Sanctuary Cities. Immigrants. Our Cities Still Need Them To Keep Thriving.

[Humorme]

I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.

>>I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.<<

My OP isn't about race so much as immigration or in today's world illegal immigration. My personal beliefs are that there should be a clear established line. I rather have legal immigration, but the liberals allowed illegal immigration and we're stuck with it. It doesn't make sense to deport all the illegals and maybe some can get legal status. Thus, we have the sanctuary cities and their policies. If you want to make it about race, in this case, whites, then it's about smart whites vs not so smart whites who run these cities. It's not just whites who run these cities, but I'm just making it simple.

Maybe having a white American cut your grass is a sign of quality in your city. However, I don't think it will last.

Basically what I'm saying is the sanctuary cities will thrive more and your city won't be thriving as much. People die daily. You can't just get 100,000K increase in population in a few years through birth.

I find that people making these arguments about legal v illegal immigration to be selling a pig in a poke.

Let me see if I understand you:

You are "for" legal (sic) immigration. According to the anti-immigration activists "legal immigration" is code for citizenship. So you have no problem with immigrants provided they went through some legal process aimed at requiring people to become citizens.

Now, let us forget the fact that this year alone at least 780,000 people will take the oath and become citizens. Radical Muslims, communists, atheists, murderers, social outcasts and all manner of people you would find to be objectionable under most circumstances are welcome... they did it "legally" as you are so fond of calling it.

These 780,000 people (this year alone) can now be a part of the body politic, having the privilege of voting and then drawing out of Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AND voting in their version of what they think America ought to be.

Meanwhile, you get your boxers in a bunch because low wage people come here and work jobs that Americans obviously don't want... don't try to "school" me until you've spent a couple of weeks here with me. Here the whites and the "legal" Americans don't apply for the jobs; they don't want the jobs; they won't work them when they get them. ANYBODY who thinks differently is welcome to spend a couple of weeks with me and I will shatter your presupposition all to Hell.

But, I will not give up trying to get the substance of your argument.

>>You are "for" legal (sic) immigration. According to the anti-immigration activists "legal immigration" is code for citizenship. So you have no problem with immigrants provided they went through some legal process aimed at requiring people to become citizens.<<

Somebody will take these people. The USA has always been a nation of immigrants and this is why the US has been thriving and became #1 in the world if you ask me. Other countries are generally homogeneous. Of course, legal immigration leads to citizenship. That is the idea. I'm not sure you get this.

>>Now, let us forget the fact that this year alone at least 780,000 people will take the oath and become citizens. Radical Muslims, communists, atheists, murderers, social outcasts and all manner of people you would find to be objectionable under most circumstances are welcome... they did it "legally" as you are so fond of calling it.<<

This is utter BS. It isn't about Saddam releasing all the prisoners and sending them to his neighboring countries. The terrorists, criminals and commies are few and far between. Most are working poor. Legal or not, these people help fill the bottom level of our economy. As for the baddies, we hire police and use new technology to monitor and arrest them.

>>Meanwhile, you get your boxers in a bunch because low wage people come here and work jobs that Americans obviously don't want... don't try to "school" me until you've spent a couple of weeks here with me. Here the whites and the "legal" Americans don't apply for the jobs; they don't want the jobs; they won't work them when they get them. ANYBODY who thinks differently is welcome to spend a couple of weeks with me and I will shatter your presupposition all to Hell.<<

I want people here who will take jobs Americans don't want. Prolly any job that makes their skin darker or ruins their mani-pedis are jobs they don't want. The other guy said if you pay them enough, then Americans will take the jobs, but this isn't true. Besides, what businessperson in their right minds wants to pay $15 or more minimum wage for people to do these unskilled jobs?

>>But, I will not give up trying to get the substance of your argument.<<

My argument is about my city thriving and having a sanctuary city in today's environment guarantees that my city will thrive. You can be a redneck and disallow immigrants, but your city will end up stagnating as its population will go down. People die daily. It doesn't matter if you build out suburbs in these metro centers when its population goes down. The whole area's economy will suffer. People will move to where there are jobs and when the population of a city goes up, then that's where the big companies will want to take advantage of. Companies who build out in towns and cities that aren't growing and thriving will go downhill.

Dude, for real. You need to learn how to quote people so that the rest of us can tell when one poster's comments begin and end and where yours starts and ends.

Having done extensive work in immigration law, I can tell you, for a fact, that most people who come here and either enter or remain after their visa expires do not want to become citizens. So, you obviously do not get it.

Between 1986 and 2001 America offered SEVEN amnesties for those without papers. Fewer than half applied! That should tell you something. Not everybody who comes here wants to become a citizen NOR do they need to become a citizen.

The very first Naturalization Act in the United States was in 1790. It limited citizenship to whites. Still people came here by the millions to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered.

And while you're stomping your feet yelling bullshit, the fact is more violent crimes in the past decade have been committed by "legal" immigrants and their immediate offspring than by American citizens and undocumented immigrants combined!!!

America has an immigration problem, but it cannot be resolved with the build the wall, deport 'em all mantra. I'm against mass deportations, the nutty wall idea, and it's inevitable outcome - the ultimate POLICE STATE.

>>Dude, for real. You need to learn how to quote people so that the rest of us can tell when one poster's comments begin and end and where yours starts and ends.<<

Your quote is in between my arrows.

>>Having done extensive work in immigration law, I can tell you, for a fact, that most people who come here and either enter or remain after their visa expires do not want to become citizens. So, you obviously do not get it.<<

Some will not want to become citizens, but our history shows different. Most of the poor have become citizens.

>>Between 1986 and 2001 America offered SEVEN amnesties for those without papers. Fewer than half applied! That should tell you something. Not everybody who comes here wants to become a citizen NOR do they need to become a citizen.

The very first Naturalization Act in the United States was in 1790. It limited citizenship to whites. Still people came here by the millions to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered.<<

What it tells me is the today's illegals don't trust the system. Otherwise, why do we need sanctuary cities?

>>And while you're stomping your feet yelling bullshit, the fact is more violent crimes in the past decade have been committed by "legal" immigrants and their immediate offspring than by American citizens and undocumented immigrants combined!!!

America has an immigration problem, but it cannot be resolved with the build the wall, deport 'em all mantra. I'm against mass deportations, the nutty wall idea, and it's inevitable outcome - the ultimate POLICE STATE.<<

I think you're referring to illegals who were criminals. They should be fingerprinted, have high-res photos taken of them and deported. If they come back into the country, then we'll be able to track and arrest them for deportation.

I'm against the wall. That seems un-American and it's more suitable if we are a country at war with our neighbors and under attack. The wall has become a symbol for being against illegal immigration that Obumba and the Democrats allowed.

You're new at this. This is really going to hurt.

As much as I find Barack Obama to be an objectionable human being, the right should embrace him. He did not create the immigration debacle. As president, he deported more undocumented foreigners than any previous president.

The hard core, no-nonsense, bottom line reality is that our Constitution does not give the federal government any jurisdiction over immigration. The federal government only has one job with respect to foreigners. It's listed in Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Here is the sum total of the federal government's lawful / de jure / constitutional jurisdiction:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

That's it. The word immigration isn't even IN the Constitution. Furthermore, in the Tenth Amendment, you find this:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So, how did we get to this point of the federal government controlling immigration?

In 1876 the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" over immigration to Congress in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman. Here's the problem: Under our Constitution the United States Supreme Court has NO authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY power. The United States Supreme Court literally legislated from the bench in attacking a state's right.

Ironically, the High Court chastised the California Commissioner of Immigration and the Sheriff of San Francisco for not presenting a defense in the Chy Lung case. So, what I'm telling you is that the issue of legal v. illegal aliens is constitutionally bogus. States are constitutionally free to invite whomever they want into the United States. It's just that the federal government realizes the absolute clusterphuck they've created and they're almost powerless to do anything that affects the bottom line without turning America into a complete and total dictatorship.

 

[Humorme]

No sir. They were not "pushed" out of the market (you're back to blaming the foreigners.)

The anti-immigrant lobby with their atmosphere of the pee test, blood test, hair sample, MVR check, credit check, criminal background check, driver’s license, National ID Card / E Verify, Socialist Surveillance Number – ooop. “Social Security Number,” birth certificate, occupation license, credit card, firearms license, proof of insurance, DNA sample, fingerprints, and access to your social media accounts forced Americans into a second class citizenship.

Between that and the government / medical community getting the population strung out on legal drugs, most people cannot pass the background checks. A youthful indiscretion keeps many people from being able to function in a normal society and Socialist Security, welfare, unemployment, etc. are enough to keep a sizable number of people addicted to the government dole.

780,000 foreigners will become legal citizens (sic) this year and they will get jobs that Americans could get except for the fact that most foreigners won't have a record... Why? Because not every offense in other countries is a crime. And, even if it were, you cannot depend on foreign governments to always tell you the truth. IF you could depend on them, you would not have gotten the Tsarnev brothers nor that Muslim couple that went on a mass shooting spree in San Bernadino, California.

The insanity started by the anti-immigrant, deport 'em all, build the wall fanaticism is the real culprit. There is a problem; the current "solutions" (if you can call regression) is no solution at all.

Plenty of jobs that don't require drug testing or background checks.


Couple of years ago, when I was making more money, we had a series of cleaning ladies come in, weekly.


We paid 30 bucks an hour, and they were all Americans.


You go to a city that has been flooded by immigrants, legal and.or illegal, and those Americans would be undercut by Third World Labor.

I don't know what land you live in, but where I'm at even day laborers are drug tested and background checked. Again, rather than to have this back and forth B.S. you should spend a couple of weeks with me and I can put a rest to what you're slinging on this site.

There are NOT plenty of jobs where one can skirt background checks. Everybody from temporary agencies to fast food places and from construction sites to Walmart all do it in Georgia.

Then maybe you need to retreat from the immigration wave to where employers are less able to be complete dicks.


I have a State Job, was not drug tested and was told that felony convictions would only be a problem is I lied about it and they found out later.


AND here we see the difference that a pool of Third World labor makes.


Still loving those outsiders?

First off, the "third worlders" didn't have a damn thing to do with it. YOUR SIDE DID IT. It was a Tea Party anti immigrant Republican, Rep. James Sensenbrenner that introduced the so called "Patriot Act" and the National ID / REAL ID Act which led to SSN based ID and E-Verify. "Third Worlders" didn't have squat to do with it.

In doing so, the anti-immigrant lobby propped up the 16th Amendment and the income tax at a time when it is was on its way out the door. Now, let me decipher all of this for you so that you don't get lost.

HAD the constitutionalists prevailed on repealing the income tax, the federal government would not have access to money your side claims the federal gives to so - called "illegal" aliens. So, IF government benefits were a factor in foreigners coming here, that would have been off the table. Additionally, if people who think like you were not involved and we did not have quotas and so forth, the employer could hire whomever in the Hell they wanted.

What that means is that if some employers wanted to hire an all white work force, you'd be in luck. But, that's not what the issue is about. Foreigners cannot "steal" jobs that the public never owned in the first place. The underlying issue is about making America into the greatest POLICE STATE in human history and using the weakest people as scapegoats to get the job done.

BTW, there are 159 counties in Georgia. Every city, every county and the state government require the whole background check thing... so those jobs are pretty much dominated by people from foreign countries. Thanks to you.

The Income Tax was never on the "way out". NO matter how strong you think the arguments being made against it were.


That was not going to happen.


Foreigners can certainly take Americans jobs that I feel should primarily go to AMERICANS.


It might be a little dramatic to refer to that as "stealing", but it reflects the depth of my feelings on it and I think you understand my meaning quite clearly.

YOu are NOT under the impression that I wanted to charge these immigrants with "theft" in a court of law were you?



ANd the immigrants are responsible.


The bigger the oversupply of labor, the more power the employers have vs the employees.


You don't even have to move. Just look at some online jobs postings up in the Rust Belt. See how widespread drug testing is.

As a matter of fact, the income tax was on its way out. It was taking hit after hit in the courts. My own U.S. Congressman, reading the writing on the wall (and responding to the many times we appealed to him) introduced the Fair Tax. While I'm no advocate for the Fair Tax, I think it would have been a starting point for total tax reform had the anti - immigrant lobby not wanted to save it so that we could all use the SSN as our National ID number.

Employers own the jobs they create. Since we are not a socialist nation yet, employers own their jobs and under the Constitution are not required to guarantee any American a job.

Whether you charge immigrants with the theft of a job or make a pretentious argument that they are somehow doing something criminal by availing themselves of an opportunity willingly offered, the discussion is the same. One of the hallmarks of our constitutional Republic is the ability to own property. To the landowner, it means real estate and to the songwriter, it is the intellectual rights to songs, poems, etc. To the employer, the jobs are their property.

Finally, your opinions have no basis in fact. In 1987 we saw unemployment at a high of 7 percent with almost 10 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. By the year 2000 it was as low as 3.8 percent. We did that with open borders, SEVEN AMNESTIES, and no crackdown on immigration.

In 1953 Congress hatched the Operation Wetback plan and by 1954 they were busy deporting every Hispanic they could find. In 1954 the unemployment rate was 4.9 percent. By 1958 it had gone up to 7.5 percent. There is NO correlation between unemployment and immigration. You have to begin understanding the economics of your own country.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You're new at this. This is really going to hurt.

As much as I find Barack Obama to be an objectionable human being, the right should embrace him. He did not create the immigration debacle. As president, he deported more undocumented foreigners than any previous president.

Obama admits his number were skewed since most of his "deportation numbers" came from deporting what was once a simple return at the border.
High deportation figures are misleading

The hard core, no-nonsense, bottom line reality is that our Constitution does not give the federal government any jurisdiction over immigration. The federal government only has one job with respect to foreigners. It's listed in Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Here is the sum total of the federal government's lawful / de jure / constitutional jurisdiction:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

That's it. The word immigration isn't even IN the Constitution. Furthermore, in the Tenth Amendment, you find this:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So, how did we get to this point of the federal government controlling immigration?

In 1876 the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" over immigration to Congress in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman. Here's the problem: Under our Constitution the United States Supreme Court has NO authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY power. The United States Supreme Court literally legislated from the bench in attacking a state's right.

Ironically, the High Court chastised the California Commissioner of Immigration and the Sheriff of San Francisco for not presenting a defense in the Chy Lung case. So, what I'm telling you is that the issue of legal v. illegal aliens is constitutionally bogus. States are constitutionally free to invite whomever they want into the United States. It's just that the federal government realizes the absolute clusterphuck they've created and they're almost powerless to do anything that affects the bottom line without turning America into a complete and total dictatorship.

Congress already had Plenary Power, SCCOTUS simply recognized it as Congress having control over immigration, the power to make law regarding immigration goes back to the inception of this country and long before. It is an inherent right of a sovereign nation to control who enters its borders (The Exchange 1812). States are not constitutionally free to invite anybody from outside the US to enter the US without first having them obtain a visa. The rest of your opinion (strict constructionism - Libertarian Socialism) is ignorance based off ignorance of actual law and history.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

As a matter of fact, the income tax was on its way out. It was taking hit after hit in the courts. My own U.S. Congressman, reading the writing on the wall (and responding to the many times we appealed to him) introduced the Fair Tax. While I'm no advocate for the Fair Tax, I think it would have been a starting point for total tax reform had the anti - immigrant lobby not wanted to save it so that we could all use the SSN as our National ID number.

Income tax hasn't been on its way out since its inception. The Tax Protest Movement lost every case regarding it's claims to the "illegal" income tax, and each of their own individual cases for not filing. The Fair Tax would have done nothing but change the tax structure, it would not have repealed the 16th nor would it have changed your tax requirements. The Fair Tax bill has never made it out of committee. The anti-immigrant lobby seems to be your boogey man.

Employers own the jobs they create. Since we are not a socialist nation yet, employers own their jobs and under the Constitution are not required to guarantee any American a job.

And those employers live in a society with rules and regulations for their protection and the employees protection, thus they are limited to hiring from a pool of eligible workers.

Whether you charge immigrants with the theft of a job or make a pretentious argument that they are somehow doing something criminal by availing themselves of an opportunity willingly offered, the discussion is the same. One of the hallmarks of our constitutional Republic is the ability to own property. To the landowner, it means real estate and to the songwriter, it is the intellectual rights to songs, poems, etc. To the employer, the jobs are their property.

Finally, your opinions have no basis in fact. In 1987 we saw unemployment at a high of 7 percent with almost 10 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. By the year 2000 it was as low as 3.8 percent. We did that with open borders, SEVEN AMNESTIES, and no crackdown on immigration.

In 1953 Congress hatched the Operation Wetback plan and by 1954 they were busy deporting every Hispanic they could find. In 1954 the unemployment rate was 4.9 percent. By 1958 it had gone up to 7.5 percent. There is NO correlation between unemployment and immigration. You have to begin understanding the economics of your own country.

That's right, there is NO correlation between immigration and unemployment, so maybe then you can answer as to why you so desperately attempt to show that there is. Maybe you can also show where you got your unemployment numbers since in 1954 the unemployment rate was 5.5% and in 1958 it was just 6.8%
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Meathead]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. We all know about the extremists whose only mission is wreak terror among our population (Just look at London and its mayor Sadiq Khan who is prolly a terrorist himself). These are the immigrants we don't want.

The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take. They pile into rental units where others won't rent in order to make things work for themselves. They make money and they spend money. They bring in new types of foods and services. They add to a city's dying population and the cities end up thriving.

Today, we have over 80 sanctuary cities in the US. Most are liberal urban centers. Where I live, it isn't a sanctuary city. The city is modernizing, but its restaurants, businesses, stores and such aren't full. A few places still attract a crowd. Yet, the city isn't thriving even though it's a lead city in a large metropolitan area. An example a big city not thriving would be St. Louis, MO. It has the population and the metropolitan area, but once the workday is over, people go home to their suburban homes.

"More than 80 cities in the United States,[69] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[70] "

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

Sorry, Just ignorant. Black youth in inner cities have about a 25% unemployment rate. Immigrants is simply a way of functioning when a huge demographic lies idle, preferring to live off the state with "easy" money through drug dealing, or of course both. whoring and pimping. The primary problem is we sanction this.

 

[koshergrl]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. ......
The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take.

More leftard lies and horse shit.

1) Stop conflating illegal immigration with normal immigration.

2) There are no jobs Americans wont do if the pay is sufficient, dude.

I'm not a libtard, but an independent and business person who knows and understands the history of the US. Have you ever been to these sanctuary cities? I have a project in one now. They're thriving even in this economy. Compare them to the non-sanctuary ones.

I don't want a forced $15 minimum wage. Business owners don't want to pay real money to people to do these jobs.

The pop will die off in these non-sanctuary cities. Where are the new people going to come from?

You're a liar.

And who cares if the cities die off anyway? They're just rat holes now. The crime rate in Portland is ecalating faster than people can track it since our criminal governor and their criminal mayor declared Portland a *sanctuary city*.

 

[charwin95]

I'm not a libtard, but an independent and business person who knows and understands the history of the US. Have you ever been to these sanctuary cities? I have a project in one now. They're thriving even in this economy. Compare them to the non-sanctuary ones.

I don't want a forced $15 minimum wage. Business owners don't want to pay real money to people to do these jobs.

The pop will die off in these non-sanctuary cities. Where are the new people going to come from?

Of course the economy is going to where the services are much cheaper given the use of black market illegal labor, dude.

For a businessman you seem to not have much of a macro economic over view of economics.

People who use black market labor are killing the consumer market by destroying normal wage scales set to allow people to retire in the USA economy and have a decent living.

Ludicrous. You make it sound that these are general practices. I do not have illegal or DACA employees. In the corporate world its impossible to hire illegals.
Kids now are very different compared from kids born in the 70s or 80s. They are very spoiled. You don't even see them cutting grass or cleaning cars etc etc etc. probably playing videos, roller skate or getting tattoos.

As I posted several times. We received 2 to 4 of these containers a week. During summer temperature inside is about 125°F. To help out we hire temp employees. Most or all of white Americans will just walk out average of 40 minutes. The only one that stick around are immigrants from Mexico or Asians.
I pay my gardener $135/month for cutting grass and blowing leaves approximately 40 minutes each job and average of $45. Once in a while a white dude gardener will stop by give us quote. Last one was $275. I told him are you crazy?
So don't blame employers for all these dilemmas. Look in the mirror who is responsible for all these.

 

[charwin95]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. We all know about the extremists whose only mission is wreak terror among our population (Just look at London and its mayor Sadiq Khan who is prolly a terrorist himself). These are the immigrants we don't want.

The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take. They pile into rental units where others won't rent in order to make things work for themselves. They make money and they spend money. They bring in new types of foods and services. They add to a city's dying population and the cities end up thriving.

Today, we have over 80 sanctuary cities in the US. Most are liberal urban centers. Where I live, it isn't a sanctuary city. The city is modernizing, but its restaurants, businesses, stores and such aren't full. A few places still attract a crowd. Yet, the city isn't thriving even though it's a lead city in a large metropolitan area. An example a big city not thriving would be St. Louis, MO. It has the population and the metropolitan area, but once the workday is over, people go home to their suburban homes.

"More than 80 cities in the United States,[69] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[70] "

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.

You hate all minorities anyway. So what is your point.

 

[charwin95]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. We all know about the extremists whose only mission is wreak terror among our population (Just look at London and its mayor Sadiq Khan who is prolly a terrorist himself). These are the immigrants we don't want.

The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take. They pile into rental units where others won't rent in order to make things work for themselves. They make money and they spend money. They bring in new types of foods and services. They add to a city's dying population and the cities end up thriving.

