Immigration Enforcement Un-American?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently told a group of both legal and illegal immigrants and their families that enforcement of existing immigration laws, as currently practiced, is "un-American."
The speaker, condemning raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, referred to the immigrants she was addressing as "very, very patriotic."
"Who in this country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families?" Pelosi told a mostly Hispanic gathering at St. Anthony's Church in San Francisco.
"It must be stopped....What value system is that? I think it's un-American. I think it's un-American."
Pelosi said she was invited to the church by Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., as part of his 17-city, cross-country tour called United Families, which he says is intended to put a human face on the immigration debate.
"We think that families are the cornerstone of our society and our nation, and an immigration system should preserve those families, not destroy them," Gutierrez told FOX News Capitol Hill Producer Chad Pergram on Tuesday.
The congressman is collecting petitions that ask President Obama to "stop the immigration raids and deportations that are tearing our marriages, families and children apart." He is expected to present those petitions when Hispanic members of Congress meet with the President Wednesday.
On Saturday night, Pelosi joined Gutierrez before a cheering crowd at St. Anthony's chanting, "Si se puede," or "Yes we can."
Referring to work site enforcement actions by ICE agents, Pelosi said, "We have to have a change in policy and practice and again ... I can't say enough, the raids must end. The raids must end.
"You are special people. You're here on a Saturday night to take responsibility for our country's future. That makes you very, very patriotic."[/B]
Help me out here - If they are here illegally, America isn't their country is it?
"I was embarrassed by what she said," said Rick Oltman, with Californians for Population Stabilization, an anti-illegal immigrant group. "Exhorting illegal aliens for taking responsibility for our country's future.... In fact, sitting there in the audience.... I really resented that comment."
"I think it was pandering to the crowd but also insulting to American citizens who consider themselves to be patriotic, who obey the rule of law," said Oltman, who shot a video of the rally.
Very interesting. I wonder where this is headed.
The same place as always. Big arguments and name calling. Anti-illegal immigration will be portrayed as racist simpletons and the open borders crowd will cast as the limp wristed unpatriotic fools.
there really isn't much left to be said.
It should be headed towards a policy where when we kick in the doors, we drag the whole family back to their home country, not just the illegals.
Yea, I was pretty shocked when I heard her say that. Why is it unAmerican to want to enforce our immigration laws? I just don't get it.
I agree it was a stupid thing for Pelosi to say.
But to play devil's advocate....
Under the current law, illegal immigrants have a right to a hearing to determine if there are circumstances (eg potential political persecution if sent back to their home country, mistakes on work or student visas, etc.) in which they may be eligible to stay in the country.
And, immigration violations are considered civil violations, like a speeding ticket or trespassing, but the government can imprison illegal immigrants without many of the rights criminals receive: no court-appointed attorney or even a right to speak with an attorney, no bond hearings, no guarantee of a speedy trial.
Several years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that ICE has about 6 months to deport or release immigrants, yet many who have not committed any other crime, have been held for more than a year.
In addition, raids in which whole families are rounded up often include children born here who have constitutional rights as citizens.
I'm not suggesting that most illegals who are caught should not be deported, but I can understand why some may feel that many illegals do not receive due process in a manner equal to other "criminals" under US law.
On a lighter note, some of your compatriots don't like this subject.
reverse posting link:
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=547013#post547013
:D
Now stop it!
Help me out here - If they are here illegally, America isn't their country is it?
Very interesting. I wonder where this is headed.
May they are afraid they are going to raid her kitchen help? :)
May they are afraid they are going to raid her kitchen help? :)
I think you might be mistaking Pelosi for Linda Chavez, Bush's first nominee for Labor Secretary ;)
Q. When did Marta Mercado tell you that she was actually here illegally?
A. She remembers that she told me after she'd been in my house about three months. I will be very frank with you, I think I always knew that she was here illegally. I don't check green cards when I see a woman who is battered and who has no place to live and nothing to eat and no way to get on her feet.
Q. Did you also help her get a job with your next-door neighbor?
A. I helped her in every way that I could: I drove her places to look for work; I drove her to English classes; I taught her to use the bus. I did a lot of things for her that I would do for anybody in those circumstances.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/10/us/excerpts-from-chavez-s-comments.html
There was no mistake. I wouldn't put it past her. She is from San Fancisco.
Pelosi would make a great politician if she wasn't so damn stupid.
My God. There are more illegals in Georgia than Nevada? :eek:
It was [COLOR="Red"]another[/COLOR] stupid thing for Pelosi to say.
sorry :) couldn't resist.
raids in which whole families are rounded up often include children born here who have constitutional rights as citizens.
I'm not suggesting that most illegals who are caught should not be deported, but I can understand why some may feel that many illegals do not receive due process in a manner equal to other "criminals" under US law.
That issue troubles me the most. The children who are born here with family that is here illegally. Its a difficult situation. Very sad.
Build the wall, stop the influx & deal with the remaining as best we can. It will be a lot easier to give them their due process, especially when time limits are imposed, if the system wasn't dealing with such a vast number as they are now. Its the same as the legal system tough to deal with so many cases and the backup keeps getting longer.
When they wrote the 14th ammendment, I don't think they could have forseen the trouble it would cause in the future. I don't think "anchor babies" should be legal citizens. If someone illegally comes into the country to have a baby so they can stay here, that is wrong. the ammendment needs ammending.
You should hear the horror stories from the hospital in Brownsville, TX.
... or any border state hospital. The tens of millions (or more) that are spent could fund care for so many uninsured/underinsured Americans.
Help me out here - If they are here illegally, America isn't their country is it?
No, but last I heard, Americans seem to view themselves as a good force in the world, upholding fairness and adhering to basic human rights. So tearing parents from children and breaking down doors in the middle of the night to do so
might be considered un-American in that respect. she said un-American, not anti-American, right?
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
This is still the image America projects to the world. Agreed it is unsustainable, but you can't blame people for still believing in it. they may be illegal, but they're still human.
And believe me, there's nothing that pisses us legals off more than illegals because they make the process harder and nastier for the rest of us.
But they're still human.
I agree with that, and I don't blame them for wanting a better life. I have always said the people who cause them to come here should be severely punished. No job, and many of them would leave. But, some people who were born here can't get the care they get. It's infuriating. it's the government's fault for being so wishy washy about it.
But they're still human.
And they are still criminals. :p
But, some people who were born here can't get the care they get. It's infuriating. it's the government's fault for being so wishy washy about it.
The reason those people can't get the care they get, is not because illegal immigrants have taken the care they should have had. It doesn't have to be either or. My God, the damage that has been done to your economy and to your families by a handful of glorified robber barons and yet billions can be found to patch up the wounds they left. You could let everybody in who wanted to come in and you'd probably do less damage to your economy and ramp up the national debt considerably less than the bankers have.
Illegal immigrants are an easy target for anger. But as individuals what they've done is insignificant.
No, but last I heard, Americans seem to view themselves as a good force in the world, upholding fairness and adhering to basic human rights.
No, those are images others put on us.
So tearing parents from children and breaking down doors in the middle of the night to do so might be considered un-American in that respect.
She is blowing out of proportion a minority of cases where those who did so did it under the direction of the people who are burdened with trying to get employeers to adhere to the law. The mothers have been allowed to stay with the children and the fathers have been sent to detention to await a hearing for, I hope eventual deportation. But again, this is such a small minority of the number of illegal immigrants in this country.
Here is the cost:
The nation's school system faces the economic burden of providing services to the millions of children born to illegal immigrants. In a 2004 United States General Accounting Office report, three states submitted their annual cost estimates of educating illegal children. The estimates provided ranged from 50 million dollars to 87.5 million in Pennsylvania and 932 million to 1.04 billion dollars in Texas.[i]
FAIR estimates there are currently more than 425,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (13 million in 2008). In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year and now count substantially more than half.
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters4608No, those are images others put on us
um... No.
You created this situation, you're all immigrants yourselves. It's like when people stop smoking they turn into nicotine nazis.
OK, Godwin's law invoked, thread dies :)
You should hear the horror stories from the hospital in Brownsville, TX.
Same horror stories are found in other hospitals where the clients are overwhelmingly poor. The other forgotten fact.
Eliminate silly raids. Offer visas so that 1.8 million need not vie for only 29,000 permits. Fix the problem rather than enforcing defective laws. So many criticize Pelosi and yet still ignore realities posted here long ago.
Amnesty In America
The Silicon Valley is still screaming about problems created only because government has restricted immigration visas. America no longer graduates enough people with technical knowledge. Instead we graduate mostly business majors. So America desperately needs more productive people - both in the Silicon Valley and on the farms. Smarter is to make productive people legal. Intead we waste money on walls - as if that creates economic stimulus.
What happened when immigration laws were strongly enforced? Economic recessions (ie Nebraska) because those hated immigrants are essential to a more productive America.
So tearing parents from children and breaking down doors in the middle of the night to do so might be considered un-American in that respect. she said un-American, not anti-American, right?
read post #14
um... No.
You created this situation, you're all immigrants yourselves. It's like when people stop smoking they turn into nicotine nazis.
OK, Godwin's law invoked, thread dies :)
It cannot die! We cannot let it be so!
We are all immigrants like everybody is an immigrant.
Poi Dogs Pondering.
um... No.
You created this situation, you're all immigrants yourselves.
It's not about immigrants, it's about criminals.
A republic is based on the rule of law. Enforce it or change it, ignoring it debases the very fabric of our country.
It's not about immigrants, it's about criminals.
A republic is based on the rule of law. Enforce it or change it, ignoring it debases the very fabric of our country.
Illegal immigration is not a criminal act....it is a civil violation.
Treating persons who commit a civil violation as criminals yet denying them the rights given to criminals -the right to counsel, the right to a speedy hearing or trial, the right to post bond or a bond hearing, etc. - debases the rule of law which is the very fabric of our country.
Illegal immigration is not a criminal act....it is a civil violation.
Treating persons who commit a civil violation as criminals yet denying them the rights given to criminals -the right to counsel, the right to a speedy hearing or trial, the right to post bond or a bond hearing, etc. - debases the rule of law which is the very fabric of our country.
They are criminals.
They are criminals.
Only if you consider speeders, jaywalkers and trespassers as criminals.
Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.
Only if you consider speeders, jaywalkers and trespassers as criminals.
Those are not federal crimes.
Those are not federal crimes.
Neither is illegal immigration...it is a civil NOT criminal violation of federal law.
Ignorance of the difference between civil and criminal violations is no excuse.
Treating persons who commit a civil violation as criminals yet denying them the rights given to criminals -the right to counsel, the right to a speedy hearing or trial, the right to post bond or a bond hearing, etc. - debases the rule of law which is the very fabric of our country.
Trial? Counsel? WTF?
LE: Do you have proper legal authorization to be in the US?
Illegal: Nope.
LE: Get the fuck out. Here's a one way ticket to Siberia.
What can counsel do here? It's not like even the smoothest lawyer can convince a judge the illegal in custody
wasn't in the US... which happens to be the violation in question.
What trial is necessary? Get the fuck out.
Keep in mind I fully support opening the borders to anyone who can pass an appropriate background check and follows a much improved and streamlined process for gaining legal access. I also fully support crushing into dust anyone who circumvents that system. I also fully support revoking the business license of any company found to knowingly employ illegals.
Trial? Counsel? WTF?
LE: Do you have proper legal authorization to be in the US?
Illegal: Nope.
LE: Get the fuck out. Here's a one way ticket to Siberia.
What can counsel do here? It's not like even the smoothest lawyer can convince a judge the illegal in custody wasn't in the US... which happens to be the violation in question.
What trial is necessary? Get the fuck out.
Keep in mind I fully support opening the borders to anyone who can pass an appropriate background check and follows a much improved and streamlined process for gaining legal access. I also fully support crushing into dust anyone who circumvents that system. I also fully support revoking the business license of any company found to knowingly employ illegals.
Immigrants who are held under a civil violation of illegal entry have a right to a "speedy" deportation hearing and a right to legal counsel. That is the law.
Immigrants who commit a criminal act while here illegally may lose such rights to a deportation hearing.
My point is the trial should be pretty damn short. It should have exactly one question to answer. Do you or do you not have legal authorization to be in the US? If the answer is no, get out. I don't care about kids, wives, cousins, or jobs. Those wouldn't have been an issue if you hadn't broken the law in the first place. Get out.
Criminal trials are different in that they should be tried just as anyone else and be found guilty or innocent of the charges the same as anyone else. If they are innocent they still need to get out. If they are guilty they need to serve their sentence and then get out.
What can counsel do here? It's not like even the smoothest lawyer can convince a judge the illegal in custody wasn't in the US... which happens to be the violation in question.
Unless they can be proved to have a case for asylum.
[eta] we engage in much the same behaviour over here towards failed asylum seekers. Worse probably. Given how incredibly easy it is to 'fail' an asylum application that means there are likely to be people who've fled from the vilest persecution and violence being dragged from their hostels in the early hours of the morning and shoved on a plane to their (categorised 'safe') country of origin. A recent example was a man who was sent back to Afghanistan wherupon he was brutally killed by the Taleban (the people he'd been fleeing from). I know of several people who've been forcibly returned to Zimbabwe, Republic of Congo, Iraq. Several have 'disappeared' in their country, others are known to have been killed. I know of torture victims, bodies criss crossed with damage whose applications have been refused and their torture disbelieved. A recent investigation into the immigration system characterised it as operating a 'culture of disbelief'. This is how a 16 year old boy becomes recatergorised as 26 (there's a form they fill in where they assign age if no proof of birthdate can be provided. My mum's dealt with several such cases) and then held in an adult detention centre; or how an 8 year old boy alone in the country could be left without assistance or legal counsel and then have his case dismissed for a 'lack of credibility'.
I'm not sure if they actually brought it in yet, but there was talk recently of a change in the law to allow lone children to be deported to their country of origin. A fucking Labour government. Thatcher wouldn't have dared.
Illegal immigration is not a criminal act....it is a civil violation.
It's the other crimes they commit after they enter illegally that really pisses people off. Why should citizens bother with getting drivers licenses and car insurance when illegals don't have to? Why should we pay our health insurance premiums? Why should we have to get SS#s and pay income tax?
What about the gang violence? What about the full prisons and broke hospitals? It goes a little further than the first civil violation or most people wouldn't even notice...
Unless they can be proved to have a case for asylum.
That would be an acception. But given the state of war on the other side of El Paso it might be hard to prove they were not fleeing the conflict. But then again it would be an easy excuse.
Neither is illegal immigration...it is a civil NOT criminal violation of federal law.
Ignorance of the difference between civil and criminal violations is no excuse.
They are still criminals. What, you think you are going to get me to say otherwise? They get a night in jail, a judge with a gavel and a cardboard box to float back to where they came from.
Unless they can be proved to have a case for asylum.
Bullshit. Go through the legal process or get out. I don't care
why you came illegally, only that you
did come illegally. The cop doesn't care too much about my reason for running 80 in a 35 speed zone.
It's the other crimes they commit after they enter illegally that really pisses people off.....
Current immigration law addresses that.
Illegal immigrants who commit a criminal act after then enter illegally are subject to immediate deportation. ..but they are the minority.
A recent Associated Press study and story examines the issue of "immigrants facing detention and having few rights."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/03/15/ap_impact_immigrants_face_detentions_few_rights/Bullshit. Go through the legal process or get out. I don't care why you came illegally, only that you did come illegally. The cop doesn't care too much about my reason for running 80 in a 35 speed zone.
Legal process isn't always an option for people who are fleeing persecution. Added to that some may have a very understandable fear (terror) of authority, leading them to try slipping under the radar.
[eta] and if you had a pregnant wife in the back going into labour, he may not be a bastard about it.
Legal process isn't always an option for people who are fleeing persecution. Added to that some may have a very understandable fear (terror) of authority, leading them to try slipping under the radar.
There is a process by which people can seek protection and legal immigration in those cases. By breaking the law and entering illegally they pretty much negate that process and diminish their chances.
Incidentally, I doubt many illegal immigrants are asylum seekers. I am just suggesting that cases need to be taken on their merits and regardless how black and white your perception of the law they deserve the same human consideration as anybody else.
I appreciate your concern Dana. I also would like to give personal, individual consideration to each person, but that isn't how laws work. I do believe in black and white enforcement even if it is sometimes harsh on some individuals. I can think of nothing more fair in life than applying the exact same rules to every single person.
Legal process isn't always an option for people who are fleeing persecution. Added to that some may have a very understandable fear (terror) of authority, leading them to try slipping under the radar.
[eta] and if you had a pregnant wife in the back going into labour, he may not be a bastard about it.
If he gives me treatment outside of his guidelines then he isn't doing his job however beneficial it may be for me.
Again, I don't care about the why someone broke the law, only that they did.
Bullshit. Go through the legal process or get out. I don't care why you came illegally, only that you did come illegally. The cop doesn't care too much about my reason for running 80 in a 35 speed zone.
They would if another car is behind me shooting shotgun shells at my car. But for the sake of the example, the law can't always say that his reason for illegal entry is just, whether we think it is or not.
If our legal system was built on morality, we would of course allow everyone into the country that came from a tougher background but it isn't and for good reason. A moral legal system cannot exist and even if it could it would be the most hypocritical system in existence. No matter what happens in this situation, someone is going to be fucked and there is no way around that. The question is just who will get fucked over and how bad.
For the most part, laws should be made on what is practical and what works best in the interests of the country (yes that it is still completely subjective), even if that means openly screwing a group over. A very large amount of illegal immigrants are not bad people even with the label of criminals but there is nothing that can be done to solve the problem, so it will continue.
If someone came in illegally, it must be enforced. Throwing morality into the matter will only overly complicate the situation to the point of absurdity. If you disagree with the law, work to get it changed.
A very large amount of illegal immigrants are not bad people
Most of them are good people who weighed the risk/reward scenario and decided the risk was low enough. good people/bad people isn't the issue, playing by the rules is.[COLOR="White"](they're a hell of a lot of fun to play soccer with too)[/COLOR]
If someone came in illegally, it must be enforced. Throwing morality into the matter will only overly complicate the situation to the point of absurdity. If you disagree with the law, work to get it changed.
...till then enforce it.
Seems like an awful waste of money to deport perfectly good bio-diesel material.
Tunnels Beneath U.S. Borders Proliferate
Smugglers continue to construct tunnels beneath U.S. borders to transport drugs, illegal aliens and other contraband, according to an internal briefing prepared by a U.S. Northern Command Task Force.
Dozens of tunnels have been found in recent years, including some of remarkable sophistication, but it is likely that others remain undetected. Overall, between 1990 and November 2008, 93 cross-border tunnels were discovered, a Task Force briefing slide stated (pdf). Thirty-five of those were in California, fifty-seven in Arizona, and one in Washington State.
Continues:
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/02/tunnels.htmlWhen they wrote the 14th ammendment, I don't think they could have forseen the trouble it would cause in the future. I don't think "anchor babies" should be legal citizens. If someone illegally comes into the country to have a baby so they can stay here, that is wrong. the ammendment needs ammending.
Great. So let's go back to Jim Crow.
"Can't let those dirty Mexican brown babies have citizenship, now can we? That's for White people."
Great. So let's go back to Jim Crow.
"Can't let those dirty Mexican brown babies have citizenship, now can we? That's for White people."
Why do you hate Mexicans?
They are criminals.
Then they should get due process.
Or is that only for white people?
The US Constitution applies to US Citizens. Illegals get three hots and a cot, a hearing, and a ride home.
The US Constitution applies to US Citizens.
Bullshit. You've never even read the US constitution.
Amendments from the BoR that only apply to citizens are called off thusly (for example, amendment II). Those that apply to anyone in US jurisdiction or custody call off "any person" or "no person" (ie, amendment V and VI).
Under your little fantasy, which has never been the view of SCOTUS, you could just point at any Hispanic and say they were illegals. With no due process, they would be unable to clear their name, even if their family had been citizens for 5 generations.
But they're only brown people, right, Merc? In your eyes they aren't "persons". Right?
Bullshit. You've never even read the US constitution.
Amendments from the BoR that only apply to citizens are called off thusly (for example, amendment II). Those that apply to anyone in US jurisdiction or custody call off "any person" or "no person" (ie, amendment V and VI).
Nice try. You live in a big fantasy world don't you. The US Constitution was not written for the British under the King, the French Canadians, nor the persons of the Far East in the 1700's. It was written for Americans.
Under your little fantasy, which has never been the view of SCOTUS, you could just point at any Hispanic and say they were illegals. With no due process, they would be unable to clear their name, even if their family had been citizens for 5 generations.
But they're only brown people, right, Merc? In your eyes they aren't "persons". Right?
Your words. Not mine. Anywhere.
You really get angry when people disagree with you don't you. :D
is that only for white people?
Trot that racist bullshit elsewhere - get back to getting the damn concrete.
Oh, and did you get the memo? We need to double the order - Apparently this thing has to go 10' underground as well. It seems we have a little issue with tunnels. BrianR will get the schematics over to you this week.
Nice try. You live in a big fantasy world don't you. The US Constitution was not written for the British under the King, the French Canadians, nor the persons of the Far East in the 1700's. It was written for Americans.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Too bad 220 years of SCOTUS rulings disagree with you. The constitution applies to anyone in US custody/jurisdiction unless specifically stated otherwise, because the constitution is a list of restrictions on government power, not an inclusive list of personal liberties.
You've never read it, have you?
Damn, you're easy, Merc.
Trot that racist bullshit elsewhere - get back to getting the damn concrete.
Oh, and did you get the memo? We need to double the order - Apparently this thing has to go 10' underground as well. It seems we have a little issue with tunnels. BrianR will get the schematics over to you this week.
Let me get this straight...if you point out blatant racism, you're a racist?
:lol:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Too bad 220 years of SCOTUS rulings disagree with you. The constitution applies to anyone in US custody/jurisdiction unless specifically stated otherwise, because the constitution is a list of restrictions on government power, not an inclusive list of personal liberties.
So you are going to now try to convince me that they wrote it for the King of England. Nice.
So you are going to now try to convince me that they wrote it for the King of England. Nice.
Should I type slower, Merc? I mean, you can't POSSIBLY be THIS stupid, can you?
Should I type slower, Merc? I mean, you can't POSSIBLY be THIS stupid, can you?
Do always spend this much energy trying to get people to believe what you type?
Do always spend this much energy trying to get people to believe what you type?
Nope. I'm just curious now, as to how dumb you really are.
The Constitution is a contract between the Federal government and the states. Nothing more.
Non-citizens have the right to be deported to their country of origin.
"We the People of the United States.." not we the people of England, or we the people of Brazil.
Nice try.
The Constitution is a contract between the Federal government and the states. Nothing more.
Non-citizens have the right to be deported to their country of origin.
"We the People of the United States.." not we the people of England, or we the people of Brazil.
Nice try.
I'm sorry you're an ignorant yahoo.
Still, someday you might consider actually reading it.
I'm sorry you're an ignorant yahoo.
Still, someday you might consider actually reading it.
Like I said, you really need to trade in that crystal ball that stinks so bad.
Like I said, you really need to trade in that crystal ball that stinks so bad.
No, seriously, you really are ignorant. You don't even know what the constitution is supposed to represent, let alone what it says.
You're hilarious. You're the very caricature of the dittohead.
No, seriously, you really are ignorant. You don't even know what the constitution is supposed to represent, let alone what it says.
You're hilarious. You're the very caricature of the dittohead.
Let me guess, you got that from your crystal ball too.
Let me guess, you got that from your crystal ball too.
No, I got that from reading your hilariously incorrect statements about the US constitution, for one thing.
You're the classic American yahoo. You don't even understand your own system of government.
No, I got that from reading your hilariously incorrect statements about the US constitution, for one thing.
You're the classic American yahoo. You don't even understand your own system of government.
Dude give it up. Are you Radar's twin brother? You are nothing more than another person who thinks they are an expert at something you have convinced yourself you are right about. The world is filled with people like you. Get in line and get a helmet. I don't care what you believe about it. Now get back to that crystal ball and tell me more about myself. :D
And do some shots or something. Relax.
Dude give it up. Are you Radar's twin brother? You are nothing more than another person who thinks they are an expert at something you have convinced yourself you are right about. The world is filled with people like you. Get in line and get a helmet. I don't care what you believe about it. Now get back to that crystal ball and tell me more about myself. :D
And do some shots or something. Relax.
No, seriously, tell me where the constitution is declared to be a contract between the federal government and the states?
I am a totally captive audience, here.
:lol:
Hannity, Rush, and Boortz told me so at the latest hippie neocon convention where we were all doing some Koolaid-guzzling with sheep. It must be twew..
They read it in their crystal balls. Serious.
The Constitution is a contract between the Federal government and the states. Nothing more.
Non-citizens have the right to be deported to their country of origin.
"We the People of the United States.." not we the people of England, or we the people of Brazil.
Nice try.
I have rights beyond deportation.
It doesn't say "We the Legal Citizens of the United States"
nice try.
I do believe that anyone here under legal immigration status has legal rights which are protected under the Constitution. The problem is with illegal immigrants and those arrested under other circumstances outside the borders of the US. The subject is obviously a debateable one or we wouldn't have many of the problems we have in detaining non-citizens.
I have rights beyond deportation.
It doesn't say "We the Legal Citizens of the United States"
nice try.
Either he can't tell the difference between "the people" and "no person/any person", or he doesn't consider brown folks to be "persons".
I do believe that anyone here under legal immigration status has legal rights which are protected under the Constitution. The problem is with illegal immigrants and those arrested under other circumstances outside the borders of the US. The subject is obviously a debateable one or we wouldn't have many of the problems we have in detaining non-citizens.
The problem we have is that this administration and the one before it don't care much about the constitution.
Either he can't tell the difference between "the people" and "no person/any person", or he doesn't consider brown folks to be "persons".
There you go hating on people of color. Man you need to seek help for that.
Actually his weak attempts to equate immigration control to some sort of racist ideals is often used by supporters of open borders in an attempt to demonize those who disagree with them. Eh, whateva...
There you go hating on people of color.
Can you even read? No, seriously.
Bullshit. Go through the legal process or get out. I don't care why you came illegally, only that you did come illegally. The cop doesn't care too much about my reason for running 80 in a 35 speed zone.
Legal process isn't always an option for people who are fleeing persecution. Added to that some may have a very understandable fear (terror) of authority, leading them to try slipping under the radar.
[eta] and if you had a pregnant wife in the back going into labour, he may not be a bastard about it.
I appreciate your concern Dana. I also would like to give personal, individual consideration to each person, but that isn't how laws work. I do believe in black and white enforcement even if it is sometimes harsh on some individuals. I can think of nothing more fair in life than applying the exact same rules to every single person.
I'm guessing you're not of Jewish descent then? because I'm pretty sure they didn't have much time or opportunity to fill in the correct paperwork for their destinations before they fled from the Nazis.
Hey look, here comes Godwin.
Umm...I don't think we can call out the Godwin card on this one. The discussion had ranged onto people seeking asylum and the holocaust is entirely appropriate to that discussion.
Calling Quirk's exception, eh Dana?
The reason those people can't get the care they get, is not because illegal immigrants have taken the care they should have had. It doesn't have to be either or. My God, the damage that has been done to your economy and to your families by a handful of glorified robber barons and yet billions can be found to patch up the wounds they left. You could let everybody in who wanted to come in and you'd probably do less damage to your economy and ramp up the national debt considerably less than the bankers have.
Illegal immigrants are an easy target for anger. But as individuals what they've done is insignificant.
I agree about the robber barons. Trust me, I have been raging about that issue for years. However, the argument that illegal immigrants cost taxpayers
many billions of dollars every year is valid, and the fact that they send billions to Mexico every year makes it an even bigger slap in the face. The laws need to be enforced. As individuals the damage may not be all that significant, but as a whole, it is enormous.
http://geeks.pirillo.com/forum/topics/testimony-of-illegal-alien?page=5&commentId=2300301%3AComment%3A1472397&x=1#2300301Comment1472397
http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html
https://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/19741669_2.htmlUmm...I don't think we can call out the Godwin card on this one. The discussion had ranged onto people seeking asylum and the holocaust is entirely appropriate to that discussion.
I tried long and hard to avoid the possibility of invoking Godwin, but beest assured me that it really was the correct term in this context. And he's as sound as they come. Anyone who has ever been offended by anything he posted should just jump off a cliff right now.
I'm not so sure it's all that appropriate of a comparison given the drastically different circumstances under which the Jews and others were fleeing, as opposed to the current US/Mexico situation. Things may be bad in Mexico right now, but the events of and leading up to the Holocaust were on a totally different level. Yeah on a superficial basis it works, people fleeing a bad situation where innocents are being killed, but the greater details of both show that's where the similarities really end. And to me that kind of cheapens the attempted comparison.
Yeah, I wasnt being specific about Mexicans though. The conversation had moved on to asylum more generally.
I still call Godwin on this one. It was a cheap line meant to make people cringe and think "oh, we can't have that". The reality is our current immigration issues have absolutely nothing to do with racial extermination. If Canada suddenly announces they'll execute anyone with green eyes, then certainly guidelines have to change with the new and temporary circumstances. A rush of green eyed folk would hit the borders and the US would have to make a choice about the whole group of people.
I still call Godwin on this one. It was a cheap line meant to make people cringe and think "oh, we can't have that". The reality is our current immigration issues have absolutely nothing to do with racial extermination. If Canada suddenly announces they'll execute anyone with green eyes, then certainly guidelines have to change with the new and temporary circumstances. A rush of green eyed folk would hit the borders and the US would have to make a choice about the whole group of people.
I call bullshit. Even though the issue might not be entirely focused on race, that aspect is still there and effects decisions and viewpoints consciously or subconsciously.
The question is whether these immigrants are beneficial to our society or not. If China starts deciding that engineers are a detriment to their society and they start moving over here, assimilate, and don't cause problems, no one would criticize. The problem is that many see the new illegal immigrants as more harmful to our society and the fact that they do not share our culture and looks adds to that.
Many people do not like the Somalis in Minneapolis, even though the vast majority are here legally, because they have a different culture, looks, sometime cause problems, and for the most part refuse to assimilate into our culture. I have a very strong feeling that the recent immigrant issue has a lot to do with this and the fact that many come here illegally brings out the activism and outspokenness to get them out. Without those problems, no one would care to enforce the law.
And, it is a recorded concept that in our racist society, people of color are not as trusted as whites. Blacks have been shown to be followed more often by security guards then whites. Blacks skipping school brings different reactions then whites skipping school. Whether this mindset is conscious or subconscious does not matter but it still exists and I can attest with my own initial reactions as well. Because of this, it is impossible to totally separate race from this issue.
It would be stupid to blindly throw around the word racist because that is false in many circumstances but it would also be stupid to separate race from the issue entirely because race do influence our decisions whether we realize it or not.
I think that is an over charaterization of society at large. Pockets of racism exist everywhere in the world and everywhere in the US, no region or country is immune. It does not excuse it, but let's not generalize that it motivates much of our immigration policy or need for control.
While there are some obviously prejudiced idiots in the world that isn't what this is about.
Anyone who wants to come be a productive member of our society and follows the legal process should be welcomed with open arms. Those that didn't follow the process can get out. It is as simple as that. Skin color is irrelevant.
I can't agree more. I will say that I think we need to look at some cases where people are making a significant contribution to society and look at those on a case by case basis. But jumping the border and dropping a baby needs to stop.
I'm all in favor of easing the restrictions, making the process easier, and opening up the country to anyone who will follow the damn legal process. At the same time the country needs to adopt the e-verify system, yank the license from any business caught knowingly employing illegals, and toss any illegal caught within the borders.
Make breaking the law more painful than following the law and surprise surprise people will probably follow it.
I think that is an over charaterization of society at large. Pockets of racism exist everywhere in the world and everywhere in the US, no region or country is immune. It does not excuse it, but let's not generalize that it motivates much of our immigration policy or need for control.
No, it would not be an overgeneralizaton to state that racism influences who we are just like it would not be an overgeneralizaton to state that materialism influences us. Don't confuse racism with discrimination because they are not the same.
Racism is a social doctrine, not an action. Its similar to materalism (hence the -ism in both words). We all have materalistic influences because we were raised in a materalistic society and we, even people of color, all have racist influnces because we were raised in a racist society.
Does this mean you mean you are basing your views on race? No. I am stating that because of we are raised in a racist society it is impossible to seperate race from this issue.
While there are some obviously prejudiced idiots in the world that isn't what this is about.
Racism is not just prejudice idiots. Racism is anything that has to deal with putting one "race" of people above another. This can mean joining the KKK, this can mean going out of your way to help people of color, or it could mean that you have inital racist thought that you autmoatically discard and never act upon. Some types of racism are extremely bad and some are ones we can never rid from ourselves.
So, since we all, or vast majority, have instinctual internal racist thoughts we can conclude that we are subconciously racist to a point, even if we never act upon it. And since we are subconciously racist, that can influence our views on who is a productive member of society or not without us knowing.
Anyone who wants to come be a productive member of our society and follows the legal process should be welcomed with open arms. Those that didn't follow the process can get out. It is as simple as that. Skin color is irrelevant.
Yes, I thought I made that clear when I used Chinese engineers as an example. The deciding factor is the combination of illegal immigrants and the view of being non-productive members of society. My point is that race influences, even subtley, who we view as being productive members of society so it can not be discarded. And please don't take that last statement and make a hyperbole, that is not my intention.
Any foreigner that goes through the proper paperwork should be admitted in turn, without anyone guessing whether they will become a productive citizen or not.
I didn't say we get to judge whether they will be or not. I said anyone who wants to be a productive member of our society and follows the legal process should be welcomed with open arms. I want our immigration process to be so open and easy that only criminals will attempt to enter illegally.
No, it would not be an overgeneralizaton to state that racism influences who we are just like it would not be an overgeneralizaton to state that materialism influences us. Don't confuse racism with discrimination because they are not the same.
Racism is a social doctrine, not an action. Its similar to materalism (hence the -ism in both words). We all have materalistic influences because we were raised in a materalistic society and we, even people of color, all have racist influnces because we were raised in a racist society.
Does this mean you mean you are basing your views on race? No. I am stating that because of we are raised in a racist society it is impossible to seperate race from this issue.
Racism is not just prejudice idiots. Racism is anything that has to deal with putting one "race" of people above another. This can mean joining the KKK, this can mean going out of your way to help people of color, or it could mean that you have inital racist thought that you autmoatically discard and never act upon. Some types of racism are extremely bad and some are ones we can never rid from ourselves.
So, since we all, or vast majority, have instinctual internal racist thoughts we can conclude that we are subconciously racist to a point, even if we never act upon it. And since we are subconciously racist, that can influence our views on who is a productive member of society or not without us knowing.
Much of what you have stated may be true in a sociology class. In reality I don't think that most people think that way, nor could you generalize about society at large. There are some who are racist regardless of color and nothing is going to change the majority who think like that. It is my opinion that the majority of people don't think or function in society within a racist framework.
Further you have stated that "we all, or vast majority, have instinctual internal racist thoughts" and I think you would have a difficult time proving that notion. So I would have to reject that notion as being your opinion because I disagree.
I didn't say we get to judge whether they will be or not. I said anyone who wants to be a productive member of our society and follows the legal process should be welcomed with open arms. I want our immigration process to be so open and easy that only criminals will attempt to enter illegally.
I agree with you and I didn't mean that in a sense that we get to judge what groups are allowed in or not. I am saying that groups that are seen as unproductive are negatively judged by large groups of society. That in no way should determine who we allow in our not and I wasn't trying to accuse you of saying that we should.
It is my opinion that the majority of people don't think or function in society within a racist framework.
Further you have stated that "we all, or vast majority, have instinctual internal racist thoughts" and I think you would have a difficult time proving that notion. So I would have to reject that notion as being your opinion because I disagree.
It would be hard to prove or disprove my argument because we are looking at what individuals initally think, not do. I still do support my theory because of two big factors.
One, I feel my own subconcious racist thoughts and everyone that I've talked to (many different backgrounds) feel it as well. That even includes blacks and other people of color.
I also notice that unless a person of color is raised in a enviornment with constant contact with whites, they tend to stick to people of their own race or other people of color instead of whites.
Those two really tell me something is up.
Lemme see if I get what you are saying here. You have these initial thoughts/opinions based upon a persons color/creed or whatever and you have issues with that.
What about animals? Do you have those same initial impressions of them? Like a hawk versus a robin, or a squirrel versus a skunk.
Where could that analogy possibly go?
Lemme see if I get what you are saying here. You have these initial thoughts/opinions based upon a persons color/creed or whatever and you have issues with that.
What about animals? Do you have those same initial impressions of them? Like a hawk versus a robin, or a squirrel versus a skunk.
What are you talking about? What is my issue?
My entire point is that you cannot completely seperate race and immigration because of subconcious prejudice.
..because of subconcious prejudice.
How do you substantiate that this exists?
ok, I think I got you, so what you are saying is that because a person has subconscious thoughts, then they may be a racist or be predisposed to racist tendencies.
How do you substantiate that this exists?
I already told you my two reasons and that it is impossible to prove or disprove since they are personal.
ok, I think I got you, so what you are saying is that because a person has subconscious thoughts, then they may be a racist or be predisposed to racist tendencies.
