| Posted by: Seattle Zen
- [3415339] Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 17:59


Really wish I would have been able to join this march. Over 15,000 people marched in Seattle.
"Estados Unidos, es nada sin Latinos." rolls right off your tongue, and you don't even have to roll any R's :)

That's a lot of people, but it's on The Mall. This, however...
 is OMAHA!
75,000 to 125,000 march in NYC.
Waving American flags and blue banners that read "We Are America," throngs of cheering, chanting immigrants and their supporters converged on the nation's capital and in scores of other cities on Monday calling on Congress to offer legal status and citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants. The rallies, whose mood was largely festive rather than angry, were the latest in recent weeks in response to a bill passed in the House that would speed up deportations, tighten border security and criminalize illegal immigrants. A proposal that would have given most illegal immigrants a chance to become citizens collapsed in the Senate last week. I want to see amnesty pass very soon. |
| 1 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 18:04
|
Amnesty would be cool, but just a one-shot deal. What we really need to do is liberalize the legal entry for blue collar workers. It's nearly impossible to get into this country legally unless you are a rocket scientist or brain surgeon.
|
|
| 2 | Motley Crue
ID: 2192327 Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 18:35
|
I agree with letting those here already stay and work legally. They will help this country much more than we have helped them. They deserve a chance.
But we need to do something else about the flow into the country. Not more guns, gates, or guard dogs. I think it might take more greenbacks to build up Mexico. Just a guess. Great!
|
|
| 3 | Boxman
ID: 6320104 Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 19:49
|
With all these rallies going on, I wonder why all the INS people are at the Mexican border? They could round up a bunch of 'em at these rallies. Just a thought.
|
|
| 4 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 19:55
|
The Administration doesn't mind the people who are already here.
|
|
| 5 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 20:10
|
I wonder why all the INS people are at the Mexican border?
The INS doesn't know how many illegals are dispersed among those groups or how they could find them without random ID checks. To my knowledge INS doesn't set up ID checkpoints in Mexican neighborhoods all over the country. Shrinking as it is, we still do have a modicrum of respect for personal freedom in America.
Further, these protests have been extremely peaceful so far. Sending in INS would surely test that. Think about the danger involved in that.
Understand what you are witnessing - this country has a rich history in public protest. Its been essential to our founding and key stages of progression. Its among our most cherished legacies.
|
|
| 6 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3415339 Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 20:58
|
I was wondering how long it would take Boxman to spurt out something xenophobic.
The majority of "'em" as you so pathetically call these individuals are legal citizens, trust me.
And if you think it's as easy as simply checking ID's to see who is here illegally, you are sadly mistaken.
|
|
| |
| 8 | biliruben
ID: 531202411 Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 21:13
|
nice
|
|
| 9 | Boxman
ID: 6320104 Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 21:43
|
Seattle Zen: "The majority of "'em" as you so pathetically call these individuals are legal citizens, trust me."
*Looking around frantically from window to window in my house.*
The PC Police are here. Man the ramparts!!!
Yes, I trust you. *Snicker*
What I stated was a valid point. I find it impossible that everyone there is a legal citizen. Why not do their legal duty and grab some of the illegals?
Mith: I don't take issue with legal protests. Whip up a fancy schmancy sign with the latest anti-W slogan or have some T-shirts screen printed. Knock yourself out. Big difference, YOU are a legal citizen(?).
|
|
| |
| 11 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 21:51
|
I don't take issue with legal protests.
Your party sure could have used you in the 1960s.
And the King in the 1770's too.
|
|
| 12 | Tree
ID: 44361120 Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 22:09
|
What I stated was a valid point. I find it impossible that everyone there is a legal citizen. Why not do their legal duty and grab some of the illegals?
we can start with you, eh kemosabe?
rest assured, i'd much rather toss back a beer with any of those "illegals" then i would with you, after comments like the ones you've made in this thread...
|
|
| 13 | nerveclinic
ID: 512501920 Tue, Apr 11, 2006, 23:17
|
Boxman: Why not do their legal duty and grab some of the illegals?
Um because they are scared they'll get their ass kicked?
The simple fact is the Republicans have been in control for 6 years and have done Nada.
This is all happening now to create a smoke screen for the failing war and sky rocketing deficits that the "fiscally responsible" Republicans have brought us. The elections are coming up and the incumbents need an emotional issue to distract from their failure.
Nothing has changed concerning this issue the last 6 years, why suddenly do something now?
Ah the elections.
|
|
| 14 | Boxman
ID: 6320104 Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 06:19
|
Tree: "we can start with you, eh kemosabe?"
OK, fine, start with me. I was born here. Legal as can be.
"rest assured, i'd much rather toss back a beer with any of those "illegals" then i would with you"
So much for asking you on a date. :( Not sure what that has to do with anything. I thought you liberals were concerned about feeeeelings. Aren't you worried about what that does to my feeeeelings?
Nerve: Hate the right, hate the right. Am I to believe that the Republicans are unique in bringing up issues before an election?
Now everyone go out and celebrate sub-standard wages, no benefits, exploitive employers and a drain on the social safety net. All the while let's dodge the real issue of labor laws, exploitive employers, and getting people documented and legalized. Let's celebrate government failure in safeguarding our borders. Happy, happy, joy, joy.
|
|
| 15 | Tree
ID: 1034125 Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 07:08
|
my point, Box, is that at some point, just about all of us came here from elsewhere.
as to my second point, i guess you kinda made one yourself - that being that you see the world in a black and white stereotype, instead of making and effort to see what truly exists.
honestly, i couldn't give a rats ass about your feelings, except for the fact i pity you for being so xenophobic.
|
|
| 16 | Stuck in the 60s Dude
ID: 274132811 Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 07:55
|
There are two groups who benefit from the presence of the illegals.
The illegals themselves now can make more money than ever before, send a lot of it home to enable their families to join them. Their standard of living goes up immeasurably.
Big Business. And think about it == were it not so, existing laws would be enforced and the borders secured.
I'm not sure why this nation of immigrants is so upset by the trend. You have only to look back at NYTimes editions of the 1850s and 60s to see the vitriolic public response to Irish, Catholics, Jews, Italians and most other racial, religious and ethnic groups.
The important thing for America is to make sure the illegals are assimilated and pay taxes.
Don
|
|
| 17 | Boxman
ID: 6320104 Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 08:07
|
Tree: It is YOUR stance that supports the exploitation of latinos. You apparently see no problem in their working situation and how they get exploited.