Today, we have over 80 sanctuary cities in the US. Most are liberal urban centers. Where I live, it isn't a sanctuary city. The city is modernizing, but its restaurants, businesses, stores and such aren't full. A few places still attract a crowd. Yet, the city isn't thriving even though it's a lead city in a large metropolitan area. An example a big city not thriving would be St. Louis, MO. It has the population and the metropolitan area, but once the workday is over, people go home to their suburban homes.

"More than 80 cities in the United States,[69] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[70] "

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.

>>I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.<<

My OP isn't about race so much as immigration or in today's world illegal immigration. My personal beliefs are that there should be a clear established line. I rather have legal immigration, but the liberals allowed illegal immigration and we're stuck with it. It doesn't make sense to deport all the illegals and maybe some can get legal status. Thus, we have the sanctuary cities and their policies. If you want to make it about race, in this case, whites, then it's about smart whites vs not so smart whites who run these cities. It's not just whites who run these cities, but I'm just making it simple.

Maybe having a white American cut your grass is a sign of quality in your city. However, I don't think it will last.

Basically what I'm saying is the sanctuary cities will thrive more and your city won't be thriving as much. People die daily. You can't just get 100,000K increase in population in a few years through birth.

I find that people making these arguments about legal v illegal immigration to be selling a pig in a poke.

Let me see if I understand you:

You are "for" legal (sic) immigration. According to the anti-immigration activists "legal immigration" is code for citizenship. So you have no problem with immigrants provided they went through some legal process aimed at requiring people to become citizens.

Now, let us forget the fact that this year alone at least 780,000 people will take the oath and become citizens. Radical Muslims, communists, atheists, murderers, social outcasts and all manner of people you would find to be objectionable under most circumstances are welcome... they did it "legally" as you are so fond of calling it.

These 780,000 people (this year alone) can now be a part of the body politic, having the privilege of voting and then drawing out of Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AND voting in their version of what they think America ought to be.

Meanwhile, you get your boxers in a bunch because low wage people come here and work jobs that Americans obviously don't want... don't try to "school" me until you've spent a couple of weeks here with me. Here the whites and the "legal" Americans don't apply for the jobs; they don't want the jobs; they won't work them when they get them. ANYBODY who thinks differently is welcome to spend a couple of weeks with me and I will shatter your presupposition all to Hell.

But, I will not give up trying to get the substance of your argument.

Nonsense. It doesn't work that way. Are you saying that 780,000 this year alone will become irresponsible citizens?
Give us a proof that 780,000 will commit those kind of crimes you mentioned. Most or all of these people comes here for better life for their families and only chance they have in their lifetime. Not to make themselves miserable.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Ludicrous. You make it sound that these are general practices. I do not have illegal or DACA employees. In the corporate world its impossible to hire illegals.
Kids now are very different compared from kids born in the 70s or 80s. They are very spoiled. You don't even see them cutting grass or cleaning cars etc etc etc. probably playing videos, roller skate or getting tattoos.

As I posted several times. We received 2 to 4 of these containers a week. During summer temperature inside is about 125°F. To help out we hire temp employees. Most or all of white Americans will just walk out average of 40 minutes. The only one that stick around are immigrants from Mexico or Asians.
I pay my gardener $135/month for cutting grass and blowing leaves approximately 40 minutes each job and average of $45. Once in a while a white dude gardener will stop by give us quote. Last one was $275. I told him are you crazy?
So don't blame employers for all these dilemmas. Look in the mirror who is responsible for all these.

Then how do you suppose Agriprocessors, Inc. hired illegals? How about Tyson Foods? What makes you believe it's impossible to hire illegals in the corporate world? As an owner or HR officer, you are only able to check the documents given to you and forward the info to the labor department via the I-9 form, it takes months to here back regarding a "no match" letter. In the meantime the person has been working, only to find out later they legally can't.

Looks like even white kids don't mind mowing lawns. Grassroots appeal: Kid mows White House lawn, gets presidential visit

As to your gardener it looks more like you just want the cheapest price, not the actual correct maintenance of your yard, which consists of more then just mow, blow, and go.

There is no need to look in the mirror, as the ones responsible are the ones looking for the cheapest price and who are also lowly informed beyond their own chosen profession.

 

[charwin95]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. We all know about the extremists whose only mission is wreak terror among our population (Just look at London and its mayor Sadiq Khan who is prolly a terrorist himself). These are the immigrants we don't want.

The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take. They pile into rental units where others won't rent in order to make things work for themselves. They make money and they spend money. They bring in new types of foods and services. They add to a city's dying population and the cities end up thriving.

Today, we have over 80 sanctuary cities in the US. Most are liberal urban centers. Where I live, it isn't a sanctuary city. The city is modernizing, but its restaurants, businesses, stores and such aren't full. A few places still attract a crowd. Yet, the city isn't thriving even though it's a lead city in a large metropolitan area. An example a big city not thriving would be St. Louis, MO. It has the population and the metropolitan area, but once the workday is over, people go home to their suburban homes.

"More than 80 cities in the United States,[69] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[70] "

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.

>>I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.<<

My OP isn't about race so much as immigration or in today's world illegal immigration. My personal beliefs are that there should be a clear established line. I rather have legal immigration, but the liberals allowed illegal immigration and we're stuck with it. It doesn't make sense to deport all the illegals and maybe some can get legal status. Thus, we have the sanctuary cities and their policies. If you want to make it about race, in this case, whites, then it's about smart whites vs not so smart whites who run these cities. It's not just whites who run these cities, but I'm just making it simple.

Maybe having a white American cut your grass is a sign of quality in your city. However, I don't think it will last.

Basically what I'm saying is the sanctuary cities will thrive more and your city won't be thriving as much. People die daily. You can't just get 100,000K increase in population in a few years through birth.

I find that people making these arguments about legal v illegal immigration to be selling a pig in a poke.

Let me see if I understand you:

You are "for" legal (sic) immigration. According to the anti-immigration activists "legal immigration" is code for citizenship. So you have no problem with immigrants provided they went through some legal process aimed at requiring people to become citizens.

Now, let us forget the fact that this year alone at least 780,000 people will take the oath and become citizens. Radical Muslims, communists, atheists, murderers, social outcasts and all manner of people you would find to be objectionable under most circumstances are welcome... they did it "legally" as you are so fond of calling it.

These 780,000 people (this year alone) can now be a part of the body politic, having the privilege of voting and then drawing out of Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AND voting in their version of what they think America ought to be.

Meanwhile, you get your boxers in a bunch because low wage people come here and work jobs that Americans obviously don't want... don't try to "school" me until you've spent a couple of weeks here with me. Here the whites and the "legal" Americans don't apply for the jobs; they don't want the jobs; they won't work them when they get them. ANYBODY who thinks differently is welcome to spend a couple of weeks with me and I will shatter your presupposition all to Hell.

But, I will not give up trying to get the substance of your argument.

Americans do those jobs already. It is only in high immigration areas that they get pushed out of that job market by being undercut.

Incorrect Correll.
There are jobs available now. But where are they? The best excuses ------ is and was they are not getting pay high enough to entice white Americans.
So I ask this question many many times but not a single one of you can answer this simple question. Let me ask this AGAIN.
If you have to work in the agricultural jobs, janitors, waiters, buss boy -------- How much do you think is the fair labor wages? ANYONE?

