Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (209880)	11/29/2012 2:28:38 PM
From: cosmicforce	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543215

I don't think wanting some controls on immigration means one is NECESSARILY a crypto-racist or xenophobe. I'm neither and want it. What we have is unsustainable and to include even more people at the bottom of the food chain simply lowers wages for the large number of marginally skilled people we already have. Illegals and criminals both potentially have better access to health care than the working poor, though often avoid it out of fear and then, when the condition worsens, show up at the ER - the most expensive way to deliver care. It is all crazy and needs to be fixed. When a country has a large number of illegals, it increases the number of people who prey upon them, and simultaneously puts downward pressures on wages. If there is a minimum wage, illegals can't qualify so industries like gardening or housekeeping are filled with wage slaves. I'm against people paying into social security and not being able to collect, but neither do I want people to move here to be on the dole when they are no longer able to support themselves. As a person with a conscience, I am conflicted but as I detailed in my other post to Sam [link], there is NO country that is permissive as we are already. Uncontrolled immigration ironically helps those that would be exploiters and harms social programs that are aimed at the substantial number of people that are already in need.

To: bentway who wrote (209880)	11/29/2012 2:39:02 PM
From: Sam	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543215

They could toss the xenophobes and replace them with more Hispanics. You appear to be simply accepting Kraut's premise--that Hispanics only vote for Democrats because of the immigration issue, and that in their hearts, they are "small government" Republicans. IMHO, this is nonsense. The real problem for Republicans--and Mr. SauerKraut doesn't even begin to recognize this--is that they frame the issue as "small vs large" govt. But, as Obama has said, that is wrong. The real question is, what constitutes "smart" govt in the 21st century? We are the wealthiest society in history, and also the most specialized and the most interdependent. In that context, it makes absolutely no sense except to a few narcissistic freaks who call themselves libertarians (and who do everything they can to evade paying taxes, but love their medicare on the side) to have a govt that was framed in a social context when the vast majority of people lived on farms and small farming communities, with very little specialization, relatively short life spans and generally didn't move further than maybe 10-15 miles from their home. Kraut is one of those narcissistic freaks, so it makes sense to him. But I don't believe that most Hispanics are in fact "natural Republicans," as he claims. And after the Republicans lose a few more elections, more Republicans will see that too. Although he probably won't. He will more likely become even more of a grumpy old man who sees the country going to hell in a handbasket. And it may happen like that, but it is more likely to happen due to severe droughts and other severe weather events that he and others will continue to insist aren't caused by climate change (after all, we've always had extreme weather events, haven't we?), lol.