THE SYMBIANTS
by H. Millard © 2006
http://www.newnation.org/Millard/Symbiants.html

Symbiosis: In nature, a close relationship between two or more differing types of organisms where both derive benefits

I recently scratched the surface of the illegal alien problem in a medium size American city (about 100,000 population) and found
what could be described as a fairly cohesive symbiotic relationship that has developed between illegal aliens, some business
interests and some charities.

The name of the city isn't important. My guess is that a very similar symbiosis probably exists in every city in this nation with a
large illegal alien population. I submit, that thinking of illegal immigration as a symbiosis might give us some added insights
into the true nature of illegal immigration and it might help us drag some of the hidden elements out into the bright light of day
so they can be seen clearly and addressed.

The real problem with the illegal alien symbiosis that I spotted is that while a few people benefit from it, many more are
parasitized by the relationship. Those who are parasitized are the good, decent citizens of this nation who just want to live in a
First World nation and to pursue the American dream as their ancestors did.

Now, let me be clear that there's not much new in what I learned, except, perhaps, that the relationship that has evolved around
illegal aliens--at least in this one city--is more cohesive and structured (in an almost organic way) than the way many people think
about it.

Sir Frederick wrote:

galathaea wrote:

I've also repeatedly said that contradictions in themselves don't
necessarily imply invalidation, as often the solutions to problems are
often counter-intuitive, such as the process of using vaccines to cure
diseases.

Language is an objective structure but the meaning we attach to them is
essentially subjective, as every word tends to carry a slightly
different meanings depending on its observer. In terms of this issue,
the facts are all there and they are everywhere -- it's just a matter
of if you trust the statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau and/or other
academic studies or some dude making unsubstantiated claims with
absolutely no evidence or methodology like in the original post.

On 7 Oct 2006 15:37:41 -0700, "RyanT" hushmail.com> wrote:

What exactly did I lose here? Your article is nothing but baseless
assertions and you know it. The author avoids citing actual examples
because if he did, the fact that he's just full of shit.

Statistics and economic growth trends point in the direction that I am
right, as long as they take a long-term viewpoint. I will let the
facts argue my point for me and not waste my time clearing up
misconceptions that you have come to harbor. That is something for you
to do on your own.

Sir Frederick wrote:

"Sir Frederick" fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:g92gi253tbr36cnh2t9ede9go0hk2f2kop@4ax.com...

RyanT wrote:

What about the Kiwis? If you try emigrate to New Zealand, you'd better
be young, healthy, and educated, or you'd better have a good chunk of
dough or a job waiting for you when you get there.

Your paper is correct. The border and civil wars are starting (chaos).
The aristocracy (elites) get away with these cultural
destructions because the common folk can't imagine the
aristocratic actions as even a possibility.

Those that actively support these "progressive" actions have their heads
up their asses even further and/or something to gain (read corruption).
They are losers. Their models of what it is and what it means to be a
human being are more false than those supporting the canonic culture.

Again, this resource :
http://www.minutemanproject.com/
and :
http://www.billoreilly.com/
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/

There are countless examples of where it has, whereas there are no
examples where a civilization has been destroyed due to immigration.
These patterns are fairly consistent in all of history and the more you
study history the sillier the argument toward restrictions become.
Unlike insurgencies, these people are not there to cause harm but to
work and make a better lives for themselves.

The percieved threat really, comes from the fact that these workers
typically worker harder and longer for lower wages. The biggest irony
comes from the fact that these arguments come from conservatives who
typically advocate the virtues of the free market. Not only is the
argument incoherent, but it's inherently dishonest.

ta wrote: