Immigration
I'm surprised there is no thread yet on the walk-outs today by many immigrants, legal and illegal.
I'd like to hear your guys' opinions and takes on this issue. Being origionally from the southern Cali area, I pay much attention to the local politics and issues.
Do ya'll think all immigrants legal and illegal should get full amnesty? A new system of citizenship? Pay back taxes for the work they have done here in the US? Other?
Full amnesty, or at least easier legal-status-gettin' for those already here. And everyone who wants to come here to work and make better lives for themselves should be allowed work permits, with a direct, simple process for becoming documented citizens.
If you catch a burglar in your living room, you might as well give him all your stuff. After all, he's already there, and he must be too poor to buy his own. All he wants is a better life for himself and his family.
Only if all other criminals get full amnesty.
If you catch a burglar in your living room, you might as well give him all your stuff. After all, he's already there, and he must be too poor to buy his own. All he wants is a better life for himself and his family.
Tell that to Rush Limbaugh who did the crime, does no time, AND ends up with no criminal record. The same man who insists "Do the crime, then do the time" will do no time and has no record of being a drug felon and money launder.
Full amnesty, or at least easier legal-status-gettin' for those already here.
And still the basic problem remains. And still not one useful solution is suggested. And still the reason for the problem is ignored. What kind of solution is that? One created by a Congressional compromise?
Once immigrants could come to America on days notice. Now an immigrant must spend years just to get a visa. We solved the problem all right. Using MBA concepts also advocated by a certain American president, we added more layers of bureaucracy. Then we added more unreadable forms and more laws so that even immigrants need lawyers. Yeph. Problems solved.
The difference is largely based on how our system has changed in the meantime. Back then, if you wanted to come here you did, and either swam or sunk. Now they claim to have the right to my money in the form of healthcare, education, and housing.
Tell that to Rush Limbaugh who did the crime, does no time, AND ends up with no criminal record. The same man who insists "Do the crime, then do the time" will do no time and has no record of being a drug felon and money launder.
I thought our system of justice was "innocent until proven guilty". That's one of the myriad rights and privileges available to citizens of this country.
Not illegals.
Why should those who choose to come into this country through legal means be shoved to the back of the line by a group of people who decided to force their way in illegally and then demand rights and support from the system?
(Hint: the correct answer is, "They shouldn't.")
The only real solution is to start imprisoning the Americans who employ them. Take away the incentive of jobs and all the free perks, and they won't come anymore. Any illegals in America, regardless of their numbers, should be deported and Mexico forced to pay the cost. NO AMNESTY EVER.
None of Mexico's resources go to help their own poor; all that lines the pockets of Presidente Fox and his cronies.
I'm totally behind that.
There was a guy on the radio yesterday who suggested that an employer who hires illegals should be deported to the country where the worker came from.
I'd be totally behind that, too.
Tell that to Rush Limbaugh who did the crime, does no time, AND ends up with no criminal record. The same man who insists "Do the crime, then do the time" will do no time and has no record of being a drug felon and money launder.
Nice red herring.
Like most plea bargains, that one was created on the judgement of the prosecuting authority. I'd have no problem with Limbaugh doing time, inasmuch as he did the crime. Apparently the DA involved thinks this is better use of his resources.
I'm essentially with Jordon on the
actual topic of this thread (although I think the chances of "forcing" the Mexican government to do anything in particular fall somewhere between "slim" and "none") Restrict the availability of illegal jobs and the illegal aliens will find their way home, we don't need to deport anyone.
So, did anyone notice any disruptions yesterday during the walkout? I have a feeling this is going to backfire on the protestors, as I don't think anything major came about because of their actions.
...and why do we suddenly care so much about this, anyways? It is not as though illegal immigrants are anything new to this country in recent months or anything. What the hell?
Was it here that I read that the Mexican Government is extremely strict on people crossing their southern borders, but then protest that we're being 'racist' against Mexicans when they cross ours?
Personally, if amnesty is granted to illegals that are currently in the country (which if I recall correctly, is a Felony), I want my own 'get out of jail free' card for my own Felony. Heck, I was born here, that should be my right too.
So, did anyone notice any disruptions yesterday during the walkout? I have a feeling this is going to backfire on the protestors, as I don't think anything major came about because of their actions.
I honestly didn't notice a thing. I forgot it was even the day until the next morning when I heard some news about it on the radio.
When they had the big demonstrations a few weeks ago, there was MUCH more of an impact. At least where I was.
Was it here that I read that the Mexican Government is extremely strict on people crossing their southern borders, but then protest that we're being 'racist' against Mexicans when they cross ours?
Personally, if amnesty is granted to illegals that are currently in the country (which if I recall correctly, is a Felony), I want my own 'get out of jail free' card for my own Felony. Heck, I was born here, that should be my right too.
I posted this in another thread, with the statement that we should make a deal with Mr. Fox... we treat our Southern border & illegals like he treats his.
Mexico Harsh to Undocumented Migrants
http://tinyurl.com/f88y2
By MARK STEVENSON, Associated Press Writer
Tue Apr 18, 6:08 PM ET
TULTITLAN, Mexico - Considered felons by the government, these migrants fear detention, rape and robbery. Police and soldiers hunt them down at railroads, bus stations and fleabag hotels. Sometimes they are deported; more often officers simply take their money.
ADVERTISEMENT
While migrants in the United States have held huge demonstrations in recent weeks, the hundreds of thousands of undocumented Central Americans in Mexico suffer mostly in silence.
And though Mexico demands humane treatment for its citizens who migrate to the U.S., regardless of their legal status, Mexico provides few protections for migrants on its own soil. The issue simply isn't on the country's political agenda, perhaps because migrants make up only 0.5 percent of the population, or about 500,000 people — compared with 12 percent in the United States.
The level of brutality Central American migrants face in Mexico was apparent Monday, when police conducting a raid for undocumented migrants near a rail yard outside Mexico City shot to death a local man, apparently because his dark skin and work clothes made officers think he was a migrant.
Virginia Sanchez, who lives near the railroad tracks that carry Central Americans north to the U.S. border, said such shootings in Tultitlan are common.
"At night, you hear the gunshots, and it's the judiciales (state police) chasing the migrants," she said. "It's not fair to kill these people. It's not fair in the United States and it's not fair here."
Undocumented Central American migrants complain much more about how they are treated by Mexican officials than about authorities on the U.S. side of the border, where migrants may resent being caught but often praise the professionalism of the agents scouring the desert for their trail.
"If you're carrying any money, they take it from you — federal, state, local police, all of them," said Carlos Lopez, a 28-year-old farmhand from Guatemala crouching in a field near the tracks in Tultitlan, waiting to climb onto a northbound freight train.
Lopez said he had been shaken down repeatedly in 15 days of traveling through Mexico.
"The soldiers were there as soon as we crossed the river," he said. "They said, 'You can't cross ... unless you leave something for us.'"
Jose Ramos, 18, of El Salvador, said the extortion occurs at every stop in Mexico, until migrants are left penniless and begging for food.
"If you're on a bus, they pull you off and search your pockets and if you have any money, they keep it and say, 'Get out of here,'" Ramos said.
Maria Elena Gonzalez, who lives near the tracks, said female migrants often complain about abusive police.
"They force them to strip, supposedly to search them, but the purpose is to sexually abuse them," she said.
Others said they had seen migrants beaten to death by police, their bodies left near the railway tracks to make it look as if they had fallen from a train.
The Mexican government acknowledges that many federal, state and local officials are on the take from the people-smugglers who move hundreds of thousands of Central Americans north, and that migrants are particularly vulnerable to abuse by corrupt police.
The National Human Rights Commission, a government-funded agency, documented the abuses south of the U.S. border in a December report.
"One of the saddest national failings on immigration issues is the contradiction in demanding that the North respect migrants' rights, which we are not capable of guaranteeing in the South," commission president Jose Luis Soberanes said.
In the United States, mostly Mexican immigrants have staged rallies pressuring Congress to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants rather than making them felons and deputizing police to deport them. The Mexican government has spoken out in support of the immigrants' cause.
While Interior Secretary Carlos Abascal said Monday that "Mexico is a country with a clear, defined and generous policy toward migrants," the nation of 105 million has legalized only 15,000 immigrants in the past five years, and many undocumented migrants who are detained are deported.
Although Mexico objects to U.S. authorities detaining Mexican immigrants, police and soldiers usually cause the most trouble for migrants in Mexico, even though they aren't technically authorized to enforce immigration laws.
And while Mexicans denounce the criminalization of their citizens living without papers in the United States, Mexican law classifies undocumented immigration as a felony punishable by up to two years in prison, although deportation is more common.
The number of undocumented migrants detained in Mexico almost doubled from 138,061 in 2002 to 240,269 last year. Forty-two percent were Guatemalan, 33 percent Honduran and most of the rest Salvadoran.
Like the United States, Mexico is becoming reliant on immigrant labor. Last year, then-director of Mexico's immigration agency, Magdalena Carral, said an increasing number of Central Americans were staying in Mexico, rather than just passing through on their way to the U.S.
She said sectors of the Mexican economy facing labor shortages often use undocumented workers because the legal process for work visas is inefficient.
This is a really tough issue for me. Im having trouble figureing out how I feel about it.
The first thing I think about, is how many americans are without jobs and living in poverty, and that I wish they would have these jobs first. But they you know that most americans wont take these jobs, which then just really pisses me off too. There are way too many people that just sit on their ass collecting a government check and wont take a job that they dont want to do.
I don't think that illegals should be sent to jail as criminals, but I do think they should be deported if they do not have a spouse or children who are american citizens. I understand that life here may be better than it is in mexico...but ya know what? I'd love to immigrate to canada, become a citizen, because Im afraid of what is happening to this country...but they wont let me in. Canada wont let americans in, so why is it so bad if we wont let mexicans in? But then again, its not like I live in a shack now but wouldnt in Canada.
Like I said, this is a difficult issue to judge. But in saying that, I must admit that Im the type of person who says screw foreign aid, lets fix this place first, when there are people dying everywhere. So I guess in the end my opinion will probably be to close down our borders and start fixing our own god damn shit before we try to help everyone else. I have nothing against mexicans... and I understand that theyre trying to make a better life for them and their family, but I do not think we should have an open gates immigration policy, nor do I think that we should legalize the millions of immigrants already inside our borders. And of course, I think it woudl be stupid to put htem in jail, there are already too many people in there. I think we should free all the people who were convicted of any offense having to do with marijuana and see how our criminal justice system thrives then...
Wow.. I went all over the place with that one. Sorry.
...and why do we suddenly care so much about this, anyways?
Because a bill passed the House making being an illegal alien or helping one a felony, so a big campaign has been mounted to lobby against it. Kind of an uphill struggle given that we're pretty sure illegal aliens can't vote.
So far, anyway.
"Helping illegal aliens" must be a growth industry, based on how many US citizens who are doing it for a living that I've seen on mainstream media lately.
...most americans wont take these jobs...
Not for the prices an illegal alien will. If that market were eliminated we would find out what the work is actually worth in legal on-the-book dollars.
Until then it's Greshham's Law in action.
Not for the prices an illegal alien will. If that market were eliminated we would find out what the work is actually worth in legal on-the-book dollars.
Until then it's Greshham's Law in action.
Very true. I heard a woman on the radio saying that her husband is a house painter for a living...and if he ever complains to his boss about his pay his boss just replies " deal with it, if you dont like it Ill just hire two mexicans for half the pay"...
*shrug* .. Of course the rethugs will try to claim that forcing these companies to pay real wages to their employees would destroy their business. But in my opinion, if you cant afford to pay your employees properly, you arent a good business person anyway.
Of course the rethugs will try to claim....
If you think the only people exploiting the illegal alien market are Republicans, you should probably think again.
Because a bill passed the House making being an illegal alien or helping one a felony, so a big campaign has been mounted to lobby against it. Kind of an uphill struggle given that we're pretty sure illegal aliens can't vote.
I mean, why does the congress suddenly care about it? The American people didn't really care about illegals until someone stirred up this big pot of shit, so why are lawmakers pushing this through? I'll die of laughter if this originally started out as a "we need to prevent al qaeda from crossing the border" bill.
I mean, why does the congress suddenly care about it?
The Republicans are trying to find an issue to distract us from everything else, because everything else isn't going so well.
The American people didn't really care about illegals...
Depends which American people you're talking about. I bet the aformentioned house painter does. A bunch of other "American people" do too...like those competing with H1-Bs who are doing another set of "jobs Americans won't do".
That description is true enough
if the job is defined with a fixed compensation level set at the whim of the employer, rather than being a variable subject to market forces.
This may have something to do with where the media input that generates your idea of "what the American people care about" comes from.
I heard the tail end an interesting interview on NPR (yes, I listen to that too) Monday with a professor (possibly of Hispanic studies?) who offered the opinion that one source of the conflict here has to do with differeing views about the immigration laws.
He said that the point-of-view of the illegals was that once they made it across the border that they'd "won the game" and should be allowed to stay. ..a view very much at variance with how a lot of citizens think about it. This may be why we're seeing a lot of "demands" for rights that don't actually exist in law. The implied sense of entitlement isn't sitting really well with some of the folks that feel like they're paying the bills.
I think there were good intentions with the protests, but the only way you can really measure the impact of immigrants is if they don't show up for work and don't announce that they're going to be absent. Because many employers knew of the protest ahead of time, they planned accordingly. That weakened the protests' impact...how much is hard to say, based on what I've read over the past 2 days.
The market for cheaper help will never go away unless we revert from our relatively capitalist ways and/or there is a major shift in thinking in American society. We like making and saving money too much.
I think the market is driving wages down...that, and greed.
The issue of illegal immigration is so spun now, it's hard to tell which end is up. Overall, I think it's beneficial to the US. I'm not against making it easier for immigrants to come, but I think that could backfire because people that really need money will work for pennies. The problem will just go further underground.
I heard the tail end an interesting interview on NPR (yes, I listen to that too)
Liar. :)
He said that the point-of-view of the illegals was that once they made it across the border that they'd "won the game" and should be allowed to stay. ..a view very much at variance with how a lot of citizens think about it. This may be why we're seeing a lot of "demands" for rights that don't actually exist in law. The implied sense of entitlement isn't sitting really well with some of the folks that feel like they're paying the bills.
I agree with the "game-winning" scenario for the most part. After all, we let Cubans in if they make it here. And if our borders are that porous that 12 million people just slip in, we're to blame for it.
I don't think we should just accept anyone willy nilly, though. I think a test similar to what Canada uses could work for us. And I think that our systems (medical, legal, etc.) could handle more people, if we were careful. Of course, that's a big IF. But I think we can handle the extra folks that we currently have.
IMHO, if I was running a business, and people did not show up for work yesterday. They would not be working here today, or ever.
My mother ran a coffee shop in SoCal for many years, and all her Mexican workers had green cards, and were treated with respect, and dignity.
We need to protect our borders, with troops if nessisary!!!
Look guys, there is another side, a very serious side, to this issue that I haven't heard anyone else mention...
[ATTACH]8488[/ATTACH]
Damn right! I'll be damned if I gonna make my own tortas!
I agree with the "game-winning" scenario for the most part. After all, we let Cubans in if they make it here.
We do? Cubans were originally accepted as "political refugees" back in the e'60's, but you might want to read up on the current handling of Cubans arriving here, especially since the Mariel boatlift affair.
And if our borders are that porous that 12 million people just slip in, we're to blame for it.
And if you find a burglar in your living room, it's obviously your fault too; you should have better locks. Puhlease...
