• maybe money
  • Yeah, I don't see the point of staying in a place or coming to a place that you hate or insult or curse. I have seen that happen, both on and off Answerbag ;) Frankly, I don't understand such people. No one is really forcing anyone to stay in a place or come to a place that they hate, right? Just don't come. Or just don't stay. But I guess such people do that because they think that the world revolves around them. ..... Good question, redcatt :)
  • Sound very, very crabby. I'd say everyone is entitled to a bad day once in a while, but these guys are overusing them. Who knows. Weird world we live in these days.
  • "Just give me the money and let me do what I want". You have no right to control me." Sounds like that is the attitude. And, I don't know how they are living. Job, other money??? This is often the attitude of US citizens who are born here. Immigrants (legal or not legal) do not have this attitude as an original attitude. These people probably have this attitude no matter where they live. Maybe they can get by with it easier here than somewhere else.
  • nasty!!! maybe they came here because our beautiful first amendment guarantees them the right to free speech, which, apparently in their case, surrounds cursing. maybe they would be shot in the old country if they cursed so much. i'd buy them a dictionary so that they can learn english words that aren't curse words.
  • Because it is better than where they come from..where they probably also broke the law, were rude, threw trash everywhere, cursed everyone and cursed their country..they drag their sorry butts and lousy attitude with them wherever they go..they are leeches on society wherever they are unfortunate to have them near you. My condolences! :(
  • Because If they stayed in their country, their stupid heads would probably be chopped off by now. I've always asked the same question. They have it better here and they don't know how to appreciate it.
  • You have told me loads about them. They sound like the neigbors from hell for sure! I just dont get why the police wont haul all them off for their crimes?
  • My guess is they came here because if they tried that in their own country, the local dictator/drug-lord/war-lord/rebel leader/fill-in-the-blank would chop their arms off.
  • 1) There are bad people everywhere. Of course, we would like to have them elsewhere. And we are always the better people, aren't we? 2) "In the United States, concerned parties argue that an influx of immigrants, especially less educated immigrants, is responsible for an increase in theft and violent crime in the areas they migrate to. This concern is prevalent in many strata of society, from the common man (a 2000 survey of Americans found 73 percent felt immigrants were dangerous because they brought crime) to the highest levels of the US Government (as clearly stated in a speech by George W. Bush on May 15, 2006). As Professor Ruben Rumbaut and Walter Ewing have noted, this impression is reinforced and magnified by television shows and movies such as The Godfather, The Sopranos, Scarface, Rush Hour and West Side Story that strongly correlate ethnic immigrant groups with organized crime. Statistics, however, do not consistently support this argument. While one 2005 report stated that 21% of all crimes are committed by illegal immigrants, other reports released in 2008 showed that immigrants were anywhere from three to five times less likely to commit crimes than native-born American residents. Some groups argue that immigration debate increases one type of crime: violent crimes by United States-born citizens against immigrants. According to a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, as debate on the issue of immigration increased and language became more incendiary from 2003 to 2006, hate crimes against Latinos rose by 35% The anti-immigration group Federation for American Immigration Reform has argued that these statistics are flawed, stating that violence by non-Latino gangs against the Latino organized criminal element are being mistaken for racial violence." "Although freedom of movement is often recognized as a civil right, the freedom only applies to movement within national borders: it may be guaranteed by the constitution or by human rights legislation. Additionally, this freedom is often limited to citizens and excludes others. No state currently allows full freedom of movement across its borders, and international human rights treaties do not confer a general right to enter another state. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, citizens may not be forbidden to leave their country. There is no similar provision regarding entry of non-citizens. Those who reject this distinction on ethical grounds, argue that the freedom of movement both within and between countries is a basic human right, and that the restrictive immigration policies, typical of nation-states, violate this human right of freedom of movement. Such arguments are common among anti-state ideologies like anarchism and libertarianism. Where immigration is permitted, it is typically selective. Ethnic selection, such as the White Australia policy, has generally disappeared, but priority is usually given to the educated, skilled, and wealthy. Less privileged individuals, including the mass of poor people in low-income countries, cannot avail of these immigration opportunities. This inequality has also been criticised as conflicting with the principle of equal opportunities, which apply (at least in theory) within democratic nation-states. The fact that the door is closed for the unskilled, while at the same time many developed countries have a huge demand for unskilled labour, is a major factor in illegal immigration. The contradictory nature of this policy - which specifically disadvantages the unskilled immigrants while exploiting their labour - has also been criticised on ethical grounds." Source and further information: 3) "Previously, immediate deportation was triggered only for offences that could lead to five years or more in jail. Under the Act, minor offences such as shoplifting, may make an individual eligible for deportation. The Act also applies to residents who have married American citizens and have American-born children. When IIRIRA was passed in 1996, it was applied retroactively to all those convicted of deportable offenses. This included US residents who committed minor offences decades ago." Source and further information:
  • America projects an image around the world through the media that people believe. They see people on TV living fabulous lives here. Everyone is beautiful, money comes easy, women are easy, life is wonderful in America. There are millions of Americans going into bankruptcy and foreclosure because they bought into the same image, and they were raised here. Broken dreams break very hard, try some understanding.
  • The short and simple answer to that is that HERE is far better than where they lived before. The big problem is that, when many of THEM come HERE they bring the ways of the other country with them and soon their host country is almost as bad as the one left behind.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy