Re: Does Outsourcing Piss you off?

WHAT DO YOU THINK PUNK.

Re: Hillary supports OUTSOURCING 2/3rd of U.S. WORKFORCE

RE: Sam Smith's THE IMMIGRATION MYTHOLOGY


You need a reality check, pronto, Sam!

Many radical left extremists are against illegal immigration, also.
They do not ALL agree with you, respected elder.

OUTSOURCING 'TERMINATORS' --- FANNIE MAE & BANK OF AMERICA

If illegal immigrants can get a Fannie Mae -- Bank of America home
mortgage loan, illegally, and a driver's license illegally, and go to a

hospital 'facilmente' when most African Americans are made to wait 8
hours in the emergency room and then in the end sent home with only a
Tylenol, yes, no denying it, the illegal immigrants get much more
preferrential treatment in our EMs of our general public hospitals,
just ask the displaced and dispossessed citizens of New Orleans, and if

these illegal immigrants can get car insurance illegally due to the
fine mercenary efforts of the Car Insurance Lobby, then you and me can
do pretty much anything we want too -- illegally -- and call ourselves
law abiding PATRIOTS, and we should do it now !!!!!!!!! N-O-W !!

Especially TO STRIKE like a slinky black mamba viper at those
responsible, and
publicly identify them --- like in the McCarthy Era, from both
corrupted political parties.




At 4:33 PM, OUTSOURCING US TO DEATH said...

....those two sites [ABOVE] on illegal immigration --most assuredly
being a plot of the grubworm AFL-CIO [that did nothing for two decades
to protect the interests of U.S. workers] -- in bed [asses up] with NED

[National Endowment for Democracy, a smelly underhanded CIA front
posing as a do-good NGO] after coming all over each other and before
they wipe down they shout out a war cry for OUTSOURCING us all to hell
-- well, hell, THAT is a swell idea ... only for butt hairs and
dinkleberries!

....these two sites posted here are revelations as devastating as the
Dubai
government owning 22 of our major ports [soon to be transferred to the
same royal families under the name of Carlyle Group and Halliburton,
sheiks under their hairy WASP insect legs]...



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

SAM SMITH THE ICONOCLAST writes:

"The mythology of immigration"

IT IS taken as a given in the immigration debate that our current
system for dealing with the issue has some sort of historical logic. It

doesn't. The story of immigration in the U.S. is a mishmash of
hospitality and hatred, encouragement and restriction.


The Naturalization Act of 1790, for example, said that "any alien,
being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the
United States." Blacks, indentured servants, and most women couldn't be

citizens no matter where they came from, but the underlying approach to

immigration would boggle the mind of today's strict constructionists.
If you were a free white male, you came, you saw, and you signed up. As

the Citizenship and Immigration Services describes ti, "the law
required a set period of residence in the United States prior to
naturalization, specifically two years in the country and one year in
the state of residence when applying for citizenship. When those
requirements were met, an immigrant could file a Petition for
Naturalization with "any common law court of record" having
jurisdiction over his residence asking to be naturalized. Once
convinced of the applicant=C2's good moral character, the court would
administer an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution of the
United States."


The essence of immigration as we know it today - i.e. the restriction
of immigration - didn't become a major issue until the Chinese
exclusion Act of 1882, hardly something of which Americans should be
proud. This was the period of the great post-reconstruction counter
revolution during which corporations gained enormous power but the rest

of America and its citizens lost it.


The counter-revolution was not only an attack on would-be immigrants,
it was aimed at American ethnic groups who had proved far too
successful at adding to their political clout in places like Boston and

New York City.


Richard Croker, a tough 19th century county boss of Tammany Hall, grew
almost lyrical when he spoke of his party's duty to immigrants:
"They do not speak our language, they do not know our laws, they are
the raw material with which we have to build up the state . . . There
is no denying the service which Tammany has rendered to the republic.
There is no such organization for taking hold of the untrained,
friendless man and converting him into a citizen. Who else would do it
if we did not? . . . [Tammany] looks after them for the sake of their
vote, grafts them upon the Republic, makes citizens of them."


Alexander B. Callow Jr. of the University of California has written
that Boston pol Martin Lomansey even met every new immigrant ship and
"helped the newcomers find lodging or guided them to relatives. James
Michael Curley set up nationalization classes to prepare newcomers for
the citizenship examination . . . Friendly judges, anticipating
election day, converted their courts into naturalization mills,
grinding out a thousand new Americans a day. . . . Flags were waved,
prose turned purple, celebrations were wild on national holidays. . . .

Patriotism became a means for the newcomer to prove himself worthy."


By 1891 the federal government had assumed control of admitting or
rejecting all immigrants and one year later Ellis island opened. By
1903 we had a law restricting Mexican laborers and during and after
World I, laws were expanded greatly including a ban on all Asians save
the Japanese.


We did not have the equivalent of a green card until 1940 and the
actual card of that name only came in during the anti-communist
hysteria of the 1950s. What we think of as our immigration system is in

no small part a leftover from the McCarthy era.


It is common today to discuss immigration as though it were primarily
an employment and economic matter. The trouble with this claim is that
many of the people who are most anti-immigration are the same who have
caused infinitely more economic harm to the country through
globalization and outsourcing.


In truth, what really scares the exclusionists is the politics of
immigrants, potentially more progressive than they would like. From
Nordic populists in the northern middle west to European socialists, to

the right immigration has meant left.


This, of course, isn't always true as in the case of Cuba but it helps
to make the debate a bit clearer to understand what it is about.


In the end, we don't really have an immigration policy but an exclusion

policy, outsourcing our prejudices by not letting their targets enter
the country.