It's being proposed to make the borders more secure; a proposal that's meeting a lot of resistance. But making
being an illegal alien here less attractive follows the principle of "security in depth".
I don't think making it across the line illegally should qualify somebody for citizenship.
Personally, if amnesty is granted to illegals that are currently in the country (which if I recall correctly, is a Felony), I want my own 'get out of jail free' card for my own Felony. Heck, I was born here, that should be my right too.
Well, not exactly correct...it's a misdemeanor the first time someone is arrested and deported, and a felony the second time, unfortunately.
And if you find a burglar in your living room, it's obviously your fault too; you should have better locks. Puhlease...
Man, I'm getting tired of hearing this. Want to draw the comparison of illegal aliens coming into the US to someone entering your house? Why not try the easy one when discussing this topic: you looked the other way while a house maid entered your property and cleaned your place for pennies a day. Suddenly, after decades of profit and cheating the system, you're calling the cops because this woman keeps doing work for you while taking small amounts of money that you leave for her on the counter. If you wonder why all of these "burglars" are annoyed, it is because we've allowed them to be here, practically invited them here, and based a large portion of our economy on them. Neither party is in the right, but in the end the "illegals" (read: "not the hiring party") will be the ones to pay the price for American greed, not anyone else in the system that encouraged them to be here to begin with and not the law enforcement system that purposely looked the other way.
I bet the aformentioned house painter does. A bunch of other "American people" do too...like those competing with H1-Bs who are doing another set of "jobs Americans won't do".
Will the aformentioned house painter enjoy painting a house for 1/6th of his normal rate? Maybe not? Maybe he should get used to it. Or maybe the American people would enjoy the dramatic shift if they were suddenly required to pay to keep the profits up for the corporations that thrive on illegal labor?
Next year, and the year after that, and the year following that, I'm sure we can look to the fields and see people picking strawberries for $1.25/hour. If that suddenly changes, you can expect your strawberries to be shipped in from South America and the farm down the street to be plowed under. The US economy is about cheap labor, be it Mexicans picking the fields, H1-Bs coming in to code billing applications for the phone company, or call centers going out to India. If the laws won't permit the labor to be done cheaply and the industry can't sway the lawmakers, you can expect business to find a way. Regardless of how it is done, no one who holds a job currently also done by illegals should expect a miracle fix no matter how this pans out.
Stirring up racism, trying to make race the central issue, is the game of the ruling classes on both sides of the border. It conveniently diverts attention from the fact that it is the rich who employ the Mexicans, and the Plantation owners who stand to profit the most from an entire underclass of indentured servants for whom they have to pay zero benefits.
Man, I'm getting tired of hearing this. Want to draw the comparison of illegal aliens coming into the US to someone entering your house?...you looked the other way while a house maid entered your property...
The point I'm making is that the fact that border enforcement isn't perfect doesn't create an easement, invalidate immigration law, and make illegal aliens legal.
Putting scare quotes on "illegal" doesn't make them legal either. This "undocumented" crap is a lame attempt to euphemize.
... but in the end the "illegals" (read: "not the hiring party") will be the ones to pay the price for American greed....
And the law that passed the House that's being protested so strenuously would make those profiting from employing illegal aliens criminals also.
Will the aformentioned house painter enjoy painting a house for 1/6th of his normal rate? Maybe not? Maybe he should get used to it.
Maybe he should only have to compete in a fair labor market composed of people who are working legally, rather than being underpriced by illegal labor. Gresham's Law again.
We do? (let Cubans in if they make it to the US)
Yes...from a January article in the
Washington Times:
Under the U.S. government's "wet-foot, dry-foot" policy, Cubans who reach dry land in the United States are usually allowed to remain in the country, while those caught at sea are sent back.
And if you find a burglar in your living room, it's obviously your fault too; you should have better locks. Puhlease...
Apples and oranges. Most of the illegals here are apparently not here for criminal activity. Are you equating illegal immigration with burglary?
It's being proposed to make the borders more secure; a proposal that's meeting a lot of resistance. But making [I]being an illegal alien here less attractive follows the principle of "security in depth".[/i]
In theory, yes. But does the proposal really make the US more secure? I don't think so.
I got this email today that I found to be a pretty stupid idea. Maybe I'm just not in the right social circles (read, young, hip, party animal), but I can't see how this would impact much of anything. It reminded me of those stupid "Don't buy gas from xxxx company on Tuesday and they'll cut the price in half" emails I get all the time. :rolleyes:
The Easiest Job you'll ever have!
You won't have to take off work .. you won't have to walk for miles .. you won't have to make signs and you'll save money to boot. Be a messenger for America ... we aren't losing it .. politicians are giving it away! BOYCOTT CINCO DE MAYO! Its a Stinko Goodbye-O to the 2006 Cinco De Mayo
You've heard the news stories. Illegal Mexican Immigrants marching in the streets, demanding amnesty and attacking Americans who want to protect our country by sealing its borders. Tell them to go protest and wave their Mexican flags in their own country.
It's the Americans Turn to Protest ... BOYCOTT Cinco De Mayo...
It's one thing to come to this great country looking for better lives, its a whole other issue when these same ILLEGAL immigrants start waving their Mexican flags, demanding that we change our laws and ways to serve them.
If they really don't like what is happening here, they need to go home. They are NOT supposed to be here anyway. They didn't stay home and fight for the things they claim to have a right to here and because they are illegal, they can't fight for American sovereignty -- even if they wanted too!
And so they are protesting against America, trying to force us to change our laws, only to accommodate what they want.
Now it is our turn. There is plenty of time to distribute this e-mail to as many people as you can before May 5th (i.e. a Mexican holiday, known as Cinco de Mayo). This shall be our protest: A call to boycott this "Non-American" holiday that has infiltrated our border, and our cities and towns, along with the ILLEGAL ALIENS who brought it here.
This is your chance to say, we don't want you here marching in our streets, and we don't want your holiday. If you're angry at the growing problem of illegal immigration, if you've had enough of our government's lack of response, and if you are downright fed up with images of marching, protesting illegal Mexicans trying to run our country...then May 5th is your chance to do something.
On May 5th, do not go to restaurants, bars, night clubs, special events, parties or anything remotely associated with this "NON-AMERICAN holiday." This year, say Cinco Deny-O to Cinco de Mayo.
A recent "stupid quote" by the Mayor of Los Angeles: "We cannot criminalize people who are working, people who are contributing to our ec onomy," - Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa He says, they are not criminals. He says, they are working people who are contributing to our economy. Well, just because their intentions may be good, does not mean they have a right to break our laws. Lets consider these examples:
If you are a good driver with a clean record and you are courteous to others on the road...Is it legal for you to run a red light? No, it is ILLEGAL.
If you are a hard working taxpayer, a charitable family man or woman with no criminal record...Does that give you the right to rob a bank in order to make ends meet...No, it is ILLEGAL.
If you are a Mexican national striving for a better life in America...Do you have the right to ignore the laws of this country, breach its borders, and live and work here while others from all over the world, are legally applying and patiently waiting for their chance to become Americans....NO, it is ILLEGAL.
A duck is a duck and ILLEGAL is ILLEGAL no matter how you look at it. That my friends IS the meaning of IS!
On May 5th ... stay home with your family and friends. This is a message that will eventually trickle on down to all of the foot-dragging politicians who have sat on their hands for decades. You can beat a politician with a four-by-four until your arms ache with little hope of jarring any common sense out of them but, start talking about taking pennies and their cushy jobs away and they wiggle like a snake on a hot plate. Many of you Americans may have never had the opporunity to serve America in the military ... here is your chance to participate in a simple protest towards protecting YOUR countries sovereignty.
One .. send this to every American in your e-book and two, stay home on May 5th.
NOTE TO POLITI CIANS (Democrat, Republican, et al):
Be reminded illegal aliens cant vote you out of office! But, angry Americans can!!
Apples and oranges. Most of the illegals here are apparently not here for criminal activity. Are you equating illegal immigration with burglary?
Of course they are, just being here after getting here the way they did is criminal, working without the proper credentials is criminal, not paying their taxes while working is criminal & a form of burglary, getting paperwork under false pretenses is criminal and it goes on-&-on.
What type of crime would you consider illegal immigration? (white-collar, crime against property, etc.)
Being an illegal immigrant, working while one is fraud... among other things.
Being in the US without a Visa is illegal... it ain't hard.
What ain't hard?
What would you suggest be done with illegals?
The same thing that has always been done with the law, enforce it.
Deport them if they do not comply with the law.
What is not hard are the concepts involved here.
This is a legal issue, you enforce the law for all or none.
US law is never as simple as "all or none." And we don't have enough money to enforce the current laws. That's why there are so many illegals now and why their numbers are growing.
But I just don't see the illegals on the same level as murderers, rapists, burglars, etc...at least, not the ones that aren't committing those types of crimes.
And speeders are not on the same level are murders either... so we should just let that go too?
Where in the hell did you come-up with that argument?
I tend to look at crime from several standpoints, among them severity and circumstance. Illegal immigration is a mild concern to me...it's nothing compared to violent crime or securities issues.
I tend to look at what it does to our economy and keeping poor American citizens poor.
Under the U.S. government's "wet-foot, dry-foot" policy, Cubans who reach dry land in the United States are usually allowed to remain in the country, while those caught at sea are sent back.
So we're back to considering Cubans to be "political refugees"...once they cross the line. Mexicans aren't, nor are other illegals.
Most of the illegals here are apparently not here for criminal activity. Are you equating illegal immigration with burglary?
No, but I'm trying to remind the people who want to sweep it under the rug that illegals are *ILLEGAL*. Not just "most of them"...*all* of them, by definition. They've already demonstrated that they don't care about our laws if they become inconveniant, and the fact they they're successful at their crime shouldn't get them a pass.
Why make a joke of our laws? If you're willing to ignore them, give up. Repeal immigration law, open the borders, let everybody in, but prepare to live to a standard of living more like Mexico's...there's only so many jobs delivering pizza and flipping burgers.
I"m not arguing for mass deportation; that's hideously expensive and completely ineffective. I'm in favor of punishing employers who break the law.
When the kitchen's full of flies, you don't play "catch and release" with them, you'll never be done. You patch the holes in the screen, sure. But most importantly you cover the food.
I think we should all save our retirement money. Go south and buy some premium mexican property. Live high on our american dollar there. Soak up the mexican sun and if we get terminal cancer in our old age we can just snort up or toke up some of that leagalized drug. Life will be grand.
*dreamming*
What I am saying is, We can take over thier country and make it work. See I live in a simplistic world. * taps forehead*;)
Sorry that's as deep as I can muster a thought.
All those who are howling about the 'illegals' should perhaps have pushed harder on the issue before it became an entrenched phenomenon. If a few more American - born citizens were willing to be treated like shit and paid peanuts, there would not be a labour market that attracted them in the first place. Some of these 'illegals' have been living and working in the US for 20 years or more. Rather than whining about how awful they are, why not kick up a stink about the poor performance of agencies that have let them become embedded into the American economy?
All those who are howling about the 'illegals' should perhaps have pushed harder on the issue before it became an entrenched phenomenon.
So, it's too late...just give up, let it get worse and then bitch about "the government"...because "it's an entrenched phenomenon".
We are "the government". It's only "entrenched" because we've left it in the trench. People profiting from exploiting illegal labor get off with a slap on the wrist that they write off as a cost of doing business, and get a wink and a nod from those who say "it's too late, it's entrenched".
It's
not "too late", cut off the financial incentives to break the law and watch behavior change.
Are you actually a Kiwi, billybob?
The immigration regulations of New Zealand are strictly controlled and enforced. The New Zealand Government policy permits the granting of permanent residence up to 45,000 persons per year under a range of visa classes, allowing both permanent and temporary residence. However it is estimated that up to twice this number apply for immigration to New Zealand every year. There are a variety of compulsory requirements that each applicant must meet in order to achieve residence in New Zealand which are constantly changing to meet the social and economic needs of the country...
A little bit easier to enforce on islands, to be sure...
Would be nice to think it's that simple. Straight question time.Would you work for what they get, and if not, how much extra are you willing to spend a week on goods and services exclusively from legal sources...?
Let's make all the sources legal and we'll see what these things really cost. I bet it's not as much more as you're trying to scare me with. Most of the difference is going into the pockets of the exploiters anyway. We also won't send a significant fraction of that money out of the country, as we do when it's paid to illegal aliens. Every bodega in Norristown has big signs in the window about their cash exporting services.
Again...you're really a New Zealander? Or is your profile false?
CNN article about the terrible woes illegals must face during their trip north.
So. We are supposed to send manpower and resources down there to rescue these idiots from the folly of their decision to walk across 120 degree deserts so they can "buy nice things". However, using the manpower and resources to deport them and seal the border is racist. I think I've got it now.
Let's make all the sources legal and we'll see what these things really cost. I bet it's not as much more as you're trying to scare me with. Most of the difference is going into the pockets of the exploiters anyway. We also won't send a significant fraction of that money out of the country, as we do when it's paid to illegal aliens. Every bodega in Norristown has big signs in the window about their cash exporting services.
Again...you're really a New Zealander? Or is your profile false?
I'll answer your question even though you decided to ignore mine....
I am a british born New Zealander. I arrived here legally twenty years ago.Why would I want to create a false profile?Weird.
Incidentally, Where's your 'quote' from?
Straight question time.Would you work for what they get, and if not, how much extra are you willing to spend a week on goods and services exclusively from legal sources...?
I'd rather ask: would you be willing to not only spend the money to get all your goods and services from legal sources, but are you also willing to cough up the taxpayer money to lock the borders down, patrol those borders, and pay for the law enforcement services to round up and deport all of the current illegals?
I agree change is needed, I'm just not sure that it is as cut and dry as many suggest. "Let's deport, lockdown the borders and start clamping down on businesses to see where it goes" is, I fear,
much more expensive than many people are suggesting in terms of economy and taxes.
It sure isn't going well so far.
Let's start with the easy part...enforcing the law against exploiters; they way it's done now is a joke. Tieing that to the expense of the fantasy of completely impermeable borders is a straw man. That the borders can't be completely sealed against a highly motivated infiltrator is no reason not to attack their motivation.
As I said: remove the incentives. The illegals managed to get here because there were jobs, if there are no jobs I'm sure they can find their way back. There's no point in deporting them now because they'll be back tomorrow, it's too profitable for them not to.
The illegals managed to get here because there were jobs, if there are no jobs I'm sure they can find their way back.
Well, any ideas on how this could be enforced? Wal-Mart has already been slapped for hiring illegals, but is there an effective way to hit drywall hangers, ditch diggers, and tomato pickers? I had to provide proof of citizenship before being employed, but it seems to be optional for a lot of jobs and it doesn't seem to be enforced one bit.
..it seems to be optional for a lot of jobs and it doesn't seem to be enforced one bit.
It's not optional at all. The enforcement has been vitiated by several factors, including a contradictory law preventing employers from demanding INS documentation from foreign-born employees because it's "discriminatory" (and because of scary visions touted by liberals of squads body-armored INS stormtroopers with tactical carbines descending on sweatshops).
There's also widespread opposition to a true national identity document system, for reasons that make no sense to me. I have a driver's licence, a pilot's licence, two firearms licences, and amateur radio station licence and a US passport, which I presented the last couple times I needed to do an I-9. What freedom I am gaining because there's no national ID card system escapes me somehow. The government knows who I am and where I live, if they care, which apparently they don't, much
I missed an opportunity to do contract work in Switzerland last year because I wasn't an EU citizen (yes, I know Switzerland isn't in the EU, go figure). Somehow I resisted the temptation to scream "Racism!" then.
