Activism: How to measure it?

[Don]

How do we measure the effects of advocacy and activism?

Does street activism make a difference?
Letters to the editor?
Websites?


I think they all make a difference but it's hard to measure. The percentage of "activists" in any society always seems to be a tiny percentage.

Measures of effectiveness are:

1. Recruitment;
2. Public response (honking horns, thumbs up, etc).
3. Opposition that shows up.
4. Publicity.
5. Opinion polls.


Sometimes it seems truly like there is indeed a "tide in the affairs of men" and that most are indifferent until they're directly threatened in some manner. When that tipping point is reached, activism increases and we now have 50 anti-immigrant rallies on a single weekend all over the country instead of a handful as was formerly the case.

Web sites are important because they're sources of information and organization.

Street activism is important because it energizes people, boosts morale, encourages further activism and is a source of direct contact with the public, if the opposing communists will allow this to occur.

It's like a small number of people have to keep the flame burning so that the tide can turn and burst into a conflagration.

I think the anti-immigration movement fed and fueled the tea party movement, but I don't think the tea party movement would exist if John McCain had won the election. Another example of the "Tide in the affairs of men" effect at work.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Why are you saying anti-immigrant? Twice, in fact, in the post directly above.

That term does not accurately describe the sentiments of the folks here or the ones at the tea parties this past weekend. At least not at the one I attended in Pasadena.

[ilbegone]

I believe that people in the street are more far likely to move a recalcitrant politician than phone calls, letters and emails.

I believe that web sites are valuable mainly for recruiting and getting information out as well as discussion. I believe websites which become over involved with bitching about the problem rather than solving the problem lose their anti illegal migration value, and not even phone calls, letters and emails get accomplished.

Something I have seen and find detrimental is the sites where a few same exact people are on all threads shouting exactly the same thing to the same exact people, calling each other names while shouting down and driving off reasoned discussion. Nothing gets accomplished in those situations.

Letters to the editor sometimes get printed, but I have found that sometimes what is printed has been so heavily edited that it gives a different idea or slant than what the writer had submitted, but the writer's name is on it rather than the editor's, and the editor always has the last word. It's worth a shot from time to time. Some papers will get tired of of a particular writer's stand, and quit printing the person's view.

And, hindsight has told me that in the case of two or three letters out of many I have submitted over the years the editor did me a favor by not printing them, not the least that they were hastily written and weren't good communication of my particular thought and I would have appeared as an ass.

I believe that there will probably always be more complainers than active participants.

I believe there is a negative return to placing a yard stick for activism - everyone is different, maybe some aren't ready for another level, there is a valid barrier to participation, or others may find themselves black balled from a career if they are identified on the street. Some of those people might be doing other doing things they really can't publicize. The opposition does try to identify anti illegal immigration activists, and there have been attempts to neutralize or punish activists if there is some leverage which can be applied. The problem with brow beating people who don't measure up to another's idea of what an acceptable level of activism is is that the accuser might not have all the information, or maybe drive off someone who isn't ready yet but just might be there when needed most in the future.

The other side of the coin is irrational or uncalled for criticism of a faithful participant by someone who's never left the house.

Some people who aren't participants might donate funds or other other assistance, but a potential problem with that is that occasionally some people seem to believe that there is an unmentioned string attached to their donations and that their voice is a little more "equal" than others.

No one is going to entirely agree with another person, and although it helps, it is not a requirement that everyone like one another in order to work together towards a goal. Disagreements and misunderstandings will happen, I see the problem is not having disagreements in which there may be some shouting but in attacks and bridge burnings over minor things.

Like it or not, people who have anti illegal migration beliefs are under a microscope, and the words and intents of those people will be twisted by people who much more have the medias' "ear", and nothing sells so much and works so well against the goal of immigration law enforcement as "white hate". Appearance counts.

For what it's worth.

[Don]

I believe that people in the street are more far likely to move a recalcitrant politician than phone calls, letters and emails.

