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.

Immigration by the numbers
 

On 6/28/2010 12:22 AM, ? wrote:
On Jun 27, 9:13 pm, 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.

This is stupid. They left Europe. Redefining immigration as only
being into an "established country" is nonsensical.

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.

I guess you also think the Holy Roman Empire was a monolithic entity.

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.

Mike asked where it all started. The real answer is probably when
hominids expanded outwards from the region of their origin in
Africa.

Or did you want to chase this back to a time before primates?

Immigration by the numbers
 

On 6/28/2010 8:27 AM, S'mee wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:13 pm, 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.

Are you this much of a jackass in real life, or do you save your
stupidity for usenet?

Immigration by the numbers
 

On Jun 28, 6:44*am, purple wrote:
On 6/28/2010 12:22 AM, ? wrote:
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.

This is stupid. They left Europe.

The American colonists were English citizens and they continued to
look to England for governance for 150 years. Well-to-do American
colonists travelled back and forth on business and pleasure.

The fact that the English governor of any of the 13 colonies was an
appointee began to annoy the colonists, who wanted equal represenation
in parliament back home in England.

The phrase, "all men are created equal," was never intended by the
Declaration of Independence Commitee to refer to *racial equality*, it
was about *political equality* back home in England, where other
wealthy English landowners *were* represented in parliament.

Redefining immigration as only
being into an "established country" is nonsensical.

Look up "immigrant" in your dictionary and you'll find that the word
didn't enter the English language until 1790, when the first
immigration law was written in the USA.

The purpose of America's first immigration law was to keep out
undesireables who were not free White men of good character like the
Founding Fathers.

I guess you also think the Holy Roman Empire was a monolithic entity.

I think that the HRE is outside the boundaries of the discussion of
immigration.

Mike asked where it all started. The real answer is probably when
hominids expanded outwards from the region of their origin in
Africa.

Or did you want to chase this back to a time before primates?

I don't want to chase this issue into any mental territory inhabited
by radical liberals who seek to change the USA from the land of
unrestricted capitalism to the land of socialist redistribution.

Immigration by the numbers
 

On 6/28/2010 9:46 AM, purple wrote:
On 6/28/2010 8:27 AM, S'mee wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:13 pm, 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...

Looks like it's the abundance of Government education, more than ever in
history and the failure of America is more than ever before.

Immigration by the numbers
 

On 6/28/2010 9:42 AM, ? wrote:
On Jun 28, 6:44 am, wrote:
On 6/28/2010 12:22 AM, ? wrote:

Mike asked where it all started. The real answer is probably when
hominids expanded outwards from the region of their origin in
Africa.

Or did you want to chase this back to a time before primates?

I don't want to chase this issue into any mental territory inhabited
by radical liberals who seek to change the USA from the land of
unrestricted capitalism to the land of socialist redistribution.

I'm a conservative and a capitalist and a realist who knows that
unrestricted capitalism doesn't work. There have to be ground
rules that make it work. Read Hayek's _The Road to Serfdom_
and perhaps you'll begin to understand something.

Immigration by the numbers
 

On 6/28/2010 9:55 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
On 6/28/2010 9:46 AM, purple wrote:
On 6/28/2010 8:27 AM, S'mee wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:13 pm, 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...

Looks like it's the abundance of Government education, more than ever in
history and the failure of America is more than ever before.

The American public educational system was begun to get children out of
the "box factories" of New England. It was continued, under Dewey's
tutelage, as a means to "make good citizens." That means you don't want
the general public too smart or learned.

Immigration by the numbers
 

On Jun 28, 8:42*am, purple wrote:


I don't want to chase this issue into any mental territory inhabited
by radical liberals who seek to change the USA from the land of
unrestricted capitalism to the land of socialist redistribution.

I'm a conservative and a capitalist and a realist who knows that
unrestricted capitalism doesn't work. There have to be ground
rules that make it work. Read Hayek's _The Road to Serfdom_
and perhaps you'll begin to understand something.

Not likely.

The post you were replying to was from "Krusty"; a constantly morphing
toy-Nazi troll who refers to anyone who doesn't actually goose-step or
want to re-institute slavery as a "radical liberal". But welcome to
the commune anyway, tovarisch!

We conservative capitalist realists have to stick together, since
there don't seem to be too many of us left.

Immigration by the numbers
 

"purple" wrote in message
...
On 6/26/2010 5:58 PM, ? wrote:

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

Dems want to grant citizenship in exchange for votes.


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.


Bloomberg always was and will always be a 1st class idiot. Any foreign
entrepreneur worth their salt will put their employment money where it
gets the best return, and that's *not* in the USA. And if someone has
that kind of money they certainly don't need to beg for US citizenship.

Really?

Tell that to the guy who became a US citizen so that he could own the Fox TV
stations.

In practice, my understanding that it's pretty easy for the "Super Rich" to
"buy" US Citizenship.

The Swiss also do this. The Swiss are very practical people: rather than
have the applicant promise to hire so many people or "invest," they simply
demand $100k + up front.

The US should do the same thing.

Immigration by the numbers
 

"purple" wrote in message
...
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.

Ike's administration understood the problem.

There was a program in place to import seasonal workers from Mexico and send
them back home when the crop was in.

When too many illegals cross the border with Mexico, he instituted "Project
Wetback" to reduce the flow.

The JFK administration decided to open the gates to legals and illegals.

It cut back the programs that provided for seasonal workers (it was
"demeaning" to the Mexicans) and, thus, created a BIG demand for the
illegals.


when do you think all this started?

The "modern" problem required a modern economy. In the 18th Century, for
example, the idea of masses of "seasonal workers" could not have been made
to work.

But even in colonial times, folks were suspecious of too many "new" people
who were like themselves. Xenophobia has been around for a long time and
with good reason.

Immigration by the numbers
 

On 6/29/2010 9:57 AM, John Gilmer wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 6/26/2010 5:58 PM, ? wrote:

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

Dems want to grant citizenship in exchange for votes.


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.


Bloomberg always was and will always be a 1st class idiot. Any foreign
entrepreneur worth their salt will put their employment money where it
gets the best return, and that's *not* in the USA. And if someone has
that kind of money they certainly don't need to beg for US citizenship.

Really?

Tell that to the guy who became a US citizen so that he could own the Fox TV
stations.

In practice, my understanding that it's pretty easy for the "Super Rich" to
"buy" US Citizenship.

Precisely what I said. Someone with money doesn't have to beg for
US citizenship.


The Swiss also do this. The Swiss are very practical people: rather than
have the applicant promise to hire so many people or "invest," they simply
demand $100k + up front.

The US should do the same thing.

Immigration by the numbers
 

On Jun 29, 8:06*am, "John Gilmer" wrote:

The "modern" problem required a modern economy. * In the 18th Century, for
example, the idea of *masses of "seasonal workers" could not have been made
to work.

If you mean *migratory* seasonal workers, no, that definitely wasn't
allowed in feudal Europe or the British Isles, where the common man
was a serf who wasn't allowed to travel.

The only people who could travel were the nobility, the clergy, and
Jewish merchants, who were identified a such by a *red* star badge.

Any vagrant who wandered freely and lived off the land, as the Norse,
Celts, and Anglo Saxons had lived for centuries was outlawed.

And, the serfs on a feudal estate were also expected to perform as
"infantry" in case of a war, because the feudal lord was unwilling to
pay a large group of professional mercenaries, year in and year out.

In "Old Mortality", Sir Walter Scott described the mandatory "weapons
shows" of 18th century Scottish peasants with their pitchforks and
rakes...

But even in colonial times, folks were suspecious of too many "new" people
who were like themselves. * Xenophobia has been around for a long time and
with good reason.

The English colonies became a dumping ground for convicts in the early
17th century. Tens of thousands of convicts were shipped to the
Bahamas, Caribbean, Antilles islands and to Georgia to work as *white
slaves* until they completed their sentences or, more likely *died* of
overwork or disease.

