Here are some fair use exceprts from various net news stories, quoted in excerpts under fair use ( "" are my commnets):
From Sydney Morning Herald:
(This is an editorial disguised as a news feature:
"The trade is part of a huge illegal movement of people going on in Europe; an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants crossed borders into Western European countries this year, up from 40,000 six years ago.
But as the world's dispossessed risk their lives and possessions to beat immigration barriers a nationalist reaction has set in among the rich countries, marked by jingoistic hymns to national cultures, anti-immigrant tirades and the scapegoating of foreigners for everything from rising crime to rotten schools. "
[Many Europeans don't want immigration. How does it profit them? Very little. Rents go up because there is more demand; wages go down because there is more supply. It's just common sense, and no number of bought-and-paid-for studies will convince me otherwise. Yes, some people DO benefit, but just those who alraey have money, just those who are in the upper brackets of net wealth.]
"Europe needs migrants, and the need is growing rapidly.
[Sez who? Their bought economic studies?]
"The proportion of the elderly in the EU, defined as people aged 65 and over, is expected to rise to 22.4 per cent in 2025 from 15.4 per cent today. With birth rates low, Europe's already strained state pension system faces collapse unless the working population that supports it is expanded through immigration. One EU working paper puts the number needed at 75 million immigrants by 2050. "
[Here we go with one of their most grotesque tactic: appealing to people's fear about old age. Again, it's really nothing more than extortion. Govt takes the money fromus in the form of Social Security taxes, supposedly to invest it for our old age, but then it will only be there if we let in millions of immigrants? Is no one here familiar with the Ponzi Scheme???]
"The European Commission warned recently this would require strong political leadership to combat "racism and xenophobia".
[Excuse me, but the Europeans OWN their respective countries! Ever heard of teh phrase, "We reserve teh right to refuse anyone..."?
If they want o keep immigrants out, that is their business. It's THEIR property. By analogy, if a trespasser comes onto a business that I own jointly with other people, and he is not invited, I may if I chose (with the agreement of my business partners), kick his butt off my property. You can call it "xenophobia" or a "ham sandwich". I call it property rights. They find that appealing to racial guilt iis very effective in getting their way and being able to lower labor costs by increasing the supply of labor. ]
From the north New Jersy Newspaper in Bergen, more bias in the form of a news story which is really an editorial in disguise:
"Recent arrivals crucial to clout "
[Nice objective headline. I can already guess where their sympathies lie....]
By ELIZABETH LLORENTE
[I am only showing the last part, which AGAIN, as I pointed out, is a quote from someone who is esposing the same viewpoint as the news-story/editorial (which of course is pro-immigration)]:
"I feel the vitality of immigrants every time," said Schuber, the son of an Irish immigrant mother, "when I look at the new churches, the new businesses, and thriving new communities all around me."
[Dig all those positive-connotaion words like "vitality".
But on the pther side of the fence, it "hate" and xenophobia". THey play the connotaions game to the hilt....
From Time magazine:
[Again, this is just the last part of the story, and what a coincidence...it's PRO-immigration because it gives an argument supporting immigration. What a surprise!]
"The larger problem is that tight control over the southwestern U.S. border, along with the potential impact of Proposition 187, creates entirely new categories of problems. It will almost certainly place enormous hardships on the Mexican population, which will in turn create diplomatic strains between two countries working hard to make the North American Free Trade Agreement succeed. It also stands to devastate agriculture in states like California, which rely on illegal immigrant labor to bring in the harvest. All of which suggests that, even if it is possible to shut down the border with Mexico, reaching that goal may be far from the political slam dunk it seemed to be in the campaign season. While cutting off illegal immigration may save some money in social services, the price will be the loss of a labor pool that the U.S. has long taken for granted.
With reporting by Laura Lopez/Mexico City and Elaine Shannon/Washington "
I am not saying there is no upside to immigration. There is. In fact, we ought to import every foreign-born medical doctor we can get our grubby hands on. Period.
In fact, we ought to stop training doctors in the US. We could train many many more overseas for the same price. And medical doctors provide a huge personal benefit to us all, even though it would depress doctors' wages...and wouldn't THAT be a huge shame?
And there is definitely something to be said for letting in all science PhD's (legitimate ones only, and there will be a cost for the kind of extensive checking that would be needed).
But I am just the sort of contrarian who gets his back up bigtime when confronted by society-wide lies, such as we have here.
I am also submitting this as an independent topic post.
However, I ask you to look at this aubject in as purely an objective light as possible and ask yourself how much your responses are kneejerked straight from the old progaganda bin in your head, filled on a daily basis by the mass media.