I believe that web sites are valuable mainly for recruiting and getting information out as well as discussion. I believe websites which become over involved with bitching about the problem rather than solving the problem lose their anti illegal migration value, and not even phone calls, letters and emails get accomplished.

Something I have seen and find detrimental is the sites where a few same exact people are on all threads shouting exactly the same thing to the same exact people, calling each other names while shouting down and driving off reasoned discussion. Nothing gets accomplished in those situations.

Letters to the editor sometimes get printed, but I have found that sometimes what is printed has been so heavily edited that it gives a different idea or slant than what the writer had submitted, but the writer's name is on it rather than the editor's, and the editor always has the last word. It's worth a shot from time to time. Some papers will get tired of of a particular writer's stand, and quit printing the person's view.

And, hindsight has told me that in the case of two or three letters out of many I have submitted over the years the editor did me a favor by not printing them, not the least that they were hastily written and weren't good communication of my particular thought and I would have appeared as an ass.

I believe that there will probably always be more complainers than active participants.

I believe there is a negative return to placing a yard stick for activism - everyone is different, maybe some aren't ready for another level, there is a valid barrier to participation, or others may find themselves black balled from a career if they are identified on the street. Some of those people might be doing other doing things they really can't publicize. The opposition does try to identify anti illegal immigration activists, and there have been attempts to neutralize or punish activists if there is some leverage which can be applied. The problem with brow beating people who don't measure up to another's idea of what an acceptable level of activism is is that the accuser might not have all the information, or maybe drive off someone who isn't ready yet but just might be there when needed most in the future.

The other side of the coin is irrational or uncalled for criticism of a faithful participant by someone who's never left the house.

Some people who aren't participants might donate funds or other other assistance, but a potential problem with that is that occasionally some people seem to believe that there is an unmentioned string attached to their donations and that their voice is a little more "equal" than others.

No one is going to entirely agree with another person, and although it helps, it is not a requirement that everyone like one another in order to work together towards a goal. Disagreements and misunderstandings will happen, I see the problem is not having disagreements in which there may be some shouting but in attacks and bridge burnings over minor things.

Like it or not, people who have anti illegal migration beliefs are under a microscope, and the words and intents of those people will be twisted by people who much more have the medias' "ear", and nothing sells so much and works so well against the goal of immigration law enforcement as "white hate". Appearance counts.

For what it's worth.

A thoughtful analysis Ibe. I enjoyed reading it. I agree that people who take a public stand are more likely to influence politicians and the public. Traditional conservatives have eschewed street activism, but I think they're changing.

Another thing. Web sites provide more information about news events than main stream media. You can get video and all kinds of eye witness reports. One reason papers are disappearing. More people recognize their bias and agendas and increasingly rely on the web instead of the politically correct filter of the MSM.

[Don]

Why are you saying anti-immigrant? Twice, in fact, in the post directly above.

That term does not accurately describe the sentiments of the folks here or the ones at the tea parties this past weekend. At least not at the one I attended in Pasadena.

I am anti-immigrant and most people secretly are. You speak your mind. I'll speak mine.

This whole hair splitting thing about being "anti-immigration" or just anti "illegal" immigration is a fig leaf used by cowards who are afraid of being called "racists" by the communists and the SPLC, ADL, etc. We have lost our country because people are more afraid of being called names than they are of being dispossessed and kicked out of their own cities. Why do you think most American cities are essentially off limits to Americans? Why do you think the "American dream" no longer applies to Americans? We're being sheared like sheep and when there's no more wool, they'll slaughter us for what's left.

The criminal ruling class that has seized control of what's left of the USA will call you a racist no matter what you do or say.

I don't want Mexicans or Muslims in my country legally or illegally. I don't want our cities transformed into filthy stinking slums by anyone, legally here or illegally here. I respect their countries. They should respect mine.

I think that Gheen's organization, "Americans for Legal Immigration" is a huge fraud. If he really supported legal immigration he would support amnesty because amnesty increases legal immigration, something he supposedly supports. There is something weirdly Orwellian, not to mention dishonest and schitzophrenic, about an organization that supports policies that are a complete opposite of its stated goal. All immigration needs to be stopped. If they want to work hard, let them work hard in their own countries.