They were forbidden to return to England upon threat of being
*hanged*.

By 1740, the number of white slaves exceeded the number of African
slaves.

The British/Norman landowners feared the power of the aggregate slave
work force and enacted laws in Virginia to prevent intermarriage
between the races.

The convicts were not necessarily *bad* people, their offenses might
have been something petty, such as annoying a British/Norman nobleman
about being *paid* for their services.

The common people of England weren't allowed to own land, nor were
they allowed to travel freely around the countryside.

The British/Norman nobility originally got their land and titles from
the Norman kings and they gradually began fencing off their feudal
estates for sheep herding.

The peasants became very inconvenient, because their cottages and
subsistence fields were taking up space that could be used for grazing
sheep.

The peasants had to manufacture something they could sell in order to
pay the rent on their cottage. They did these handicrafts during the
winter and were called "crofters."

Sales of handicrafts were uncertain. Sale of *wool* was a sure thing.

My own English ancestors were middle class, between the British/Norman
nobility and the peasantry, because they owned a textile mill in
Dorset.

The house where they lived still stands. Last I heard, it was a bed
and breakfact inn.

My direct ancestor in Dorset made felt out of wool and they made
woolen clothing. Before they got into that, they'd been weavers of
flax in Belgium.

But, back to the English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish convicts in the
colonies.

It didn't much matter what the "common folk" of the colonies thought,
the convicts still weren't welcomed by the established and wealthy
English businessmen in New England.

Benjamin Franklin likened the convicts to rattlesnakes and said that
at least you knew what a rattlesnake was when you met it.

Franklin was opposed to convict labor in the colonies.

When the Founding Fathers got the chance to enact the first
Immigration Act in 1790, they declared their desire for FREE WHITE
MEN, OF GOOD CHARACTER
to come here and become citizens.

After arriving here and declaring their intent to become citizens,
they had to serve a two year waiting period.

This was gradually raised to 14 years, in order to prevent large
numbers of immigrants who were sympathetic to the British cause from
gaining citizenship and voting for a return to British rule.

Immigration by the numbers
 

? wrote:......
The common people of England weren't allowed to own land, nor were
they allowed to travel freely around the countryside.

Are they now? Weapons?

Immigration by the numbers
 

On Jun 29, 2:27*pm, "Vito" wrote:
? wrote:......
The common people of England weren't allowed to own land, nor were
they allowed to travel freely around the countryside.

Are they now? *Weapons?

Well, if Neil Murray is an example of a freely-travelling Englishman
with weapons, he does have a barbed, vicious tongue...

Immigration by the numbers
 

"John Gilmer" wrote in message
net...

"purple" wrote in message
...
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.

Ike's administration understood the problem.

There was a program in place to import seasonal workers from Mexico and
send them back home when the crop was in.

When too many illegals cross the border with Mexico, he instituted
"Project Wetback" to reduce the flow.

The JFK administration decided to open the gates to legals and illegals.

It cut back the programs that provided for seasonal workers (it was
"demeaning" to the Mexicans) and, thus, created a BIG demand for the
illegals.


when do you think all this started?

The "modern" problem required a modern economy. In the 18th Century, for
example, the idea of masses of "seasonal workers" could not have been
made to work.

But even in colonial times, folks were suspecious of too many "new" people
who were like themselves. Xenophobia has been around for a long time and
with good reason.



Was not Ike. Program started in 1942 when lots of people from the farm went
to war as soldiers and the Japanese in the West were interred. Was the
Bracero Program and allowed 3 and 6 month work visas. Were not all for farm
labor. I worked with. some in a lumber mill making pallets. 1857-1960.
Was ended .because the do gooders said the migrant farm workers had to live
in demeaning conditions. Instead of making the farmers that supplied
housing, supply livable housing, they killed the program. We could end
illegal immigration in 30 days by instituting a visiting worker visa for
those without a college degree (H-1 visa allows that now).

Immigration by the numbers
 

On Jun 29, 10:03*pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:

Was the
Bracero Program (snip)
Was ended .because the do gooders said the migrant farm workers had to live
in demeaning conditions.