I am infinitely more tolerant of your lifestyle than you of mine. You sir, are the hater.
I am done slinging mud with you. Take your wears elsewhere. I should have listened to Boldwin's initial advice about you when I began posting here. Go ahead Boldwin, say it, "I told you so." I deserve it.
Mith: "Your party sure could have used you in the 1960s."
Yes. They could also use me now.
From earlier, "The INS doesn't know how many illegals are dispersed among those groups or how they could find them without random ID checks. To my knowledge INS doesn't set up ID checkpoints in Mexican neighborhoods all over the country. Shrinking as it is, we still do have a modicrum of respect for personal freedom in America."
A listing of what the INS doesn't know could fill the King James version of the Bible.
If you are a US citizen I wholly agree with you. If a million legal latinos want to peacefully protest this or that, fine, enjoy. Considering we are discussing illegals I do not agree. How do we discern a legal from an illegal based on sight? I do not know. That's law enforements job.
Who says we have to arrest them at the protest? Take pictures do some Hawaii-Five-0 stuff and investigate. Why have laws in the first place if we won't enforce them? Quit wasting my tax dollars on laws that we won't use.
|
|
| 18 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 08:25
|
Boxman, once again you do not fail to disappoint.
Boxman: I don't take issue with legal protests.
Mith: "Your party sure could have used you in the 1960s."
Boxman: Yes. They could also use me now.
Interesting. So how would you have dealt with MLK and his illegal protests? Flame throwers instead of fire hoses?
Post 17 Who says we have to arrest them at the protest?
I don't know. Some moron in post 3. Unless by "round them up" he was referring to the good-old-boy tactics for dealing with civil rights protests in the south. How much rope do you have on hand?
|
|
| 19 | Boxman
ID: 582442813 Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 09:50
|
Mith: Can you and I at least be civil and have an inteligent debate and respect each other's opinion afterwards?
The first 1/3 of that above post was cherry picking to mold into a false impression. Ask me direct questions and I will give you direct answers. I want latinos to have equal rights and not be exploited, bottom line.
"Interesting. So how would you have dealt with MLK and his illegal protests? Flame throwers instead of fire hoses?"
Legal citizens protesting, provided it's done peacefully, works for me. It's their right. Have at it.
"I don't know. Some moron in post 3. Unless by "round them up" he was referring to the good-old-boy tactics for dealing with civil rights protests in the south. How much rope do you have on hand?"
I'm ignoring that. That was your feeble attempt to insult me.
|
|
| 20 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 09:56
|
Box - MITH didn't really need to insult you. you do a fine job of being insulting on your own.
ask the immigrants who are making more money then ever before, who are supporting their families back home, if they feel exploited.
and you're right. you are probably more tolerant of me, then i am of you. i've got no patience for racists, xenophobes, homophobes, people who tell me i'm going to hell because some black guy they've painted as white isn't *my* messiah, people who want to deny women rights over their own bodies, and pretty much anything else that involves taking away civil liberties and rights for all people.
|
|
| 21 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 428299 Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 11:06
|
Box, you're the one who suggested that INS "round up" illegals at these rallies - and then denied suggesting we arrest anyone. I apologize for my sarcastic response. I guess I assumed that any self-described Ann Coulter fan would prefer to communicate that way.
You're also the one who said that you "don't take issue with legal protests" and then changed your stance to something about protests that include people who aren't "legal citizens". This is foolish for two reasons:1. You have no idea how many people at these protests are not "legal citizens" (I'm honestly not sure what you mean by that term - I don't mean to bring out Semantics Officer MBJ but on one hand I can't imagine you intend it literally and on the other you've made a fool of me and others before for giving you the benefit of doubt in some of your other questionable expressions.
2. What does the immigration status (again, whatever it is you mean by "legal citizen") of some of the participants of a protest have to do with the viability of the protest itself? Would you feel differently about the civil rights marches of the 1960s if you learned that some significant number of the participants were not "legal citizens"? I want latinos to have equal rights and not be exploited, bottom line.
Me too. This is very admirable of you. But with all due respect, Boxman, I don't believe you have a very strong grasp of American civil rights and what might or might not amount to exploitation of Mexicans and Central Americans who live and/or work in the US.
|
|
| 22 | Boxman
ID: 582442813 Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 11:32
|
Mith: "1. You have no idea how many people at these protests are not "legal citizens" (I'm honestly not sure what you mean by that term - I don't mean to bring out Semantics Officer MBJ but on one hand I can't imagine you intend it literally and on the other you've made a fool of me and others before for giving you the benefit of doubt in some of your other questionable expressions."
But you cannot claim the inverse that you know precisely how many of them are legal.
"What does the immigration status (again, whatever it is you mean by "legal citizen") of some of the participants of a protest have to do with the viability of the protest itself?"
With the citizenry movement itself? Nothing. It is the idea that there are laws being broken with them in this country. The illegals are breaking laws being here and the employers are enacting a very watered down (very watered down) version of slavery.
The immigration debate is viable. Too bad neither side is taking this seriously. From the clips on the news, the latinos want citizenship. Great. I want them to have citizenship too. Common ground. At that same time I want people here documented with a waiting process in Mexico (or whatever country of origin we're discussing) so that they fill out the requisite forms for citizenship and we can do whatever it is we do. Before they get a job or use our facilities like schools and hospitals, I want them to be citizens. I do not want employers exploiting latinos and skirting labor laws. I do not want another drain on an already heavily strained social safety net.
"Would you feel differently about the civil rights marches of the 1960s if you learned that some significant number of the participants were not "legal citizens"?"
No. The cause is independent of the citizenship of those marching. Now had MLK and his group consistently broken laws via violence, I don't believe how that lends credibility to the cause. Gandhi and MLK had it right in terms of approaching a protest movement. Peace is better.
"I don't believe you have a very strong grasp of American civil rights and what might or might not amount to exploitation of Mexicans and Central Americans who live and/or work in the US."
You don't think workers, who make piddly squat to sit out in the hot sun all day with no benefits and whose employers probably don't even read the labor code let alone adhere to it, are exploited? I see it everyday where American citizens are taken advantage of by employers. I don't see why they would feel merciful towards non-citizens.
Can you honestly say that latinos aren't being taken advantage of because of their citizenship status?
|
|
| 23 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 428299 Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 12:17
|
But you cannot claim the inverse that you know precisely how many of them are legal.
I think you missed the point. Without knowing whether there is in fact a high concentration of illegals in a particular protest it doesn't make sense for INS to take the risks of finding and "rounding up" any illegals among their vast ranks. Regarding for your amended suggestion for "Hawaii-Five-O stuff" really don't know what you could possibly mean.
the employers are enacting a very watered down (very watered down) version of slavery
No doubt some are but as I find with most of your opinions the situation is not nearly as black and white as you seem to think.
From the clips on the news, the latinos want citizenship.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. And in any case I don't believe the want for citizenship is the primary motive of the protests.
Before they get a job or use our facilities like schools and hospitals, I want them to be citizens.
If you really mean what you say here I do wonder whether you are aware of what a radical opinion that is.
Now had MLK and his group consistently broken laws via violence, I don't believe how that lends credibility to the cause.
His group? MLK was not the only 1960s civil rights leader who had a positive impact. Not all of them adhered to his message to peace. Perhaps you think that was to the detriment of the movement but there's a strong body of opinion that displays of forceful unity were at times equite necessary.
Regarding your last two paragraphs, I agree there are problems resulting from our complacency in dealing with the issue and our eagerness for America to continue to be able to compete on a gloal economic scale. But you seem quite stuck on one side of this issue and don't seem to quite understand the complexity of the topic. For the record, I don't claim to fully understand it, either. But I respect that there are no easy solutions.
|
|
| 24 | bibA Sustainer
ID: 261028117 Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 12:51
|
Boxman - Can we assume that if someone organizes protests asking that migrant workers be paid fair wages and given workers benefits, you will be in the forefront with them?
May I take it you were a Cesaer Chavez supporter?
|
|
| 25 | Boxman
ID: 582442813 Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 13:48
|
Biba: "Can we assume that if someone organizes protests asking that migrant workers be paid fair wages and given workers benefits, you will be in the forefront with them?"
Before you read on keep in mind that I do not know 100% about everything on this issue. My primary concern is that of the safety of the worker and to make sure our social safety net doesn't get anymore messed up than it already is.
I am against the concept of migrant workers because I believe employers use that status to not adhere to labor laws and then the migrant workers most likely do not pay taxes but then when they get injured will turn around and use our hospitals and maybe schools. The business gets off scott free and you and I foot the bill. If you could further explain details about migrants workers I'm all ears, or in this case, eyes.
In my mind, the ONLY way to insure that immigrants are treated fairly is to get them citizenship before they work in this country. It is fair for you and me because they then pay taxes and it's fair for them because they are now protected by labor laws.
I'm rooting for the latinos on this one. They work their nuts off and deserve citizenship and to work for an employer who treats them according to the law.
Mith: "Without knowing whether there is in fact a high concentration of illegals in a particular protest it doesn't make sense for INS to take the risks of finding and "rounding up" any illegals among their vast ranks."
I'm not suggesting mass arrests for the sake of mass arrests. Whatever the police do to find out who is legal and who is not, do it. You and I both know that there are loads of illegals in those rallies.
"From the clips on the news, the latinos want citizenship.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. And in any case I don't believe the want for citizenship is the primary motive of the protests."
Immigrants rally for rights in US marches
""We are workers not terrorists," said Augustin Rangel, 40, who came from Mexico four years ago and has two jobs as a painter and bar worker. "We work hard for this country and for our families. We want the same rights as everyone else.""
"Camella Pinkney-Price of the Hispanic Evangelical Churches said the march was held to protest an immigration bill that would criminalize anyone who helped any of the nation's estimated 11 million undocumented workers.
"We want to say that we deserve to be legal," she said. "Why are people called illegal immigrants when they have shed blood, sweat and tears to work in this country?""
"Julio Diaz, 30, an illegal immigrant cafeteria worker who came to the United States at age 17 from Veracruz, Mexico, marched with his wife and two children, ages 7 and 8, who carried American flags.
"We came today to support legalizing immigrants like me," he said. "We don't need amnesty but we would like temporary visas so we don't risk our lives crossing the border to visit our families."
"Before they get a job or use our facilities like schools and hospitals, I want them to be citizens.
If you really mean what you say here I do wonder whether you are aware of what a radical opinion that is."
Yes I do know. I don't care if it's radical or not. I do not want another race of people being taken advantage of again in my country. I am convinced that the only way to gain that is via citizenship.
Just an example. For argument's sake let's say it takes 3 years to obtain citizenship via the application process and government red tape. The legal working age in this country is 16(?). Why couldn't latinos apply for citizenship while still in Mexico at the age of 13, obtain a pre-approved status of some sort after two years, and then come in here for one year to see if they really like it, and then once the year is up, let them choose to stay or go home.
Now if they come here in an orderly manner, since they'd have the paperwork and there's no need to hide across the border, we could cut down on a lot of the deaths that occur when they do jump the border.
Give them citizenship. That will protect their rights. We simply cannot trust business on this topic and we cannot assume that all latinos will not allow themselves to be unfairly taken advantage of.
|
|
| 26 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 428299 Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 13:56
|
Boxman, none of the quotes you pasted from your link reflect a desire for citizenship.
For argument's sake let's say it takes 3 years to obtain citizenship via the application process and government red tape. For unskilled and uneducated poor Mexicans and Latin Americans?
I think discussing this any further is pointless. Do some reading.
|
|
| 27 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 14:00
|
Let me give you a hint, Boxman. There are several ways you can work legally (and yes, pay taxes) in this country without citizenship. You are confusing issues.
If you think it only takes 3 years for a migrant farm worker in mexico to gain citizenship in the US, you are sadly misinformed.
|
|
| 28 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 14:11
|
Here's a source that mentions 18 year waitlists, just to immigrate from Mexico, though there are many factors that effect that.
There is a buttload of info, though I have only skimmed and can't comment on any possible bias from the site.
|
|
| 29 | katietx
ID: 13311015 Fri, Apr 14, 2006, 23:36
|
I'm Headed to Mexico Dear President Bush: I'm about to plan a little trip with my family and extended family, and I would like to ask you to assist me. I'm going to walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and I need to make a few arrangements. I know you can help with this. I plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Vicente Fox, that I'm on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following: 1. Free medical care for my entire family. 2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not. 3. All government forms need to be printed in English. 4. I want my kids to be taught by English-speaking teachers. 5. Schools need to include classes on American culture and history. 6. I want my kids to see the American flag flying on the top of the flag pole at their school with the Mexican flag flying lower down. 7. Please plan to feed my kids at school for both breakfast and lunch. 8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services. 9. I do not plan to have any car insurance, and I won't make any effort to learn local traffic laws. 10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from Pres. Fox to leave me alone, please be sure that all police officers speak English. 11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals. 12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, and don't enforce any labor laws or tax laws. 13. Please tell all the people in the country to be extremely nice and never say a critical word about me, or about the strain I might place on the economy. I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all the people who come to the U.S. from Mexico. I am sure that Pres. Fox won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely. However, if he gives you any trouble, just invite him to go quail hunting with your V.P. Thank you so much for your kind help.
|
|
| 30 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 08:17
|
I see this another area in which we will disagree.
|
|
| 31 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 09:02
|
Nothing like being married to an alarmist, sarge?
I believe we can pull up some very similar "letters" about Catholics, or Irish, or Italians...
|
|
| 32 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 09:04
|
xenophobia rulez!
Katie - when's the last time you lost a job to an illegal immigrant?
don't know about the B&Ns you worked at, but the one i managed at in NYC, the vast majority of our stock room staff were children of illegals.
nice to see those that lean to the right in this nation - those that pitch family values so much - are strongly behind breaking up families. kudos!
|
|
| 33 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 10:04
|
xenophobia rulez!
Tree, xenophobia is the fear of things strange or foriegn, not the fear of illegal immigration. The people here who disagree with you are not against foriegn people, they are against illegal immigration.
Katie - when's the last time you lost a job to an illegal immigrant?
That wasn't the point of her post. She is directly tied to illegal immigration through paying for various services that illegal immigrants receive for free. None of her post in 29 speaks to taking jobs from Mexicans.
don't know about the B&Ns you worked at, but the one i managed at in NYC, the vast majority of our stock room staff were children of illegals.
Those children of illegals, which you speak of, are legal, so, I don't get your point. I also don't see how this leads to anyone here saying that we want to break up families.
It's amazing how you twist people's words sometimes.
|
|
| 34 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 10:17
|
Well it's not like it's really Katie's words. This nonsense is being posted on every website and read on every radio station with Liberty or American in its address.
If this malarkey is what passes for an argument the anti-illegal immigrant crowd, I can understand why we are having trouble having any useful dialogue on the issue in this country.
|
|
| 35 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 10:30
|
It may not be Katie's words, but post 32 is Tree's words.
If his "malarkey is what passes for an argument from" your "crowd, I can understand why we are having trouble having any useful dialogue on the issue in the country."
|
|
| 36 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 10:36
|
Those children of illegals, which you speak of, are legal, so, I don't get your point. I also don't see how this leads to anyone here saying that we want to break up families.
it's not that difficult, really.
the children are legal. the parents are not. so, you send the parents back to their home country, and the children stay behind.
you're not advocating breaking up families? sure sounds like it.
as for Xenophobia, that's exactly what this situation is. its a fear of a different culture, a different language, a different kind of people in our populous.
heck, points 2 through 4 above drive that home, vis a vis the language difficulties.
|
|
| 37 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 10:36
|
I didn't make any attempt to support or defend Tree's words. I don't like him twisting words either.
There are so many good, legitimate arguments, why bother with bad ones.
|
|
| 38 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 10:42
|
This reminds me of a stupid, divisive Eric Church song I was forced to listen to yesterday. Does this kind of crap really still play in the US?
Our country is going backwards. Actively repeating mistakes.
|
|
| 39 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 10:43
|
the children are legal. the parents are not. so, you send the parents back to their home country, and the children stay behind.
That has no relevance to wanting to stop illegal immigration. If someone comes over here illegally, they know the risk they are running if they are sent back to their home country. Just like if a family member climbs Mt. Everest and dies on the way up, I can't be pissed at the mountain for killing him; it's the risk they run. So, I will go out on a limb and say that nobody here is advocating breaking up families.
As for xenophobia, I don't think an illegal immigrant brings over a different culture than a legal immigrant, so, wanting to stop illegal immigration doesn't change anything culture-wise. Unless someone is advocating the complete halt to all immigration, then no one is saying they are xenophobic; because with any immigration comes different cultures.
|
|
| |
| 41 | Boxman
ID: 2043314 Mon, May 01, 2006, 06:43
|
I saw this, Millions expected to join walkout , and it got me to thinking.
""It will be tens of millions from coast to coast, from Los Angeles to New York," Javier Rodriguez, a spokesman for the March 25 Coalition, told CNN. "You can expect L.A. to be at a standstill almost totally. You will not have truckers. You will not have taxi drivers, garment workers, hotel workers, restaurant workers -- half of the teacher force will not be going to school.""
First, why not just say a billion, or a punchline from a W joke, a brazillion? It would be nice just once for a protest leader to honestly report suspected attendance.
Then the second half of this guy's ranting makes me think too. I thought these people only took jobs that normal Americans don't want/do? I eat lunch in a hotel restaurant next door to a client and I notice plenty of apparent citizens working at the hotel and even at the restaurant. In fact, my wife and I went to dinner on Friday night and our water was dropped off by [gasp\] a high school kid [/gasp].
This issue is making my BS-o-meter go haywire.
Katietx's #29 is so far my favorite post by anyone anywhere on this website. Well said. Just to add one thing to your nice list, Mexico must add an option on every telephone calling menu for "Para Espanol Primero Uno or for English please press 2".
|
|
| 42 | Myboyjack
ID: 5354818 Mon, May 01, 2006, 08:07
|
I wish everyone would post what affect, if any, the walkout has on their routine activities today. I'm just curious.
|
|
| 43 | Madman
ID: 230542010 Mon, May 01, 2006, 08:43
|
The main affect on me is that I'm going to be watching the news tonight with an interest in the story. I may also blog about it, although it's a bit late. I was going to blog that walking out would be a big mistake.
a) it's confrontational. b) it harms people who are employing and depending upon Hispanics. c) it will be ineffective. We get through Christmas every year, we can get through this.
|
|
| 44 | The Treasonists Donor
ID: 171572711 Mon, May 01, 2006, 09:24
|
Foxnews this morning was listing the companies that were closing due to the walkout. Makes you wonder why they were having to close. In my town there will be no affect whatsoever.
|
|
| 45 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Mon, May 01, 2006, 09:25
|
I got into the home office a half hour later than usual.
:)
|
|
| 46 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Mon, May 01, 2006, 09:36
|
Traffic on the way into work was 15 minutes faster than a normal Monday.
|
|
| 47 | Frick@Work Donor
ID: 3410101718 Mon, May 01, 2006, 09:49
|
The comment " thought these people only took jobs that normal Americans don't want/do?"