If you believe in "legal' immigration, then you should be honest enough to demand amnesty to achieve your goal of achieving more "legal" immigration instead of going through a bunch of intellectual gymnastics and contortions to try to earn the approval of Communists and liberals because you're afraid they're going to call you a "racist" or a "nativist." They will call you those names anyway and will dispossess and ultimately kill you any way.

[Ayatollahgondola]

I am anti-immigrant and most people secretly are. You speak your mind. I'll speak mine.

This whole hair splitting thing about being "anti-immigration" or just anti "illegal" immigration is a fig leaf used by cowards who are afraid of being called "racists" by the communists and the SPLC, ADL, etc. We have lost our country because people are more afraid of being called names than they are of being dispossessed and kicked out of their own cities. Why do you think most American cities are essentially off limits to Americans? Why do you think the "American dream" no longer applies to Americans? We're being sheared like sheep and when there's no more wool, they'll slaughter us for what's left.

The criminal ruling class that has seized control of what's left of the USA will call you a racist no matter what you do or say.

I don't want Mexicans or Muslims in my country legally or illegally. I don't want our cities transformed into filthy stinking slums by anyone, legally here or illegally here. I respect their countries. They should respect mine.

I think that Gheen's organization, "Americans for Legal Immigration" is a huge fraud. If he really supported legal immigration he would support amnesty because amnesty increases legal immigration, something he supposedly supports. There is something weirdly Orwellian, not to mention dishonest and schitzophrenic, about an organization that supports policies that are a complete opposite of its stated goal. All immigration needs to be stopped. If they want to work hard, let them work hard in their own countries.

If you believe in "legal' immigration, then you should be honest enough to demand amnesty to achieve your goal of achieving more "legal" immigration instead of going through a bunch of intellectual gymnastics and contortions to try to earn the approval of Communists and liberals because you're afraid they're going to call you a "racist" or a "nativist." They will call you those names anyway and will dispossess and ultimately kill you any way.

First of all, I think you might be quite presumptuous to say that most Americans are anti-immigrant. I mean, I understand why you feel that way, but I doubt the majority of Americans do. You probably were affected more negatively than most, but if you lived in other areas where immigrants maintain a higher degree of assimilation or have higher standards to begin with, you'd likely find your neighbors and co-workers think well of immigrants, and would reject your attitude. That doesn't mean to say they would support continuing high levels of immigration, but it is my opinion that they would find your solution overly harsh or unneccessary.
I do see your point about the misnomer of legal immigration, and agree somewhat. the term legal immigration does not mean the same thing to all, but your probably right that some have latched on to the term for propaganda-esque purposes. Maybe not though. It's their opinion, so I'll let them defend.

This one though:I don't want Mexicans or Muslims in my country legally or illegally. I don't want our cities transformed into filthy stinking slums by anyone, legally here or illegally here. I respect their countries. They should respect mine.
You also have some double standards. If you don't want our cities transformed into stinking slums by anyone, then it is not entirely pure to single out immigrants. I think I undertand what you meant there, but it does point out the need to adhere to your own standards of reference, lest you be thought a fraud also. lastly, you have singled out muslim and mexican, so your scope has narrowed quite a bit. I doubt you'll find much support for such narowly tailored immigration controls. If I understand you correctly, you want zero levels of immigration from those demographics. It wouldn't fit in well here I think.

[Don]

First of all, I think you might be quite presumptuous to say that most Americans are anti-immigrant. I mean, I understand why you feel that way, but I doubt the majority of Americans do. You probably were affected more negatively than most, but if you lived in other areas where immigrants maintain a higher degree of assimilation or have higher standards to begin with, you'd likely find your neighbors and co-workers think well of immigrants, and would reject your attitude. That doesn't mean to say they would support continuing high levels of immigration, but it is my opinion that they would find your solution overly harsh or unneccessary.
I do see your point about the misnomer of legal immigration, and agree somewhat. the term legal immigration does not mean the same thing to all, but your probably right that some have latched on to the term for propaganda-esque purposes. Maybe not though. It's their opinion, so I'll let them defend.

This one though:
You also have some double standards. If you don't want our cities transformed into stinking slums by anyone, then it is not entirely pure to single out immigrants. I think I undertand what you meant there, but it does point out the need to adhere to your own standards of reference, lest you be thought a fraud also. lastly, you have singled out muslim and mexican, so your scope has narrowed quite a bit. I doubt you'll find much support for such narowly tailored immigration controls. If I understand you correctly, you want zero levels of immigration from those demographics. It wouldn't fit in well here I think.


I think there would be a huge amount of support for zero immigration, especially from third world countries.

Sen. Chris Dodd of Conn said the US has a real umemployment rate of 20%.

Question: What is the proper number of "legal" immigrants you would like to see admitted into the US in order to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs, housing and public benefits?

[Ayatollahgondola]

I think there would be a huge amount of support for zero immigration, especially from third world countries.

Sen. Chris Dodd of Conn said the US has a real umemployment rate of 20%.

Question: What is the proper number of "legal" immigrants you would like to see admitted into the US in order to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs, housing and public benefits?

I don't think we need any competition in those categories Don. But limiting immigration from what you refer to as third world countries might be politically difficult to obtain. You have to remember to include business and religious immigrant proponents when you gauge the climate for closing or curtailing immigration numbers. I think there may be a little more than you realize. I'm saying that in relation to your claim of "huge support", and not because I'm arguing against it. It wouldn't pay to fool ourselves with wishful thinking.

[Don]

I don't think we need any competition in those categories Don. But limiting immigration from what you refer to as third world countries might be politically difficult to obtain. You have to remember to include business and religious immigrant proponents when you gauge the climate for closing or curtailing immigration numbers. I think there may be a little more than you realize. I'm saying that in relation to your claim of "huge support", and not because I'm arguing against it. It wouldn't pay to fool ourselves with wishful thinking.

You say you favor legal immigration. I asked what is the number of "legal" immigrants you want admitted to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs, housing, public benefits.

Please answer my question.

[Ayatollahgondola]

You say you favor legal immigration. Please answer my question.
Where did I say that?

[Jeanfromfillmore]

You say you favor legal immigration. I asked what is the number of "legal" immigrants you want admitted to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs, housing, public benefits.

Please answer my question.Don we all come here with different levels of opinions as to what will solve our immigration problems. Some of those differences come from our exposure and contact with immigrants, and also how wealthy or poor the area it that we live in. Everything has its positive and its negative, but we are seeing a loss of our culture in many areas. You may be right when some issues are addressed and completely wrong when others are brought into the mix. There is no correct blanket yes or no. You must realize that not everyone has seen exactly what you've seen or heard exactly what you've heard. What we can all agree on is there's been far too many people come here in the last 30 years while our government has looked the other way, and it has impacted the US in a very negative way.

[Don]

Don we all come here with different levels of opinions as to what will solve our immigration problems. Some of those differences come from our exposure and contact with immigrants, and also how wealthy or poor the area it that we live in. Everything has its positive and its negative, but we are seeing a loss of our culture in many areas. You may be right when some issues are addressed and completely wrong when others are brought into the mix. There is no correct blanket yes or no. You must realize that not everyone has seen exactly what you've seen or heard exactly what you've heard. What we can all agree on is there's been far too many people come here in the last 30 years while our government has looked the other way, and it has impacted the US in a very negative way.

How many "legal" immigrants do you think we should allow into the country to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs, housing, health care and other public benefits?

I would love to have an answer to this question. For years people have taken great pains to clarify that they are not against all immigration, but only against "illegal" immigration. [I guess it's OK if third world hordes come here "legally" to take our country away from us without firing a shot.]

I have repeatedly asked this question: "How many legal immigrants do you want?) As yet I have never received a direct, honest answer.

If you support "legal immigration," please state how many "legal" immigrants you would like to be brought into the country to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs and public benefits?

