All Net Jobs Growth Has Gone To Illegal and Legal Immigrants

[_ludwigm]

...the Center for Immigration Studies defines, 'immigrant', as anyone who is not a Native American.

- Arnold Schwarzenegger (served two terms as the 38th Governor of California from 2003 until 2011)
- Henry Kissinger (served as National Security Advisor and later concurrently as Secretary of State in the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford)

[Guest]

If they begin with 2009 when Obama takes over their "report" wouldn't show that "100% of net increased jobs are immigrants."

The report would read "only 35% of net job gains are by immigrants."

That's right. Since Obama, the majority of net jobs went to natives.

Bcspace's shading of the truth so egregiously, amounts to an blatant, outright lie! I don't see how even he cannot realize that! With almost every post, he further undermines his own credibility. Either he is extremely stupid and gullible himself, or he is desperately hoping to take unfair advantage of the willful ignorance and stupidity of his actually intended audience.

[_Gunnar]

I define immigrant as anyone who does not have ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary war. That's how the land was won and those are the people who earned/won the right to leave this land to their descendants.

OMG! I hope you are kidding. Native Americans (the real natives) define immigrant as anyone that showed up from Europe (and elsewhere) in the last 500 years to steal their land.

How many of your ancestors fought for the revolution? You have two ancestors per generation. If you go back 300 years and figure 25 years a generation (2 to the power of 12), you have over 8,000 ancestors to account for. In the rare event that you do have an ancestor that fought in the revolution, you still have 7,999 to explain.

Half of my wife's family can all claim their ancestors have been around in North America for at least 15,000 years.

Makes your statement sound exceedingly dumb.

Ajax reminds me of LDS acquaintance of mine who is firmly of the opinion that the U.S. Constitution ought to be amended to deny citizenship to anyone not born in the U.S.A., whether legal immigrants or not, and their first generation of American born descendants. This would mean that neither my beloved parents nor I and my 4 siblings (including the two of us born in this country) could ever have been granted citizenship.

[_canpakes]

I define immigrant as anyone who does not have ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary war. That's how the land was won and those are the people who earned/won the right to leave this land to their descendants.

Why did you draw the line in the sand there? ; )

Your definition is like this, more or less:

You live in a small home in the middle of the woods. You're family has been there for many, many generations.

One day, a fairly good-sized band of funny-looking folks, wearing funny-looking clothes and claiming to be from a place that you have never heard of arrives at your doorstep, enters your home, and proceeds to remove you, your family, and your belongings, room by room. The process takes a little while, but when they're done, they suddenly turn on themselves, and fight amongst themselves for the right to call all of your home their own.

At some point, one faction wins against the other, the loser is kicked out and the winners stay in the home. Meanwhile, the original occupants (you and your family) are being shuttled out of town by relatives and friends of the folks who have taken over your home, who state that you really have no claim to it any more, specifically because you don't possess a legal document (or a flag*) that they invented to call your home theirs.

In your scenario, the original owners do not qualify as the natives, and the folks who booted them out are now the only 'non-immigrant' group.

I get the whole thing about conquest and displacement being a major component of the natural order of human history, but your dividing line is completely arbitrary and not readily defensible. Not only that, but your example implicitly states that mere family connection to an arbitrarily-selected past resident of the land who committed some act confers ownership or privilege... except for the folks that they displaced.

The problem is that you are applying a black/white order to a reality that consists of nothing but degrees of gray. You can choose to do so but the perception of that 'reality' by others is not universal in any way.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k

[_ajax18]

The law is written by the conqueror not the conquered.

Yes. Interesting is that those conquerors before, during, and after the Revolutionary War never agreed with you.

How is that? The conquerors thought that imposing their own laws upon the populations that they didn't exterminate was wrong but they went ahead and did it anyway?

[_EAllusion]

It's not as though the revolutionary war is the conflict that bestowed the current US government with all the territories it controls. And if even if it was, wouldn't the "conquerors" actually be anyone who successfully integrated into the United States? That's victory, is it not? Well, not in Ajax's mind because he thinks in terms of racial bloodlines. This despite the fact that the US government has always had a totally separate criteria for citizenship and allowed forms of immigration, even during periods of extreme xenophobia.

It's even better than that, though. Ajax thinks that the only people who deserve the rights of citizenship are those that sign up to be drafted by the military and pay taxes. Because he's not a fascist or anything. And if you've followed ajax before, paying taxes and fees like sales taxes and license plate renewals doesn't count. He means you need to pay things like a net income tax or property taxes. What ajax is really saying is that citizenship should be reserved for the relatively wealthy or property owners who are men, willing to join the military, and are of (almost entirely) European descent. The poor, women, and minorities need not apply.

[_ajax18]

I get the whole thing about conquest and displacement being a major component of the natural order of human history, but your dividing line is completely arbitrary and not readily defensible.

I think setting the dividing line at someone with Native American ancestry is pretty arbitrary and not readily defensible as well. What percentage of Native American DNA does it take to qualify as a native? Does Elizabeth Warren qualify? Which tribe must this DNA come from? Do they have to be from an original tribe or can it be a tribe that displaced and conquered the people that walked onto virgin land first?

I'll state once more that I have no problem with legal immigration. But I maintain that this country is the birthright of it's native citizens which currently means people born to American citizens or even anchor babies dropped by foreign Latina squatters. They have the authority to make laws to decide how many immigrants we can afford to let in, not the rest of the world. Ignoring those laws and illegally entering the country is a criminal act. If one is deported and caught illegally in the country again, it is a felony and that person should be jailed.

There is such a thing as a native American citizen and we're not all immigrants. I would amend my first statement and say that anyone not born to legal American citizens is an immigrant. I don't think that because a mejicana illegally enters the country to give birth should make the child a natural born citizen even though the law currently says it does. The rest of world has no right to be in this country unless the citizens allow them to do so through democratic government law.

[_ajax18]

It's even better than that, though. Ajax thinks that the only people who deserve the rights of citizenship are those that sign up to be drafted by the military and pay taxes

Every man who reaches 18 yoa has to sign up for selective service which could mean the draft. If he chooses not to do so he can either leave the country or go to jail. That's not something that exists only in my mind. If you don't pay property taxes, you can go to jail even if you paid sales taxes and other taxes.

People that don't pay income taxes shouldn't have the right to vote because they don't bear any responsibility for how they vote.

[_Themis]

Yes. Interesting is that those conquerors before, during, and after the Revolutionary War never agreed with you.

How is that?

They kept allowing people to immigrate and given citizenship. People from Britain keep coming over even after the revolutionary war. You realize that there are probably millions or more people who are not citizens of the US but have ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary war for the US.

People that don't pay income taxes shouldn't have the right to vote because they don't bear any responsibility for how they vote.

Do you think that should include married women who stay at home and take care of the kids?

[_EAllusion]

Do you think that should include married women who stay at home and take care of the kids?

He just got done saying only those who have to sign up for the draft should receive citizenship benefits. Women don't have to do that. He doesn't think women should be allowed to vote. Presumably, he would favor forcing women to sign up for the ability to be drafted by the military (well, maybe), but that's not the consequence of his views as they currently stand.