The end of it makes it all worth it.

OMFG! that is the funniest fuckin' thing i've seen in weeks!

Indeed ....

Had them at 'deportation' LMFAO!

P.S.

*looks up Erickson to follow him on twitter*

i'll take a look.  ahhh, ice cube: one of history's biggest posers.

"Stolen land"

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Seems you morons didn't have a problem when the "settlers" stole land from the Native Americans.

Instead of falsely using labels to make a case for the burdon of undocumented people causing economic stress on the country, you falsely use nationality and origin as the cause.

If one wants to make the country out as a lifeboat which is sinking because to many people are climbing aboard, THAT would be a better case.

Our economic problems as a nation are not due to race or national origin. Our economic problems are due to lack of jobs and lack of decent wages and because of big business blackmail, we are becoming a third world country because it has become a race to the bottom of pay scale because third world countries pay their workers far less and the only way to compete is to cheat, instead of raising the living standard.

This idiot does what most people do, left and right, turn a humanitarian problem into a race issue.

What we should be doing in this country is keep good paying jobs here. What we should encourage other countries to do is pay their workers livable wages. BUT, none of our problems are based on skin color or national origin.

You seem angry Brian.

He trolled them. Very very well. It was hilarious statement, and he even managed to get them to rally behind it.

Mockery of public idiocy is entertainment.

I'm not really sure what you are angry about, or who you are calling a fuckwad and an idiot. Please clarify...?

You know what I did at a pro-choice march on Washington, not the last big one, but the previous big one.

There was a group of Christians praying on the sidewalk and I was shouting at them but mixed up my words, at first I said it correctly, "Pro life what a lie, you don't care if women die", But at that point I was getting emotionally spent from the long day and mixed up my words, "Pro choice what a lie, you dont care if women die!"

DOH! At least the priest got a laugh out of it.

I just saw "teabaggers" and got on auto pilot.

....

Oh, never mind.

Yes let's open the borders up to Catholic Mexicans who's duty to God is to have tons of babies, after all God will take care of them(and if God doesn't the taxpayers can).

Let's bring in all the Muslims whose duty to Allah is have tons of babies, then destroy the infidels and impose Sharia law.

Open the borders, let's let in all people with nutty religious ideas.

xkcd provides an excellent anecdote of this:

Exactly. Brain-drain other societies by taking in as many of their scientists and engineers as possible in order to enrich our society. Don't let massive hordes of uneducated and extremely poor immigrants in to depress your nation's wages, out breed you and then force your culture to mirror the culture of the nation that they fled from. In America our only problem seems to be our open border with Mexico. In parts of Western Europe their problem is wage depression from poor Eastern Europeans and letting in far too many uneducated and violent Muslims.

Immigration is a good thing. Letting massive amounts of ultra-poor immigrants who refuse to adopt your cultural customs emmigrate isn't such a good thing. The fact that these poor third world hordes tend to be extremely religious is an added problem for us atheists.

I got to think the Islamic Imams must be laughing at the cultural suicide the west is making thanks to the socialists and leftists. They tell their ignorant followers to breed like rabbits so their religion and culture can dominate. Then the socialist agree to pay for all these children(or at least force others to pay). They got to be smiling at how stupid all these socialists really are in aiding Islam's take over.

Uh... Did you seriously just write that?

It's already a given in your statement that indoctrinarian people who love to have babies are going up against your small number of free-thinking atheists who agree to have fewer children. Hopefully you see how your statement collapses in on itself?

Another huge problem is that a lot of atheists have a fondness for human rights. One of these rights is the right to have children.

I tire of Malthusians, but you really take the cake.

Uh... you and Jorum do know that "open borders" is a major policy stance of the Libertarian party, right? Or all of a sudden, you feel the right to deny inalienable rights of others? Just checking. You placing illegal immigration at the hand of "socialists" and "leftists" is laughable. To wit: do some research on the Progressives. Staunchly anti-immigrant, as they knew the new immigrants wouldn't be in their unions, and their wages would be depressed. There are still many progressives and liberals who advocate isolationist economic policies and reduced immigration in order to keep the average wage rising. There's also lots of open border conservatives, who regard any fellow believer as a fellow citizen, a child of God. But blanket statements and baseless attacks are nice, maybe you fooled a couple people.

And seriously, still grasping to tired Malthusian fears? Sigh. You do know that Malthus was utterly wrong, don't you? And every revival of it has been equally dismissed. Technology will always be the factor that allows populations to sustain themselves even at relatively high levels of growth. These high levels inevitably decline, though... which admittedly isn't as sexy as screaming "we're all going to die unless we stop having sex!" but it's the truth. Check out Europe and Japan... if it weren't for immigrant populations, they'd have abysmal declines in population -- and Japan is on pace to drastically reduce its population by 2050.