Add another condition to it and I probably agree. They take jobs that normal Americans don't want/to do for a give wage.
The town that I grew up in has a Turkey processing plant. If you live in the midwest and have a turkey, it probably came from my hometown. When I was a kid locals worked the jobs for slightly less than the local wood working factories were paying. Now immigrants (some legal, some illegal) work for minimum wage. The cause wasn't so much that the plant couldn't find local workers, unemployement is a problem in the area, is what that the factory realized that they could lower wages by using immigrants.
|
|
| 48 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Mon, May 01, 2006, 10:15
|
"The cause wasn't so much that the plant couldn't find local workers, unemployement is a problem in the area, is what that the factory realized that they could lower wages by using immigrants."
Therein lies a problem.
|
|
| 49 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Mon, May 01, 2006, 13:08
|
And that problem would get even worse if (as some Republicans want) to actually lower or do away with minimum wage laws.
However, there are other areas of the country in which illegals are paid a decent wage for work no one else will do. It's tough to paint this one with a broad brush.
|
|
| 50 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Mon, May 01, 2006, 14:44
|
for work no one else will do
There is the complete myth that enables the corporations craving slave labor and the globalists craving an end to America as a unique nation state, to get away with continually ignoring the will of the people.
|
|
| 51 | Madman
ID: 114321413 Mon, May 01, 2006, 19:36
|
Immigrants demonstrate economic clout, well, whaddayouknow. The boycott worked and the US economy came to a crashing standstill. Darned if I didn't miss it. Watch out for those 2nd quarter GDP figures.
|
|
| 52 | Myboyjack
ID: 5354818 Mon, May 01, 2006, 19:45
|
I didn't notice anything either - well, I did have a Latino "boycott" Court this morning. The Judge wasn't down with that and an order for his arrest was issued.
I hoping some of our big city coastal poster could clue me in on what all the cool kids do on immigrant boycott day.
|
|
| 53 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Mon, May 01, 2006, 20:32
|
Just thinking of all those 'jobs no one else wants to do' going unworked for a day makes me feel like weeping.
|
|
| 54 | Tree
ID: 31415119 Mon, May 01, 2006, 21:21
|
well, whaddayouknow. The boycott worked and the US economy came to a crashing standstill. Darned if I didn't miss it. Watch out for those 2nd quarter GDP figures.
wow. i'd expect more from you.
does one day make a difference in the grand scope? no.....
but farms shutting down for the long term, poultry factories shuttering their doors, fast food restaurants closing, construction crews not showing up, etc etc - things like that would certainly have a long term effect.
the article even points these things out. then again, people turn a blind eye to what they don't want to see, and this board is evidence of that.
|
|
| 55 | Madman
ID: 114321413 Mon, May 01, 2006, 21:46
|
things like that would certainly have a long term effect well, as I said, I'll wait to see the 2nd quarter GDP figures.
|
|
| 56 | Tree
ID: 31415119 Mon, May 01, 2006, 22:04
|
madman - you're certainly not this stupid - you're just opting to be a jerk. or, maybe you can't read.
|
|
| 57 | Boxman
ID: 4641524 Tue, May 02, 2006, 06:24
|
Tree: "poultry factories shuttering their doors, fast food restaurants closing, construction crews not showing up"
Just curious if any American citizens currently work at fast foot restaurants, meat processing facilities or in the construction industry. More "work no one else will do"?
A bad side effect to this is that it stifles innovation. Perhaps if the private sector was deprived of using illegal labor for an extended period of time they could innovate their way out of problems instead of throwing more bodies at them.
|
|
| 58 | Boxman
ID: 4641524 Tue, May 02, 2006, 06:39
|
Myboyjack: "I wish everyone would post what affect, if any, the walkout has on their routine activities today. I'm just curious."
As stated earlier, I got to work 15 minutes earlier. Traffic home was faster than a normal Monday as well. I went to the same place for lunch I normally go to and did not notice a single difference. Overall my day was no different, if anything, it was better because the commute was easier.
|
|
| 59 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Tue, May 02, 2006, 07:01
|
Re post 42
I had the day off yesterday and used the time to explore some of my new neighborhood. We chose to weave through the neighborhood, block by block. We were walking south on the north end of Coney Island Avenue (an obscure and rather unimportant street as far as inner-Brooklyn thoroughfares go but still very active with plenty of restaurants, small groceries and numerous other shops) when, at about 12:30pm, most of the shops suddenly closed up (most of the security gates were pulled down half way) and people lined the east side of the street about as far as I could see holding signs. It was clearly organized earlier as it happened very quickly. We turned down the next block to continue exploring. We got back to Coney Island Avenue about 20 min later. The protestors were gone, all the shops were back open and it was as if it had never happened.
I haven't watched or read any local news since yesterday afternoon so I'm not sure if that was typical of what happened around the city. I'll get a paper on my way to work.
|
|
| 60 | Tree
ID: 341925 Tue, May 02, 2006, 07:22
|
my commute was a tad quicker. our warehouse was running a bit slower, with the employees that did show up, working a bit harder.
i'm fairly certain that we don't employ illegals immigrants, although i'm not in HR, so i'm not certain. but our warehouse is largely staffed by hispanics, caribbeans, and southeast Asians.
some didn't show up at all, and others took a half day. there was no large protest or large scale walkout, but it was clear that something was "different".
|
|
| 61 | Boxman
ID: 4641524 Tue, May 02, 2006, 07:30
|
CNN ran an article about yesterday's events but managed to include some fun facts about illegal immigrants.
"About 7.2 million illegal immigrants hold jobs in the United States, making up 4.9 percent of the overall labor force, according to a recent study by the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington, D.C.
Undocumented workers make up 24 percent of farm workers and hold 14 percent of construction jobs, the study found."
No American citizens work on farms or in the construction industry. Again, "work no one else will do".
|
|
| 62 | Tree
ID: 341925 Tue, May 02, 2006, 07:54
|
**shakes head**
people aren't honestly that stupid, where they think "work no one else will do" literally means "every single legal citizen of the U.S. will not do this job"?
are they?
|
|
| 63 | Boxman
ID: 4641524 Tue, May 02, 2006, 08:10
|
Right.
"Shall not be infringed" means "living document" and "work no one else will do" actually means "first come first serve".
I'm going to work in a few minutes, let's check my gear.
