FOX says Mexicans in the US do the work blacks don't want.......

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Nothing in that link is relevant. We are talking about ILLEGAL immigration.

Your logic honestly defies my imagination. Can't you see enough proof of the benefits of migration reform so that illegals end up being legal? Does the clamoring for institutional changes by business leaders, unions and other such groups not represent evidence enough that this type of immigration is too valuable for the economy to keep it illegal? Are these people and these studies not explaining the opportunity cost well enough for your little racist brain to understand?

It is pointless to argue with you when despite all the evidence you still refuse to accept the obvious. What do you want, a study conducted 1 hour ago to prove you are wrong?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Caligastia


I fail to see how the results of a study conducted 25 years ago have much relevance on today's situation.

The study is the most recent and most comprehensive one available. Since there are so many people clamoring against the evil brown hordes, one wonders why no further, more comprehensive one has been done?

In todays markets, minimum wage and workers benefits are up far more, the relative cost of farm labor hasn't kept pace, and the interest costs of the Federal borrowing to pay for immigration related security is far less, so the likelihood is that the cost/benefit ratio is skewed even more in favor of employers/users of illegal immigration. How else would you explain that there are neither serious sanctions nor serious enforcement against employers of illegals?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Your logic honestly defies my imagination. Can't you see enough proof of the benefits of migration reform so that illegals end up being legal? Does the clamoring for institutional changes by business leaders, unions and other such groups not represent evidence enough that this type of immigration is too valuable for the economy to keep it illegal? Are these people and these studies not explaining the opportunity cost well enough for your little racist brain to understand?

So if business leaders etc clamour for it, it must be good for America.:rolleyes

It is pointless to argue with you when despite all the evidence you still refuse to accept the obvious. What do you want, a study conducted 1 hour ago to prove you are wrong?

If it's so obvious, then you should be able to prove it...I'm still waiting.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Caligastia


So if business leaders etc clamour for it, it must be good for America.:rolleyes

I didn't know you were an anti-business, anti-market bleeding heart socialist.

The question isn't what's "good" for America - we all know the answer to that is women in the kitchen, coloreds on the back of the bus*, homos burned at the stake and a God-fearing nation that doesn't question authority.

The question is costs and benefits, which is primarily a question of economics.

and Kiwis back in Auckland

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The study is the most recent and most comprehensive one available. Since there are so many people clamoring against the evil brown hordes, one wonders why no further, more comprehensive one has been done?

Must be those evil, racist white people.

In todays markets, minimum wage and workers benefits are up far more, the relative cost of farm labor hasn't kept pace, and the interest costs of the Federal borrowing to pay for immigration related security is far less, so the likelihood is that the cost/benefit ratio is skewed even more in favor of employers/users of illegal immigration. How else would you explain that there are neither serious sanctions nor serious enforcement against employers of illegals?

I would say it's probably a combination of political correctness and business interests connected to GWB.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I didn't know you were an anti-business, anti-market bleeding heart socialist.

Hey, I'm not a laissez-faire kinda guy either. Market forces need to be regulated.

The question is costs and benefits, which is primarily a question of economics.

There are cultural aspects to consider also. The non-english speaking illegals contribute to the breakdown of the US's common language.

and Kiwis back in Auckland

[MichaeltheGreat]

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Caligastia
There are cultural aspects to consider also. The non-english speaking illegals contribute to the breakdown of the US's common language.

The truth finally reveals itself

You are not opposed to illegal migration because of the supposed net cost to the taxpayer nor because of the benefits to corporate America, nor because they supposedly take jobs from others etc etc...

You are opposed because of cultural/ethnic reasons. Go figure

You know, the "smart" anti-immigrationists these days (Samuel Huntington for example), base their argument solely on the cultural issue because they are smart enough to see that there is no argument - economically speaking - against it. And I do not fundamentally disagree with them. The rest of the anti-immigrationists are the self-deluded, ignorant, racist right-wingers who pull crap studies out of their ass to try and fool people into thinking illegal immigration economically hurts the country as a whole.