Illegals are now getting paid close to $18/per hour.
There is shortage of construction workers, house cleaning, agricultural workers etc etc etc. But where are my fellow Americans?

Did you ever ask Trump why he hired and still hiring foreign workers?

 

[Darkwind]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. We all know about the extremists whose only mission is wreak terror among our population (Just look at London and its mayor Sadiq Khan who is prolly a terrorist himself). These are the immigrants we don't want.

The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take. They pile into rental units where others won't rent in order to make things work for themselves. They make money and they spend money. They bring in new types of foods and services. They add to a city's dying population and the cities end up thriving.

Today, we have over 80 sanctuary cities in the US. Most are liberal urban centers. Where I live, it isn't a sanctuary city. The city is modernizing, but its restaurants, businesses, stores and such aren't full. A few places still attract a crowd. Yet, the city isn't thriving even though it's a lead city in a large metropolitan area. An example a big city not thriving would be St. Louis, MO. It has the population and the metropolitan area, but once the workday is over, people go home to their suburban homes.

"More than 80 cities in the United States,[69] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[70] "

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

If your city cannot thrive without immigrants, you're doing it wrong.

Illegals bring no value to any city.

Immigrants should be an enhancement to your way of life and what your city is doing, not the be all, end all of your city.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. We all know about the extremists whose only mission is wreak terror among our population (Just look at London and its mayor Sadiq Khan who is prolly a terrorist himself). These are the immigrants we don't want.

The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take. They pile into rental units where others won't rent in order to make things work for themselves. They make money and they spend money. They bring in new types of foods and services. They add to a city's dying population and the cities end up thriving.

Today, we have over 80 sanctuary cities in the US. Most are liberal urban centers. Where I live, it isn't a sanctuary city. The city is modernizing, but its restaurants, businesses, stores and such aren't full. A few places still attract a crowd. Yet, the city isn't thriving even though it's a lead city in a large metropolitan area. An example a big city not thriving would be St. Louis, MO. It has the population and the metropolitan area, but once the workday is over, people go home to their suburban homes.

"More than 80 cities in the United States,[69] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[70] "

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.

>>I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.<<

My OP isn't about race so much as immigration or in today's world illegal immigration. My personal beliefs are that there should be a clear established line. I rather have legal immigration, but the liberals allowed illegal immigration and we're stuck with it. It doesn't make sense to deport all the illegals and maybe some can get legal status. Thus, we have the sanctuary cities and their policies. If you want to make it about race, in this case, whites, then it's about smart whites vs not so smart whites who run these cities. It's not just whites who run these cities, but I'm just making it simple.

Maybe having a white American cut your grass is a sign of quality in your city. However, I don't think it will last.

Basically what I'm saying is the sanctuary cities will thrive more and your city won't be thriving as much. People die daily. You can't just get 100,000K increase in population in a few years through birth.

I find that people making these arguments about legal v illegal immigration to be selling a pig in a poke.

Let me see if I understand you:

You are "for" legal (sic) immigration. According to the anti-immigration activists "legal immigration" is code for citizenship. So you have no problem with immigrants provided they went through some legal process aimed at requiring people to become citizens.

Now, let us forget the fact that this year alone at least 780,000 people will take the oath and become citizens. Radical Muslims, communists, atheists, murderers, social outcasts and all manner of people you would find to be objectionable under most circumstances are welcome... they did it "legally" as you are so fond of calling it.

These 780,000 people (this year alone) can now be a part of the body politic, having the privilege of voting and then drawing out of Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AND voting in their version of what they think America ought to be.

Meanwhile, you get your boxers in a bunch because low wage people come here and work jobs that Americans obviously don't want... don't try to "school" me until you've spent a couple of weeks here with me. Here the whites and the "legal" Americans don't apply for the jobs; they don't want the jobs; they won't work them when they get them. ANYBODY who thinks differently is welcome to spend a couple of weeks with me and I will shatter your presupposition all to Hell.

But, I will not give up trying to get the substance of your argument.

Americans do those jobs already. It is only in high immigration areas that they get pushed out of that job market by being undercut.

Incorrect Correll.
There are jobs available now. But where are they? The best excuses ------ is and was they are not getting pay high enough to entice white Americans.
So I ask this question many many times but not a single one of you can answer this simple question. Let me ask this AGAIN.
If you have to work in the agricultural jobs, janitors, waiters, buss boy -------- How much do you think is the fair labor wages? ANYONE?

Illegals are now getting paid close to $18/per hour.
There is shortage of construction workers, house cleaning, agricultural workers etc etc etc. But where are my fellow Americans?

Did you ever ask Trump why he hired and still hiring foreign workers?

Can you explain why there is not a single industry in the US that has a 50%> work force of illegals or immigrants? Every industry has a 50% + of citizens/legal workers. AG has a special visa just for them with no annual cap, why is it not being used to bring in the labor shortage for crops?

Illegals aren't being paid close to $18 per hour, not even as an average. In some instances they can earn that or even a little more picking crops, but it is by no means a barometer of what they make overall.

 

[charwin95]

I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.

>>I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.<<

My OP isn't about race so much as immigration or in today's world illegal immigration. My personal beliefs are that there should be a clear established line. I rather have legal immigration, but the liberals allowed illegal immigration and we're stuck with it. It doesn't make sense to deport all the illegals and maybe some can get legal status. Thus, we have the sanctuary cities and their policies. If you want to make it about race, in this case, whites, then it's about smart whites vs not so smart whites who run these cities. It's not just whites who run these cities, but I'm just making it simple.

Maybe having a white American cut your grass is a sign of quality in your city. However, I don't think it will last.

Basically what I'm saying is the sanctuary cities will thrive more and your city won't be thriving as much. People die daily. You can't just get 100,000K increase in population in a few years through birth.

I find that people making these arguments about legal v illegal immigration to be selling a pig in a poke.

Let me see if I understand you:

You are "for" legal (sic) immigration. According to the anti-immigration activists "legal immigration" is code for citizenship. So you have no problem with immigrants provided they went through some legal process aimed at requiring people to become citizens.

Now, let us forget the fact that this year alone at least 780,000 people will take the oath and become citizens. Radical Muslims, communists, atheists, murderers, social outcasts and all manner of people you would find to be objectionable under most circumstances are welcome... they did it "legally" as you are so fond of calling it.

These 780,000 people (this year alone) can now be a part of the body politic, having the privilege of voting and then drawing out of Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AND voting in their version of what they think America ought to be.

Meanwhile, you get your boxers in a bunch because low wage people come here and work jobs that Americans obviously don't want... don't try to "school" me until you've spent a couple of weeks here with me. Here the whites and the "legal" Americans don't apply for the jobs; they don't want the jobs; they won't work them when they get them. ANYBODY who thinks differently is welcome to spend a couple of weeks with me and I will shatter your presupposition all to Hell.

But, I will not give up trying to get the substance of your argument.

Americans do those jobs already. It is only in high immigration areas that they get pushed out of that job market by being undercut.

They do NOT apply for them here. Rather than B.S. the posters, take a little of your time to come here, see for yourself and try to prove me wrong. It will beat the Hell out of you misleading people with something I can easily disprove.