Cell phone = check. Car keys = check. Liberalism To English Dictionary = check.
|
|
| 64 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Tue, May 02, 2006, 08:34
|
Undocumented workers make up 24 percent of farm workers and hold 14 percent of construction jobs, the study found."
Wonder what that per centage is, on a state-by-state or regional basis? ie, whats the per centage of immigrant farm workers in CA? I'd wager, well above the 24% figure quoted above. Or of immigrant constructin workers in ND vs TX? Again, I'd wager that ND is well below the 14% figure while TX is well above it.
Tree...lighten up a little. You're wound wayyyyyyyyy too tight atm.
|
|
| 65 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Tue, May 02, 2006, 09:21
|
Most farming now is done by agribusiness, and yeah--much of the work is done by illegals because of the hard work and low pay.
|
|
| 66 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Tue, May 02, 2006, 09:23
|
Sarge: Good questions. I'd also like to see what those states corresponding unemployment rates are for U.S. citizens. Nationally we are at approx. 5%, but that number is garbage because it factors out disenfranchised workers. Gonna have to do some googling when the day allows.
|
|
| 67 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Tue, May 02, 2006, 09:24
|
Boxman thinks that all jobs on a farm or on a construction site are the same.
When I lived in a very economically depressed part of SC I was able to find work after only a few weeks despite the high unemployment rate. Why? Because I was willing to take jobs that were too lowly for other unemployed white guys. While the rest of them stayed at home in their trailers drinking Red Dog and watching Maury Povich, I was the the only English speaking person mucking horse stalls full time at my first place of employment in SC - and they were most certainly still hiring while I was there. And of course I only stayed at it for a few days as I was able to find a better paying (and less poopy) job with a contractor - an industrial painter. There were only two other English-speaking people in that outfit, the foreman and one worker who was probably illiterate. The other 4 or 5 were Mexican. I left that job after a few weeks the moment something else came along, as the work conditions (at least at the job we were on at the time) were unsafe enough that I honestly felt that my life was in danger for as long as I worked there. But it didn't seem to faze my Mexican coworkers one bit.
Sure you could find white guys to work on hazardous job sites with an industrial painter - but you'd have to compensate them for the hard and dangerous work. I'm not sure what happend to Boxman between post 48, when he seemed to have the issue figured out and posts 61 and 63, where he seems to switch to the opinion that the "work that other people won't do" argument is a myth.
|
|
| 68 | Stuck in the 60s Dude
ID: 274132811 Tue, May 02, 2006, 10:00
|
Big business wants illegals. Were that not the case, existing immigration laws would be enforced and the problem would cease to exist.
1. Secure the southern border 2. Make existing SS cards a national identity card 3. Level disabling fines against businesses that employ illegals.
Once this is done, find a way to legitimize those already here and make sure they're paying taxes to support the services they use.
Don
|
|
| 69 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Tue, May 02, 2006, 10:25
|
Mith:
"Boxman thinks that all jobs on a farm or on a construction site are the same."
I do? Since you know what I think, could you remember where I placed my lost U2 CD? I'm a little flustered I can't find it.
I'm holding up a playing card, Mith, tell me which one it is since you can see my thoughts.
"Sure you could find white guys to work on hazardous job sites with an industrial painter - but you'd have to compensate them for the hard and dangerous work."
Awwwwwwww. You mean actually adhering to labor laws, maintaining/rebuilding a middle class, but that's so hard. What about the immigrants feeeeeeeelings? They're the victim.
Don: "Secure the southern border"
How?
|
|
| 70 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Tue, May 02, 2006, 10:59
|
I do?
Well if you don't think that all jobs in a particular industry are the same, any logic from such an understanding is lost in posts 61 and 63.
You mean actually adhering to labor laws, maintaining/rebuilding a middle class, but that's so hard.
If you weren't so hung up on trying to make the left look stupid you might have caught on to the fact that many of us agree with you here. However, I shouldn't have to explain to a "conservative" that American industry is not a bottomless pit. The fact is that our industries are heavily dependant on underpaid labor and would not be able to continue anywhere current production and service levels without it.
This is the fault of decades of government looking the other way as businesses gorged from the trough of mostly immigrant low wage employees. You think that certain factions of the left (equal rights and pro labor activists, specifically) havn't been critical of that along the way? Do you not think it was the pro business right who largely kept Reagan's, Clinton's and both Bushes' attention away from the issue of illegal employment practices across various industries?
I really don't know where the "jobs that the rest of us won't do" argument originally came from but I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that it initially emerged from pro-business conservative circles.
|
|
| |
| 72 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Tue, May 02, 2006, 12:27
|
Re post 59
Photo slideshow from the Village Voice
Includes shots from Coney Island Ave in my neighborhood and some others, including the Bronx, Jackson Heights, Queens (not far from where Tree lives, I think) and Sunset Park, Brooklyn, another neighborhood I called home from mid '00 to mid '01.
|
|
| 73 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Tue, May 02, 2006, 13:50
|
"If you weren't so hung up on trying to make the left look stupid you might have caught on to the fact that many of us agree with you here."
You don't need me to achieve that for you, Officer Mith.
"The fact is that our industries are heavily dependant on underpaid labor and would not be able to continue anywhere current production and service levels without it."
They COULD not or WOULD not?
They most certainly could. Problem is the incentive to modernize equipment, practices or factories goes right out the window if you can quick fix the issue with illegal immigrant labor.
"You think that certain factions of the left (equal rights and pro labor activists, specifically) havn't been critical of that along the way?"
"Certain factions" of every group has said one thing or another at a given point in time so I'm not sure what your point is.
|
|
| 74 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Tue, May 02, 2006, 14:40
|
They most certainly could. Problem is the incentive to modernize equipment, practices or factories goes right out the window if you can quick fix the issue with illegal immigrant labor.
Have to take excception to this one. Incentive for modernizing equipment, is the bottom line. Modern equip = improved efficiency = lower unit cost in production. Corporate America already holds the US citizenry hostage, by demanding ever increasing tax abatements etc under threat of "moving the plant" and leaving this community responsible for our growth, with double digit unemployment.
|
|
| 75 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Tue, May 02, 2006, 14:41
|
Boxman 73
They most certainly could.
I've never seen that argument convincingly presented.
My initial reaction is that whenever any business adopts new technology it instinctively finds the most efficient manner by which to employ it. Most businesses would be best served (referring to their own interests, of course) combining the new technology with cheap labor to cut production or overhead costs and charge a more competetive rate to attract more clients.
For example, only a couple of decades ago nail guns became very common on contractor job sites. But the efficiency of the nail gun compared to hammers and nails didn't eliminate the need for day laborers. It simply made workers (both day laborers and higher paid craftsmen and their apprentices) more efficient. For many contractors in the 1980s, I'm quite sure the nail gun meant an opportunity to expand their businesses. I doubt they would have responded well to a call for instead using the extra effeciency on the job site to replace every 2 day laborers for 1 fairly paid American helper.
My second reaction is that the usually high costs of new technologies and the amount of time it takes for them to become affordable and various industry market factors such as a business' competetors' ability to impliment said new technology more quickly will almost always mean that businesses will find themselves in a position to cut costs in order just to afford to modernize asap or risk not keeping up with competetors. Lowering your ratio of underpaid workers is usually not a cost cutting measure.
But by all means, please show me a comprehensive argument that "modernization" could broadly replace immigrant labor while maintaning current levels of production and service across the board. And before you start typing, I respectfully request that the argument is backed up with facts such as from historical examples, studies and other researchable data (in other words, not just your personal musings, please). If you're right, I'm sure that a strong case has already been made for industry modernization as an effective and efficient replacement for immigrant labor by very smart people in relevant fields. So a good suggestion would be for you to find something alreay put together by someone who knows what he or she is talking about (i.e. not you).
|
|
| 76 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Tue, May 02, 2006, 14:47
|
Businesses, being efficiently minded, are far more likely to try to replaced higher-cost labor before lower-cost labor. An appeal to efficiency as an answer to immigrant labor, then, doesn't take into account the cost portion of efficiency.
|
|
| 77 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Tue, May 02, 2006, 14:53
|
Mith: "So a good suggestion would be for you to find something alreay put together by someone who knows what he or she is talking about (i.e. not you)."
I could not help but laugh at that. Thank you.
Flawed Assumptions Underlying Guestworker Programs
Dig thru this yourself, Mith, there's a whole section showing your ignorance.
|
|
| 78 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Tue, May 02, 2006, 15:03
|
Holy cow!
The guestworker program is what Bush has proposed. MITH has not stated he is pro-guest worker program.
The program, for what it is worth, is godawful. Creating a semi-permanent group of people in the US who cannot move toward citizenship is a terrible idea. Of all the bad ideas we could have borrowed from the French Bush goes and picks what must be the worst.
|
|
| 79 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Tue, May 02, 2006, 15:10
|
ackson Heights, Queens (not far from where Tree lives
indeed. a 10 minute walk.
my aunt lives there. i spend my weekend in that neighborhood, eatting food that is made by people who are no doubt illegal.
and no doubt American.
|
|
| 80 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Tue, May 02, 2006, 15:16
|
I assume by the crack about my ignorance that Boxman refers to the writer's response to "Assumption 3 Jobs Americans won’t do", tho you'll have to ask him exactly how it displays any ignorance on my part. I'm sure he'll be happy to oblige anyone who is curious.
Reletive to my request in post 75 is some of the portion under "Assumption 7 Foreign labor won’t slow innovation", which does approach the issue from Boxman's proposal; that innovation can and has in the past effectively replaced foreign labor. I've only skimmed it so far.
|
|
| 81 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Tue, May 02, 2006, 15:17
|
and no doubt American.
I bet some of those who you speak of, be it legal or illegal immigrants, would disagree with that statement.
|
|
| 82 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Tue, May 02, 2006, 15:34
|
Some, sure. Some of any large group will fit some stereotype. But probably not most. Surely not all.
What's your point? That they are less worthy because a minority don't consider themselves to be "American?"
|
|
| 83 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Tue, May 02, 2006, 15:55
|
Point: Tree used "and no doubt American" as a punhcline, a quasi "I told you so," to anyone here that thinks that illegal immigrants are not Americans. If you don't want to take post 79 in that context, that's fine, but that's how it comes off to me. My point is, the punchline is wrong. No more, no less.
As for "That they are less worthy because a minority don't consider themselves to be "American?"
I expect more form you because it's a pretty lame cheap shot. I never said anything negative about people considering or not considering themselves Americans, but if that's what you conclude, for yourself, that's your problem.
|
|
| 85 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Tue, May 02, 2006, 16:58
|
Post 77
There are some reasonable arguments under the "Assumption 7" heading. Mostly they appeal to something related to Boxman's argument - not (as Box says) that innovation can replace immigrant labor but that immigrant labor stagnates innovation and that the removal of immigrant labor inspires innovation.
I'd love for Madman to take a look at that portion if he's bothering to trudge through this.
I have three initial observations to these arguments and how they relate to Boxman's points.
1. In the first paragraph under the "Assumption 7 heading", the author writes, "Unfortunately, elementary economics tells us that capital is likely to be substituted for labor only when the price of labor rises, something a guestworker program is specifically intended to prevent. A 2001 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston highlights this problem by warning that a new wave of low-skilled immigrants over the course of this century may slow growth in U.S. productivity."
This sounds very smart but what seems much more elementary to me is that innovation is inspired by the drive for profit. If profits are falling or failing to keep up with a competetor, a business will try to find a way to increase production or services or run more efficiently. If there is a better business answer than cheap labor (or a technological innovation that could be used in conjunction with cheap labor), elementary laws of economics dictate that business should find it.
2. The author quotes the following excerpt, "It is all-important to recognize that discoveries of improved methods and of substitute products are not just luck. They happen in response to scarcity — a rise in cost."
Boxman seems dismissive or ignorant of the tough part of his "moderization" solution. According to the author, what inspires innovation is scarcity. How long after we expel the illegals will we have to live lean as we wait for technology to catch up with the efficiency of unskilled labor? What happens to America's industries and her economic standing and the Americans who depend on it in the meantime?
3. This doesn't speak much to Boxman's specific points but more to some of the logic behind article, itself.
As far as I can tell, the author's "Assumption 7" is effectively undermined by his "Assumption 3" section, "Jobs Americans won’t do". There, the author writes, "But, in fact, the median wage of Mexican immigrants and native-born high school dropouts is very similar; the median weekly wage for native-born high school dropouts who work full time is $350, while the median weekly wage for full-time Mexican immigrants is $326."