Interestingly enough, the fellow organizing that contractor group would have been OK with the Swiss; he's Mexican-born but claims dual citizenship as a Spaniard though his maternal grandfather. Today he works for Wal-mart (the .com part) as a legal US resident.
I tend to look at crime from several standpoints, among them severity and circumstance. Illegal immigration is a mild concern to me...it's nothing compared to violent crime or securities issues.
Actually I would tend to think that letting people cross our borders unchecked, not knowing what their intentions are or what their purpose for being her is, would qualify as a security issue. So it should not be just a mild concern for you.
I'm in no way trying to say that every person who is here illegally are bad people. I understand that many work for next to nothing, doing jobs that even I wouldn't want to do. I know that many just want to work and be left alone. So understand that before anyone tries to make it seem like I am anti-immigrant, because I am not.
All you need to do to understand this is just break it down to its simplest, factual components. Take out the emotional arguments about how you think they deserve equal treatment as legal citizens because they are people too, that they just want to work or whatever. Just know that:
1) The law very explicitly lays out a process which one must follow in order to immigrate and become a U.S. citizen.
2) Forget that idea that, "Oh, well this law isn't as serious as laws against violent crimes and crimes against property." The law is the law, and it must be enforced equally and absolutely. Understandably, the complexity and cost of doing this completely is beyond our capabilities, but it must be done to the full extent possible under the law.
3) If you are not happy with the law as it currently is, understand that there is indeed a process in which laws may be changed. Until which time the law is changed, it should be enforced as is. Remember the civil rights era? Black leaders during that time believed that it was counterproductive to break the law to attain their goals, so instead, they used existing laws to bring about change. In principal, this is no different with immigration.
4) For those of you who think that everyone, no matter who they are, where they are from, or how they got here, that they get the same treatment afforded to a U.S. citizen, or that it is the duty of the U.S. to welcome them here, know that the U.S. Constitution is our supreme law, affording protections and powers and responsibilities of the government, and that above all else, the Constitution must be followed. I quote, from the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This was written for citizens of the United States, and it governs citizens of the United States and protects first and foremost, citizens of the United States, and it is the duty of the government to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our posterity", not citizens of other countries. If they want the same benefits as a U.S. citizen, all they have to do is follow the law to come here legally.
The facts are simple and straightforward. To argue the facts is just ignorance. Now even though the facts are simple, the solution is not. Emotions get involved, rhetoric gets thrown around, and people just become confused. Also the problem with illegal immigrants isn't just at the border, but people overstaying their visas. These things make it even more complicated to find a suitable solution, which is why we must remain vigilant and continue to enforce our laws while reforming the system to make it work better.
It's not optional at all.
It seems to be pretty optional to me on a lot of the jobs illegals are picked up for. I never see them checking for ID when the contractors go scouting the Wal-Mart parking lots for day labor.
There's also widespread opposition to a true national identity document system, for reasons that make no sense to me. I have a driver's licence, a pilot's licence, two firearms licences, and amateur radio station licence and a US passport, which I presented the last couple times I needed to do an I-9.
You used your ham ticket on an I-9? That seems a bit strange to me.
Here's my main reason for being against a National ID: it isn't needed. You carry a pilot's license for proof that you have the ability to fly a plane, you carry a CCW to show proof that you have the ability to handle a firearm, and you have a driver's license to show that you have proven your ability to safely drive a vehicle (but, hey, even
the gov't doesn't agree with me on that). No ID card is needed, ever, to show that you are a US citizen unless you plan on taking a trip overseas -- and that'd be your passport. They want proof I'm a citizen? I have a birth certificate. Other than that, the federal government doesn't need to be expanded any more or have any more information about me, or anyone else, than it needs to. I know of no reason that proof of citizenship would ever have to be carried in my wallet. If you don't understand the problems associated with a national ID card, do a search in Google for "Britain national ID card debate" and read about how the basic idea to keep a NID from being counterfitted has stretched into biometrics databases and all manner of privacy issues. The ways the UK plans to use those databases on their own citizens is downright scary.
What freedom I am gaining because there's no national ID card system escapes me somehow.
That's because you have yet to lose it.
Hey, you proposed a mandatory national ID card rather than simply passing laws on something that is already illegal. That, at least, provides some method of enforcement in this mess. I suppose if my DL had a little US flag printed on it and I had to show it to a hiring party before I got a job, I guess I wouldn't have much of an issue. But will that place any pressure on illegal field workers, day larbor, contractors, or house maids?
If you think the only people exploiting the illegal alien market are Republicans, you should probably think again.
Eh of course not, I only referenced the rethugs because of the parties stance on business.
But republicans still suck the most :)
But republicans still suck the most :)
Yeah, they suck on your mom
That's because you have yet to lose it.
Hey, you proposed a mandatory national ID card rather than simply passing laws on something that is already illegal. That, at least, provides some method of enforcement in this mess. I suppose if my DL had a little US flag printed on it and I had to show it to a hiring party before I got a job, I guess I wouldn't have much of an issue. But will that place any pressure on illegal field workers, day larbor, contractors, or house maids?
I have no issue with an ID card as long as I don't have to carry it.
When a cop asks me who I am when at Ybor or a place like that my name is Dr. None of your damn business if I am not breaking the law.
I know it is a long name, but it is catchy.
You used your ham ticket on an I-9? That seems a bit strange to me.
No, I used my passport...the last item in that list. Closest thing we have to a national citizenship document.
I'm not sure I think a birth cert should be a citizenship document, there's discussion about what the Fourteenth Amendment says about who is a citizen.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside...
The argument is made that illegal aliens have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States, being in flagrant contempt of that jurisdiction. Therefore being born inside the US to illegal alien parents shouldn't automatically make you a citizen. That "I tagged up at home so you can't touch me" argument again...
Here's my main reason for being against a National ID: it isn't needed. You carry a pilot's license for proof that you have the ability to fly a plane, you carry a CCW to show proof that you have the ability to handle a firearm, and you have a driver's license to show that you have proven your ability to safely drive a vehicle...
Actually, while there are
abilities prerequisite to those documents, they also attest to the fact that the associated privileges haven't been withdrawn from a particular
identified individual due to malfeasance. Any of those licences could be revoked for cause, even though my
abilites were unimpeded. The PA CCW doesn't prove I know how to shoot; it proves I passed a criminal background check. The FL CCW does have a (rather minimal) training requirement, and included a fingerprint check. These are identity documents as well as competancy certificates.
I know of no reason that proof of citizenship would ever have to be carried in my wallet.
That's a circular argument...if it was required for employment you'd need it.
That's because you have yet to lose it.
OK, stop hand-waving and identify it for me.
Hey, you proposed a mandatory national ID card rather than simply passing laws on something that is already illegal.
No, I was responding to someone who wanted to know why enforcement of the existing law has been difficult to date. There's no existing universal fraud-resistant proof of citizenship document, which is the excuse exploiters use when caught with a payroll dripping with illegals who all presented fake SSAN cards (and in some cases real driver's licences).
Yeah, they suck on your mom
HA! youre funny
LOL I try.
Well I actually think it is funny how people just say stuff about different groups of people suck. By saying Republicans suck, you are taking someones ideals and values and beliefs and making a personal attack against them. It speaks more for your character if rather than attacking someone personally if you take the issues you disagree with and respectfully debate the issue and try and understand the other side, even if you don't agree. Nothing is accomplished through personal attacks. Unless you are trying to make a point like I did in saying they suck your mom
The argument is made that illegal aliens have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States, being in flagrant contempt of that jurisdiction. Therefore being born inside the US to illegal alien parents shouldn't automatically make you a citizen. That "I tagged up at home so you can't touch me" argument again...
I don't think that would work. If they weren't under the jurisdiction of the US, they couldn't be put in prison. That sounds like it is more applicable to people with diplomatic credentials.
LOL I try.
Well I actually think it is funny how people just say stuff about different groups of people suck. By saying Republicans suck, you are taking someones ideals and values and beliefs and making a personal attack against them. It speaks more for your character if rather than attacking someone personally if you take the issues you disagree with and respectfully debate the issue and try and understand the other side, even if you don't agree. Nothing is accomplished through personal attacks. Unless you are trying to make a point like I did in saying they suck your mom
Ok, I was generalizing. Let me rephrase:
The majority of elected officials that are republicans SUCK.
Our President and Vice President SUCK REALLY HARD
Tom Delay deserves to ROT IN FUCKING HELL along with Bill Frist...
Saying republicans suck is actually the opposite of a personal attack. It is a general attack :) . With that said, I must say, I do relate a lot to the ideals of the
Rockefeller Republican. Unfortunately, at this point in time, the party seems to be catering to the psychotic extremeist of the religious right.
By saying Republicans suck, you are taking someones ideals and values and beliefs and making a personal attack against them.
Actually, that's a generalization, not a personal attack.
Actually, that's a generalization, not a personal attack.
Ok, well either way, using generalizations as well as personal attacks is no way to win an argument and definatly not very effective at swaying peoples' minds to your side.
Munchkin, you may think that all Republicans or the majority at least suck, you are entitled to that opinion. The point is, you aren't going to bring people to your side by saying stuff like that. (well maybe uneducated people) The key is, why do they suck? Do you not like them personally? Understandably, some people will just rub you the wrong way, but that isn't a reason to say that they suck. You should be respectful, even to people you don't like. Or is it you don't agree with thier policies? If that is the case, might I recommend you stop saying they suck and start saying, "I think that their stance on ____________ is wrong. I feel it could be done better/should be/etc. because ____________________" fill in the blanks. By saying what you disagree with and then stating your reasoning is much better and more respectful. I find it ironic that many people who say we need to treat terror suspects/illegal immigrants/criminals respectfully are the same ones who are completely disrespectful towards many of our leaders. And just like I said earlier if you don't like a law, get it changed, well if you don't like our leadership, well we have a midterm election coming up and a presidential election in a couple of years. Respectfully debate the issues and try and win people to your way of thinking so that you can make a difference in the elections.
I don't think that would work. If they weren't under the jurisdiction of the US, they couldn't be put in prison. That sounds like it is more applicable to people with diplomatic credentials.
Being outlaws, they're not
under jurisdiction until apprehended; since they they haven't submitted to it. Being
subject to a jursdiction and being
under it aren't the same thing, in this case.
Someone who presents themselves for naturalization has submitted to US jurisdiction and is both subject to it and under it. A fugitive is not
under jurisdiction even if they are subject to it. They can be brought
under it only if apprehended, since they refuse to submit to it voluntarily.
A diplomat, being immunized (once their credentials are presented and accepted), is not even subject to that jurisdiction unless declared
non grata.
"Republicans suck" doesn't exactly rise to the level of insightful analysis and critcal thought.
Name-calling like that doesn't serve any function other than
- helping members of the Lodge of Smug Liberals to identify each other, to enhance that same warm feeling of beleaguered cameraderie that causes Fundie Christians to put plastic fish and bumper stickers about the Rapture on thier cars, and
- alienating everybody else.
Oh jeez COME ON PEOPLE... I cant engage in some light hearted commentary about the suckiness of republicans?? I didnt feel that this thread was the place to go into detail about exactly why I feel that a lot of these republicans suck..
If I was trying to "bring people to my side" I wouldnt do it this way. If you want a conversation about the current state of the republican party and their current policies...and the people that they are pandering to, Id be happy to... I mean, I honestly feel sorry for the people who are republicans and actually have views other than just repeating the party talking points. The current administration is really representing them poorly.
To be fair here, I dont think the majority of Democrats are really doing all that well either . With the exception of a few... maybe say obama, dean, gore..pilosi... The party doesnt come together enough ... the republicans will stick with a strong party line, no matter how rediculous... the dems rarely can get all their numbers behind a good cause.
And still the basic problem remains. And still not one useful solution is suggested. And still the reason for the problem is ignored. What kind of solution is that? One created by a Congressional compromise?
Once immigrants could come to America on days notice. Now an immigrant must spend years just to get a visa. We solved the problem all right. Using MBA concepts also advocated by a certain American president, we added more layers of bureaucracy. Then we added more unreadable forms and more laws so that even immigrants need lawyers. Yeph. Problems solved.
Tw (you
idiot), your obsession with damning George W. Bush for everything including the Ice Ages again demonstrates how defective your mind is. You make cussing George look like something only the noncredible pusbrains will ever do, and thus you impair your own cause. Not that you can see this -- you have a singularly crippled mind and suffer from inappropriate mentation, which sounds like a symptom of mental illness to me. Idiot, idiot, thrice idiot. Get the hell back on your meds that you may once again think like a fully human being, and quit wearying us with your damned obsessions.
Now to topic: I figure that nothing done in Washington or the several States will have any perceptible effect on the "immigrant problem," which I put in quotes because it's not so much that
we have a problem with illegal immigration as that Latin America in general has a terrible economic problem: no middle class visible without powerful magnification. The problem seems most severe in Mexico and its neighbors down the Isthmus, less severe in Brazil, Argentina and Chile, with the other nations in the region falling somewhere in the middle.
Expect either a greater influx of Bolivians, or a revolution down there to throw that dumb socialist Evo Morales out of power. Left to his own devices, he will personally collapse the Bolivian economy and then maintain power surrounded by poverty by using secret police, death squads, and political imprisonment.
Measures taken north of the Rio Grande will not strike at the root of the problem, which is the only place longterm solutions will be effectuated: Mexico needs a middle class and hasn't got one, which makes for an artificially enlarged poor class, one with no way up except out. The problem is in Latin America, and Latin America is where it must be solved.
With a large, enriched, and vibrant middle economic class, Mexico becomes the
inmigrante magnet, and our problems are so much reduced as to be largely solved. Yeah, Mexico gets the problems instead, but too, the same reforms that work for Mexico will likely work for the other countries too; let libertarian reforms roll forward all the way to Tierra del Fuego. I keep telling the Cellar libertarians that this needs to happen -- they keep not understanding it.
Oh jeez COME ON PEOPLE... I cant engage in some light hearted commentary about the suckiness of republicans?? I didnt feel that this thread was the place to go into detail about exactly why I feel that a lot of these republicans suck..
Which is precisely how I feel about the Democrats. On the national level, the Jackass Party would rather fight a war for the White House than the war on terror, which is the most singularly inappropriate setting of priorities I've ever seen a group of Americans take, barring, of course, the Communist Party USA. The Dems are engaged in private empire-building while the Republicans are defending the Republic from bigots and jerks who break skyscrapers and made us bleed worse than Pearl Harbor.
So shit on the Democrats -- a useless lot of stupid donkeys. Shit on the Democrats twice -- they are very slow learners, and will require powerful stimulus to reform themselves back into being real Americans.
. . .it is the rich who employ the Mexicans, and the Plantation owners who stand to profit the most from an entire underclass of indentured servants for whom they have to pay zero benefits.
That is, the total cost of employment of such employees is low. A too-great total cost of employment means less hiring and more joblessness. See the 15% unemployment rates over in Europe for a textbook example.
The opposite case, of course, means maximum employment, though it doesn't necessarily do much by itself for greater pay.
. . .it is the rich who employ the Mexicans, and the Plantation owners who stand to profit the most from an entire underclass of indentured servants for whom they have to pay zero benefits.
Actually, the fact that they don't pay them benefits shouldn't even be an issue. No employer is required to supply any sort of benefits to their employees, legal or otherwise. That’s what makes it a benefit. Healthcare? Not required. Retirement plan? Not required. All an employer is required to provide for their employees is a safe work environment and a comparable wage that meets the minimum wage.
Which is precisely how I feel about the Democrats. On the national level, the Jackass Party would rather fight a war for the White House than the war on terror, which is the most singularly inappropriate setting of priorities I've ever seen a group of Americans take, barring, of course, the Communist Party USA. The Dems are engaged in private empire-building while the Republicans are defending the Republic from bigots and jerks who break skyscrapers and made us bleed worse than Pearl Harbor.
So shit on the Democrats -- a useless lot of stupid donkeys. Shit on the Democrats twice -- they are very slow learners, and will require powerful stimulus to reform themselves back into being real Americans.
The Republicans are
defending against bigots and jerks? How, by cleverly allowing them a major voice in their party? Is it some sort of sting operation?:lol:
If fighting the war on terror means setting up the world's largest terrorist training camp, then it's a big success. Of course, the current adminstration's success in finding the world's tallest muslim hooked up to a dialysis machine consists of invading the country 1000 miles away from the one suspected of harboring him, spending hundreds of
billions in an attempt to 'fix' it, and placing the whole cost on the national credit card to insulate voters while saddling their children with a crushing national debt.
Considering this, the Democrats are right in assuming that the greatest threat to our nation is letting another incompetent into the White House.
Since it's been hijacked already...
My brother is a dyed in the wool Republican and even a minor elected official on the Republican ticket. But, he votes Libertarian because he's so disgusted with the direction the republicans have drifted. :lol:
All an employer is required to provide for their employees is a safe work environment and a comparable wage that meets the minimum wage.
Not exactly accurate. The term "benefit" refers to all non-wage or salary compensation. Most employers are required to contribute to social security, purchase workers compesation insurance, and contribute to an unemployment fund. These all count as benefits.
An employer can avoid these expenses by entering into a cash arrangement with an employee and this is somewhat common in certain jobs such as housekeeping and lawn/garden work. The problem for the employer, of course, is accounting for the expense -- he cannot very well deduct the salary if it is off-the-books.
Interestingly, and I apologize for digressing here, a great many undocumented immigrants obtain forged documents suitable for employment -- social security card and driver's license for example. The current immigration law, in force since 1986 or so, requires the employer to verify his employee's identity, check the card and one other source of documentation. So, on the face of it, he employs a "legal" person, pays social security, unemployment, and workers compensation on that persons behalf, and books the wage and expenses. All appears above-board. In short, while there are certainly some businesses that avoid benefit expenses by using undocumented employees, many -- maybe even most -- gain no such advantage.
Perhaps the improperly documented workers work for lower wage. I am unaware of anyone attempting to measure wage levels but those who are attempting to measure the problem, estimate some 11 million undocumented persons live here and that 92% of them have jobs. This implies that there are indeed a great many job openings that would go wanting in the absence of these folks. Perhaps we should be reconsidering our process of admitting persons so that we would have a better knowledge of exactly who is here.
Which is precisely how I feel about the Democrats. On the national level, the Jackass Party would rather fight a war for the White House than the war on terror, which is the most singularly inappropriate setting of priorities I've ever seen a group of Americans take, barring, of course, the Communist Party USA.
This is a typical republican talking point. The Dems are fine with fighting a war on terror... We should be hunting down Osama instead of killing our troops and iraqis... This administration lied to start a war....lied about outing a CIA operative that was working undercover in Iran .... breaking laws by spying on americans with no search warrents.. I can go on and on. The President isnt above the law, even though "the decider" seems to think he is. He is a disgrace to the office.
The Dems are engaged in private empire-building while the Republicans are defending the Republic from bigots and jerks who break skyscrapers and made us bleed worse than Pearl Harbor.
private empire building? you think thats the DEMS? Wow... okay..
regarding the "breaking skyscrapers", if yourereferring to 9-11, Iraq had nothing to do with it.
So shit on the Democrats -- a useless lot of stupid donkeys. Shit on the Democrats twice -- they are very slow learners, and will require powerful stimulus to reform themselves back into being real Americans.
Youre entitled to your opinion...even if you just repeat the crap that people like O'Rielly spew.
Since it's been hijacked already...
My brother is a dyed in the wool Republican and even a minor elected official on the Republican ticket. But, he votes Libertarian because he's so disgusted with the direction the republicans have drifted. :lol:
Ive read about a lot of die hard republicans going that way. The ones that believe in the basic ideals of the party but arent willing to be dragged along by the BS thats happening now.
Ive read about a lot of die hard republicans going that way. The ones that believe in the basic ideals of the party but arent willing to be dragged along by the BS thats happening now.
Ok guys, I'll come clean. I am a registered Republican. However, and I feel this is more important, is that I am first a conservative, and then a Republican. I am not going to vote along party lines and I am not going to agree with everything the Republican party does. I am going to follow my beliefs and ideology and vote for candidates who share those same beliefs, values, and ideology. I honestly don't care if they are Republican or Democrat as long as their ideology matches closely with mine.
Ok so anyways...back onto topic. I received this in my e-mail today - not really sure if this is a real quote or if it even happened like this, however, I do think that what the substance of the message says is very much correct and could possibly put some perspective on the immigration debate we are having now. This is supposedly a quote, taken from Teddy Roosevelt way back in 1907 about his feelings on immigration.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
-Teddy Roosevelt, 1907
Ok guys, I'll come clean. I am a registered Republican. However, and I feel this is more important, is that I am first a conservative, and then a Republican. ~snip
What I hear most often is exactly what you're saying,except with "fiscal" inserted in front of conservative.
They became Republicans because they wanted less government intrusion in their lives and feel betrayed.
In all honesty, it's hard to see how any party could deliver on that promise, with the increased complexity of our lives and decreased elbow room, that's only going to get worse barring the plague or something. But that said, they don't have to spend like drunken sailors.
TR's speech was right for the time. The immigrants coming here then were bunching up in sections of the big cities, "Little Italy", "Little Poland", "Little Timbuktu".....
In general these people worked hard to be self sufficient, to educate their kids, to become proficient in English (we all know how hard that is:lol: ), and to become real Americans. They didn't want to be hyphenated.
As TW pointed out, in a generation or two, the offspring of those immigrants did great things for this country and themselves. If you come here illegally, most of the chances to do those things are voided from the start.
You can make money...... but you can't be an American.
Ok guys, I'll come clean. I am a registered Republican. However, and I feel this is more important, is that I am first a conservative, and then a Republican. I am not going to vote along party lines and I am not going to agree with everything the Republican party does. I am going to follow my beliefs and ideology and vote for candidates who share those same beliefs, values, and ideology. I honestly don't care if they are Republican or Democrat as long as their ideology matches closely with mine.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Im an issue voter.. I have a few main issues that I care most about. I just happens that I rarely see a republican that agrees with my stance on those issues, or isnt at least completely on the oposite end of the spectrum.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm an issue voter.. I have a few main issues that I care most about.
I agree with you here, and with Shocker also.
I[t] just happens that I rarely see a [R]epublican that agrees with my stance on those issues, or isn't at least completely on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Swap out "Republican" for "Democrat" and you've got my view of things. In a local Congressional race the local liberal weekly paper ran a series of quotes from each, with no identification of who put each idea forth, and the reader could find if he agreed, disagreed, or had no opinion for each one. When I totaled it up, it was 85%-15% in favor of the Republican's ideas. I was a bit surprised at just how lopsided the outcome was. Among other things, this clued me that the Republicans are still significantly closer to the libertarian ideas I like than the socialists and money-burners the Democrats have spent the last two generations becoming.
Now Munchkin, the Capitol Hill Dems are simply not fighting the War on Terror. I'd notice it if they were, and I've noticed just about nothing. I pay attention to that kind of thing. The Iraq campaign is not some separate war, as the unclear-on-winning party would have you believe; it is part and parcel of the entire war. The Dems have no plan whatsoever to try for victory -- the Republicans at least understand that we shouldn't lose this war or we'll have to fight a couple more over there. What the Democrats need to convince me they are being anything but flaccid is a war-fighting strategy that actually works better than what the current Administration has come up with. They have not done this, and thus I have no faith in them.
This ninnyhammering on "all the fighting we're doing is a thousand miles away from where Osama is rumored to be" is about like saying the North African campaign was poor strategy because Hitler, who started the whole unpleasantness, was in Berlin at the time. Not an argument that I'd buy, you may be sure of that.
Where we get anti-American terrorists from is not where we're destroying and discrediting totalitarianism and fostering democracy in spite of what the Rump Saddamite slavemakers would try -- notice that their endeavor is stagnant, gainless, and has been for a year now? I have, and where were you looking? -- but from places that aren't democracies and have no immediate prospects of achieving democracy.
regarding the "breaking skyscrapers", if you're referring to 9-11, Iraq had nothing to do with it.
It is simply amazing to me how many Americans who presumably spend their days fully conscious are willing to believe that some other Americans think 9-11 was done by Iraq. I tell you this: I don't know
any Americans at all who think that. Not one. Couldn't name anybody. It's the antiwar/anti-Administration party's inability to face or marshal facts like these that leaves me convinced they are unworthy of trust or confidence. As long as you're ill-informed enough to believe that some other Americans somewhere believe that, you are mired in error and doomed to perennial defeat.
Nothing to do with it? Not too directly, but the Saddam regime's providing him with surgery and therapy is the one reason al-Zarqawi still has both his legs (have to look up whether it's al-Zarqawi or al-Zawahiri -- I'd shoot either one, as near to center of mass as I might manage), and it's clear they were working on an operational relationship on the traditional old Middle-Eastern idea that "My enemy's enemy is my friend." Nothing to do with it except training Al-Quaeda, funding training of Al-Quaeda among others, and footsy-footsy-footsy on and on. Hey, asshole regimes run by sociopaths whose political advancement more resembles that of a Mafiosi than statesmen are going to act like assholes. This does NOT place upon us any obligation to accept what comes out of such places. Instead, real advancement of civilization comes with wiping these places slick, which the anti-Administration types will find any excuse to fail to do.
What an abomination!
P.S.: Got it -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the leg-wound guy. That isn't even his proper birthname; it just says he fathered someone named Musab, sometime or other.
And while we are screwing around in Iraq the bad guys are taking back Afghanistan so that all hell will break loose in 2007. Great strategy.:eyebrow:
A little thumbnail sketch of Saddam's involvement with the mean & nasties pulled from Newsmax and quoted in The Museum Of Left Wing Lunacy:
"Saddam's Iraq Was Motel 6 for Terrorists
In the wake of President Bush's speech to the nation Tuesday night, Democrats are complaining that he talked too much about 9/11, falsely implying that Iraq was a terrorist threat. Too bad Mr. Bush didn't cite the mountain of evidence proving that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a veritable Motel 6 for the world's worst terrorists - a gang of mass murderers who had killed hundreds of Americans - well before the U.S. invaded. According to a report last year by the Hudson Institute, the short list of terrorists laying low in Iraq would include:
• Abu Nidal. Before Osama bin Laden arrived on the scene, Nidal was the world's most notorious terrorist. His terror gang is credited with dozens of attacks that killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans. He also threatened to kill Lt. Col. Oliver North.
Abu Nidal moved to Baghdad in 1999, where he was found shot to death in Aug 2002. Rumors swirled at the time that Nidal was rubbed out by Iraqi intelligence because he knew too much about Saddam's terrorist activities.
• Abu Abbas. Abbas masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, where wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was pushed over the side to his death. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April 14, 2003. He died in U.S. custody last year.
• Abdul Rahman Yasin. Yasin was Ramzi Yousef's partner in the 1993 World Trade Center bomb plot, aiding the al Qaeda explosives mastermind in prepariing the bomb that killed six New Yorkers and wounded 1,000.
In 1996, an ABC News reporter spotted Yasin outside his government owned house in Baghdad. The key WTC 1993 co-conspirator remains at large.
• Khala Khadar al-Salahat. Al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. The attack killed all 259 passengers, including 189 Americans. Al-Salahat was in Baghdad April 2003 when he was taken into custody by U.S. Marines.
• Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Zarqawi was training terrorists in Afghanistan for an attack on the U.S. embassy in Jordan when the U.S. defeated the Taliban, forcing him to flee. He relocated to Iraq, where he set up terrorist cells in the Northern part of the country.
In an indication that he enjoyed the status of guest of the state, Zarqawi was reportedly treated for a leg wound at one of Saddam's exclusive private hospitals.
After years of media reports denying that Zarqawi had ties to al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden himself dubbed Zarqawi his chief of operations in Iraq last year.
LINK: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/30/110604.shtml
There are reasons for me to think the way I do, gentlemen.
I don't see you exerting your talents towards something creative like winning the war, Bruce. All your ilk can be indicted on that score.
xoB's talents most definitely go towards winning the war. Of that I have no doubt.
I fear my doubts are not reduced by that, UT. Elucidate?
He builds war machines.
It would help more if he was a stealthy ninja LOL:ninja:
I don't see you exerting your talents towards something creative like winning the war, Bruce. All your ilk can be indicted on that score.
You know only what I expressed here. That we have done a bad job in Afghanistan which will bite us badly in the near future. And, invading Iraq was a mistake predicated on lies.
However, you have no clue as to what I "do" or even who my "ilk" are. Placing me in one pigeon slot or another doesn't make it so, it just makes your "fer us or agin us" position more ludicrous.
Gee, I hope I haven't offended UG. I'm so afraid he'll pummel me with his rapier wit and patriotic righteousness.:worried:
Consider yourself pummeled. ;) At least until we get some detail of the war machines. Tell, tell.
Sea Knights, Chinooks, Apache Longbows & V-22. ;)
Of course with the V-22 you could be accused of working for the other side.:3_eyes:
Homeland Security?
Yes, this is 20951.
Yes, I have it...G R I F F T O P I A.... got that?
When?
Remember, don't hurt the women or goats.
Thank you, but I feel it's my duty....as an American, Sir.
Heil Bu....ah, er, Goodbye.
:evil2:
@xoxoxoBruce: Say, I've jumped the Chinook from about 9,000 ft. (at or near it's service ceiling). Thanks for the ride up! ;)
It's service ceiling in closer to twice that. ;)
Of course, I misspoke. I should have said that the jump was at or near our service ceiling (approx. 10,500 ft. ) as we had not rigged the aircraft with an oxygen console and we weren't jumping with O2. From other aircraft, I've gotten several 18,500 ft. [22,000 ft. on a good day] jumps in (both HALO and HAHO). I never got the elusive 33,000 ft. jump. Flying around for 30 minutes, while the jumpers pre-breathed pure O2 to purge the nitrogen from their systems, just got too expensive for Uncle Sam. :sniff:
:confused: You bring up an interesting point. When operating in mountainous terrain, like Afghanistan, they routinely fly at 14, 15 or more thousand feet. Of course the crew have oxygen but I've never seen any provision for the troops they ferry. I'll have to ask.
xoB,
It was always BYO-O2 for me. :D We had transportable tanks and regulator systems with multiple service outlets (O2 console) that we would anchor inside an aircraft for those of us in
coach.
It's been interesting to see how this "Immigration" thread has crossed over into aspects of the war on terrorism. It seems that the battle abroad and the battle on the home front are inextricably intertwined by politics.
BTW, many people do not realize that there are US Special Forces (a.k.a.
Green Beret)
National Guard units. They are specialists in unconventional warfare [including counterinsurgency operations and strategic reconnaissance] and they have already served in Afghanistan. Will they be deployed along the US border? I've previously [post=233964]posted[/post] the opinion "...I'm confident we will win the undeclared war on illegals." in another thread. I based my assessment of the situation upon this capability and the impact of the border threat upon our politicians. It was an educated guess: my military service was as an active duty SFer. Here's a handy listing of
SF units (past and present) for anyone interested.