Your choice on which type of anti-immigrationist you want to be. Backing up a position isn't wrong. It's backing up a position for all the wrong reasons that's stupid.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I believe the term used by most people north of the border is Hispanic or Latino. The two are used interchangably but are different from Spanish.

I have been told by the Mexican students that Hispanic is mostly Mexico/Mexican and Latino is mostly Central and South American County.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Master Zen


"By our own cultural standards"?

You mean its an inherent Latin American cultural problem that we get offended when people call us something that we aren't? You don't get it do you, it's not that we feel its degrading or offensive to be called Spanish, it's just that its WRONG. We are NOT Spanish and there's a big difference in that Spanish and latinamericans are of different race, language, heck we even don't share the same continent. So why on earth should we just sit back and say nothing if someone incorrectly says what you are just because their stupid lazy ass thinks everyone who speaks spanish is exactly the same?

There is nothing cultural about this, I doubt Canadians would like it if they were called "English" or "Americans". Maybe I should call Japanese and Koreans "Chinese" since well, they look alike.

See the stupidity behind this?

Re-read my multiple explinations on the black comment to understand why it isn't the same thing.

That would be a nice explanation, if you REALIZED THAT ALL BLACK PEOPLE AREN'T ACTUALLY COLORED BLACK EITHER.

So it's just plain wrong, your example doesn't work.

Double standard.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Joseph
I have been told by the Mexican students that Hispanic is mostly Mexico/Mexican and Latino is mostly Central and South American County.

Hispanic = originating from the Iberian penninsula. This would apply to all people from the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in America.

Latino = Latin American. Technically would include anyone from Spanish, Portuguese and French colonies in America. Nevertheless the geographic term "Latin America" basically includes everything south of the US border.

Spanish = a citizen of Spain

There are of course loopholes in every definition. Would Quebec count as "Latin America" since it is of Latin (French) origin? Gramatically yes, but geographically and historically, no. What about the English and Dutch colonies in the carribean and in south america, are they latin/hispanic too? Take Belize for example, originally a British (non-Latin) colony which is mainly black (non-Latin). What about Brazil which is half european descendant and half african descendant? Or Argentina and Uruguay which are almost entirely european also (both of these are actually "whiter" than the US)?

Despite all these loopholes, for most people its just easy to say that south of the border we're all Hispanic or Latino and I would say it's the closest definition possible. Despite the different languages and the different ethnic mixes, most countries south of the border have a common culture and identity in the broader sense (not in small part due to the influence of catholicism in practically every country here).

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


That would be a nice explanation, if you REALIZED THAT ALL BLACK PEOPLE AREN'T ACTUALLY COLORED BLACK EITHER.

So it's just plain wrong, your example doesn't work.

Double standard.

Double standard my ass.

The Merriam Webster dictionary for our concerns defines "black" as:

2 a : having dark skin, hair, and eyes : SWARTHY b (1) often capitalized : of or relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin (2) : of or relating to the Afro-American people or their culture (3) : typical or representative of the most readily attended parts of black culture

On the other hand the definition of Spanish is:

2 plural in construction : the people of Spain

Read it carefully. THE PEOPLE OF SPAIN. Not the people of Spanish descent, not the people in spanish-colonized America. Not people who speak Spanish.

PWNED.

[Ted Striker]

Span·ish

1. Of or relating to Spain or its people or culture.
2. Of or relating to the Spanish language.

Nice selective definition.


What do all people south of the American border all have in common? Spanish is almost always their primary language.

http://www.dictionary.com

Master Zen defends Fox for being politically incorrect by instructing people on how to be politically correct.





I just don't know why BROWN people get offended anyway.

[Ted Striker]

adj : of or relating to or characteristic of Spain or the people of Spain; "Spanish music" [syn: Spanish] n 1: the Romance language spoken in most of Spain and the countries colonized by Spain [syn: Spanish] 2: the people of Spain

This one even refers to you in the colonies.

[Master Zen]

no, it refers to the language.

1: the Romance language spoken in most of Spain and the countries colonized by Spain [syn: Spanish]

.

the only definitions related to people clearly state that they are relative to Spain, NOT the people colonized by Spain.

PWNED x2.