If you are opposed to all immigration, both "legal" and "illegal", then you're on the same page that I am.

[Ayatollahgondola]

How many "legal" immigrants do you think we should allow into the country to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs, housing, health care and other public benefits?

I would love to have an answer to this question.

I answered that one Don.

I don't think I want to stop all immigration though. A drastic reduction yes, but not a complete halt. Does that suffice?

[Jeanfromfillmore]

How many "legal" immigrants do you think we should allow into the country to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs, housing, health care and other public benefits?

I would love to have an answer to this question. For years people have taken great pains to clarify that they are not against all immigration, but only against "illegal" immigration. [I guess it's OK if third world hordes come here "legally" to take our country away from us without firing a shot.]

I have repeatedly asked this question: "How many legal immigrants do you want?) As yet I have never received a direct, honest answer.

If you support "legal immigration," please state how many "legal" immigrants you would like to be brought into the country to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs and public benefits?

If you are opposed to all immigration, both "legal" and "illegal", then you're on the same page that I am.Well maybe an equal number as the amount of Americans who immigrate to other countries. But I nor do I think anyone on this board has all the facts to give you a proper answer. It just seems you come across as a bit aggressive. Maybe I'm reading what you wrote wrong. How someone writes something and how they mean it don't always come across exactly as the writer meant. I do agree with you that we should cut way back on immigration, but not that it should be cut completely. This is how I believe many Americans feel, but then again, I could be wrong on that thought also. We are not being informed by the media and many others as to the exact truth on the issue.

[Eagle1]

I must agree that Don has a point or more regarding illegal and legal immigration as being factors that have destroyed our American way of life.

I currently work in a major city where most Americans have been replaced by foreigners. This includes American engineers.

I interact with many foreign born engineers that barely speak English.

So then where are those engineering jobs for our graduate students?
Even there classroom seats have been given to foreign students.

I would severely curtail legal immigration also. We have been overrun on that front too.

Lets get our house in order first and then we may have a just immigration system.

[Rim05]

I agree that all immigration should be put on hold for at least 3 years, I have said in the past 5 years and I still think that is a good time period. Our government has sold and given away too much of our country. I am especially angry that so many of our university seats are going to so many foreign citizens. Someone (our government) has forgotten that you take care of family first.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

I am anti-immigrant and most people secretly are. You speak your mind. I'll speak mine.

This whole hair splitting thing about being "anti-immigration" or just anti "illegal" immigration is a fig leaf used by cowards who are afraid of being called "racists" by the communists and the SPLC, ADL, etc.


That's an interesting take. I disagree with you. My experience has been that the large majority of folks who are active about border enforcement want either reduced legal immigration or current laws enforced. Nonetheless, I give you points for candor.


-------------------------

Since we're tossing ideas around, however, about changes to the immigration system, I would reduce legal immigration from Mexico and Central American countries by 2/3. Reason: It forces them to start looking for other solutions to fixing their poverty than exporting their least wanted citizens to the United States. Right now, the U.S. is an "enabler" for the incompetence/corruption/lack of decent opportunities that exists in El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, etc. They don't have to really get their act together. The ability to have the poorest go elsewhere (and send Yankee dollars home, to boot) is a huge release valve on forces that would otherwise result in change.

[Twoller]

Legal and illegal immigration are connected. For example, when we hear about some business being prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants, you have to ask yourself, "How are these illegal immigrants hired and managed?" There must be somebody there in the business, maybe even the owner, who speaks the language of the illegals they are hiring. Either the employer is a legal immigrant, or in all probability, an anchor baby themselves.

Yes, we need to have a moratorium on immigration. But not only that, we need to start cracking down on citizens too. If you are a citizen claiming citizenship because you are an anchor baby, and you are hiring illegals, then you need to be deported. Of course this should follow from putting the legal claims of citizenship made by anchor babies into question and in prosecutions like this, this is a natural place to start throwing them out. Of course, anyone who does not claim citizenship who is hiring illegals needs to be deported.