It's been interesting to see how this "Immigration" thread has crossed over into aspects of the war on terrorism. It seems that the battle abroad and the battle on the home front are inextricably intertwined by politics.
It's called spin. There is no war on terrorism. Where are all these terrorists massing on borders waiting to kill Americans? It's called TV fiction - where too many get reality. This hype because a president (actually Karl Rove) knows how to push 'our buttons'. So easy to manipulate those hyped on testosterone and TV shows such as The Unit. Get real.
We have various law enforcement problems. Had the George Jr administration not repeatedly stifled law enforcement, then 11 September would have not happened. But if you finally learn that fact, then the next step is to learn who really was most irresponsible before, on, and after 11 September. So they must hype a lie - spin a war on terrorism. Did we not have a movie with Dustin Hoffman doing the exact same thing that George Jr, el al do? The Mission Accomplished war is nothing more than what Japan did in Pearl Harbor. It has zero - ZERO - to do with terror.
Terrorism is a law enforcement problem. Only part of that problem that required military assistance was Afghanistan. Illegal immigration is a threat to the US? Total nonsense. Nonsense promoted on lies such as "they are all living fat and happy on the social services in Norristown PA". Or that those "illegal immigration channels are perfect avenues for terrorists". These myths so easy to promote when one does not first learn what illegal immigration is about and involves.
War on Terror? Look overseas. Are terrorists entering Europe to attack? Of course not. Even in Europe, attacks are from their own people. Do you forget who Timothy McVeigh was? Karl Rove hopes you forget. If it served Karl Rove's agenda, he also would be promoting riots in France as terrorism. I have no doubt some here then would be posting same. Some post using testosterone as gray matter.
It's nothing more than a law enforcement problem. In the case of illegal immigration, it is a problem created, in part, by silly laws to restrict the number of immigrants, to punish them with forms, waiting lines, and major lawyer bills. It is a problem we have created for ourselves - and then blame others.
There is zero relation between illegal immigration and terrorism - except when they have grabbed your prick to get your attention. By squishing to thoughts together and creating pain, then those who do their thinking there are easily manipulated by this Rush Limbaugh / Karl Rove logic.
Illegal immigration is a problem created by economic perversion in government AND by economics problems created, in part, by those same ridiculous laws. To spin you in circles, they would have you associate fear (hype about terrorism) and illegal immigration.
Get off the silly "war on terrorism" rhetoric. Its a phrase designed only for those who did not first ask some embarrassing questions. An expression they need to get lemmings to blindly follow "glorious leader" .... to hell. Had the George Jr administration done its jobs, then even 11 September would not happen. So instead, a mental midget administration blames CIA, et al.
Do you also believe that lie – a CIA failure? If so, then get down on your prayer carpet, point towards Washington DC, and god's choosen president. They spin. They are experts at spinning lies when too many Americans have a liberal arts, tree hugger, or big bad gun world perspective.
They are experts at spinning lies when too many Americans have a liberal arts, tree hugger, or big bad gun world perspective.
Wow...that's quite an intersection of sets.
So...that would be everybody but you and Ted Kaczynski, right? :-)
TW, stop telling me illegal immigrants are my, as an American, fault. That's bullshit.
So they live in a hellhole and want a better life. So what? That doesn't give them the right to break our laws no matter how many employers aid and abet them.
They are poor because they can't sell their sugar here? That's not my problem, it's theirs and I'm not responsible for the betterment of any other country.
I have enough trouble with the MBAs giving this one away. :rolleyes:
That...
And regardless of it, we still subsidize that broken mess to try and get them to fix it every year so they still have nothing to bitch about.
As I have said several times... if they want prosperity, they need to stay and fix their own nation.
Originally posted by tw
It's called spin. There is no war on terrorism. Where are all these terrorists massing on borders waiting to kill Americans?
Terrorists don't mass, they operate in small cells or individually. Insurgents mass (like illegal aliens in the US recently). You don't seem to be astute enough to differentiate between the two. That's why you don't recognize the concerns of people who are. This is evident in your
massing of words when you post. You equate numbers to strength and in a technology driven world it is not always so.
I've worked in Central America, it (like other poverty stricken areas) is fertile ground for the recruitment of terrorists. Recruits needn't even have an anti-US agenda. They may simply be unknowing; but, willing dupes in smuggling terrorists' needs (e.g. radioactive dust for use in a dirty bomb) across our border. The threat is real; but, you have sought to obscure it because the numbers are statistically insignificant. That's
your spin when most everyone else recognizes that it took only a handful of operatives to bring down the World Trade Center, damage the Pentagon, and make a run for Washington DC.
Your rhetoric is predicated entirely upon problem solving. In the real world, we DO treat problems symptomatically (e.g. medicine) until a cure is found. Again, you don't seem astute enough to differentiate between short term and long term interventions. My perspectives come from real world experience:
NO ONE else hands them to me, including you. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword; however, in your hands it's just a waist of good ink. Please continue to filibuster threads here, your impotency amuses me.
Terrorists don't mass, they operate in small cells or individually. ... You don't seem to be astute enough to differentiate between the two.
Well since you are more interested in personal attacks rather than facts, then get this fact. Terrorist are only massing in your brain. Yes you are that stupid. Or you can stop with your nonsense now. Stick to facts.
Anyone can recruit terrorists most anywhere. That is a fact. Most everywhere can be fertile ground for an extremist. So why would terrorists not use illegal immigration channels? Investing in a major terror attack is a major undertaking. People who become terrorists are typically so extremist as to require extensive training and extra careful planning. Need we cite Richard Reed who could not even give himself a hot foot? Need we cite Mousai. Complications for any terrorist attack are why Cheney et al insisted only states could perform such terrorism.
Entering America via illegal immigration channels is just too risky. Terrorist would use easier channels such as passports and visas - legal channels. When two out of three illegal immigrants get caught, then that channel is just too unreliable for terrorist use. Easier to go to England, get a plane to Canada (no passport required), then enter the US. It’s all legal.
But then if terrorists were so desperate to get into the US, where are those attacks every month. Oh. There is not and was not a massive world wide terror organization that required military deployment to the borders. Where are all these masses of terrorist that must exist according to your world perspectives? Only those hyped in a mythical 'war on terrorism' see terrorists 'massing' everywhere. The threat is minor, easily solved when law enforcement is permitted to do its job, and is an internal threat. Worldwide, the great acts of terrorism come from domestics.
Threat of terrorism via illegal immigration is obviously not how it would be done. Where they are recuited makes near zero difference. How they can be implemented in a plan is obviously far more critical. This terrorism threat is wildly over hyped in speculation to those who feel rather than first learn facts.
Noboxes - learn to post logically or we will have to discuss the penis hanging below your mother. We can make this messy - or you can end it now by being logical and civil. I did not start personal attacking. I am not the one who should stop it now. I am also not the one promoting 'fears and myths'; rhetoric from a George Jr administration and Rush Limbaugh. You have facts? Then post those facts - without all that smug mockery.
TW, stop telling me illegal immigrants are my, as an American, fault. That's bullshit.
So they live in a hellhole and want a better life. So what? That doesn't give them the right to break our laws no matter how many employers aid and abet them.
They are poor because they can't sell their sugar here? That's not my problem, it's theirs and I'm not responsible for the betterment of any other country.
I have enough trouble with the MBAs giving this one away. :rolleyes:
They cannot sell their sugar because our politicians created that problem. Bullshit is not answering the question: why did virtually the entire world walk out three days early in Cancun blaming the US for unfair trading? Why did they complain that we – using corporate welfare - make many agricultural jobs virtually impossible in Central and South American and Africa? It is their fault that American taxpayers subsidized sugar by 50%. It is their fault that the world's most productive producers of methanol cannot sell to the US? Oh. It’s not our fault that we should freely enrich the rich - at the expense of other nations?
When you are ready to stop denying the Doha round of GAAT, and then we are ready to discuss what has and has not created illegal immigration. They don't live in a hellhole. They live in what could be some of the world’s most productive region for sugar, cotton, methanol, corn, et al ... if America went back to being a free trade nation.
Did they dump sugar on world markets at prices lower than it costs to produce? No. America does that. We do that to enrich selective campaign fund contributors. And no, it is not your problem if you are the rich subsidized agricultural business executive being paid by the US government to pervert world sugar prices. But if you define why a hellhole exists in what could be productive nations, then tell us why virtually all nations pointed at the US in Cancun? Obviously they must be mistaken. Those involved in world agricultural trade point fingers at the problem makers – US and France.
Terrorists don't mass, they operate in small cells or individually.
And so from the AP:
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrested 12 adult suspects, ages 43 to 19, and five suspects younger than 18 on terrorism charges including plotting attacks with explosives on Canadian targets. The suspects were either citizens or residents of Canada and had trained together, police said.
A mass of 17 terrorists. Now we must deploy troops on the Canadian border because terrorist acting as illegal Canadian immigrants are trying to kill us? Or maybe it is nothing more than a law enforcement problem?
A mass of 17 terrorists.
I believe terrorists do
salat, not
mass.
(goin' to hell!)
17 terrorists is a mass?
Absolutely when what is not a mass is one or two. Or maybe the entire hype and fear about terrorism is too much hooey. Maybe all those terrorist attacks stopped before 11 September demonstrate what terrorism is really about, how much a threat it really is, and what is necessary to stop terrorism.
Terrorism tied to illegal immigration is akin to selling cheese mined from the moon.
Central America is so ripe for terrorism. Therefore terrorist will come from Central America. Maybe we should drink a Molson and think about it first.
More than one or two is a mass?
Shhh, UT, he's on a roll.
More than one or two is a mass?
I was looking for an official definition for a 'mass of terrorists'. Found this picture from Abu Ghraid. A mass is five naked terrorists.
Apparently many have weird ideas of what massing is. Just watch Catholics chanting every Sunday morning.
Is it really important that we establish a critical threshold only after which we will pay attention to the people who want to see nothing more than dead Americans? :eyebrow:
Originally posted by tw
Well since you are more interested in personal attacks rather than facts, then get this fact. Terrorist are only massing in your brain. Yes you are that stupid. Or you can stop with your nonsense now. Stick to facts.
Anyone can recruit terrorists most anywhere. That is a fact. Most everywhere can be fertile ground for an extremist. So why would terrorists not use illegal immigration channels? Investing in a major terror attack is a major undertaking. People who become terrorists are typically so extremist as to require extensive training and extra careful planning. Need we cite Richard Reed who could not even give himself a hot foot? Need we cite Mousai. Complications for any terrorist attack are why Cheney et al insisted only states could perform such terrorism.
Entering America via illegal immigration channels is just too risky. Terrorist would use easier channels such as passports and visas - legal channels. When two out of three illegal immigrants get caught, then that channel is just too unreliable for terrorist use. Easier to go to England, get a plane to Canada (no passport required), then enter the US. It’s all legal.
But then if terrorists were so desperate to get into the US, where are those attacks every month. Oh. There is not and was not a massive world wide terror organization that required military deployment to the borders. Where are all these masses of terrorist that must exist according to your world perspectives? Only those hyped in a mythical 'war on terrorism' see terrorists 'massing' everywhere. The threat is minor, easily solved when law enforcement is permitted to do its job, and is an internal threat. Worldwide, the great acts of terrorism come from domestics.
Threat of terrorism via illegal immigration is obviously not how it would be done. Where they are recuited makes near zero difference. How they can be implemented in a plan is obviously far more critical. This terrorism threat is wildly over hyped in speculation to those who feel rather than first learn facts.
Noboxes - learn to post logically or we will have to discuss the penis hanging below your mother. We can make this messy - or you can end it now by being logical and civil. I did not start personal attacking. I am not the one who should stop it now. I am also not the one promoting 'fears and myths'; rhetoric from a George Jr administration and Rush Limbaugh. You have facts? Then post those facts - without all that smug mockery.
Originally posted by tw
They cannot sell their sugar because our politicians created that problem. Bullshit is not answering the question: why did virtually the entire world walk out three days early in Cancun blaming the US for unfair trading? Why did they complain that we – using corporate welfare - make many agricultural jobs virtually impossible in Central and South American and Africa? It is their fault that American taxpayers subsidized sugar by 50%. It is their fault that the world's most productive producers of methanol cannot sell to the US? Oh. It’s not our fault that we should freely enrich the rich - at the expense of other nations?
When you are ready to stop denying the Doha round of GAAT, and then we are ready to discuss what has and has not created illegal immigration. They don't live in a hellhole. They live in what could be some of the world’s most productive region for sugar, cotton, methanol, corn, et al ... if America went back to being a free trade nation.
Did they dump sugar on world markets at prices lower than it costs to produce? No. America does that. We do that to enrich selective campaign fund contributors. And no, it is not your problem if you are the rich subsidized agricultural business executive being paid by the US government to pervert world sugar prices. But if you define why a hellhole exists in what could be productive nations, then tell us why virtually all nations pointed at the US in Cancun? Obviously they must be mistaken. Those involved in world agricultural trade point fingers at the problem makers – US and France.
Originally posted by tw
A mass of 17 terrorists. Now we must deploy troops on the Canadian border because terrorist acting as illegal Canadian immigrants are trying to kill us? Or maybe it is nothing more than a law enforcement problem?
Originally posted by tw
Absolutely when what is not a mass is one or two. Or maybe the entire hype and fear about terrorism is too much hooey. Maybe all those terrorist attacks stopped before 11 September demonstrate what terrorism is really about, how much a threat it really is, and what is necessary to stop terrorism.
Terrorism tied to illegal immigration is akin to selling cheese mined from the moon.
Central America is so ripe for terrorism. Therefore terrorist will come from Central America. Maybe we should drink a Molson and think about it first.
Originally posted by tw
I was looking for an official definition for a 'mass of terrorists'. Found this picture from Abu Ghraid. A mass is five naked terrorists.
Apparently many have weird ideas of what massing is. Just watch Catholics chanting every Sunday morning.
tw,
I'm happy to see that your opinions aren't prejudiced by any knowledge on the subject. You come across as a been nowhere, done nothing kind of person who simply regurgitates what others have written and tries to reduce everyone else to that same low common denominator. Of course, your selections reflect only your agenda. Herein,
I've regurgitated what
you have written. Enjoy, it's your reward for continuing to amuse me as I requested.
They cannot sell their sugar because our politicians created that problem. Bullshit is not answering the question: why did virtually the entire world walk out three days early in Cancun blaming the US for unfair trading? Why did they complain that we – using corporate welfare - make many agricultural jobs virtually impossible in Central and South American and Africa?
Who the fuck cares? If you're so concerned about fair trade then be concerned about China, Japan, et al. Why is it us that has to be fair and not the others? Do you think sending jobs to Mexico because they are free to pollute with abandon, and treat employees like shit,
fair trade? :eyebrow:
Again, they need to take control of their own nation... the solution to their problem and ours.
Who the fuck cares? If you're so concerned about fair trade then be concerned about China, Japan, et al. Why is it us that has to be fair and not the others?
Maybe because the nations who are accused by virtually then entire world of unfair trading also have immigration problems? You don't see the world complaining so much about Japan or China.
Are you assuming that China and Japan are unfair traders? Fine. Why are those nations not subverting the Doha round of GATT?
60 Minutes last night had but another example of the myopia when we complain about the illegals. Federal agents were invited into Nebraska to sweep illegals from meat processing plants. Federal sweep was so successful that the region suffered a massive economic downturn. The Feds were strongly invited to leave so that the illegals would come back.
