First, your statement that Republicans hate Mexicans is simply dishonest leftist rhetoric. It isn't true, but it makes shallow leftists feel good to hear it or say it.

Your whole post does nothing more than expose your ignorance of where this uncontrolled illegal, along with the legal, immigration is leading this Nation. Like most liberals, you are assuming that by allowing uncontrolled immigration into this country we can help the poor and needy of the world.

In fact, if you apply the three tests suggested by Dr. Thomas Sowell, that almost always defeat leftist arguments (Compared to what? At what cost? What evidence do you have?), and get some real facts to fill in the knowledge of the matter, it becomes evident that we can't take on the billions of people in sinking countries, without sinking the USA. We take in about a million legal immigrants per year, but we can't even afford to do that into the future, .... much less accept multi-millions more of the most ignorant and lazy, coming in as illegals.

To point out some of these things to you, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4DFPKNdYFkE

Straight up, I think you are a short sighted fool. Stewart barney said this morning that the cost of 5 million illegals will $2 tril. You are acting like an emotional female. U need to get a testosterone shot quickly. Or you need to comprehend the destruction your stupid agenda would cause. I'll do you one better. Fire all of ICE and the border patrol, tear down the wall. Think of all the money that could be saved in name of humanity. Think about a military the size of Mexico's for there will be no money to fund a strong military. Dream about no foreign wars for they will be fought by women and children on our land. Just think about it!!! How wonderful is NAFTA. How wonderful it is to have a NAFTA peoples agreement. No border. Well fare to all the uneducated new citizens. No upstart to the current citizens cause schools and teachers are free. Food stamps, housing and cash to the newbies on the low income tax credit..You are just plain and simple minded. Although, I recognize that you consider yourself a genius. There isn't enough money to harvest these people. The cost will over whelm the USA. You are right to publish the stupid things Repub presidents have done. But, times are a changing. The farm land is being asphaulted. Roads already have too many cars and ERs in hospitals have a 4 hour waiting room. Two hr. waiting at the DMV. How much more time do you want to wait stranding in line for all these newbies. How much more are you willing to spend out of your income to support the welfare, medical care, disability, and food stamps and 80 other benefit programs to low income people.? You are either stupid or ignorant. The estimated cost of these 5 million is $2,000,000,000,000. Since you have a very large bleeding heart I think it appropriate that you take in 10 of the poor soles into your household. However, I know that you would never do that. As a pure socialist, you want to inflict your will onto other and always use other peoples money to further your own agenda. Eventually the money runs our. You don't care about the money. You live on easy street. Your kids are going to pay back the $18,000,000,000,000 you and you bummer has run up. There is no way you believe in God. No Godly person would subject their children into slavery to pay off the debts of the parents. History is devoid of this occurrence. However, the richest country on earth is an allusions; in fact it is nearly bankrupt.

Americans can do the same thing, they just don't want to. If you think it's bullshit that workers have to eat rice and live in crowded apartments to be competitive then wake up and realize that the only reason for this is their illegal status. If they were legal they would have to be paid the same as anyone else. But your side is refusing to grant them legal status. Maybe it won't matter since your side is refusing to accept minimum wage too in their effort to drive the living standards of all Americans to third-world status. Then Americans can complete more evenly for the slave-wages Republicans dream about.

You said: "Talk about broad sweeping statements. Actually that's a totally unsupported statement. We just like to think we are. By all measurable extents Americans are the most ungenerous people in the developed world. Of course by measurable extent I am referring to the public records published by governments such as humanitarian aid for which the Europeans far exceed us As far as I know there has been no effort to measure charity which would be almost impossible given the countless examples and the anonymous nature of much of it. So, it's therefore quite impossible to say who contributes more."

"The United States is the most generous nation in the world, according to the World Giving Index 2011, published by the U.K.-based Charities Aid Foundation. The study surveyed three self-reported giving behaviors—giving money, volunteering time, and helping strangers—among some 150,000 people in 153 countries. Many of its findings are quite interesting. If anything, it understates American generosity by obscuring how much Americans give, either absolutely or per capita as a proportion of income. Of the seven most generous nations on earth, all but one (the Netherlands) are Anglophonic. There does not appear to be a strong correlation between prosperity and generosity: Singapore, ranked 3rd in 2010 GDP per capita by the International Monetary Fund, is the 91st most generous nation on earth, while Hong Kong, ranked 7th in GDP per capita, came in as the 11th most generous. Australasia is the world’s most generous region, barely edging out North America, while Eastern Europe is the least generous. One finding is especially encouraging. The proportion of respondents engaged in giving behaviors increased slightly between 2010 and 2011. Despite the global economic turmoil, the world, it appears, is becoming more charitable.

American generosity, however, is not a recent trend but a long established tradition, as Philanthropy Roundtable president, Adam Meyerson, discusses with the Wall Street Journal."
Source: http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/in_the_news/the_world_of_philanthropy

That's one.

First, your statement that Republicans hate Mexicans is simply dishonest leftist rhetoric. It isn't true, but it makes shallow leftists feel good to hear it or say it.

Your whole post does nothing more than expose your ignorance of where this uncontrolled illegal, along with the legal, immigration is leading this Nation. Like most liberals, you are assuming that by allowing uncontrolled immigration into this country we can help the poor and needy of the world.


Right! By allowing UNCONTROLLED immigration into this country, we are wiping out the poor and the needy, and how is that helping?
kinda like sayin, hmmm we cant use you for our purpose anymore...so we are going to put you to the curb, and bring "better" people in your place...to serve OUR purpose.

