Immigration by the numbers
 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...68141276468380

Examines the immigration problem from a "focus on the numbers"
perspective.

Walter

Immigration by the numbers
 

On Jun 26, 1:57*pm, walt tonne wrote:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...8265#docid=-72....

Examines the immigration problem from a "focus on the numbers"
perspective.

Walter

So fix it: http://takeourjobs.org/

Immigration by the numbers
 

On Jun 26, 12:12*pm, CindiK wrote:

So fix it:http://takeourjobs.org/

That's NOT a sincere offer for employment, it's actually the Mexicans
bragging about how macho they are to survive working in the fields
under the blazing sun all day.

I corrected their statement to read:

"Mexican farm workers are ready to train citizens and legal residents
who wish to replace them in the field..."

Yeah, right. Since when has *any* journeyman worker in any kind of
work been willing to train his own replacement?

Speaking as somebody who has lived around Mexicans for over half a
century and who knows who Mexicans think and act towards other ethnic
groups, I know that a Mexican crew would run a White American field
worker off the job the first day and think that it was all a big joke.

And this business about the AgJobs bill that has been proposed is
ridiculous. The USA is supposed to just *give* citizenship to any
illegal alien farm worker who can prove he's worked 120 days in farm
work in the last 2 years?

That's utter bull****!

No other country would dream of offering citizenship to unskilled
immigrant workers, they want them to pick the crops and then *GO HOME*
afterwards.

Developed English-speaking nations like Canada, Australia, and New
Zealand want entrepreneurial types who bring high skills, lots of
education, lots of money and those who might be able to start a
national sports team that would bring even more money into the
national treasury.

Even NYC mayor Bloomberg was on TV news the other day saying that
green cards should be given to foreign entrepreneurs who employ 10
Americans and that they could keep their green cards as long as they
kept the Americans employed.

My own ancestors who came to America in 1628 were entrepreneurial
types who came to Massachusetts after reading a prospectus written by
Captain John Smith (Pocahontas had hot pants for him) that said the
exploitation of New England would be worth about £600,000 sterling,
per annum, a figure that would be in the billions or even trillions of
$USD today.

They started their textile mills and iron works and became the biggest
industrial conglomerate in New England, employing tens of thousands of
workers.

Two of my ancestors were the richest men in North America by the time
of the Civil War, they would be right up there with Bill Gates in
wealth.

And that was before the era of robber barons like the Rockefellers and
Vanderbilts and J.P. Morgan, whose financial were driven by loand from
the international bankers in London, Paris, and Vienna.

If America is going to allow immigration, it's people of my ancestors'
ilk that we need, not some illegal alien border jumper!

OTOH, if we are going to allow wealthy entrepreneurs into the USA, we
don't want
people who looted the national treasury of the country they're fleeing
from.

Immigration by the numbers
 

On Jun 26, 5:18*pm, purple wrote:

That sort of entrepreneurship is wasted by the time it changes hands
(usually) to the third generation of family. The children do all right
but the grandchildren are far enough removed from the heartache that
built the wealth that they have no respect for it and they waste it.

My ancestral lines go back to various knights who served English and
Scottish kings. They owned lots of land in England, but the wars being
conducted by the Stuart kings to pursue their "royal rights" in France
was taxing them to death.

That's why they started a stock company to exploit the resources of
New England and they bought two boats. You've probably never heard of
the leaky "Speedwell," that had to turn back to England, but I'm sure
you've heard of the Mayflower...

One of my ancestors who was involved in the stock company finally
emigrated to the colonies himself, with his family and six servants.
He became a high official in the Presbyterian (Puritan) church.

His ancestor had served with Richard the Lionheart in the Holy Land
during the Third Crusade. His descendant, the Democrat governor of New
York state, ran for POTUS against Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876.

He won the popular vote, but lost by one electoral vote when the
disputed election was resolved by a committee with a majority of
Republicans.

They started their textile mills and iron works and became the biggest
industrial conglomerate in New England, employing tens of thousands of
workers.

In those days thousands was a big number. Nobody employed tens of
thousands.

My English ancestors built whole towns to house their mostly Irish
textile workers. All they asked was that the workers stay sober, don't
fight, and don't swear.