How many people in this country who falsely claim citizenship do not speak English? Because so many anchor babies have the benefits of a public education, this is where many of them learn to speak English. But it remains that many of them have no cause to speak English and so the skill fades, we hope. And of course we still have illegals from English speaking countries like Canada. If you cannot speak English, you cannot be a citizen and so we have another sound test for real candidates for testing legitimate citizenship.

We need to keep pushing and hammering away at this problem at every possible and conceivable angle. Stopping at legal immigrants is just foolish, it really shows a complete lack of grasp of the problem. I would go so far as to say that you cannot sincerely be opposed to illegal immigration if you do not support confronting legal immigration and even some who claim citizenship. The problem really is that bad and illegal immigration is really just the natural consequence of a failed and profligate immigration practice. It is a "practice", one could hardly call it a "policy", certainly not a government policy.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Legal and illegal immigration are connected. For example, when we hear about some business being prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants, you have to ask yourself, "How are these illegal immigrants hired and managed?" There must be somebody there in the business, maybe even the owner, who speaks the language of the illegals they are hiring. Either the employer is a legal immigrant, or in all probability, an anchor baby themselves.

Yes, we need to have a moratorium on immigration. But not only that, we need to start cracking down on citizens too. If you are a citizen claiming citizenship because you are an anchor baby, and you are hiring illegals, then you need to be deported. Of course this should follow from putting the legal claims of citizenship made by anchor babies into question and in prosecutions like this, this is a natural place to start throwing them out. Of course, anyone who does not claim citizenship who is hiring illegals needs to be deported.

How many people in this country who falsely claim citizenship do not speak English? Because so many anchor babies have the benefits of a public education, this is where many of them learn to speak English. But it remains that many of them have no cause to speak English and so the skill fades, we hope. And of course we still have illegals from English speaking countries like Canada. If you cannot speak English, you cannot be a citizen and so we have another sound test for real candidates for testing legitimate citizenship.

We need to keep pushing and hammering away at this problem at every possible and conceivable angle. Stopping at legal immigrants is just foolish, it really shows a complete lack of grasp of the problem. I would go so far as to say that you cannot sincerely be opposed to illegal immigration if you do not support confronting legal immigration and even some who claim citizenship. The problem really is that bad and illegal immigration is really just the natural consequence of a failed and profligate immigration practice. It is a "practice", one could hardly call it a "policy", certainly not a government policy.

I personally know of two business owners who are from Israel and Lebanon and they both hire Hispanics. I don't know if the Hispanics are legal or not. But my point here is that both business owners learned Spanish and while at work converse with their employees in Spanish. Just about everyone, including the immigrants cater to the Hispanic/Latinos when it comes to their not having to speak English. We're so inundated with Spanish speakers that they don't feel the need to learn English, and so many accept that opinion.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Being the world's most desired immigration destination is one of our nation's strengths. As an example, what fueled much of the PC and dot.com boom(s) was our ability to draw the best engineers from India to Seattle and the Silicon Valley. Our capitalist system that allows for accumulation of wealth, our standard of living and reputation for adherence to civil liberties, allows us to "raid" other countries of their best and brightest. Contributions from people who graduated from engineering colleges with academic standards that make MIT and Cal Tech look like JC's in comparison, built businesses and created wealth that resulted in employment and money for thousands of U.S. citizens.

The problem is not that we are accepting immigrants. The problem is that we are largely accepting the wrong immigrants. We need more poorly educated peasants with a penchant for cranking out babies and screaming about their victimization by "racists" like Michael Jackson and Karen Carpenter needed Jenny Craig.

[Twoller]

Being the world's most desired immigration destination is one of our nation's strengths. As an example, what fueled much of the PC and dot.com boom(s) was our ability to draw the best engineers from India to Seattle and the Silicon Valley. Our capitalist system that allows for accumulation of wealth, our standard of living and reputation for adherence to civil liberties, allows us to "raid" other countries of their best and brightest. Contributions from people who graduated from engineering colleges with academic standards that make MIT and Cal Tech look like JC's in comparison, built businesses and created wealth that resulted in employment and money for thousands of U.S. citizens.