I would just stick with racial tendencies because throwing in racist is an entire discussion altogether. But yes, if a person has subconcious racist thoughts, they may be predisposed to racist tendencies without knowing it. That is why I argue it is impossible to seperate race from immigration issues because we are constantly judging immigration groups based on race.
What are you talking about? What is my issue?
My entire point is that you cannot completely seperate race and immigration because of subconcious prejudice.
When approaching, or are being approached by, a person, I note size, sex, hair, dress, color, body language, etc.
If I know them, I immediately search my memory for previous behavior by that person... friend or foe, like or dislike, etc.
In the case of a stranger I search my memory for previous experiences with people with similar appearance.
Bigger would be more of a threat than smaller, male would be more of a threat than female(except in court),
someone in rags would be more of a threat than in a suit, and so on.
Of course there's no guarantee the well dressed little woman won't kill me, but I have to make a judgment on past experience.
I suppose second hand experience via the media or stories from peers would be in my database too.
I guess you're calling that prejudice, but I have to rely on what I've got.
I guess you're calling that prejudice, but I have to rely on what I've got.
You turned this into justification for prejudice, which I purposedly avoided. Prejudice is natural and unavoidable and but it does exist and it does becomes greater when we are born into a society with preexisting seperations and prejudices.
If you are attacked by a homeless person with green eyes you will probably avoid the homeless while not avoiding someone with green eyes because you grew up in a society where class seperation and prejudices exist but not eye color seperation and prejudice. So, since we grew up in a society where racial seperation and prejudice exist, we will most likely stereotype racial groups, which effect our perception and "liking" towards them.
I am saying in this from an observational standpoint and remember my intial claim is that we cannot completely seperate racial and immigration issues because of subconcious prejudices. I am not adding morality into here and I am not saying prejudice is justified or not.
Not a justification, a reality.
How could I know the person attacking me was homeless? I can't, but I can know they had green eyes, and any other things I can personally see. There is no way I can know a strangers socio-economic, educational, or religious background, I can only go by appearance in one on one situations.
Sure, if you grow up in the city you'll likely be wary of wild animals, from what other people have said, until you have a chance to have your own experiences and form your own opinion.
But that wouldn't necessarily keep you from contributing to wildlife support organizations, because as a human being you have the intellectual capacity to reason wild animals are not bad.
My intellectual capacity tells me that immigrants are not bad, but people that enter this country illegally are criminals and should be removed, not supported.
Not a justification, a reality.
We both agree its a reality.
My intellectual capacity tells me that immigrants are not bad, but people that enter this country illegally are criminals and should be removed, not supported.
I don't disagree with this but unless you are going off on your own tangent, this was not my point. I was responding to this quote...
The reality is our current immigration issues have absolutely nothing to do with racial extermination.
which I disagreed with for the reason I have given above.
Which comes straight out of a freshman level sociology class.
Which has anything to do with the argument how?
But then again, the idea that crime is correlated to poverty is straight out of a freshman level sociology class. Being in the lower class must just be a result of being immoral then...
Which comes straight out of a freshman level sociology class.
Isn't "freshman level ... class" another way of saying "basically true, though there are complications you'll get to later"? Which is pretty much the way generalizations are supposed to work?
Which has anything to do with the argument how?
But then again, the idea that crime is correlated to poverty is straight out of a freshman level sociology class. Being in the lower class must just be a result of being immoral then...
And increased ice cream sales means more shark attacks! Oh wait, that's just Summer.
Isn't "freshman level ... class" another way of saying "basically true, though there are complications you'll get to later"? Which is pretty much the way generalizations are supposed to work?
To which I may add, get back to us in 20 years and let us know if your assumptions have altered.
Isn't "freshman level ... class" another way of saying "basically true, though there are complications you'll get to later"? Which is pretty much the way generalizations are supposed to work?
If it were math or a real science... sure. In this case it is a bunch of people sitting around talking about why life is unfair.
Meanwhile, I present without prejudice,
Mexico. pfd
female(except in court),
:biggrin:
If it were math or a real science... sure. In this case it is a bunch of people sitting around talking about why life is unfair.
You do realize that many of the methods of finding conclusions for sociology and science are the same...
And there is a difference between recognizing something is unfair and getting all uptight about it.
IMO. we need comprehensive immigration reform to move away from our current unfair "quota" system.
The vast majority of immigration visas are currently given to persons with close family (parent/child) that are US citizens, followed by those with highly valued job skills, and then a "diversity" program based on country of origin, with more slots for Europe, followed by Asia, Africa and lastly Central/South America.
If you an unskilled Mexican/Salvadoran with no family here and little education but a commitment to hard work..good luck on getting an immigration visa, other than perhaps a temp visa to be exploited as a migratory and seasonal farm worker.
You do realize that many of the methods of finding conclusions for sociology and science are the same...
Sorry but there's far from a consensus in the professional/higher academic world about that. Take a historiography course sometime, it will show you some serious issues with sociology, typically focusing on the actual application of this so called science to the real world (problems with complex systems, etc.). Social theories are nice and all, but application thereof is very problematic and predicting the behavior of micro or macro levels of people groups is wrought with problems and is basically more unreliable than my old '81 VW. Don't get me wrong sociology can be useful but it's like Freud, take what you hear with a grain of salt.
Agreed Bullitt, and the older I get the less I believe it.
My respect for the subject ended when I had 3 semester hours left for my minor. I had a professor who refused to let me pass the course unless I wrote a paper on the minority group I'm a part of or admit I was a racist and write a paper on that. All white people are racist, ya know. [COLOR="White"]of course, he couldn't recognize his own bias because in his world white people have the power so only they can be racist. I still think he's just pissed his proper little japanese sister took up with a white boy.[/COLOR]
Sorry but there's far from a consensus in the professional/higher academic world about that. Take a historiography course sometime, it will show you some serious issues with sociology, typically focusing on the actual application of this so called science to the real world (problems with complex systems, etc.). Social theories are nice and all, but application thereof is very problematic and predicting the behavior of micro or macro levels of people groups is wrought with problems and is basically more unreliable than my old '81 VW. Don't get me wrong sociology can be useful but it's like Freud, take what you hear with a grain of salt.
When did I say anything about application???
I made a single statement and was responded with an ad hominem attacking a straw man created from my argument. I don't get shit from any sociology class and even if I did, that doesn't invalidate my statement. I have already stated that I cannot prove or disprove my statement anyways.
My respect for the subject ended when I had 3 semester hours left for my minor. I had a professor who refused to let me pass the course unless I wrote a paper on the minority group I'm a part of or admit I was a racist and write a paper on that. All white people are racist, ya know. of course, he couldn't recognize his own bias because in his world white people have the power so only they can be racist. I still think he's just pissed his proper little japanese sister took up with a white boy.
You got all pissed off about semantics? Yes, the definition of racism for many is prejudice plus power because racism is a social doctrine (-ism) and people of color can very rarely force their prejudice onto our society while whites can much easier. Hell, everyone was calling Reverend Wright a racist but in reality, there is nothing he can do to force his prejudice on whites. And also, that definition is a major generalization.
On an indivdidal level, discrimination is the killer. Anyone can discriminate and whites do receive a large part of this. I have been on the short side of it, and so have many other people. Its life, tough shit (not directed at anyone).
On a sociological level, racism is the killer. But unfortunately it is nearly impossible to blame anyone for this since no one person controls it. It would be similar to blaming music videos for displaying sexism or Fox News for giving biased news. These happen because the sexist music videos and biased news sell more. So, blaming any particular person for this phenomena is absolutely pointless. That is what I disagree with most on the current idea of racism. That some people control it and force it down on people for their gain. No, it is something that just happens naturally. For whites to feel guilty about it won't do anything and usually ends up just making the problem worse.
To be honest, I don’t have much respect for sociology either along with many other fields. But, I do believe certain aspects of it are good, while its entirety can be generalized as absurd because there is no way to practically apply it. It is similar to philosophy, interesting and relevant at times, but overall pointless because of lack of applications. That is why I never said anything about application in my statement and admitted that it cannot be proved either way.
All white people are racist, ya know.
If I had a damm nickle for every time I have heard someone tell me that I'd complete with Soros.
Wait, I thought genetics proved there is really no such thing as race. There are certain characteristics in some ethnicities, but no actual race difference, kinda like in different breeds of cats or dogs. There is only the human race.
IMO. we need comprehensive immigration reform to move away from our current unfair "quota" system.
The vast majority of immigration visas are currently given to persons with close family (parent/child) that are US citizens, followed by those with highly valued job skills, and then a "diversity" program based on country of origin, with more slots for Europe, followed by Asia, Africa and lastly Central/South America.
If you an unskilled Mexican/Salvadoran with no family here and little education but a commitment to hard work..good luck on getting an immigration visa, other than perhaps a temp visa to be exploited as a migratory and seasonal farm worker.
Well, is it really good for the country to import unskilled, illiterate people? Don't we have too many of those already?
And honestly, since we have lost so many jobs, why would we want to let more people in right now? I am all for opening the borders for more LEGAL immigrants, but not right now. After the recession is over. Right now, we need to look out for the people who are legal citizens/immigrants.
Personally, I don't think there should be ANY borders, ANYWHERE. But that will never happen.
Well, is it really good for the country to import unskilled, illiterate people? Don't we have too many of those already?
And honestly, since we have lost so many jobs, why would we want to let more people in right now? I am all for opening the borders for more LEGAL immigrants, but not right now. After the recession is over. Right now, we need to look out for the people who are legal citizens/immigrants.
Personally, I don't think there should be ANY borders, ANYWHERE. But that will never happen.
sugar...my point was to the issue of bias (not racism) in the current immigration system (as well as the valued notion of "
Give me your tired, your poor,. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. .").
Take 100 foreigners who will get immigration visas....70 or so (some might be illiterate and/or unskilled) will be eligible solely because of having a close relative here.....20 or so will have highly valued or technical job skills, 5 will have reasons of political persecution...and 5 will get in on the "diversity" lottery, with Europe, Asia and Africa each having more slots then South/Central America.
IMO, this is a biased system.
sugar...my point was to the issue of bias (not racism) in the current immigration system (as well as the valued notion of "Give me your tired, your poor,. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. .").
Take 100 foreigners who will get immigration visas....70 or so (some might be illiterate and/or unskilled) will be eligible solely because of having a close relative here.....20 or so will have highly valued or technical job skills, 5 will have reasons of political persecution...and 5 will get in on the "diversity" lottery, with Europe, Asia and Africa each having more slots then South/Central America.
IMO, this is a biased system.
If it's so unbiased, why is it predicted that by 2050 latinos will be the dominate ethnicity? I remember reading that somewhere. I don't think people should be allowed to come simply because they have relatives here. I think political persecution should top that.
From the link:
Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Thursday blamed the global economic crisis on “white people with blue eyes” and said it was wrong that black and indigenous people should pay for white people’s mistakes.
Speaking in Brasília at a joint press conference with Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, Mr Lula da Silva told reporters: “This crisis was caused by the irrational behaviour of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing.”
He added: “I do not know any black or indigenous bankers so I can only say [it is wrong] that this part of mankind which is victimized more than any other should pay for the crisis.”
Uh, yeh sure. And this guy is the President of Brazil.
If it's so unbiased, why is it predicted that by 2050 latinos will be the dominate ethnicity? I remember reading that somewhere. I don't think people should be allowed to come simply because they have relatives here. I think political persecution should top that.
I don't think you read that prediction correctly.
Its more like that by 2050, non-Hispanic Whites will no longer be the majority in the US (whites will be under 50% of the pop for the first time).
Its true that Hispanics are the fastest rising ethnicity, but nowhere near a majority by 2050...more like doubling from the current 12% to about 25%.
The Asian population in the US is expected to double during that period as well.
But should that be a basis for immigration?
Yea, damm Northern Europeans!
What about the white people with brown eyes?! Heh, what about them?
But should that be a basis for immigration?
No.
I don't think you read that prediction correctly.
Its more like that by 2050, non-Hispanic Whites will no longer be the majority in the US (whites will be under 50% of the pop for the first time).
Its true that Hispanics are the fastest rising ethnicity, but nowhere near a majority by 2050...more like doubling from the current 12% to about 25%.
The Asian population in the US is expected to double during that period as well.
But should that be a basis for immigration?
oh ok, my bad. :blush: I just knew whites would be in the minority. I could've sworn it said latinos would be the majority. anyway...
No, I wasn't arguing that should be the basis for immigration.
WTF?
Brazil’s leader blames white people for crisis
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae4957e8-1a5f-11de-9f91-0000779fd2ac.html
I believe he was arguing the problem started in the United States, with the "good ol' white boys club" in Wall Street, and he would be right.
Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Thursday blamed the global economic crisis on “white people with blue eyes” and said it was wrong that black and indigenous people should pay for white people’s mistakes.
But
that is what he said. I can't know what he meant, or read his mind(it would be in Portuguese anyway), I can only know what he said. And as a blue eyed white person, I take exception to his statement. :eyebrow:
I agree. it was pretty out there.
Why doesn't he just blame the Aryan Race or Nazi Empire?
Well there you have it.
Homeland Security Frees 27 Illegal Immigrants, Sends Them Back to Work
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512098,00.htmlThe Feb. 24 raid of an auto parts plant in Bellingham, Wash., netted 28 illegal immigrants. While one was deported, the remaining workers were released from custody and given employment authorization documents, or EADs, in exchange for cooperating with an ongoing investigation of their employer, Yamato Engine Specialists.
But critics say the softened policy will increase the number of illegal immigrants entering the country.
"The signal that it sends to illegal immigrants is that if you can get here, you're pretty much home free," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
Criminal arrests of employers who hired illegal immigrants skyrocketed from 25 in 2002 to 1,103 in 2008. The number of deportations jumped from 485 to 5,184 over that same time period. The Obama administration has sought a freeze on immigrant arrests.
Enforcement advocates say Americans should be outraged by the government giving illegal immigrants a right to work when unemployment is so high for documented workers.
Unemployment in Whatcom County, home to the Yamato plant, has risen to 8.1 percent, and in the days after the Yamato raid, more than 150 people applied for the jobs made open by the arrests.
Too bad not one American got a job.
and given employment authorization documents, or EADs
:lol:
I am ashamed of all of you - It took Clod of all people, with all she has going on, to catch that. Shame, shame, shame - You are ALL on report. Yes, you too!
[youtube]IhCycY8ysRk[/youtube] :mad:
Oh, that's just racist drivel Bruce.
Yeah right, it isn't like the Mexican Army, or Mexican police, are real world threats to anybody. The cartels told me so.
You're beautiful when you growl, but I'm curious if you're growling at the video or comments?
Didn't watch the video yet. I am growling because they allowed illegals to stay and have jobs when the unemployment rate for LEGAL citizens is so damn high. I mean really. where the fuck are THEIR PRIORITIES? Not with Americans apparently.
This isn't even about the unemployment rate. The issue should start and stop with did they follow the legal process to enter the country? If not, nothing else matters, get out.