Of course, that is but another job just as easily performed outside the US. Just another job that we need illegal immigrants for - or a job that needs the US to eliminate another reason for the problem - immigrant quotas. Nebraska simply learned illegal immigrants are not the problem so many hype them to be. The real problem is in the American laws - that create an illegal immigrant problem.
The latest damning example being ethanol. We suddenly want lots of ethanol. And who pioneered the technology? Who has plenty of ethanol to sell? Brazil. So what do we do? Pass laws that put a 54% tariff on Brazil ethanol. It this action based in intelligence - or just the rich manipulating laws for their own purpose - and creating more need for illegal immigrants.
Bruce – as soon as I hear reasons from political hypsters being used, then t I doubt. By doubting absolute nonsense (such as terrorists massing at that border), then discovered is this major reason for an illegal immigration problem. US – with or without periods in that word.
This is where an intelligent Brazil says "Fuck you" and deals with other nations. It ain't hard.
So tired of people blaming the Gap for the clothes they are wearing... don't like em', don't shop there.
This is where an intelligent Brazil says "Fuck you" and deals with other nations. It ain't hard.
So tired of people blaming the Gap for the clothes they are wearing... don't like em', don't shop there.
Brazil was one of so many countries loudly saying "FU" to US and France. The problem is that we are dumping agricultural products on the world thereby destroying jobs in those countries. We are so ignorant of what our 'bought and paid for' politician do that we don't even know about the 54% tariff on methanol.
I would guess that virtually every lurker here never heard of that 54% tariff - but heard repeatedly how illegal immigrants would become mass murdering terrorists. Somehow the reality is little known and the fears are widely publicized.
No wonder America would put up useless walls -cure a symptom - rather than address the problem. Too many want solutions without first learning what the problem really is. How many lurkers knew about Cancun long before reading about it here? Again demonstrates 'casting blame before learning of reality'.
Our skewed import/export practices are a problem... but having a secure border has nothing to do with it and I see no problem with it.
Our skewed import/export practices are a problem... but having a secure border has nothing to do with it and I see no problem with it.
Our borders are as secure as they ever were. Any insecurity is Rush Limbaugh spin.
If you think for one minute that ignoring reasons for this problem will make our borders any safer, then you also believed the McNamara line defended S Vietnam. As Federal agent friends said, even the war on drugs was a myth. No matter how many agents, soldiers, Coast Guard cutters, and even nuclear subs; there was no significant reduction drug trafficking. Why? We used a big gun and big wall strategy to solve symptoms rather than address the problem.
What makes borders secure? Address the reason for problems; not solve a problem foolishly with big guns and big walls.
We don't have a border security problem - anymore than we did 30 years ago. What we have is denial that is only making illegal immigration necessary. The minute we start hyping fear of unsecured borders, then I know someone is being led by the nose (sound byte spin) rather than first asking some embarrassing simple questions. Spin doctors are hyping the 'unsecured border' hype so that you will not think logically.
For that matter, prove we have a border security problem. Not administration emotion. Show me with facts and numbers how our border security is so dangerous. How many buildings have been bombed? Where are all the rapes?
Our borders today are as unsecured as they were every decade previously. Why is that suddenly a problem? Do we cure symptoms - with simple minded solutions such as big walls and big guns? Or do we instead use intelligence to address the real problem?
BTW, what is the only way to have secure borders? Good, reliable, close friends on that border. I don’t see those who worry about ‘unsecure borders’ even for one minute talking about THE best source of secure borders. They hype big walls and big guns; a ‘big dic’ mentality that absolutely ignores the most significant reason for secure borders.
Maybe because the nations who are accused by virtually then[sic] entire world of unfair trading also have immigration problems?
Exactly one word too many: these are nations that have immigration, full stop. Now think why they do, and weep for the cause of Blame America First that you so madly, sickly, daily espouse, you idiot.
NoBoxes, welcome to the club of "I've taken tw's measure, and he sucks bong water and eats his dandruff," whose membership grows every time tw tries to pay attention to about anything. He can't copyedit and he's quite mad, though he can simulate a well-founded mentality on just enough occasions for people to take him seriously, for a moment or two. He has one redeeming social value -- he shows in detail how sick and wrong the Blame America First point of view is. In disagreeing with loonies like tw, we strengthen our patriotism and win the GWOT, not least to piss these fools off so bad they have to jump off bridges.
Tw, dear patriotism catalyzer, how do you type so much with one forefinger up your nose?
On a general note, what Mexico needs is an economy that resembles that of the United States, rather than a replication of feudal Spain. Make a good living and everything else pretty much falls into place, or at least you've got a menu of options.
Our borders are as secure as they ever were. Any insecurity is Rush Limbaugh spin.
If you think for one minute that ignoring reasons for this problem will make our borders any safer, then you also believed the McNamara line defended S Vietnam. As Federal agent friends said, even the war on drugs was a myth. No matter how many agents, soldiers, Coast Guard cutters, and even nuclear subs; there was no significant reduction drug trafficking. Why? We used a big gun and big wall strategy to solve symptoms rather than address the problem.
What makes borders secure? Address the reason for problems; not solve a problem foolishly with big guns and big walls.
We don't have a border security problem - anymore than we did 30 years ago. What we have is denial that is only making illegal immigration necessary. The minute we start hyping fear of unsecured borders, then I know someone is being led by the nose (sound byte spin) rather than first asking some embarrassing simple questions. Spin doctors are hyping the 'unsecured border' hype so that you will not think logically.
For that matter, prove we have a border security problem. Not administration emotion. Show me with facts and numbers how our border security is so dangerous. How many buildings have been bombed? Where are all the rapes?
Our borders today are as unsecured as they were every decade previously. Why is that suddenly a problem? Do we cure symptoms - with simple minded solutions such as big walls and big guns? Or do we instead use intelligence to address the real problem?
BTW, what is the only way to have secure borders? Good, reliable, close friends on that border. I don’t see those who worry about ‘unsecure borders’ even for one minute talking about THE best source of secure borders. They hype big walls and big guns; a ‘big dic’ mentality that absolutely ignores the most significant reason for secure borders.
We have always had lax border/immigration security, it is just time to fix it. Thanks for bringing that up and making the point as well.
Have too many illegal immigrants or illegals we don't want, hell illegals at all? We have a border problem. It ain't hard, and security is the first thing we need to worry about... relations are something we only have control over 1/2 of.
For that matter, prove we have a border security problem. Not administration emotion. Show me with facts and numbers how our border security is so dangerous. How many buildings have been bombed? Where are all the rapes?
No, no, no. You want proof? 11 M I L L I O N illegal aliens...at least. Nobody here is saying we are in danger of bombing or raping or they are dangerous..... except you.
Once more with feeling, THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HERE...period.
Is that clear enough? The reasons they are here are myriad and complex as you have stated, I think properly, ad infinitum. One of them being the Beef producers that are making a bundle off of them.
BUT, the fact remains, they are not supposed to be here.:smack:
The problem is that we are dumping agricultural products on the world thereby destroying jobs in those countries.
Where in the world did you come up with THAT??? I live in the San Joaquin Valley, one of the most prolific food-producing areas in the world, and all we ever hear is how impossible it is for us to export foodstuffs to ANY country. Hell, California produces so many tons of garlic that they even have a festival in Gilroy, so we IMPORT garlic from China, that is how screwed up our balance of trade is in favor of the OTHER guys. The only meaningful food exports from this country are wheat and corn, which it seems that Russia and the former Communist Block countries can't get enough of, but otherwise OUR farmers compete against cheaper imports from everywhere else. WE have to obey sanitation and environmental and employer laws while the competition grows their stuff in sewage, does not get inspected, and uses slave labor. TW, you are from CA also, how in the world could you make a statement like that one???
Our skewed import/export practices are a problem... but having a secure border has nothing to do with it and I see no problem with it.
I seem to recall that we
import a lot more than we export ... given this, folks should be staying in their home countries in droves to make more money off of us.
Where in the world did you come up with THAT??? I live in the San Joaquin Valley, one of the most prolific food-producing areas in the world, and all we ever hear is how impossible it is for us to export foodstuffs to ANY country. Hell, California produces so many tons of garlic that they even have a festival in Gilroy, so we IMPORT garlic from China, that is how screwed up our balance of trade is in favor of the OTHER guys. The only meaningful food exports from this country are wheat and corn, which it seems that Russia and the former Communist Block countries can't get enough of, but otherwise OUR farmers compete against cheaper imports from everywhere else. WE have to obey sanitation and environmental and employer laws while the competition grows their stuff in sewage, does not get inspected, and uses slave labor. TW, you are from CA also, how in the world could you make a statement like that one???
Exactly, you have to look very hard now to find pure FL OJ and try to find US electronics... why? Because foreign markets have done here what TW says we are doing elsewhere, a myth. Cheap foreign goods hurt the US, not the other way around.
Find a factory producing something in the US other than on a nominal level... try it.
Yeah, they just eat-up US made cars, cheese, electronics, and every thing else other than music, jeans (oh... that's right, we don't make those any more) and movies...sure... sell us on that typing on your PC made where, on a chair made where, furniture made where, in clothes made where, listening to music packaged where, being lit by lights made where...? It's a FLOOOD of US goods!!! :vader1:
What does this have to do with illegals in this nation?
Not a damn thing.
They are
ILLEGAL... so, they should get a visa or get out. It is
not complicated.
All of this is the same crap as "his momma spanked him so it ain't his fault he robbed the Circle K and killed that poor lady"...
It's a "look over here" tactic and is just silly.
Originally Posted by [B]Urbane Guerrilla
NoBoxes, welcome to the club of "I've taken tw's measure, and he sucks bong water and eats his dandruff,"
Originally Posted by tw
Noboxes - learn to post logically or we will have to discuss the penis hanging below your mother.
*Whether I praise, agree with, disagree with; or, criticize someone who posts here, I prefer to do it in an educated language.*
People with my formal training and experience in antiterrorism and counterterrorism are not likely to draw all the conclusions that tw has.
Those, like me, who have held a security clearance and accessed restricted information, refrain from drawing conclusions on controversial subjects
to the degree of certainty that tw does when all they are working from is open sources.
People with my background realize that there are real needs and perceived needs and that more conflicts today result from disputes over perceived needs (ideologies - political, economic, social ... etc.) than from disputes over real needs (e.g. water, food, shelter ... etc.).
It is my opinion that tw's efforts to dispel
the perceived needs that cause our actions to hinder our progress is a worthy endeavor. It is also my opinion that just enough of tw's conclusions are so seriously flawed as to make tw ineffective in that role. tw now only serves as entertainment for me; BUT HEY, THAT'S WHAT I CAME TO THE CELLAR FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE! I certainly didn't come
here to solve the problems of the world. :cool:
I certainly didn't come here to solve the problems of the world.
What? Why you bastard, you killed Kenny, didn't you? :smack:
They are ILLEGAL... so, they should get a visa or get out. It is not complicated.
No, its not complicated. It just takes years to get a visa. It requires spending massive sums on lawyers because even the immigration forms are incomprehensible. They and their employers need those jobs filled now. As Nebraska demonstrated, once we start demanding this 'get a visa' nonsense without fixing a defective (and restricted) system, then that region of Nebraska went into recession.
You have a problem with illegals? Then your next post would demand we start with defective American immigration laws. Blaming the victim never solved problems.
Want to fix the visa problem? Start by eliminating nonsense quotas. But that would require political balls. Better to do as Nebraska did. Kick the feds out and employ more illegals. Again a problem that exists, in part, because American laws are defective. So instead we blame the victims. It is easier.
Those, like me, who have held a security clearance and accessed restricted information, refrain from drawing conclusions on controversial subjects
A dirty little secret. I also had those security clearances. So what? Does that make me a genius? Not for one minute. It just meant I was going stuff I don't talk about.
I live in the San Joaquin Valley, one of the most prolific food-producing areas in the world, and all we ever hear is how impossible it is for us to export foodstuffs to ANY country.
Every industry always makes complaints about how difficult it is to stay in business. It helped even during labor contract negotiations. That does not make it true. It’s too often nothing more than propaganda.
Meanwhile, tell us about what happened in Cancun. Tell us why the Doha round has missed another milestone. Where did I come up with that? I am simply repeating what virtually every nation in the world complained about so loudly as to walk out of an international conference three days early - in mass. This in part so that you would even learn how unfair they consider US trading practices. Why would they all walk out if America (and France) were not subverting these jobs throughout the world? Or maybe did you never learn about Cancun?
I don't give much credence to industries that are always crying unfair competition. If they cannot compete without government support, then they should move out. Curious. They would move to where Jose Mexicana desperately needs a job. Illegal immigration solved.
No, no, no. You want proof? 11 M I L L I O N illegal aliens...at least.
11 million productive people who would not be illegal if we started by fixing defective American laws - such as self serving, politically inspired, immigration quotas.
No their not suppose to be here. No, we are no supposed to give any corporate welfare to sugar, corn, cotton, and so many other agricultural industries. And no, America should not be dumping these crops on other nations thereby destroying overseas jobs. Finally, America that says oil prices are too high should not put a 54% tariff on Brazilian methanol. But then illegal immigration is being hyped as if it were the only problem AND that nothing we have done created that problem.
11 million would not be here if they could be doing those jobs at home – if America was a free trading nation in a spirit that has somehow gotten lost.
Why do you blame illegals for problem WE have created?
No, its not complicated. It just takes years to get a visa. It requires spending massive sums on lawyers because even the immigration forms are incomprehensible. They and their employers need those jobs filled now. As Nebraska demonstrated, once we start demanding this 'get a visa' nonsense without fixing a defective (and restricted) system, then that region of Nebraska went into recession.
You have a problem with illegals? Then your next post would demand we start with defective American immigration laws. Blaming the victim never solved problems.
Want to fix the visa problem? Start by eliminating nonsense quotas. But that would require political balls. Better to do as Nebraska did. Kick the feds out and employ more illegals. Again a problem that exists, in part, because American laws are defective. So instead we blame the victims. It is easier.
Employ more illegals? That is your solution to illegal immigration?:lol:
So when my son hits 13 I should just give him the key to the liquor cabinet as a solution to a late night out... right? Makes perfect sense.
Employ more illegals? That is your solution to illegal immigration?
if we have the jobs, then yes. However do you really think there is this mass of illegals who just can't get into America?
If you don't like illegals in America, then why are you not demanding those industries that cannot survive without those illegals move to where those ilegals live? Oh. American trade restrictions means those businesses - ie meat packing - must stay in America.
It is only speculation on your part that eliminating immigration quotas would only mean more illegals. Reality- it means a greater percentage of America's future population will be more productive. Are you opposed to more productive Americans?
Hey, now tw's saying what i said from the start, to some extent...
Make it easier to be a LEGAL immigrant, and we wont have a problem with illegals.
Originally posted by tw
A dirty little secret. I also had those security clearances. So what? Does that make me a genius? Not for one minute. It just meant I was going stuff I don't talk about.
Really! In the US government system a person holds only one security clearance. It can be upgraded, downgraded, rescinded and reinstated. It can even have special billeting attached; but, a person holds only one security clearance.
In the US government system [which granted mine], a security clearance doesn't
just mean that a person was doing stuff they don't talk about. It means that a person knows what
others are doing; but, aren't talking about. It means a person can recognize open source information that's not in the best interest of the US government to talk about. Additionally, it means a person can access globally acquired information that simply isn't available from outside of official channels and know what's actually going on in the world when open source users don't.
In the US government system, a security clearance
doesn't make a person a genius; however, it can enable access to information which can significantly expand the scope of a person's knowledge to the point that the person becomes a bona fide subject matter expert rather than just a self appointed one (an armchair quarterback so to speak).