The problem is not that we are accepting immigrants. The problem is that we are largely accepting the wrong immigrants. We need more poorly educated peasants with a penchant for cranking out babies and screaming about their victimization by "racists" like Michael Jackson and Karen Carpenter needed Jenny Craig.

It is an absurd myth that immigration had anything whatsoever to do with any of the high tech institutions and industries in any of the industrialized countries. All you have to do is look at the level of high tech industries that exist in the countries that these high tech immigrants come from. Nothing that any of these so-called contributors have done in the high tech industries came out of the countries they came from. And if they really have made any contributions, then why haven't they made similar contributions in their countries of origin. They can't claim any accomplishments performed outside of this country. They are the high tech equivilant of leaf blower monkeys who come here legally, take up space, puke up babies and blow crap all over the place.

There is no contribution that any immigrant can claim that was made as a result of some license that a US citizen granted to these people to get something done. And meanwhile, these same US citizens crap all over their fellow citizens and steal their creative works to give to these same parasites they ship in from places like India and other countries too.

We didn't need them, we don't need them and we need to quit repeating the fairy tale that they have done anything that couldn't have been done -- and should have been done -- by people already here.

[Ayatollahgondola]

It is an absurd myth that immigration had anything whatsoever to do with any of the high tech institutions and industries in any of the industrialized countries. All you have to do is look at the level of high tech industries that exist in the countries that these high tech immigrants come from. Nothing that any of these so-called contributors have done in the high tech industries came out of the countries they came from. And if they really have made any contributions, then why haven't they made similar contributions in their countries of origin. They can't claim any accomplishments performed outside of this country. They are the high tech equivilant of leaf blower monkeys who come here legally, take up space, puke up babies and blow crap all over the place.

There is no contribution that any immigrant can claim that was made as a result of some license that a US citizen granted to these people to get something done. And meanwhile, these same US citizens crap all over their fellow citizens and steal their creative works to give to these same parasites they ship in from places like India and other countries too.

We didn't need them, we don't need them and we need to quit repeating the fairy tale that they have done anything that couldn't have been done -- and should have been done -- by people already here.

This is one of the negative issues that accompanies our current immigration woes. There are many good immigrants from countries like India, but the US imports so many period, that they become overshadowed and infected by the distaste that is quite obviously growing within the American citizen and American worker class. I think we would not be exhibiting the level of hostility towards people from other countries had we not been led down this path by current levels of immigration and certainly illegal immigration. It is the system that is causing the backlash, and not the individuals who oppose it. But we need to struggle to keep the right villains in the crosshairs of our fight, because as we can see, the architects of the scheme have been somewhat successful at directing our anger at other countries and their emigres

[Twoller]

This is one of the negative issues that accompanies our current immigration woes. There are many good immigrants from countries like India, but the US imports so many period, that they become overshadowed and infected by the distaste that is quite obviously growing within the American citizen and American worker class. I think we would not be exhibiting the level of hostility towards people from other countries had we not been led down this path by current levels of immigration and certainly illegal immigration. It is the system that is causing the backlash, and not the individuals who oppose it. But we need to struggle to keep the right villains in the crosshairs of our fight, because as we can see, the architects of the scheme have been somewhat successful at directing our anger at other countries and their emigres

I think you are missing my point about the "high tech" immigrants. Part of the corruption of our immigration system are the so-called "good" legal immigrants that are said to have been necessary for development in the high tech industries. There are no such "good" immigrants. They have merely taken up space and squatted on the opportunities of people who were already here before they got here. And, by the way, how did they get here? They didn't get here because of any achievements. What were they doing here? What kind of program got them here at all?

We didn't need them. We don't need them and as a basic issue confronting the roots of illegal immigration, we need to topple the myth of the contributions of "high tech immigrants". They displaced productive US citizens in the economy as surely as any "poorly educated peasants" emptying accross the borders illegally.