In fact, if you apply the three tests suggested by Dr. Thomas Sowell, that almost always defeat leftist arguments (Compared to what? At what cost? What evidence do you have?), and get some real facts to fill in the knowledge of the matter, it becomes evident that we can't take on the billions of people in sinking countries, without sinking the USA. We take in about a million legal immigrants per year, but we can't even afford to do that into the future, .... much less accept multi-millions more of the most ignorant and lazy, coming in as illegals.

To point out some of these things to you, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4DFPKNdYFkE

First, let's get this question of constitutional legality out of the way. I will do this simply by pointing to the precedence set by every single Republican president since Eisenhower who all used executive orders to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Here is a summary of 18 of these executive orders.

Pres. Dwight Eisenhower:

1956
By executive order, circumvented immigration quotas to allow 900 orphans to join their adoptive families in the U.S.

1956-1958
By executive order, allowed 31,000 Hungarian anti-Soviet insurgents to emigrate.

1959-72
By executive order, allowed 600,000 Cubans fleeing Castro to emigrate. [PDF]

Pres. Gerald Ford:

1975
By executive order, allowed 360,000 refugees, mostly from from Vietnam, to emigrate.

1976
By executive order, allowed 14,000 Lebanese nationals to emigrate.

Pres. Ronald Reagan:

1981
By executive order, allowed 7,000 Polish anti-Communists to emigrate.

1982
Allowed 15,000-plus Ethiopians to emigrate.

1987
By executive order, rescinded deportation of 200,000 Nicaraguans.

1987
By executive order, deferred deportation of undocumented children of 100,000 families. [JSTOR]

George H.W. Bush:

1989
By executive order, deferred deportations of Chinese students.

1989
By executive order, reversed visa denials of 7,000 Soviets, Indochinese.

1990
By executive order, deferred deporations of previously amnestied citizens’ 1.5 million spouses and children.

1991
By executive order, deferred deportation of 2,000 Gulf War evacuees.

1992
By executive order, deferred deportations of 190,000 El Salvadorans.

George W. Bush:

2002
By executive order, expedited naturalization for green-card holders who joined military.

2005
By executive order, deferred deportation of students affected by Hurricane Katrina.

2006
By executive order, enabled 1,500 Cuban physicians to seek asylum at US embassies.

2007
By executive order, deferred deportation of 3,600 Liberians.

Now, whether or not you think ALL of these orders are constitutionally illegal is a different, though respectable argument. On the other hand, if you're inclined to pick and choose which of the orders are justified, then you are surrendering the broad claim that President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to issue executive orders. If that's the case, you would have to shift the focus to whether or not his constitutionally valid order is otherwise unreasonable. This is the part I want to focus on here. In other words, constitution aside, what exactly is it that makes Obama's action so horrific?

The first such argument that appears most obvious is the extent of the order. Clearly, Obama's order involves a far greater number of immigrants than any of the orders before him. Perhaps that's worthy of concern, although personally I don't see it. Maybe someone needs to point it out to me. If these illegal immigrants were being granted citizenship then I would say it would be helping to dilute the democracy by decreasing the ratio of representatives to citizens, but Obama isn't granting them citizenship. That leaves us with the sociological and economic concerns of accepting 5 million immigrants into our system and this is where my opinion might grate on some nerves. I personally don't see any difference between native-born Americans and immigrants when it comes to basic human rights. Nor do I see any difference between them when it comes to their work ethic, criminal inclination or any other form of stereotyping. I don't have much tolerance for the whining about immigrants "taking" jobs from Americans either. As far as I am concerned, the only reason why an immigrant will take "your" job is that they're better at it than you are and if that's the case then good, because as a consumer, I would rather pay for goods and services provided by the best workers, than those provided by "privileged" workers and this is coming from a professional in a field that is saturated by foreign workers. I've been surviving by working hard and competing not by relying on the government to force employees to give the job to me just because I was born here.

The other response I have to this protectionist view is that immigrants are also consumers which means they will not only be taking jobs, they will be creating jobs too by virtue of increased demand. These five million immigrants are going to be shopping at Walmart, buying lunches at Taco Bell and if Obama gets his way they will also be buying insurance and paying for services, just like everyone else. I don't hear Republicans complain about the fact that there are already over 300 million people in what they take pride in saying is the largest and strongest economy in the world. So I don't understand how 5 million more is going to make any difference.

What does that leave us with? Not much. Of course there is the prejudice, racism and general bigotry which has always characterized the right, from the quiet undercurrents of conservative policy to the most outrageous antics of extreme fascism but Republicans know they can't win over the moderates on racism and bigotry alone. They HAVE to come up with something that at least sounds legitimate. So far they have a big fat ZERO, and apparently they are choosing to continue with a campaign of emotionally changed fallacy in hopes that enough voters will remain ignorant and infuriated to carry the bullshit movement.

I'd have more respect for them if they just said we hate Mexicans at least then they wouldn't be lying.

I think there used to be a lot less difference between the two parties in the 70's and 80's when bipartisan cooperation was the norm. But the two mainstream parties have been diverging ever since. Both parties are corporate-sponsored champions of oligarchy but the difference is in their approach. Here's what I posted earlier today in response to a similar statement about the parties being the same...

They ARE both part of the establishment, as per the Progressive movement, which was originally established by Teddy Roosevelt and his Republicans as a way to protect the establishment from revolution by offering moderate concessions. But since then the Progressive movement has found support only among Democrats as Republicans find cultivated ignorance to be a less compromising solution. What that means for us is a choice between a tossed bone and a lobotomy. I'd say that difference is significant enough to recognize.