Immigrating to U.S. becomes much costlier

You're joking, right?

Why? How do you know that they are terrorists... Is it´s them who attack WTC towers or any other countries?

I know Saddam is very bad man and treat his people horrible and dirty in his country but terrorists to different country? I don´t know. I need to learn to know more about them if you know that Iraqi are terrorists...

What about this

Is the United States Military a Terrorist Organization?
by Jared Hood | Fri, 07/13/2007 - 9:10pm

Is the United States Military a Terrorist Organization? | Iraq Veterans Against the War
 
Please forgive me if my post is harsh to you. I doesn´t mean to make harsh post to you... Just wonder to myself why the people are ignorant over that Iraq war which is not necassary.

Yes, I know it´s terrorists who attack WTC Towers but we cannot prove who and which country who did WTC towers. We already have hot debated in several threads over that last year. Why against Iraq? Is it because of terrorisom? Is Iraq responsible for attack WTC towers?

It's allright, don't worry about it :)

Well we already know who make the plan to attack the WTC and other building like the Pentagon during the 9/11, it was Osama Bin Linden and Al Queda, those two are famous "boss" of the terrorist group. But the problem is that we can't find them that easy. It's very hard to find them.

Also good question, why did we attacking on Iraq.. All I know is that Saddam are doing bad threaten on the Iraqi people, and he was in the susepction of support the terrorist. I am not sure if it was 100 percent true, but there's rush rumors that he is.
 
I read the link. So? There is nothing there that connects global warming with hurricanes. The headline was very misleading. The articles at that site just tried to make political connections to Katrina so people with agendas could blame President Bush.

Signing the Kyoto Treaty won't stop hurricanes, for crying out loud. :roll:
 
wow :eek3: You don´t understand... I also would consider you as a terrorist, too if you want to attack them with no proof.
No proof? You're kidding I hope.

Don´t you know that the terrorists are here, there, and everywhere in many countries?...
Yeah, so don't you want to do something about them? Don't you want to stop them?

Did you know that there´re many organizations against people in many countries? If yes, why attack Iraq for?
Do you remember this?


SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,

OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)​

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations

(full text at SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002) )
 
We didn't need an "excuse" to attack Iraq; we had a standing UN mandate. Iraq didn't obey the UN, so they paid the price.

Is the attack is the reason is UN (United Nation)?

I have read that many says that they attack Iraq for different reasons... I really don´t know what should I say... *sigh*
 
Why? How do you know that they are terrorists... Is it´s them who attack WTC towers or any other countries?
The 9/11 attack was the worst but it wasn't the first time we were attacked by terrorists. There have been many other terrorist attacks against America and Americans.


What about this

Is the United States Military a Terrorist Organization?
by Jared Hood | Fri, 07/13/2007 - 9:10pm

Is the United States Military a Terrorist Organization? | Iraq Veterans Against the War
What about it? It's a personal blog written by a disgruntled person. I don't give much credence to anyone who supports that fraud Ward Churchill.
 
Thank you for share interesting post about Mexico and law but I quote part of your post to response.



I like Mexico's law better "If the children of a Mexican born parent are not born in Mexico, they are automatically Mexicans"... Here in Germany is bit opposite.

The children born in Germany to temporary legal immgrant parents who live for over 5 years with good criminal records and good work reference then they are automatically German. (Their children are consider as Muslim-German because their parents are Muslim but Muslim-German consider themselves as German and want to live like Germans). I know that the German law is too easy for non-Germans to apply for citizenship and legislated when their children born in Germany which mean it's good for legal immigrant to stay here in Germany permanently with no more apply for extend because their children born in Germany. :|



I assumed the German immigration laws were supposed to be strict. So, you have mentioned they consider themselves Muslim-German. Under German law, Is Muslim recognized as a nationality? I recall vaguely this American woman who was just married to a Danish born husband, but the Danish law prevented them from marry because she is not 24 years old yet. According to Danish law, she has to wait until she turns 24 before she is eligible to marry. So, they got married in the US and were forced to reside in Sweden and she has to learn another language, Swede and has to wait until she turns 24. I am not sure If I am correct about the age of 24. I think it is either 23 or 24.

In Mexico, If foreign parents have children that are Mexican by birth, and must live for two years of residence before they are eligible to request for naturalization. But if they do not have Mexican children, they must reside for five years before they are eligible to become Mexican citizens.

Since I am half Mexican, and if I have resided in Mexico for two years, I can get a Mexican citizenship. I could get a dual citizenship and perhaps I will buy me a beach in Baja!

if a Mexican plans to become the president of Mexico, a person has to be a Mexican by birth and is a child of a Mexican parent and to have resided in the country at least during twenty years.
 
I should put "German-Turkish" instead of muslim-german on my response post toward Barbaro.

Normally yes, they are being consider to be German-Turkish but it´s habit for the people to use those word "muslim-german" because they protest against German Government or other people who "offence" them. I was like huh? when the people use those word "muslim-german" and then explain why... Ooohhh...
It´s knowledge of their behavior who born and raise in Germany and being influence by muslim parents who are strong belief. Anyway, many German-Turkish are neutral and like to be German and has nothing do with muslim religion.


That answered my question in my post above.
 
Citing wildlife, Mexico seeks border changes
'Barrier would place at risk the various ecosystems that we share'

Updated: 10:19 a.m. ET July 31, 2007

Mexico: Species hurt by U.S. border fence - Environment - MSNBC.com


What do you think of this?

I've heard this news for a few years since there have been talks of building the fence that initiated concerns such as ecosystem /endangered species issues. I've had some discussion with a friend of mine last year concerning endangered species such as Mexican wolves.

I almost spitted out water when I read the link that indicate "...live fences of cactuses... ". Anyway, it is a good try to replace the proposed fence with live fences of cactuses, but It definitely will not be successful and will not prevent illegals and smugglers from getting across the border. It is easy for anyone to cut down fences of cactuses and get through. I can cut cactus myself with an electric chainsaw. Cactuses can harm animals. I've seen domesticated and wild species in Arizona with thorns all over their faces and bodies. It is hideous sighting!

The link never indicates anything about the tunnels. It is not uncommon illegals and smugglers have been using tunnels that can stretch more than a mile.

I find it so amusing when it states "green corridors of wilderness without roads that would be less attractive to smugglers...." Wha---?! That is what the illegals and smugglers want. It will also give them advantage to get through without being caught by the US border patrol. The Mexican government wants to provide illegals and smugglers full access to the border. The suggestions from Mexico's Environment Department report are a big joke. They may be ecologists, but are not security experts. I think both ecologists and security experts need to transmit together. Unfortunately, both experts will probably dissuade each other for a lifetime.

I have heard of Dr. Exequiel Ezcurra and have read the local articles in the local newspapers from him in San Diego. He is such a passionate scientist and I have agreed with him on many issues toward the Mexican government. He did mention that the Mexican government is ignorant and rather to focus on short-term factors instead of the long-term factors and the society in Mexico needs common sense!

Mexico is making progress extremely slow (I mean, really slow !) protecting the environment areas and endangered species but the government is so consumed by the corruption to neglect to do their public duties. It is not simple to dissuade the officials out of doing illegal actions but they're the sovereign after all.
 
It's true that they send some of their earnings home but they also have to spend money on the essentials to live such as food, heating, clothing, rent etc. Also the amounts that get sent home is probably not too much different to what legal residents save in bank accounts etc.

T

I am not familiar with the US system but in Australia, illegal migrants and their children cannot use medical services, cannot send their children to school and cannot claim social welfare payments. They also pay higher fees for rents because the landlord knows they are illegals and have to pay cash for everything so that they aren't discovered. Not a great existence but probably better than what they had back home.

I don't personally have a problem with children benefiting from social services - it's not their fault their parents made the choices they did.
If you don't do anything about the children then it will produce a large, uneducated, poor underclass in your country who are more likely to turn to crime to survive. You have to think of it from a pragmatic social policy perspective that works with the givens.



I think it's a myth that terrorists come in as illegal migrants. It's a lot of effort and a lot of risk to come in that way, because you might get caught. Most terrorists are well educated, financially backed and well organised. They will come in on legitimate visas such as education and skilled work visas so as not to arouse suspicion.


Absolutely....they come in as legal immigrants, obtain a decent education, and then many return home to provide benefit of that education to their birth country.
 
Britain is experiencing similar job problems:

80% of new jobs have gone to migrants since Labour came to power
By STEVE DOUGHTY
Last updated at 11:59am on 11th December 2007

Gordon Brown's 'British jobs for British workers' campaign has been criticised in the wake of new figures

Migrants have taken four out of five jobs created since Labour came to power, Whitehall analysts have said.

Their verdict was a huge embarrassment to Cabinet ministers, who have claimed most jobs went to Britons.

It brought new criticism for Gordon Brown and his promise of "British jobs for British workers".

...The commission said 1.4million workers born abroad had taken jobs in Britain since 1997. That was 81 per cent of the 1.7million new jobs for people of working age.

The commission said it was counting all workers born abroad - rather than just foreign citizens, as Government officials do - because that produced a clearer picture of immigration.

Mr Field, the Birkenhead MP who was Tony Blair's first welfare reform minister, said last night: "We are even further from seeing British workers getting British jobs than we thought.

"The economy has been creating an unprecedented number of jobs and we have really keen people from abroad coming to do them. But often British workers are not getting a look-in."

Mr Field called on the Government to stop Eastern Europeans taking jobs here.

Under Labour the majority of new jobs have gone to immigrants

He said: "We could have stopped Polish and other Eastern European workers coming when their countries joined the European Union. But we didn't, because the Home Office said there would be only 5,000 to 13,000 a year.

"The Government should now go to the European Commission and ask permission to stop workers from Eastern Europe.

"This is clearly damaging the British labour market and British unemployed people are not moving into work."

Tories said the Prime Minister's promise to British workers had been shown to be empty. Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "So much for Gordon Brown's dubious, factually-inaccurate and potentially-illegal comment of British jobs for British workers.

"We now know that 80 per cent of these jobs were filled by people from abroad.

"When will Gordon Brown learn that uncontrolled immigration leads to uncontrollable pressures on public services, housing, schools and community relations?"

The Statistics Commission said estimates of the numbers of newly-employed migrant workers began at just over 50 per cent, if foreign citizens alone were counted.

The higher estimates cover all people born abroad, including those who had since become British citizens. It said: "Information about country-of birth would seem to be more relevant to questions about migration than information about nationality, which can change over time."

It said government departments should agree a common approach to avoid continuing confusion, adding: "We understand that discussions to this end are taking place".

The commission said that when all age groups were considered, including those over normal retirement age, migrants still took 68 per cent of 2.1 million new jobs.

All the estimates are based on the Labour Force Survey, a large-scale poll carried out regularly by the Government's Office for National Statistics.

The row over the figures broke out when Work and Pensions Secretary Peter Hain said 800,000 foreign nationals had taken jobs in Britain since 1997.

Under fierce pressure he was forced to change the figure to 1.1million.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith tried to defend Mr Hain by saying the majority of jobs had still gone to Britons - but she was rapidly proved wrong.

The Department of Work and Pensions insisted last night that the commission's findings showed it had got its figures right - at least at the second time of asking.

A spokesman said: "The commission has confirmed the revised estimates we issued in October are correct. Of the 2.1 million increase in employment since 1997, about 1 million were UK nationals and 1.1 million foreign nationals.

"There have been, and remain, British jobs for British workers. Consistently there have been more than 600,000 job vacancies on any given day.

"This, allied to the fact that the number on key out-of-work benefits has fallen by a million in the last decade, shows there are jobs there and that people are coming off benefits and getting to work."

The DWP did not explain how Miss Smith came to make her claim.
80% of new jobs have gone to migrants since Labour came to power | the Daily Mail
 
Back
Top