The Irish turned on them though. The Irish demanded full American
citizenship after only two years residency and Dorr's Rebellion in
1842 was the result.

I seem to recall that it was President Tyler (another relative) who
refused to send federal troops to put down the insurrection, believing
it to be under control...

The Irish forced Rhode Island to adopt its first constitution, the
Charter of 1667 issued by Charles II having served very well for 175
years. The charter gave control of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantation to my ancestors and their posterity (me and my cousins) in
perpetuity and also forgave my ancestors from the crime of being a
Baptist (or worse, a Quaker).

Two of my ancestors were the richest men in North America by the time
of the Civil War, they would be right up there with Bill Gates in
wealth.

That was probably the third generation, perhaps your family was lucky
enough to hang to wealth through the 4th.

No, actually what killed my family's great wealth was the corruption
of the Republicans in the Reconstruction period and the international
banking practices of the rich Jewish bankers.

Lincoln didn't want to deal with the "money men" (a euphemism for the
powerful international Jewish banking community), so he and Salmon P.
Chase (another relative by marriage of his daughter to the more famous
of the two Richest Men in America) started a Bank of the US and issued
"green backs," which were worthless scrip to be redeemed after the
war.

Later on, Chase said that setting up the financial system was the
worst thing he ever did.

After the war, the international bankers were discounting green backs
by 30%, and re-selling them at a 15% profit.

A unscrupulous immigrant capitalist who specialized in hostile
takeovers of railroads and a White House insider (Ulysses S. Grant's
brother-in-law) tried to capture the gold market, on information about
federal gold sales gained from Grant's wife) but the attempt failed.

The Vienna stock exchange collapsed in 1873, causing a worldwide
panic, that brought our family business crashing down.

My incredibly rich ancestor could no longer obtain credit to keep his
businesses afloat and declared the largest bankruptcy in US history up
to that time.

$20 million doesn't sound like a lot, but it was the equivalent of
trillions in today's currency. My ancestor died a broken man, in exile
in Paris. His wife's extravagant spending sprees in Paris were only
the tip of the iceberg of his financial problems.

There's a nice statue of him in Rhode Island though, and his
governor's mansion still stands.

And that was before the era of robber barons like the Rockefellers and
Vanderbilts and J.P. Morgan, whose financial were driven by loans from
the international bankers in London, Paris, and Vienna.

After the Jews in Vienna got their banks running again, they financed
the robber barons and made it possible for them to industrialize
America on a scale previously unseen.

However, *another* famous relative (he was a famous American poet, but
his day job was as a banker) retired because he didn't want to bother
learning the new rules of international banking imposed by the Jews.

The industrialization of the USA during the 1880's was one of the
forces that
brought millions of undesirable immigrants to the USA and caused the
establishment of the processing center at Ellis Island.

Previously, all the riff-raff and the radical socialists (like Emma
Goldman) were processed at Fort Clinton, New Jersey.

There were always loans and lenders. Jesus and the money changers in
the temple, knights Templar, Merchant of Venice & Shylock, and so on.

Don't forget Amschel Rothschild, who started the banking House of
Rothschild with $2 million embezzled from a Hessian prince. The money
was intended to pay Hessian mercenaries in the American Revolution.

Immigration by the numbers
 

On 6/27/2010 10:58 PM, Mike wrote:
you and other proto crypto dimwits ought to check out Reagan on immigration.

Reagan screwed up more than immigration. If you look closely enough
I don't think you'll find any president who didn't make some
significant bad calls.

when do you think all this started?

With the Mayflower.

Immigration by the numbers
 

On Jun 27, 9:13*pm, purple wrote:
On 6/27/2010 10:58 PM, Mike wrote:
* when do you think all this started?

With the Mayflower.

The Mayflower colonists were English subjects who voyaged to "Northern
Virginia" under a charter from King James.

They were never "immigrants" into any established country, because
there were no established governments in the region, just wandering
savage tribes who did not understand the concept of real estate or
land ownership.

According to the extant doctrines of European law, any uncivilized
territory could be claimed for king and country by any explorer
sailing under the flag of his country.

And that's what happened. There were no cities and no civilization
along the east coast.

The Mayflower colonists never left the territory of the British empire
and they took English law to Massachusetts with them, in the form of a
governor appointed by the king.