We advertise on Craigslist, with the Dept. of Labor, in churches, in local papers, even with flyers. Where you live may be a different demographic and maybe you live in Heaven where every white dude don't think he's a contractor just because he's got a ten year old truck and some cheap business cards.

I live in a rust belt city.

I've worked many of those jobs, that you say, Americans won't do.


I've worked along side of Americans, white and black and other.


If Americans aren't applying for those jobs where you are, it's because they have been pushed out of the market.

Maybe you are an old timer that used to work very hard. Those kinds are dying breed. I've witnessed the changes with my own eyes.

Millennials are very different. Following them are no better either.

Millennials on Millennials: A Look at Viewing Behavior, Distraction and Social Media Stars

Millennials in many countries are more open than their elders on questions of national identity

 

[Humorme]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. We all know about the extremists whose only mission is wreak terror among our population (Just look at London and its mayor Sadiq Khan who is prolly a terrorist himself). These are the immigrants we don't want.

The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take. They pile into rental units where others won't rent in order to make things work for themselves. They make money and they spend money. They bring in new types of foods and services. They add to a city's dying population and the cities end up thriving.

Today, we have over 80 sanctuary cities in the US. Most are liberal urban centers. Where I live, it isn't a sanctuary city. The city is modernizing, but its restaurants, businesses, stores and such aren't full. A few places still attract a crowd. Yet, the city isn't thriving even though it's a lead city in a large metropolitan area. An example a big city not thriving would be St. Louis, MO. It has the population and the metropolitan area, but once the workday is over, people go home to their suburban homes.

"More than 80 cities in the United States,[69] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[70] "

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.

>>I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.<<

My OP isn't about race so much as immigration or in today's world illegal immigration. My personal beliefs are that there should be a clear established line. I rather have legal immigration, but the liberals allowed illegal immigration and we're stuck with it. It doesn't make sense to deport all the illegals and maybe some can get legal status. Thus, we have the sanctuary cities and their policies. If you want to make it about race, in this case, whites, then it's about smart whites vs not so smart whites who run these cities. It's not just whites who run these cities, but I'm just making it simple.

Maybe having a white American cut your grass is a sign of quality in your city. However, I don't think it will last.

Basically what I'm saying is the sanctuary cities will thrive more and your city won't be thriving as much. People die daily. You can't just get 100,000K increase in population in a few years through birth.

I find that people making these arguments about legal v illegal immigration to be selling a pig in a poke.

Let me see if I understand you:

You are "for" legal (sic) immigration. According to the anti-immigration activists "legal immigration" is code for citizenship. So you have no problem with immigrants provided they went through some legal process aimed at requiring people to become citizens.

Now, let us forget the fact that this year alone at least 780,000 people will take the oath and become citizens. Radical Muslims, communists, atheists, murderers, social outcasts and all manner of people you would find to be objectionable under most circumstances are welcome... they did it "legally" as you are so fond of calling it.

These 780,000 people (this year alone) can now be a part of the body politic, having the privilege of voting and then drawing out of Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AND voting in their version of what they think America ought to be.

Meanwhile, you get your boxers in a bunch because low wage people come here and work jobs that Americans obviously don't want... don't try to "school" me until you've spent a couple of weeks here with me. Here the whites and the "legal" Americans don't apply for the jobs; they don't want the jobs; they won't work them when they get them. ANYBODY who thinks differently is welcome to spend a couple of weeks with me and I will shatter your presupposition all to Hell.

But, I will not give up trying to get the substance of your argument.

Nonsense. It doesn't work that way. Are you saying that 780,000 this year alone will become irresponsible citizens?
Give us a proof that 780,000 will commit those kind of crimes you mentioned. Most or all of these people comes here for better life for their families and only chance they have in their lifetime. Not to make themselves miserable.

I did not say 780,000 would become irresponsible citizens. Don't insult me and embarrass yourself. I'm going to pretend, for the moment, that your IQ is higher than that.

Of the 780,000 that come here, many will be on Socialist Security, medicare, medicaid, etc. way before they have worked a regular working career. Many of them will be from countries that are antithetical to all that America was intended to represent. BTW, did I say all of them? Did I say most of them?

Of those that come here, they will commit more violent crimes than the undocumented Hispanics (who make up over 90 percent of the undocumented foreigners.)

So you think that "legal foreigners" are all legit? Do you want to start with the 9 / 11 hijackers or before? Would you like something more recent like Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, who killed 14 people and wounded 22 more? How man instances like that have the undocumented population committed? Were you thinking of the Tsarnev brothers when you made that faux pas? Here is a list of Muslim terrorist attacks in the U.S. How many of those do you think were done by "legal" immigrants as you like to call them?

 

[Humorme]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. We all know about the extremists whose only mission is wreak terror among our population (Just look at London and its mayor Sadiq Khan who is prolly a terrorist himself). These are the immigrants we don't want.

The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take. They pile into rental units where others won't rent in order to make things work for themselves. They make money and they spend money. They bring in new types of foods and services. They add to a city's dying population and the cities end up thriving.

Today, we have over 80 sanctuary cities in the US. Most are liberal urban centers. Where I live, it isn't a sanctuary city. The city is modernizing, but its restaurants, businesses, stores and such aren't full. A few places still attract a crowd. Yet, the city isn't thriving even though it's a lead city in a large metropolitan area. An example a big city not thriving would be St. Louis, MO. It has the population and the metropolitan area, but once the workday is over, people go home to their suburban homes.

"More than 80 cities in the United States,[69] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[70] "

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

If your city cannot thrive without immigrants, you're doing it wrong.

Illegals bring no value to any city.

Immigrants should be an enhancement to your way of life and what your city is doing, not the be all, end all of your city.

"San Francisco, CA average salary is $99,284, median salary is $94,191 with a salary range from $21,439 to $1,826,000."

San Francisco Salaries, Average Salary & Jobs Pay in San Francisco, CA

Unemployment rate for San Francisco is 3.3 percent

unemployment rate for san francisco - Bing

San Francisco is a sanctuary city

The average yearly income in Atlanta is $60,219

atlanta annual income - Bing

The unemployment rate in Atlanta is 5. 5 percent

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Georgia Metropolitan Unemployment Rate and Total Unemployed | Department of Numbers

Atlanta is NOT a sanctuary city.

Do you understand my skepticism with your post?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. We all know about the extremists whose only mission is wreak terror among our population (Just look at London and its mayor Sadiq Khan who is prolly a terrorist himself). These are the immigrants we don't want.

The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take. They pile into rental units where others won't rent in order to make things work for themselves. They make money and they spend money. They bring in new types of foods and services. They add to a city's dying population and the cities end up thriving.

Today, we have over 80 sanctuary cities in the US. Most are liberal urban centers. Where I live, it isn't a sanctuary city. The city is modernizing, but its restaurants, businesses, stores and such aren't full. A few places still attract a crowd. Yet, the city isn't thriving even though it's a lead city in a large metropolitan area. An example a big city not thriving would be St. Louis, MO. It has the population and the metropolitan area, but once the workday is over, people go home to their suburban homes.

"More than 80 cities in the United States,[69] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[70] "

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

If your city cannot thrive without immigrants, you're doing it wrong.

Illegals bring no value to any city.

Immigrants should be an enhancement to your way of life and what your city is doing, not the be all, end all of your city.

"San Francisco, CA average salary is $99,284, median salary is $94,191 with a salary range from $21,439 to $1,826,000."