This isn't even about the unemployment rate. The issue should start and stop with did they follow the legal process to enter the country? If not, nothing else matters, get out.
The
legal process since the 80s (the last major immigration legislation), at least as I understand it, when the feds raid a place of employment, some (most) undocumented workers can continue to work with an employment authorization doc (ead) after the raid and until the case against the employer is adjudicated...in part, I assume, because the testimony of those undocumented workers may be needed.
If that is correct, it might seem outrageous in your opinion (or mine), but if it is the law, then either that
legal process should be followed or the law should be amended.
More often than not what they find in the raids is that the illegal immigrants have fake or stolen SSN's and or forged documents. This gives ICE a perfect reason to put them in jail.
More often than not what they find in the raids is that the illegal immigrants have fake or stolen SSN's and or forged documents. This gives ICE a perfect reason to put them in jail.
And in some cases, it is the employer providing those fake SSNs in which case it may be reasonable for the government to offer something to the "small fry" in order to strengthen the case against the "bigger fish."
I dont necessarily agree with the current policies and procedures....just offering reasons why those employees might be given temporary EADs during the period of time in which the employer is facing criminal prosecution, and after which the employees would be subject to a deportation hearing.
I doubt any employers found guilty of such practices have been allowed to walk. Within the last few months we had a Chinese food establishment in our city send both the husband and wife owners to jail for hiring illegal immigrants, but they had also kept them in slave like conditions.
bump
Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.
It would also grant police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal.
bold mine
link
Wow. So let me get this right... If you are driving down the road and you look like you may be an immigrant, then these guys can what? Pull you over? frisk you? Whatever they want?
Unbelievable.
DWB just became Driving While Latino
I gotta remember to tell my mother that she's lucky to be getting out of AZ. She's far too dark-skinned to be seen in public. :right:
My dad has been asked for his green card multiple times while on the job. He's white, just tan from working in the sun...oh and he works construction.
New Ad Campaign Asks Latinos Not To Vote For Congress
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Latinos for Reform announced today the launch of a national ad campaign in targeted states urging Latino voters not to vote for Members of Congress that have failed to deliver on their immigration reform promises. The ads, in both English and Spanish, are available at www.LatinosForReform.com.
"It's an election year, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised to hear promises about immigration reform," said LFR President Robert Deposada. "What is surprising, however, is that these politicians really believe that they can continue to make these same promises during every campaign season without ever delivering on them – and that we continue to allow it."
During the 2008 elections, President Obama and the Democratic leadership made a commitment that immigration reform would be passed within a year. Two years later, these lawmakers have not only failed to deliver on this promise; they intentionally undermined even the smallest of reform efforts.
"One has to wonder: Why do the same lawmakers who decided to 'go it alone' on their political priorities like health care reform and the economic stimulus refuse to do the same on comprehensive immigration reform?" Deposada added.
"Clearly, we have been betrayed by both the Democratic and Republican leadership. And now, when they need our votes, they are at it again with more empty promises," said LFR Vice Chairman Naomi Lopez-Bauman. "If we have any chance of making our voices heard, then we must be willing to take dramatic action. This November we can send a message to all politicians: If they didn't keep their promise on immigration reform, then they can't count on our vote."
"Now is the time for us to decide what role we will play in America's political future. We are urging Latinos to be counted by casting their votes for Governor, Mayor, school board, etc. – but not to vote for Congress – on Election Day," Lopez-Bauman added. "If we sit idly by and vote for the same lawmakers that ignore us once they are in office, we will just get more of the same shabby treatment. If, however, we don't vote for politicians who don't deliver on the promises they make to our communities, then they will be forced to stop taking our support for granted."
Latinos for Reform
SOURCE
BOLD MINE
Ouch thats gonna hurt... if it works.
[youtube]3DRkUU-qhjk&feature[/youtube]
I wasn't sure where to put this. I figure this is a good a place as any.
[YOUTUBE]QKFAiMbm1Fc&feature[/YOUTUBE]
:lol: Latinos for Reform is a Republican front group. They're hoping as many people don't vote as possible.
Sometimes I wonder why any of us bother to vote anymore. If you have the money you can buy your very own congressman, and if you don't have the money, fear not - somebody will buy him, probably a large international corporation like Halliburten.
The voters just play along with this, and no one states the obivious - that the emperor has no clothes.
Call me cynical, but I am just a realist.
Look what are political system has degenerated into - lots of partisan rhetoric combined with political deadlock.
Politicians just play both ends against the middle and add up their offshore bank accounts when no one is around. They couldn't care less about immigration reform because its impact on the wealthy is negligible at best. :eyebrow:
At least you're not bitter. ;)
Just call me Rebecca of Sunnybrook farm. :right:
Call me cynical, but I am just a realist.
Look what are political system has degenerated into - lots of partisan rhetoric combined with political deadlock.
This is what Alito and Roberts said is good when they also said their Court was not doing judicial activision.
Fortunately I have a remote control. Within the first two second of any political ad, the channel is changed. In part, because I know 40% of the population will believe those ads. It is why my father so enjoyed manipulating people with lies. And said the FTC took the fun out of it when they demanded honesty.
Well, the press is hyping a referendum in CA that would legalize marijuana. However the most important referendum is one that would attack gerrymandering - a major reason why extremists have turned politics so nasty. For example, if you live in Southern IL's 15th Congressional district. Then drive for hours north almost to Chicago. That is also your congressional district. The Republicans are already planning to do same in Indiana where 2010 Census data will require redistricting.
Did you know Crossroads GPS and American Crossroads - two major campaign advertisers - are Karl Rove? Americans for Job Security is the entire Insurance industry promoting only Republican candidates. Americans for Prosperity are the billionaire Koch brothers also promoting only for Republicans.
Or Meg Whitman who spent $120 million (plus more $millions in campaign donations from everyone else) against Jerry Brown who only has $11 million in CA governor race. The Supreme Court said only those who have the most money are permitted to have the most voice. And anybody is allowed to make false accusations - and not have their name attached to those accusations. That is also now legal. With so many extremists in power, nasty is what they want our government to become. And this is only round one. It will get nastier every two years. Those with the most bucks will learn every year how much more lying is legal - especially when those lies can now be promoted without your name attached to it. Alito and Roberts said this is fair and good.
The Economist on 7 Oct noted gerrymandering results in
fewer seats changing hands on election day, this tends to shift the focus of politics away from the general election itself, and on to the primaries in which the parties select their candidates. The turnout in primaries is tiny, typically only between 10% and 20% of voters, and tends to be disproportionately composed of activists. So those selected tend to be politically slanted to the left or the right extremes.
California’s sadly dysfunctional government has suffered from this extremism: it is one reason why the moderate Arnold Schwarzenegger has got so little done.
Well things have become so bad that the average German who once drank 142 liters of beer annually is now only drinking 107 liters. Germany is now only the fifth largest beer drinking nation. And still there was a hops shortage last year. Nasty American politics can have world wide consequences.
:lol: Latinos for Reform is a Republican front group. They're hoping as many people don't vote as possible.
Univision pulled the ads.
Look what are political system has degenerated into - lots of partisan rhetoric combined with political deadlock.
You haven't even begun to see deadlock yet...
He said, as he beat his chest mightily.
I will the first in line to laugh and point after the elections.
You're a parody. I'm already pointing and laughing! :lol:
The whole damm system is dysfunctional. It is broken beyond repair. I don't see it getting better until we have a viable third party.
I am hold up a mirror for you.
DAmn I'm fucking GORGEOUS (flips hair and smiles intoxicatingly.)