I really think a lot of this boils down to people being afraid of a mixed planet. And being afraid our "culture" will dissolve at the hands of crazy immigrants. Ignoring the fact that cultures change vastly, but what comes even quicker than that change is assimilation, even by the Mexicans (which is the hot group of the moment to demonize). Another interesting development is that Mexicans are no longer coming en masse, since the incentive of risking one's life for a bad economy isn't really there. In fact, we are getting a steady stream of well-educated, dare I say rich Latinos/Hispanics from countries you wouldn't really expect. All here to invest cheaply in these bad times, much like the Chinese. All adding to this culture, instead this time they won't be slaves.

You can't be a believer in global free markets, and then shut out the resulting immigration effects. At least, if you want to be politically/ideologically consistent. 

You know I don't care what the Libertarian Party says, right? They are a decent political party for libertarians; but most libertarians don't identify with that party and some even go out of their way to announce their opposition to it. I am aware of the Libertarian Party's stance on immigration, and I disagree with it.

I already know about that. Your condescension is a bit misplaced. I do think it is funny that there are progressives that want to completely stop all immigration. Cesar Chavez wanted to completely stop all immigration for example. He supported illegal immigrants, but was opposed to any new illegal or legal immigrants since they would just compete with him.

Is this a concern over population growth rates, or is it a concern over a relatively small native population being potentially overrun by a much larger foreign population? Wanting to keep immigration levels somewhat low in order to gradually let in outsiders and let their influence on your society happen slowly rather than so suddenly that it results in a backlash isn't a Malthusian concern. If so many are let in so quickly that it produces a bit of a culture shock for the natives, you risk them supporting anti-immigration policies. I don't see any unreasonableness or misplaced Malthusian worries in desiring moderate immigration rates rather than extremely rapid immigration rates.

If we are talking about this in the context of illegal Mexican immigrants in the US (as a SoCal resident, this is what I am most familiar with), then that is indeed a silly concern. They want to share in our wealth and they don't want to fundamentally alter our society. Their motivations in coming here is just to get a lot of money and have their children live outside of poverty. As little as I like the illegal Mexican immigration, I am not worried about them obliterating our society.

If we are talking about this in the context of certain foolish European countries allowing far too many Muslim immigrants in, then I believe that there is some legitimacy in people worried about the Muslims trying to obliterate their culture. I have read and seen too many Muslims announcing that their intentions are to undo all of Western culture and replace it with their own. I sincerely hope that the Muslim immigrants who declare their intentions to destroy Western civilization are just some crazy fringe and that most of them value Western culture and want to assimilate. But the extremely high crime rates and violent protests staged by Muslim immigrants in Europe makes me think that maybe they do lack respect for Western culture. The popularity of Sharia courts in certain European countries is also extremely worrisome. That is basically them telling us that they are going to import their horrible culture into countries that I like. Their stated intentions to turn liberalized Western nations into nations run by Islamic law is an extreme cause for concern. This isn't a case of people imagining that the immigrants are out to dissolve their culture, this is a case of the immigrants announcing that they will do everything within their power to dissolve Western culture.

I see the value in cultural change and allowing other cultures and immigrants to enrich your culture. Every day at graduate school I interact with immigrants. You wouldn't believe the number of foreign students there are at my school. I am glad that they are here to partake in my nation's education system. I hope that they stay and enrich America with their technical expertise. All of this is good. The one thing I can't stand is people from a culture that lacks my conception of basic human rights and secular governance proclaiming that they will immigrate and impose their way of life on Europe. I am going to make an exception in my support of immigration for Muslims that are vocally against the existence of secular Western democracies. Let's not let those people immigrate. And let's especially not let them immigrate in extremely massive numbers so that they can influence local politics and attempt to impose their horrible way of life on us. Is this such a controversial or backwards position to take? I would think that a board of atheists would be especially against this kind of attempt to undo our secular governments. If anyone should be in opposition to Muslims attempts to impose Islamic law on Europe, it is atheists, women and gays. European Muslims have actually murdered people because people criticized their extremely poor treatment of women or mentioned religious concepts in relation to Islam that Muslims don't like. If anyone should be rejecting this kind of PC attitude, it should be us.

Sounds great. Using legal immigration to take the best and brightest away from poorer countries is something that I support. If they are so well educated, then it would be wise to give them work visas and eventually green cards.

I don't see the ideological inconsistency. I can immagine someone that would want goods to cross borders without impediment, but was against people immigrating to their country. What part of wanting free exchange of goods necessarily makes you have to want free exchange of people? I personally support legal immigration and am opposed to illegal immigration, but I don't see how a capitalist that disagrees with me on immigration matters is necessarily inconsistent in his beliefs. For that matter, immigration isn't a binary option. There are a number of positions one could take. One could avocate no immigration, unlimited immigration or limited ammounts of immigration. I'm in the 'limited' camp and I support global free markets, does that make me inconsistent in some way?