True. The White farmers of the Western Growers Association had become
spoiled from the availability of very cheap Mexican labor in the San
Joaquin valley
from 1850 until the Great Depression, when the US government and the
Mexican consulate cooperated to repatriate 500,000 Mexicans (who
weren't US citizens, even if they were born here) in order to open
jobs for real Americans.

Hundreds of thousands of American men became "fruit tramps," following
the harvests from Arizona to Washington state.

The federal camp at Weed, CA which was shown in the film version of
John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" originally was shacks for Mexican
agricultural workers.

Nowadays, Mexicans are often better off than White workers, they live
in better housing (while poor Whites are living in the shanties where
the Mexicans used to live), they dress better, and drive better cars.

It's surprising to drive past a grape vineyard being harvested and see
that the Mexican grape pickers are driving late model customized
pickup trucks with tinted windows and chromed wheels.

The local Mexicans dress better than Whites who've been driven
completely out of
agricultural work at any level by Mexican nepotism.

And bilingual Mexican-American labor contractors who round up Spanish-
only Mexicans to pick crops are living in custom built mansions on
five acre lots, across the street from the Whites who are living in
shacks....

Instead of making the farmers that supplied
housing, supply livable housing, they killed the program.

Well, one of the biggest agribusiness companies in Ventura County, CA
has built a modern housing development for Mexican ag workers in the
Santa Clara river valley so they don't have to commute from
Oxnard...

Immigration by the numbers
 

? wrote:
On Jun 29, 2:27 pm, "Vito" wrote:
? wrote:......
The common people of England weren't allowed to own land, nor were
they allowed to travel freely around the countryside.

Are they now? Weapons?

Well, if Neil Murray is an example of a freely-travelling Englishman
with weapons, he does have a barbed, vicious tongue...

But he's uncommon :)

Immigration by the numbers
 

On Jun 30, 4:24*am, "Vito" wrote:
? wrote:

Well, if Neil Murray is an example of a freely-travelling Englishman
with weapons, he does have a barbed, vicious tongue...

But he's uncommon :)

Fortunately...

Immigration by the numbers
 

On 6/30/2010 12:03 AM, Bill McKee wrote:


Was not Ike.

True.

Program started in 1942 when lots of people from the farm went
to war as soldiers and the Japanese in the West were interred. Was the
Bracero Program and allowed 3 and 6 month work visas. Were not all for farm
labor. I worked with. some in a lumber mill making pallets. 1857-1960.
Was ended .because the do gooders said the migrant farm workers had to live
in demeaning conditions. Instead of making the farmers that supplied
housing, supply livable housing, they killed the program. We could end
illegal immigration in 30 days by instituting a visiting worker visa for
those without a college degree (H-1 visa allows that now).

Your memories/understanding are flawed though the visitor visa
is a good idea.

Growing up in the northeast, we had migrant workers from the
south, mostly Florida, come through every fall. They were poor
black and white with the same base of people each year,
seemingly endlessly.

The smarter farmers followed the laws that required adequate
housing once those laws were in place, and kept their harvesters
on site till the crop was all in, under threat of being fired
if they left the place for any reason. The farmer would take
liquor orders on Friday night, buying the products and delivering
them, and kept the drunken misbehavior local and under control
so they wouldn't lose any harvesters to law enforcement. The
migrant workers had an agent who traveled with them and
maintained order, usually providing transportation (old school
buses) as well.

As recently as the 1990's I saw such migrant worker housing
in Wisconsin with rules posted, painted directly on the wall.
The place was like fraternity rooms I remember from college
days but had only metal bunk beds and no other furniture.
They had a refrigerator, common kitchen, and common bathroom
facilities.

In late fall, as the migrant workers headed south for winter,
they would come through a second time, buying up all old cheap
cars, running or not. Every family or group bought two, one
that drove and one they towed. Fixing the non-runner and selling
it was winter income. It is a good bet that by the time the
buses reached their point of origin they were nearly empty.