Immigration by the numbers
 

? wrote:

The Mayflower colonists were English subjects who voyaged to "Northern
Virginia" under a charter from King James.

They were never "immigrants" into any established country, because
there were no established governments in the region, just wandering
savage tribes who did not understand the concept of real estate or
land ownership.

According to the extant doctrines of European law, any uncivilized
territory could be claimed for king and country by any explorer
sailing under the flag of his country.

And that's what happened. There were no cities and no civilization
along the east coast.

The Mayflower colonists never left the territory of the British empire
and they took English law to Massachusetts with them, in the form of a
governor appointed by the king.

Moreover, Brit colonists had settled the Roanoke Colony in 1586
(Disappeared) and Jamestown (1607) decades before the 'pilgrims' landed in
1620. The Jamestown group had even celebrated a bunch og Thanksgivings
before any pilgrims arrived. The fact that few know that fact is a tribute
to yankee propaganda.

Immigration by the numbers
 

On Jun 27, 10:13*pm, purple wrote:
On 6/27/2010 10:58 PM, Mike wrote:

you and other proto crypto dimwits ought to check out Reagan on immigration.

Reagan screwed up more than immigration. If you look closely enough
I don't think you'll find any president who didn't make some
significant bad calls.

* when do you think all this started?

With the Mayflower.

Nope goes back further.

....but that's okay it's the lack of an education system in america
that is at fault...so blame your parents for not voting for more mil
levies and demanding education not indoctrination.

Immigration by the numbers
 

On Jun 27, 11:22*pm, "?" wrote:
On Jun 27, 9:13*pm, purple wrote:

On 6/27/2010 10:58 PM, Mike wrote:
* when do you think all this started?

With the Mayflower.

The Mayflower colonists were English subjects who voyaged to "Northern
Virginia" under a charter from King James.

They were never "immigrants" into any established country, because
there were no established governments in the region, just wandering
savage tribes who did not understand the concept of real estate or
land ownership.

According to the extant doctrines of European law, any uncivilized
territory could be claimed for king and country by any explorer
sailing under the flag of his country.

And that's what happened. There were no cities and no civilization
along the east coast.

The Mayflower colonists never left the territory of the British empire
and they took English law to Massachusetts with them, in the form of a
governor appointed by the king.

Oh that's faggots...yeah if they weren't such a disease ridden bunch
of malcontents, THIEVES, scoundrels and ne'r do wells much like the
very people they left. Well I imagine the backstabbing *******s
wouldn't have ****ed things over as badly as they did.

No thanks...but your theory is **** just like your mind and those
depends you only change once a week to save money from your unearned
social security and welfare checks.

Krusty Kritter you are are deviant pedarast...

Immigration by the numbers
 

On Jun 28, 5:23*am, "Vito" wrote:
? wrote:

The Mayflower colonists were English subjects who voyaged to "Northern
Virginia" under a charter from King James.

They were never "immigrants" into any established country, because
there were no established governments in the region, just wandering
savage tribes who did not understand the concept of real estate or
land ownership.

According to the extant doctrines of European law, any uncivilized
territory could be claimed for king and country by any explorer
sailing under the flag of his country.

And that's what happened. There were no cities and no civilization
along the east coast.

The Mayflower colonists never left the territory of the British empire
and they took English law to Massachusetts with them, in the form of a
governor appointed by the king.

Moreover, Brit colonists had settled the Roanoke Colony in 1586
(Disappeared) and Jamestown (1607) decades before the 'pilgrims' landed in
1620. *The Jamestown group had even celebrated a bunch og Thanksgivings
before any pilgrims arrived. *The fact that few know that fact is a tribute
to yankee propaganda.

You are just talking about those johnny comlately morons (yeah our
relatives) the europeans trash. If you want to get picky you have to
include the phoenecians, egyptians and fair number of others. 8^) It's
a safe bet that of the johnny comlately's the chinese and irish beat
everyone else...and the chinese had already be everywhere magellen and
cook went long before those english idiots were whelped.

So any claims like Krusty Kritter (the kiddy loving klown) is moot and
uneducated uninformed bullshyte. hmmph...simple reading in your averge
library 35 years ago could have taught you that. shrug once I learn
something like this I move on and mostly purge it as it's now BORING.