The differences in our descriptions of what a security clearance means prompts these legitimate questions:
Which country's government granted you your security clearances?
What is the definition of the acronym DSAR in this context?
Inquiring minds want to know! :rolleyes:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
What? Why you bastard, you killed Kenny, didn't you?
[CENTER]:lol2:[/CENTER]
PS: It was self defense, he called me a bastard and the truth was killing me.
Really! In the US government system a person holds only one security clearance. It can be upgraded, downgraded, rescinded and reinstated. It can even have special billeting attached; but, a person holds only one security clearance.
A distinction without a difference. You could just as easily say that a person only has one clearance
at a time, and it is replaced or revoked.
In the US government system, a security clearance doesn't make a person a genius;
You would not even mention your security clearance which is necessary if that clearance was of a level that actually provided special information. Security clearance means nothing to immigration issues. Used as some inflated claim that somehow you have more knowledge? Bull. There is nothing about America's immigration problem that is top secret. Citing a security clearance to proclaim yourself more knowledgeable is a 'blow hard' effort to sound smart. The fact that you are even talking about your security clearance suggests how low that clearance really is.
11 million productive people who would not be illegal if we started by fixing defective American laws - such as self serving, politically inspired, immigration quotas.
No their not suppose to be here. No, we are no supposed to give any corporate welfare to sugar, corn, cotton, and so many other agricultural industries. And no, America should not be dumping these crops on other nations thereby destroying overseas jobs. Finally, America that says oil prices are too high should not put a 54% tariff on Brazilian methanol. But then illegal immigration is being hyped as if it were the only problem AND that nothing we have done created that problem.
11 million would not be here if they could be doing those jobs at home – if America was a free trading nation in a spirit that has somehow gotten lost.
Why do you blame illegals for problem WE have created?
Bullshit, it isn't our responsibility to solve everyone else's problems. All these third world countries are whining that we don't fix their problems. Just because we don't fix them then we caused them? No way.
It's about taking care of this country. I don't care if they all piss and moan about us, we take plenty of lumps (and always have) in the "free trade" market.
Move more operations out of the country? Bite your tongue.:eyebrow:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
A distinction without a difference. You could just as easily say that a person only has one clearance at a time, and it is replaced or revoked.
It's a distinction that I "
could just as easily" have made to see if TW has held a security clearance with:
a. another government
b. more than one government
c. any non-government entities (e.g. privately issued corporate clearances).
Just because you don't recognize the "
difference" these factors can make in assessing someone's credibility doesn't mean that everyone else has limited vision too.
Originally Posted by TW
You would not even mention your security clearance which is necessary if that clearance was of a level that actually provided special information.
Actually, I used my own security clearance to demonstrate why people may believe that there is often more to important issues than your open source information can accurately represent.
Originally Posted by TW
Security clearance means nothing to immigration issues.
Not for you; because, regardless of security clearance, information access is granted on a need to know basis anyway. Security clearance can be very important to those who deal with tangent issues that affect immigration policy (whether
you think those issues
should affect immigration or not).
Originally Posted by TW
Used as some inflated claim that somehow you have more knowledge? Bull.
I've not made that claim for myself. I've not even stated a position on immigration.
Originally Posted by TW
There is nothing about America's immigration problem that is top secret.
You would have no way of knowing that and you likely never will. That was just another way of putting your previous statement "Security clearance means nothing to immigration issues." I'll indulge your redundancy and put my reply another way. There is significant restricted information regarding, at least, other issues that impact on immigration policy.
Originally Posted by TW
Citing a security clearance to proclaim yourself more knowledgeable is a 'blow hard' effort to sound smart.
I've made no such proclamation about myself. I do infer that people working from only open sources may not be as knowledgeable as they could; or, should be.
Originally Posted by TW
The fact that you are even talking about your security clearance suggests how low that clearance really is.
Your statement is absurd. The US President has unlimited security clearance and he flaunts it whenever he cites national security reasons for not giving the press/public requested information. There is no correlation between the topical discussion of security clearances and anyone's clearance level. Additionally, this was just another way of putting your previous statement "You would not even mention your security clearance which is necessary if that clearance was of a level that actually provided special information." See my reply to that.
PS: Two redundancies in the same paragraph! TW, I am disappointed. As
entertainment goes, I had thought you were a class act. Now I'm getting bored. Please continue to provide quality entertainment, not quantity entertainment.
PPS: I had already classified your presentations as
For Entertainment Use Only. I may have to assign the same classification to your integrity since you didn't answer either of the 2 questions I asked of you in a previous post.
Just because you don't recognize the "difference" these factors can make in assessing someone's credibility doesn't mean that everyone else has limited vision too.
Don't assume my vision is more limited in that regard.
Actually, I used my own security clearance to demonstrate why people may believe that there is often more to important issues than your open source information can accurately represent.
You have hyped a theoretical security clearance only to complain. If you have facts, then post them. If you have no facts, then stop whining. It's like listening to a child crying - not one useful fact posted.
Bullshit, it isn't our responsibility to solve everyone else's problems.
They did not make these problems. We did. And then some would be so myopic as to blame the victims. We created (in part) this illegal immigration problem. Its our problem - not theirs. Rather than fix the problem, we do as Westmoreland proclaimed - solve the problem with body counts - the Big Wall and Big Guns solution. Attacking symptoms with a frontal assault will not be any more effective than a Great Wall in China. Why? To fix a problem, one must first identify reasons for problems. And so many of the reasons are simply US.
I rather doubt we are as unilateraly to blame as you suggest tw. I'm not saying we had no impact on the Mexican business market, but to suggest that these people are here because we have single-handedly destroyed their ability to survive in Mexico is not true. I also question whether illegal aliens really cannot support themselves at all in Mexico. The issue of wage is always better wages, not wages period. As long as we offer better working conditions and wages people will still cross the border illegally, and I don't think that's going to change. The real question is whether we will enforce our laws and make it impossible for illegals to be hired here.
I rather doubt we are as unilateraly to blame as you suggest tw.
Notice that I never said we are 'unilaterally' to blame. We have a major part in creating the problem. If we want to address the problem, we should start with what we have done to create the problem- not solve its symptoms. History is ripe with proof about how big walls don't solve the problem. Even worse, big walls historicallyimply a wall builder has created his own problem rather than addressing reasons for the problem. Did we forget the Maginot line or the Berlin Wall as previous historical examples?
We did enforce laws to make it impossible for illegals to be hired. It only so destroyed that Nebraska regional economy that the feds were asked to leave. The illegals are not a problem. Only problem is that they must come here illegally.
Attacking symptoms with a frontal assault will not be any more effective than a Great Wall in China.
Yeah, the wall only kept the mongols out for a
few hundred years, not very successful at all huh?
Just sayin'...
Something tw is not yet aware of is that nothing done north of the Rio Grande is actually striking at the root of the problem: that Mexico's economy less resembles that of the United States than it does that of medieval Spain, whose own economic development was stunted by the Reconquista's centuries of warfare which absorbed energies that might otherwise have gone to developing and creating wealth, and whose development after 1492 was poisoned by such a flood of New World gold as to cause gold itself to suffer inflation, especially on the Iberian peninsula. Latin America's economies were all built on the Spanish model of great estates owned by the wealthy few and leaving practically the entire remainder of the population as landless tenant farmers and workers, poverty-stricken, with little stake in the economy and next to no incentive to improve or develop it, because their property rights such as they were were not secure, and they got no profit nor benefit from devising improvement. It is difficult to see how the Spanish colonists could have come up with a better economic model than the one they implemented, it being the only one these landholding, noble hidalgos had any experience of. It didn't help at all that the great majority of the Spanish colonists were either petty nobility or not so petty, would-be nobility and younger sons, and all trying to set themselves up as estateholders, all the while having very few people trying to get from Spain to the New World for the purpose of bettering themselves, such as the English-language colonies further north had.
Want our immigration problems to go away? Make a Mexican middle class you can see without a microscope. This is at least 99% of the problem. We ourselves have very little "part in creating the problem." It grew naturally from Mexico's five-century-long screwup.
You would not even mention your security clearance which is necessary if that clearance was of a level that actually provided special information. . . Citing a security clearance to proclaim yourself more knowledgeable is a 'blow hard' effort to sound smart. The fact that you are even talking about your security clearance suggests how low that clearance really is.
Here is an example of tw's acute emotional immaturity, and I've slapped tw around on that before. This sort of belittlement tactic isn't too out of line for a fourteen-year-old, tw -- but it is altogether grotesque in a man of fifty. It's one of a fistful of reasons why you aren't respected. In fundamental ways, you have never become an adult. If your thinking's actually good enough, you need not bolster it with abusive language. Nor need you indulge in hysterics.
I agree with NoBoxes, though, in the effect on one's thinking that having held a clearance has, from my own experience in holding a very high-level clearance and some very close-held accesses. You have some notion of what may be happening behind the scenes, and it restrains any tendency to blow off.
They did not make these problems. We did. And then some would be so myopic as to blame the victims. We created (in part) this illegal immigration problem. Its our problem - not theirs. Rather than fix the problem, we do as Westmoreland proclaimed - solve the problem with body counts - the Big Wall and Big Guns solution. Attacking symptoms with a frontal assault will not be any more effective than a Great Wall in China. Why? To fix a problem, one must first identify reasons for problems. And so many of the reasons are simply US.
I got a flat tire from picking up a nail that dropped off a truck that was carting away a house that was torn down because a company moved out of the community causing a local depression and slums which let to the house deteriorating to the point it had to be torn down.
Should I rail against the runaway company?
NO, I should change the fucking tire.:smack:
Yeah, Bruce, change the tire. Make US employers accountable for the employees they hire. How hard is it? "Your work permit, please?" How difficult is this for ANY employer to say? The words are all two syllables or less. Granted, there are forged documents going around, but the typical wetback can't afford them.
The courts and law enforcement would be much less overwhelmed if they went after the law breakers in THIS country - all those flag waving Americans who KNOWINGLY hire illegals. :eyebrow:
Originally posted by Urbane Guerrilla
Here is an example of tw's acute emotional immaturity, and I've slapped tw around on that before. This sort of belittlement tactic isn't too out of line for a fourteen-year-old, tw -- but it is altogether grotesque in a man of fifty ...
I agree with NoBoxes, though, in the effect on one's thinking that having held a clearance has ... You have some notion of what may be happening behind the scenes, and it restrains any tendency to blow off.
Sound reasoning Urbane Guerrilla. Not only can you recognize propaganda embedded in a deluge of benign facts, you have also acquired useful character assessment skills. tw could pass as an intellectual high school or college student due to that apparent "emotional immaturity." (and tw's profile is skeletonized). This begs the question:
is it immaturity; or, something else?
tw is not unlike many second worlders that I've met (I've met quite a few in my time, including the President of one Central American country). They have second world ethics. Among these ethics is that whenever one group has a problem, they
instinctively look for another group to blame it on. Another second world ethic is that other groups alway owe your group something. Note tw's virtual motto: ask not what the Mexicans can do for themselves, ask what you can do for the Mexicans. I also found it interesting that in a thread about immigration, tw's focus is on Mexicans. tw isn't campaigning for other nationalities; or, the improvement of
their homelands. This reflects yet another second world ethic:
common ethnicity, nationality, religion ... etc. trumps common situation (like the American Revolutionaries had). This analogy could go on and on ...
Originally posted by Urbane Guerrilla
Something tw is not yet aware of is that nothing done north of the Rio Grande is actually striking at the root of the problem ... Latin America's economies were all built on the Spanish model of great estates owned by the wealthy few and leaving practically the entire remainder of the population as landless tenant farmers and workers, poverty-stricken, with little stake in the economy and next to no incentive to improve or develop it ...
Your analysis is roughly in line with [post=236011]Tonchi's[/post]. Besides working in Central America, I've written an area study on one Central American country and read US Government area study handbooks on others; also, Mexico. All of these sources support the conclusion that there is little to be gained by pouring resources into such countries until they achieve more significant internal reform.
Amusingly, tw still hasn't quite figured out that I never intended to engage in the immigration debate. I recognized early on that tw is a fanatic on this subject who is simply proselytizing in the Cellar. My only purpose was to moderate tw's definitiveness so that other Cellarites would be aware of tw's use of propaganda technique.
Well, thank you for your insight Urbane Guerrilla. While I haven't been here long enough to make a definitive diagnosis of tw, I'm hoping that rehabilitation will be somewhere in the treatment plan. The prognosis is guarded.
Originally posted by Urbane Guerrilla
I've slapped tw around on that before.
No, the only thing you've slapped is your keyboard. Sitting there basking in your own witty repartee doesn't make you any more credible to the reader.
Originally posted by NoBoxes
Besides working in Central America, I've written an area study on one Central American country and read US Government area study handbooks on others; also, Mexico. All of these sources support the conclusion that there is little to be gained by pouring resources into such countries until they achieve more significant internal reform.
You draw on your opinion and the opinion of US government experts on Latin America for your conclusions. We the readers, have no basis to judge your opinion and the government experts on Latin America have been, historically, obscenely wrong.
TW, long winded and abrasive, at least cites his sources and gives the reasoning behind his views, beyond opinion. I don't believe he was advocating dumping resources into Latin America, only leveling the playing field so they can compete with us(US). I don't agree we have the responsibility to help them compete against us but that's just my opinion.
I do respect the fact that he never claims, Well, trust me, because I know shit you don't. :2cents:
Also, UG... I personally find it pretty immature to assume that everyone under the age of what, twenty? twenty-five? is immature and incapable of engaging in a reasonable debate. I know freshmen who are better at debating than many here, and smarter than... some people here. I'm not much over fourteen, UG, and here I am, holding my own, for the most part, with a bunch of people twice my age. I don't presume to have near the experience or knowledge some of you have, but I know what I know. tw is a lot more mature than a lot of people I know, just somewhat long-winded and entrenched in his views.
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
You draw on your opinion and the opinion of US government experts on Latin America for your conclusions. We the readers, have no basis to judge your opinion and the government experts on Latin America have been, historically, obscenely wrong...
I do respect the fact that he never claims, Well, trust me, because I know shit you don't.
xoxoxoBruce, did you miss this part of my previous post?
Amusingly, tw still hasn't quite figured out that I never intended to engage in the immigration debate. I recognized early on that tw is a fanatic on this subject who is simply proselytizing in the Cellar. My only purpose was to moderate tw's definitiveness so that other Cellarites would be aware of tw's use of propaganda technique.
Your statement, "You draw on your opinion and the opinion of US government experts on Latin America for your conclusions.", was completely irresponsible. An area study resource that I've used [one of many resources], previously adopted for use and distributed by the US government, was prepared by Foreign Area Studies, The
American University, under the Country Studies/Area Handbook Program (note the paragraphs titled
Academics and
School of International Service (SIS).
In one C.A. country area study handbook, with only a few hundred pages, the bibliography is
18 pages long and cites many in-country sources (civilian and government) in addition to both kinds of US sources. There is even a disclaimer to the effect that
it should not be construed as an official government position, policy, or decision. Might the US government ultimately somehow exercise editorial control? Possibly, just as tw selects what information he presents to you.
Keep in mind that area studies are only base documents. They can; however, be useful in putting todays events into perspective. There are continuing area assessments to be researched which are used to revise the
published area studies every decade or two. All of this may not even include classified information not available to the authors. If you want to scrutinize a basic foreign country study prepared by a "government" agency, you can
order your own from Uncle Sam. They are currently prepared by Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress under
their Country Studies/Area Handbook Program. They contain enough information (especially historical) to expand one's perspective on contemporary issues just as having access to classified information expands one's perspective. tw has presented neither of these concepts. tw selects and presents only chronological bites which support his agenda.
xoxoxoBruce, I realize that you are just trying to do what's right (fair and equitable) from your perspective. I'm not convinced that tw is just trying to do the same. tw gives the me the impression that to him, the end always justifies the means. When perspectives differ, methodologies take on increasing importance. We have to avoid falling into the same trap that tw has (i.e. presenting our own conclusions as infallible).
