• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The only people with the right to object to immigration are Native Americans?

Are the only people with the right to object to immigration are Native Americans?

  • Im a right leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    23
Not they are not.




Oh good it is the fear mongering pro-illegal lie that if do not allow illegal immigration then the price of goods will skyrocket.

Local News | Low-paid illegal work force has little impact on prices | Seattle Times Newspaper
You might assume that the plentiful supply of low-wage illegal workers would translate into significantly lower prices for the goods and services they produce. In fact, their impact on consumer prices — call it the "illegal-worker discount" — is surprisingly small.

The bag of Washington state apples you bought last weekend? Probably a few cents cheaper than it otherwise would have been, economists estimate. That steak dinner at a downtown restaurant? Maybe a buck off. Your new house in Subdivision Estates? Hard to say, but perhaps a few thousand dollars less expensive.

The underlying reason, economists say, is that for most goods the labor — whether legal or illegal, native- or foreign-born — represents only a sliver of the retail price.

Consider those apples — Washington's signature contribution to the American food basket.

At a local QFC, Red Delicious apples go for about 99 cents a pound. Of that, only about 7 cents represents the cost of labor, said Tom Schotzko, a recently retired extension economist at Washington State University. The rest represents the grower's other expenses, warehousing and shipping fees, and the retailer's markup.

And that's for one of the most labor-intensive crops in the state: It takes 150 to 190 hours of labor to grow and harvest an acre of apples, Schotzko said, compared to four hours for an acre of potatoes and 1 ½ hours for an acre of wheat.

The labor-intensive nature of many crops is a key reason agriculture continues to rely on illegal workers. A report by Jeffrey Passel, a demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center who has long studied immigration trends, estimates that 247,000 illegal immigrants were employed as "miscellaneous agricultural workers" last year — only 3.4 percent of the nation's 7.2 million illegal workers, according to Pew statistics, but 29 percent of all workers in that job category.

Before I respond in full, I'm a little surprised by your answer. Do you feel the same way about labor costs and the final retail price as they pertain to minimum wage?
 
Hopefully people realize that "Native Americans" migrated to what is now known as the USA.
 
It is truly sad when the President of the U.S. is relegated to the presentation of blatant distortions for the purpose of marketing his dereliction of duty masquerading as "prosecutorial discretion" pandering to Hispanics to help carry Florida for the Democrats in 2016.

Obamnesty has so many flaws in it that even if he does manage to squeak it past the SCOTUS or avoid Congressional defunding there isn't an intelligent illegal alien in the country who'll trust that this temporary and illegal alien identifying amnesty will survive a Republican President in 2016 (other than maybe Jeb Bush, if his rhetoric is to be believed).

But, that's the underlying beauty of this American citizen ugly betrayal: it's designed not primarily to help illegals, but to court the Hispanic vote in Florida to keep even Jeb Bush from winning in 2016.

It's actually quite brilliant ..

.. If not a disgusting injustice betrayal of every American citizen.

Obama, however, may think he's Napoleonically safe .. but he may still receive his Waterloo comeuppance, as the Prussians in the woods may be American citizen centrists, the great majority of Americans, who really aren't all that married to their party, if Regan's 1984 electoral college map is any indication. If they reach their limit with being sold down the wage scale plummeting river for the sake of Obamnesty's electoral college pandering ..

.. They may just rise up and exile the Democrats.

Are you feeling lucky, Mr. Bonaparte?
 
Hopefully people realize that "Native Americans" migrated to what is now known as the USA.

Hopefully people realize that migration of neolithic tribes has nothing at all to do with immigration.
 
The left hasn't touched the policy side (outside of executive order), and enforcement is curtailed because of politics-the politics of B. Hussein O.

FT_Removals.jpg

High rate of deportations continue under Obama despite Latino disapproval | Pew Research Center
 
Except no one's against immigration, just illegal immigrants waltzing around the country.

Also, the Native Americans are also immigrants, they just came far earlier. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the world who didn't get to their homeland via "immigration." The only difference is time frames. I suppose tribes in underdeveloped Sub-Saharan Africa would possibly be the few.

Won't bother to vote in the poll, Obama knows damn well people aren't against legal immigration. And I'm obviously leaving out random fringe groups that are of no importance to American domestic policy.
Well said sir, well said
 

Somehow, the Obama administration is simultaneously responsible for the highest rate of deportation in 20 years and a 26 percent drop in deportation. What is going on here? As it turns out, changes in immigration law, terminology and classification are causing this confusion.
Lies, damned lies, and Obama

So as so commonly seen from the Orwellian left, Obama simply changed the labels of "deportation" to include those normally blocked at the border, but never previously counted. Congrats on falling for the propaganda.
 
Before I respond in full, I'm a little surprised by your answer. Do you feel the same way about labor costs and the final retail price as they pertain to minimum wage?


Unlike most conservatives I am not on the minimum wage is horrible band wagon.
 
Except no one's against immigration, just illegal immigrants waltzing around the country.

Also, the Native Americans are also immigrants, they just came far earlier. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the world who didn't get to their homeland via "immigration." The only difference is time frames. I suppose tribes in underdeveloped Sub-Saharan Africa would possibly be the few.

Won't bother to vote in the poll, Obama knows damn well people aren't against legal immigration. And I'm obviously leaving out random fringe groups that are of no importance to American domestic policy.

Except it's damn difficult to legally immigrate, so much so that a major politician recently entered a sham marriage for that purpose.

I don't believe in national borders. This planet belongs to us all, and no individual or group has a right to restrict another's movement. Freedom to travel is and resettle is one of those "self evident" rights that explains how the natives got here, along with those non sub-saharan cultures taking off.
 
Lies, damned lies, and Obama

So as so commonly seen from the Orwellian left, Obama simply changed the labels of "deportation" to include those normally blocked at the border, but never previously counted. Congrats on falling for the propaganda.

Your source doesn't say that at all. As a matter of fact, it says the exact opposite.

Lies, damned lies, and Obama

First, the "Obama changed the labels part:

One problem is the continued use of “deportation” in virtually all media reporting. In actuality, that category has been obsolete in immigration law since 1996. Prior to 1996, immigration law distinguished between immigrants who were “excluded,” or stopped and prevented from entering U.S. territory, and those who were “deported,” or expelled from the United States after they had made their way into U.S. territory. After 1996, both exclusion and deportation were rolled into one procedure called “removal.” At that point, the term “deportation” no longer had any meaning within the official immigration statistics. Its continued use in media reports is part of the confusion.

Then "normally blocked at the border" part:

Thus, comparing the deportation statistics across different presidential administrations is dicey because it is unclear what categories of people are actually being counted and categorized. Moreover, different administrations choose to emphasize different statistics. Dara Lind notes that the Bush administration seems to have reported removals and returns together, but Obama’s administration has emphasized only its number of removals.

It seems you have trouble reading sources. This isn't the first time you royally screw up your understanding of a source. Return includes people apprehended at the border. Removal is the one which includes people in the interior. Did you actually you read your source before you posted it? I'll give you a clue, it doesn't say what you think it does.
 
Your source doesn't say that at all. As a matter of fact, it says the exact opposite.

Lies, damned lies, and Obama

First, the "Obama changed the labels part:



Then "normally blocked at the border" part:



It seems you have trouble reading sources. This isn't the first time you royally screw up your understanding of a source. Return includes people apprehended at the border. Removal is the one which includes people in the interior. Did you actually you read your source before you posted it? I'll give you a clue, it doesn't say what you think it does.

Yawn. Hatuey is here its time for bed.
 
Or Im on call and not at my home computer. With holiday pay Im over 200/hr. :2wave:

You're still an employee? Aren't you around 40? :lol: Wait... weren't you going to bed?
 
You're still an employee? Aren't you around 40? :lol: Wait... weren't you going to bed?

Yeah we are allowed to use computers as long as they are in our call rooms. By the time I wake up I will have paid for the Januaries rent or a new guitar. Im audi 5000.
 
I don't believe in national borders. This planet belongs to us all, and no individual or group has a right to restrict another's movement.

Whether you believe in them or not, they're there, your opinion doesn't matter nor is it a valid defense for a criminal act. Sorry, that's just lame.
 
Nobody is objecting to immigration in general. It is illegal immigration that is the issue. Unfortunately the poll did not clarify that.
 
Back
Top Bottom