example) is a democratic country. Yet millions live in hunger and poverty. Hunger and poverty are their main oppressors. Hunger and poverty are what they battle against. The fight for sustenance and livable wages that can provide it is what defines their central war.

And if many of them who suffer would come to this country for the sake of their survival, it is our human obligation to render compassionate aid and assist them in their battle, their “legal” status being completely and utterly irrelevant.

I think that the more vocal posters here comment based on emotion instead of facts and reason. The reason I think that is because some of them have family and/or friends here illegally. I could be wrong about that but that’s what it seems to me. Is there anything wrong with that, I don’t think so but it does hinder the ability to separate emotion from facts and reason.

The responses here have all fallen into one of two categories. First, stating that immigration should be controlled based on the interests of middle and working class Americans, or that all potential immigrants (legal or illegal) do not have an automatic right to come here, is said by the regulars on this blog to be an argument used for decades to exclude some people on the basis of race or ethnicity. You claim this is “common sense” and refuse to deal with the economic impacts of immigration on middle and working class Americans.

Posters will occasionally state boilerplate arguments about immigration being needed to grow the economy, without citing any verifiable data or research. This is a straw man argument anyway. Of course, we need immigration to fill gaps in the economy. My own views on immigration are probably more similar to Elena’s to the Greg Letiecq’s. However, emigration to the U.S. is neither a right that all foreigners hold to exercise at their discretion, nor a policy matter for corporate interests, lobbyists, and their “bought” politicians to determine in the service of their own interests.

The second category of responses from antibvbl regulars to differing opinions is to resort to the old stand-by of attacking the person making the argument rather than dealing with the argument’s merits. These attacks take the form of the new McCarthyism of allegations of racism. In response to two of my posts focusing on the economic dimensions of immigration, Elena responded, “Why is it that whenever there is a new migration, centered around the increased numbers of one ethnic group, the same arguments arise? Your economic argument today is no different than the argument of a century ago,” and “This argument you are using has been used MULTIPLE times, not only in this country, but throughout the centuries in many lands. The new faces that look and sound different are the reasons for all ‘our’ troubles.” Why can’t any of the antibvbl regulars actually address the economic issues with verifiable data and research?

I tried using a historical analogy that had as its premise that cooperating with Nazi Germany was BAD. Two responses implied that I was attacking Elena because she is Jewish.

I’m not falling for this mud-slinging. You have stated that many of the arguments for restricting immigration have been around for decades. Also, the tactic of avoiding substantive debate by attacking, or casting aspersions on the motivations of, the person making the argument has been around for decades. Implying, or accusing outright, that the person holding the other opinion is racist, motivated by ethnic considerations, or even anti-Semitic, is nothing more than a tactic to take attention off the substantive issues of the debate.

Regulars on antibvbl are no more interested in open debate than you accuse the bvbl regulars of being. You want others who hold the same views as yours to participate and support each other. Post a different opinion here and replies avoid substantive discussion. They devolve into allegations and innuendo of nefarious ethnic motivations. I’ve been looking for a blog to participate in intelligent debate and discussion of issues. Antibvbl is not it. I may post again but really think that the only thing the regulars here want is people who agree with them.