BTW, first you say "We the readers, have no basis to judge your opinion ..."; then, turn right around say "Well, trust me, because I know shit you don't." Isn't that a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? :lol2:
No. I didn't miss your speech about not wanting to enter the immigration debate but couldn't pass up a chance to dump on TW.
BTW, first you say "We the readers, have no basis to judge your opinion ..."; [COLOR="RoyalBlue"]then, turn right around say [/COLOR]"Well, trust me, because I know shit you don't." Isn't that a bit like the pot calling the kettle black?
That's very funny when you edit out
and the government experts on Latin America have been, historically, obscenely wrong.
TW, long winded and abrasive, at least cites his sources and gives the reasoning behind his views, beyond opinion. I don't believe he was advocating dumping resources into Latin America, only leveling the playing field so they can compete with us(US). I don't agree we have the responsibility to help them compete against us but that's just my opinion.
I do respect the fact that he never claims,
and replace it with;
[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]then, turn right around say [/COLOR]
Your statement, "You draw on your opinion and the opinion of US government experts on Latin America for your conclusions.", was completely irresponsible. An area study resource that I've used [one of many resources], previously adopted for use and distributed by the US government, was prepared by Foreign Area Studies, The American University, under the Country Studies/Area Handbook Program (note the paragraphs titled Academics and School of International Service (SIS).
Oh, I see. I'm irresponsible for pointing out you were using government information that has been historically, obscenely wrong, but you're not irresponsible for using it. :rolleyes: Well OK, at least you cited some sources.
xoB,
I knew you would enjoy the humor and the paradox; because, THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT (I've made no secret about that being what I'm here for). Sometimes, I may even do the entertaining! Turnabout is fair play. ;)
NB
Sure, NB. That's why we don't take you seriously. ;)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/world/americas/18mexico.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Migrants from Guatemala cross a stream into southern Mexico, a common route for those seeking jobs in Mexico or passage to the United States.
By GINGER THOMPSON
Published: June 18, 2006
TAPACHULA, Mexico, June 11 — Quiet as it is kept in political circles, Mexico, so much the focus of the United States' immigration debate, has its own set of immigration problems. And as elected officials from President Vicente Fox on down denounce Washington's plans to deploy troops and build more walls along the United States border, Mexico has begun a re-examination of its own policies and prejudices.
Here at Mexico's own southern edge, Guatemalans cross legally and illegally to do jobs that Mexicans departing for the north no longer want. And hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from nearly two dozen other countries, including China, Ecuador, Cuba and Somalia, pass through on their way to the United States.
Dense jungle makes establishing an effective law enforcement presence along the line impossible. Crossing the border is often as easy as hopping a fence or rafting for 10 minutes. But, under pressure from the United States, Mexico has steadily increased checkpoints along highways at the border including several posts with military forces.
The Mexican authorities report that detentions and deportations have risen in the past four years by an estimated 74 percent, to 240,000, nearly half along the southern border. But they acknowledged there had also been a boom in immigrant smuggling and increased incidents of abuses and attacks by corrupt law enforcement officials, vigilantes and bandits. Meanwhile, the waves of migrants continue to grow.
Few politicians have made public speeches about such matters. But Deputy Foreign Minister Gerónimo Gutiérrez recently acknowledged that Mexico's immigration laws were "tougher than those being contemplated by the United States," where the authorities caught 1.5 million people illegally crossing the Mexican border last year. He spoke before a congressional panel to discuss "Mexico in the Face of the Migratory Phenomenon."
In an interview, Mr. Gutiérrez said Mexico needed to "review its laws in order to have more legitimacy when we present our points of view to the United States."
Another high-level official in the Foreign Ministry was more blunt, but spoke only on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be seen as undermining Mexico in its dealings with the United States.
"Are we where we should be in the treatment of migrants?" the official said. "No we are not. But is the Mexican government aware of that? Yes, and it is something we are trying to correct."
Unlike the immigration debate in the United States, where immigration opponents and proponents bandy about estimated costs and benefits for everything from the agriculture industry to suburban horticulture, hard numbers on the effects of illegal migration on Mexico are rare. A trip to Chiapas raises questions about whether Mexico practices at home what it preaches abroad.
If the major characters in the migration drama unfolding in Chiapas could be captured in a collage, it would include a burly, white-haired farmer named Eusebio Ortega Contreras, who did not hide that most of the workers who picked mangos in his fields for $6 a day were underage, undocumented Guatemalans. Indians from Chiapas used to do these jobs, Mr. Ortega said. But in the past five years, they have been migrating to the United States. And lately, he said, he has begun to worry that he is going to lose the Guatemalans, too.
"We know that the conditions we provide our workers are not adequate," said Mr. Ortega, president of the local fruit growers' association, who showed a reporter the meager shelter he can offer: an awning off a hay shed for a roof and lined-up milk crates for beds. "But costs are going up. Production is going down. We barely earn enough money to maintain our orchards, much less improve conditions for the workers."
Joaquín Aguilar Vásquez, a 22-year-old father of two, would be standing with his knapsack in front of a passenger bus for the northern border, because jobs here at home barely kept his family fed. He said he started migrating two years ago to work in an electronics factory in Tijuana, where he earned $12 a day and saved enough to build a house. When he reaches Tijuana this time, he said, he will hire a smuggler to sneak him to a construction job in New Orleans.
There would be a skinny unidentified Chinese citizen, chain-smoking in the new migration detention center after being caught with more than 50 of his countrymen stowed away among banana crates in the back of a tractor-trailer. Next to him would be a group of Cuban rafters who floated to Mexico because of the increased United States Coast Guard presence around Florida. And there would be a flock of Central Americans, so scruffy and tough they seemed right out of "Oliver Twist," hopping a freight train north.
In the collage, Edwin Godoy, a 21-year-old Honduran who said he was deported last year from Miami and separated from his wife and two children, would be posing in front.
"They call this train the beast," Mr. Godoy shouted in English to get attention. "Do you want to know why? Because it can either take you where you want to go, or it can kill you. Some of us won't make it out of here alive."
At the start of his presidency nearly six years ago, Mr. Fox pledged that, as part of negotiations with the United States for legal status for illegal Mexican immigrants, this country would crack down on the flow of illegal immigrants crossing from Guatemala. He talked of a so-called Southern Plan that was to be an "unprecedented effort," and the United States offered an estimated $2 million a year to help Mexico deport illegal Central American immigrants.
George Grayson, an expert on Mexico at the College of William and Mary who has made several research trips to Mexico's southern border, said little had come of those efforts. He described this border as an "open sesame for illegal migrants, drug traffickers, exotic animals and Mayan artifacts."
And Mr. Grayson said the United States ended its support for deportation after the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, which instead provides some technical aid and training to increase security at Mexico's southern border checkpoints.
Mexican migration officials acknowledged that they had fewer than 450 agents patrolling the five states along this frontier, which has some 200 official and unofficial crossing points.
The rains came recently and flooded most rivers, making parts of this border as treacherous as the Sonora Desert, the deadly Arizona gateway where more than 460 migrants died of exposure and dehydration last year. But human rights advocates and government migration officials say nature does not do as much harm here as crime and corruption.
The Rev. Ademar Barilli, a human rights advocate who, with the support of the Roman Catholic Church, runs a shelter for migrants in Tecún Umán, a Guatemalan border city, said that unlike crossing patterns at the northern border, migrants here did not typically go far into remote areas, hoping to avoid the authorities. Instead, he said, the migrants try to bribe their way through.
Luis J. Jimenez for The New York Times
Mexico has its own immigration problems. An illegal immigrant from Cuba, center, in a cell in Tapachula, is among those awaiting deportation.
"A migrant with money can make it across Mexico with no problems," Father Barilli said. "A migrant with no money gets nowhere."
Mexican law authorizes only federal migration agents and federal preventive police officers to inspect cars for illegal migrants and to demand proof of legal status. But Mexican authorities acknowledge that migrants face run-ins with every level of law enforcement.
Migrants are also routinely detained by machete-wielding farmers, who extort their money by threatening to turn them over to the police. So many female migrants have been raped or coerced into sex, the authorities said, that some begin taking birth control pills a few months before embarking on the journey north.
Few are punished for such crimes, the authorities added, because the migrants rarely report them.
"This society does not see migrants as human beings, it sees them as criminals," said Lucía del Carmen Bermúdez, coordinator for a government migration agency called Grupo Beta. "The majority of the attacks against migrants are not committed by authorities, although there is still a big problem with corruption in Mexico. Most violence against migrants comes from civilians."
Grupo Beta is a uniquely Mexican creation; established 16 years ago in Tijuana to protect migrants. It was a time, said Pedro Espíndola, the director of Grupo Beta, when Mexican migration to the United States began to soar, and smuggling groups evolved from small-time, community-based operations into transnational criminal cartels.
Grupo Beta was expanded to the southern border in 1996, Mr. Espíndola said, when throngs of Central American migrants, aiming for the United States, began hopping freight trains in Tapachula. Train stations became easy staging areas for gangs to ambush migrants. Hospitals became overwhelmed with men and women who had fallen beneath moving locomotives, often losing limbs to their wheels.
Last year, Grupo Beta reported, 72 migrants died crossing the southern border, mostly in accidents on trains or highways. Human rights groups say the real figure is more than twice as high. And in the 16 years since one woman, Olga Sánchez Martínez, began selling bread and embroidery to operate a shelter and then a clinic for migrants, she said, she has treated more than 2,500 migrants with machete and gunshot wounds or severed limbs.
Last year's rains did so much damage to the bridges and roads around Tapachula that the train does not stop here anymore. But that has not stopped the migrants.
Some detour north of here, the authorities said, to train stations that run through the state of Tabasco. But migrants like Mr. Godoy, the Honduran, have so far refused to abandon this route. He walked eight days along the tracks that run from here to the station in Arriaga, about 120 miles away. Then he, along with at least 300 others, hopped a freight train that leaves there almost nightly, in plain view of evening traffic, the local police and the train's engineer.
It was Mr. Godoy's third attempt in three months. He said he had been caught by United States Border Patrol officers in Laredo, Tex., on each of his previous trips.
"I am not going to give up," he said. "I had a good life in Miami. I got no criminal record. I never hurt nobody. I'm just trying to be with my kids, you know? That's all I need."
Correction: June 20, 2006
An article on Sunday about the difficulties Mexico faces in policing its southern border referred imprecisely to a southern state where Mexico has immigration agents. Yucatán is near the border but not on it.
Luis J. Jimenez. for The New York Times
Eduardo Esobar, a Salvadoran migrant, hopped a train in Arriaga, Chiapas. He said he was headed to the United States to search for work.
Bush Signaling Shift in Stance on Immigration
Nauseating.
The only time I ever thought Bush made any sense at all was when he said, "It's just not practical," in regards to the rounding up of 11 million people. I think (hope) this supposed insider was just talking out of his butt when he said that the path to citizenship idea would eventually be abandoned. It would be such a bad move all around--expensive for the U.S. in terms of deportation costs and loss of productive potential citizens, and outright shameful treatment of people who work hard and ought to be allowed the same opportunities as other immigrant groups before them.
He's not up for reelection so he has to do what is best for the party members that are. He must be getting signals from somewhere.:eyebrow:
He's not up for reelection so he has to do what is best for the party members that are. He must be getting signals from somewhere.:eyebrow:
Except he's already warned them that this will screw their chances for getting more Hispanics into the GOP.
They don't care if their home district doesn't have hispanics, they just worry about their own election. :)
And here was li'l ole me thinking that the white Americans were the illegal immigrants who wrongfully took over a whole continent by theft , violence , and deliberate spread of disease !
Trawling through this thread , I finally see the truth . I see that the Mexicans for example are the real baddies ! Thank you for opening my eyes .
Hmmmm, kind of hard to call European immigrants 'illegal' when that term is dependant on a preexisting structure of laws and an actual country to make them, neither of which were here when they arrived.
So , am I right in thinking that one should win ( by whatever means possible) and THEN write the rules , 9th Engineer ?
And if a rule is inconvenient (ie a treaty giving the natives some land that turns out to be valuable after all), you just ignore it.
Hey , Happy Monkey ! If it works , don't fix it !
The only rule that matters: Take what you want, screw the other guy.
Hmmmm, kind of hard to call European immigrants 'illegal' when that term is dependant on a preexisting structure of laws and an actual country to make them, neither of which were here when they arrived.
Oh my goodness, you are very wrong. There most certainly were governments on this land pre-European migration. The current U.S. government system is based on one of them. Europeans were welcomed by some (i.e. given "legal" status), and rejected by others (therefore, "illegal"). Some were initially accepted, then rejected, and vice-versa. As we can all see, the tradition of rejecting/accepting perceived outsiders has continued throughout U.S. history, up to the present time.
Yes , the Pilgrim Fathers were treated kindly by the Native Americans , in fact their lives were saved by the Native Americans who helped them through that first awful winter . I believe that your Thanksgiving festival is based on this kindness .
And then the Native Americans were rejected .
Is that what you meant by acceptance and rejection , bluecuracao ?
Yes , the Pilgrim Fathers were treated kindly by the Native Americans , in fact their lives were saved by the Native Americans who helped them through that first awful winter . I believe that your Thanksgiving festival is based on this kindness .
And then the Native Americans were rejected .
Is that what you meant by acceptance and rejection , bluecuracao ?
No, I talking about Europeans; but you're right, Native Central and South Americans are many of the ones being rejected right now.
Illegal is illegal. We can't accept everyone, all the time.
It ain't hard.
We're still accepting more than any other country in the World. ;)
The League of the Iroquois for instance.
The confederation sounds very civilized, doesn't it?
Bullshit. The member tribes routinely raped and pillaged each other, killing the men and taking the women and children hostage.
The harsh life they led, especially in the northern climes, meant the size of any tribe could fall quickly. That would guarantee being attacked by someone.
At one point they controlled the northeast quarter of what is now the US, plus part of Canada. Hundreds of tribes lived on this land... smaller, weaker tribes, that were routinely savaged by the confederation members and forced to give up any wealth.
The Europeans played the same game, i.e., you could have as much land and wealth as you could win and hold. They lost a lot of battles but they won the war. :cool:
And if a rule is inconvenient (ie a treaty giving the natives some land that turns out to be valuable after all), you just ignore it.
If you don't like it, you are welcome to try to return to the land of your European foreparents. They probably don't want you, as a number of discouraged liberals found out in 2004.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make or refute there. You like illegal immigration?
We're still accepting more than any other country in the World. ;)
Exactly, and they still bitch. As always, those who give the most get griped at the most.
Those who don't want us to enforce our, perfectly reasonable, immigration laws.
I'M totally bitchin'. Got bitchin' clothes, bitchin' hair, and REALLY bitchin' shoes.
Those who don't want us to enforce our, perfectly reasonable, immigration laws.
Oh.
I could be one of "those" I guess, except that I think "our" immigration laws are far from "perfectly" reasonable.
(aren't quotation marks fun?)
I could be one of "those" I guess, except that I think "our" immigration laws are far from "perfectly" reasonable.
I agree...they're full of loopholes, especially compared to other counties. But if you don't like the laws, try to get them changed. Don't just enforce them badly.