San Francisco Salaries, Average Salary & Jobs Pay in San Francisco, CA

Unemployment rate for San Francisco is 3.3 percent

unemployment rate for san francisco - Bing

San Francisco is a sanctuary city

The average yearly income in Atlanta is $60,219

atlanta annual income - Bing

The unemployment rate in Atlanta is 5. 5 percent

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Georgia Metropolitan Unemployment Rate and Total Unemployed | Department of Numbers

Atlanta is NOT a sanctuary city.

Do you understand my skepticism with your post?

Illegals do not live in San Francisco, they live in the regions outside of San Francisco. They live in areas like Oakland and Hayward, relative shit holes compared to San Francisco.

The unemployment rate in San Francisco has no correlation with illegals.

Atlanta's unemployment rate has no correlation with illegals, either. SF being a sanctuary city doesn't matter, look at LA metro with 6.1% being a sanctuary city.

There is NO correlation between unemployment and immigration.

Now you are trying like hell to claim there is?

 

[james bond]

>>I live in a city without a lot of illegals. I pay a white American to cut my grass. It is not ruinously expensive.<<

My OP isn't about race so much as immigration or in today's world illegal immigration. My personal beliefs are that there should be a clear established line. I rather have legal immigration, but the liberals allowed illegal immigration and we're stuck with it. It doesn't make sense to deport all the illegals and maybe some can get legal status. Thus, we have the sanctuary cities and their policies. If you want to make it about race, in this case, whites, then it's about smart whites vs not so smart whites who run these cities. It's not just whites who run these cities, but I'm just making it simple.

Maybe having a white American cut your grass is a sign of quality in your city. However, I don't think it will last.

Basically what I'm saying is the sanctuary cities will thrive more and your city won't be thriving as much. People die daily. You can't just get 100,000K increase in population in a few years through birth.

I find that people making these arguments about legal v illegal immigration to be selling a pig in a poke.

Let me see if I understand you:

You are "for" legal (sic) immigration. According to the anti-immigration activists "legal immigration" is code for citizenship. So you have no problem with immigrants provided they went through some legal process aimed at requiring people to become citizens.

Now, let us forget the fact that this year alone at least 780,000 people will take the oath and become citizens. Radical Muslims, communists, atheists, murderers, social outcasts and all manner of people you would find to be objectionable under most circumstances are welcome... they did it "legally" as you are so fond of calling it.

These 780,000 people (this year alone) can now be a part of the body politic, having the privilege of voting and then drawing out of Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AND voting in their version of what they think America ought to be.

Meanwhile, you get your boxers in a bunch because low wage people come here and work jobs that Americans obviously don't want... don't try to "school" me until you've spent a couple of weeks here with me. Here the whites and the "legal" Americans don't apply for the jobs; they don't want the jobs; they won't work them when they get them. ANYBODY who thinks differently is welcome to spend a couple of weeks with me and I will shatter your presupposition all to Hell.

But, I will not give up trying to get the substance of your argument.

>>You are "for" legal (sic) immigration. According to the anti-immigration activists "legal immigration" is code for citizenship. So you have no problem with immigrants provided they went through some legal process aimed at requiring people to become citizens.<<

Somebody will take these people. The USA has always been a nation of immigrants and this is why the US has been thriving and became #1 in the world if you ask me. Other countries are generally homogeneous. Of course, legal immigration leads to citizenship. That is the idea. I'm not sure you get this.

>>Now, let us forget the fact that this year alone at least 780,000 people will take the oath and become citizens. Radical Muslims, communists, atheists, murderers, social outcasts and all manner of people you would find to be objectionable under most circumstances are welcome... they did it "legally" as you are so fond of calling it.<<

This is utter BS. It isn't about Saddam releasing all the prisoners and sending them to his neighboring countries. The terrorists, criminals and commies are few and far between. Most are working poor. Legal or not, these people help fill the bottom level of our economy. As for the baddies, we hire police and use new technology to monitor and arrest them.

>>Meanwhile, you get your boxers in a bunch because low wage people come here and work jobs that Americans obviously don't want... don't try to "school" me until you've spent a couple of weeks here with me. Here the whites and the "legal" Americans don't apply for the jobs; they don't want the jobs; they won't work them when they get them. ANYBODY who thinks differently is welcome to spend a couple of weeks with me and I will shatter your presupposition all to Hell.<<

I want people here who will take jobs Americans don't want. Prolly any job that makes their skin darker or ruins their mani-pedis are jobs they don't want. The other guy said if you pay them enough, then Americans will take the jobs, but this isn't true. Besides, what businessperson in their right minds wants to pay $15 or more minimum wage for people to do these unskilled jobs?

>>But, I will not give up trying to get the substance of your argument.<<

My argument is about my city thriving and having a sanctuary city in today's environment guarantees that my city will thrive. You can be a redneck and disallow immigrants, but your city will end up stagnating as its population will go down. People die daily. It doesn't matter if you build out suburbs in these metro centers when its population goes down. The whole area's economy will suffer. People will move to where there are jobs and when the population of a city goes up, then that's where the big companies will want to take advantage of. Companies who build out in towns and cities that aren't growing and thriving will go downhill.

Dude, for real. You need to learn how to quote people so that the rest of us can tell when one poster's comments begin and end and where yours starts and ends.

Having done extensive work in immigration law, I can tell you, for a fact, that most people who come here and either enter or remain after their visa expires do not want to become citizens. So, you obviously do not get it.

Between 1986 and 2001 America offered SEVEN amnesties for those without papers. Fewer than half applied! That should tell you something. Not everybody who comes here wants to become a citizen NOR do they need to become a citizen.

The very first Naturalization Act in the United States was in 1790. It limited citizenship to whites. Still people came here by the millions to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered.

And while you're stomping your feet yelling bullshit, the fact is more violent crimes in the past decade have been committed by "legal" immigrants and their immediate offspring than by American citizens and undocumented immigrants combined!!!

America has an immigration problem, but it cannot be resolved with the build the wall, deport 'em all mantra. I'm against mass deportations, the nutty wall idea, and it's inevitable outcome - the ultimate POLICE STATE.

>>Dude, for real. You need to learn how to quote people so that the rest of us can tell when one poster's comments begin and end and where yours starts and ends.<<

Your quote is in between my arrows.

>>Having done extensive work in immigration law, I can tell you, for a fact, that most people who come here and either enter or remain after their visa expires do not want to become citizens. So, you obviously do not get it.<<

Some will not want to become citizens, but our history shows different. Most of the poor have become citizens.

>>Between 1986 and 2001 America offered SEVEN amnesties for those without papers. Fewer than half applied! That should tell you something. Not everybody who comes here wants to become a citizen NOR do they need to become a citizen.

The very first Naturalization Act in the United States was in 1790. It limited citizenship to whites. Still people came here by the millions to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered.<<

What it tells me is the today's illegals don't trust the system. Otherwise, why do we need sanctuary cities?

>>And while you're stomping your feet yelling bullshit, the fact is more violent crimes in the past decade have been committed by "legal" immigrants and their immediate offspring than by American citizens and undocumented immigrants combined!!!

America has an immigration problem, but it cannot be resolved with the build the wall, deport 'em all mantra. I'm against mass deportations, the nutty wall idea, and it's inevitable outcome - the ultimate POLICE STATE.<<

I think you're referring to illegals who were criminals. They should be fingerprinted, have high-res photos taken of them and deported. If they come back into the country, then we'll be able to track and arrest them for deportation.

I'm against the wall. That seems un-American and it's more suitable if we are a country at war with our neighbors and under attack. The wall has become a symbol for being against illegal immigration that Obumba and the Democrats allowed.

You're new at this. This is really going to hurt.

As much as I find Barack Obama to be an objectionable human being, the right should embrace him. He did not create the immigration debacle. As president, he deported more undocumented foreigners than any previous president.

The hard core, no-nonsense, bottom line reality is that our Constitution does not give the federal government any jurisdiction over immigration. The federal government only has one job with respect to foreigners. It's listed in Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Here is the sum total of the federal government's lawful / de jure / constitutional jurisdiction:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

That's it. The word immigration isn't even IN the Constitution. Furthermore, in the Tenth Amendment, you find this:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So, how did we get to this point of the federal government controlling immigration?

In 1876 the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" over immigration to Congress in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman. Here's the problem: Under our Constitution the United States Supreme Court has NO authority to grant to any other branch of government ANY power. The United States Supreme Court literally legislated from the bench in attacking a state's right.

Ironically, the High Court chastised the California Commissioner of Immigration and the Sheriff of San Francisco for not presenting a defense in the Chy Lung case. So, what I'm telling you is that the issue of legal v. illegal aliens is constitutionally bogus. States are constitutionally free to invite whomever they want into the United States. It's just that the federal government realizes the absolute clusterphuck they've created and they're almost powerless to do anything that affects the bottom line without turning America into a complete and total dictatorship.

Immigration isn't the object of this thread, but sanctuary cities and their positive effect on our economy and how these key cities fuel their metropolitan areas.

"There's no legal definition of a sanctuary city, county or state, and what it means varies from place to place. But jurisdictions that fall under that controversial term -- supporters oppose it -- generally have policies or laws that limit the extent to which law enforcement and other government employees will go to assist the federal government on immigration matters.

Some communities use nonbinding resolutions, executive orders, police department policies or orders, while others use laws to enforce such policies, according to the Congressional Research Service.

In San Francisco, for instance, a 1989 law called the City and County of Refuge ordinance prohibits city employees from helping federal immigration enforcement efforts unless compelled by court order or state law.

How many are there?
More than 200 state and local jurisdictions have policies that call for not honoring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention requests, the agency's director, Sarah Saldana, told Congress in March.

What's their history?
The sanctuary movement is said to have grown out of efforts by churches in the 1980s to provide sanctuary to Central Americans fleeing violence at home amid reluctance by the federal government to grant them refugee status.
It's also a product of the long-running national immigration debate, in which officials in some more diverse and liberal communities sometimes take issue with aggressive immigration enforcement efforts.

What's the argument for sanctuary status?
Proponents say that by encouraging members of immigrant communities to work with police without fear of deportation, such policies help authorities improve public safety by helping authorities identify and arrest dangerous criminals who might otherwise go undetected.

"I firmly believe it makes us safer," San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi told CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper." "We're a world-renowned city with a large immigrant population. ... From a law enforcement perspective, we want to build trust with that population."
"
What's a 'sanctuary city,' and why should you care? - CNN

AFAIK and what I am concerned about is hiring illegals. Isn't there some kind of law that penalizes employers who do now? I thought it was federal law. Hiring someone with a green card and visa is fine.

I was following the former Sheriif Joe Arpaio case earlier. We just saw him released from jail. How do you think he got screwed or did he deserve to get what he got in regard to the points you make?

 

[james bond]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. We all know about the extremists whose only mission is wreak terror among our population (Just look at London and its mayor Sadiq Khan who is prolly a terrorist himself). These are the immigrants we don't want.

The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take. They pile into rental units where others won't rent in order to make things work for themselves. They make money and they spend money. They bring in new types of foods and services. They add to a city's dying population and the cities end up thriving.

Today, we have over 80 sanctuary cities in the US. Most are liberal urban centers. Where I live, it isn't a sanctuary city. The city is modernizing, but its restaurants, businesses, stores and such aren't full. A few places still attract a crowd. Yet, the city isn't thriving even though it's a lead city in a large metropolitan area. An example a big city not thriving would be St. Louis, MO. It has the population and the metropolitan area, but once the workday is over, people go home to their suburban homes.

"More than 80 cities in the United States,[69] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[70] "

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

Sorry, Just ignorant. Black youth in inner cities have about a 25% unemployment rate. Immigrants is simply a way of functioning when a huge demographic lies idle, preferring to live off the state with "easy" money through drug dealing, or of course both. whoring and pimping. The primary problem is we sanction this.

>>Sorry, Just ignorant. Black youth in inner cities have about a 25% unemployment rate. Immigrants is simply a way of functioning when a huge demographic lies idle, preferring to live off the state with "easy" money through drug dealing, or of course both. whoring and pimping. The primary problem is we sanction this.<<

I wasn't thinking about blacks unless they're immigrants. For some reason, the black American poor should be taking some of these jobs, but they do not represent a majority in these jobs. For example, very few blacks working at lower jobs at Apple (There may be few in the upper ranks though. These people are well educated.) Why? They do not want these jobs either? They are excluded due to racism? The truth prolly lies somewhere in-between.

 

[james bond]

The story of immigrants is a two-way street. We all know about the extremists whose only mission is wreak terror among our population (Just look at London and its mayor Sadiq Khan who is prolly a terrorist himself). These are the immigrants we don't want.

The other side of the coin is non-terror immigrants take jobs that no one else will take. They pile into rental units where others won't rent in order to make things work for themselves. They make money and they spend money. They bring in new types of foods and services. They add to a city's dying population and the cities end up thriving.

Today, we have over 80 sanctuary cities in the US. Most are liberal urban centers. Where I live, it isn't a sanctuary city. The city is modernizing, but its restaurants, businesses, stores and such aren't full. A few places still attract a crowd. Yet, the city isn't thriving even though it's a lead city in a large metropolitan area. An example a big city not thriving would be St. Louis, MO. It has the population and the metropolitan area, but once the workday is over, people go home to their suburban homes.

"More than 80 cities in the United States,[69] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[70] "

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

If your city cannot thrive without immigrants, you're doing it wrong.

Illegals bring no value to any city.

Immigrants should be an enhancement to your way of life and what your city is doing, not the be all, end all of your city.

>>If your city cannot thrive without immigrants, you're doing it wrong.

Illegals bring no value to any city.

Immigrants should be an enhancement to your way of life and what your city is doing, not the be all, end all of your city.<<

My point would be your city and metro area cannot thrive without immigrants. It's not reasonable to expect such pop growth when people die daily. Your pop would go down instead of up. I don't think birth rates can keep up. Unless you can lure jobs to your area due to other reasons than increase in population, then I don't think you can spur growth.

I looked up St. Louis in my census link. It's pop has gone down and the city reflects its dying state. Didn't they just lose an NFL team? I saw stores close early and not many patrons in their restaurants and stores that open at night. I didn't even think to go drinking and clubbing there, but patronized the hotel bar.

Another non-sanctuary city, in California where I live, that I am looking at is Sacramento. It's downtown isn't as bad as St. Louis, but it's not thriving either. I compared it to San Jose, CA which is thriving in comparison. It's very noticeable.