If cheap labor has stagnated technological innovation, surely this phenomina is not limited to cases where the workforce is largely foreign born workers. The author wants to have it both ways. He wants to argue that hiring foreigners is bad because it stagnates technological innovation. And he wants to argue that hiring foreigners is bad because deserving Americans can be employed almost as cheaply and should be given those jobs. Hmmm.
|
|
| 86 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Tue, May 02, 2006, 18:41
|
I never said anything negative about people...
So you brought up that some don't think of themselves as Americans as some kind of positive attribute?
Conclude? You apparently missed the question mark at the end of my post, indicating that I was engaging you in an interlocutory device in order to determine what possible reason you would bring it up.
Pass on it if you want. But don't conclude that my question is anything like a conclusion.
|
|
| 87 | Boxman
ID: 4641524 Tue, May 02, 2006, 19:25
|
Mith: "If there is a better business answer than cheap labor (or a technological innovation that could be used in conjunction with cheap labor), elementary laws of economics dictate that business should find it."
Companies live for the next quarter, the next six months, the next public listing of financials. Picking up the additional R&D costs plus labor is expensive. Nevermind that long term they could be better off. You'd be surprised how many businesses never look past the next public financial report. When business refuses to see the big picture, they have to be helped. Using illegal immigrant labor at the expense of the unemployed citizens, the social safety net, and potentially throwing the wage structure of the economy into a dither, is not the thing to be doing.
"Boxman seems dismissive or ignorant of the tough part of his "moderization" solution."
I am not interested in what is easy or what is hard. I am interested in what is right. And what is right is to drive innovation and not import a modified form of slave labor. If hard tasks scare you, I worry for your future.
"How long after we expel the illegals will we have to live lean as we wait for technology to catch up with the efficiency of unskilled labor? What happens to America's industries and her economic standing and the Americans who depend on it in the meantime?"
You expect someone to actually give you a date or something? The way to look at it is what are the gains of having an economy in a near state of constant modernity? Just how long do you suppose businesses will allow themselves to suffer? Don't you think that the market will find ways to innovate themselves out of the method of using illegal labor? Do you actually think they are that stupid and just go out of business because of the degree of difficulty?
It is worth the sacrifice to increase employment amoungst citizens and live in a society with maximized productivity and innovation. With the devastation in the manufacturing sector, there are plenty of fully capable workers, who in an economy with lower unemployment figures and higher skill requirements with new technology that would benefit greatly.
"The author wants to have it both ways. He wants to argue that hiring foreigners is bad because it stagnates technological innovation. And he wants to argue that hiring foreigners is bad because deserving Americans can be employed almost as cheaply and should be given those jobs."
You aren't getting it. Hiring foreigners does stagnate innovation because it is a band aid approach AND if an American citizen is willing to do it at a similar cost, shouldn't the tie go to the guy who actually lives here?
With unemployment at roughly 5% in this country, illegals could leave here en masse and if the private sector picks up the slack via innovation, many of our still unemployed skilled workers could find good paying jobs and perhaps we could work to restoring a middle class again.
|
|
| 88 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Tue, May 02, 2006, 19:53
|
Companies live for the next quarter, the next six months, the next public listing of financials. You'd be surprised how many businesses never look past the next public financial report. When business refuses to see the big picture, they have to be helped. Using illegal immigrant labor at the expense of the unemployed citizens, the social safety net, and potentially throwing the wage structure of the economy into a dither, is not the thing to be doing.
================================
I am not interested in what is easy or what is hard. I am interested in what is right.
Lets get one thing clear; you (Mister-government-interference-is-never-the-answer) are asking for the government to step in and create new legislation and laws to force the hand of businesses to get them to conform to your opinion of what is right.
And what is right is to drive innovation and not import a modified form of slave labor.
Pleae stop referring to the work that illegals do as slave labor or a modified form of it. The only thing that underpaid immigrant laborers have in common with slaves is that they are plaid less than they should be for their work. That isn't enough to qualify. Immigrant workers are free to show up or not show up at the job site and free to go home at the end of the day. Look at the pics posted in and linked to this forum. These people are happy to be here. They are thankful they are here and the crux of the issue is that they don't want to leave. They are nothing close to slaves.
I bet a good many of them would like to knock your teeth out of your mouth for calling them slaves. And I'm sure that descendants of actual slaves wouldn't be any happier with you for cheapening the torture of their ancestors. There is no conection there and your liberal use of the term cheapens it. Please stop making that reference.
Just how long do you suppose businesses will allow themselves to suffer? Don't you think that the market will find ways to innovate themselves out of the method of using illegal labor? Do you actually think they are that stupid and just go out of business because of the degree of difficulty?
Businesses might be a driving force of innovation but that doesn't mean that innovation will always come to the rescue if business isn't prospering or otherwise able to address key problems in a particular industry. Businesses will allow themselves to suffer for as long as it makes sense to try to stay afloat. Then, if they are out of options, they go bankrupt or fold.
You aren't getting it. Hiring foreigners does stagnate innovation because it is a band aid approach AND if an American citizen is willing to do it at a similar cost, shouldn't the tie go to the guy who actually lives here?
OK, I guess I'm not getting it. Please explain to me how paying a Mexican $326/wk stagnates innovation but paying an American $350/wk encourages it.
|
|
| 89 | Boxman
ID: 4641524 Tue, May 02, 2006, 20:10
|
Mith: "Immigrant workers are free to show up or not show up at the job site and free to go home at the end of the day."
They are? That's a myth. How free are you if the choice is work or your family starves?
"I bet a good many of them would like to knock your teeth out of your mouth for calling them slaves."
If you or anybody else want to make that irreversibly negative life decision, "bring it on".
"Look at the pics posted in and linked to this forum. These people are happy to be here."
LOL! That's because they came from Mexico. Let's use pictures from the media as the basis for all truth. Puh-lease.
"Please stop making that reference."
No. Stop endorsing modern day authorized slavery in this country. The Confederates would've loved you.
"OK, I guess I'm not getting it. Please explain to me how paying a Mexican $326/wk stagnates innovation but paying an American $350/wk encourages it."
Even if it doesn't, it is an American citizen getting the job.
Your failure to see the dually negative impact of outsourcing en masse to third world countries plus importing modern day slave labor to handle service jobs is a double whammy to the American worker. We can eventually survive the service industry transition, but we need at least one or the other of industry or service. Pick one or both. Do I need to explain the benefits of having a middle class to you?
Mith, this is really pointless. Just like every other topic on these boards with you is flat out pointless. Innovation will do nothing, I know I know. Tell me, do you still use an abacus? Have you hired Lupe and Pedro to add, subtract, multiply and divide for you? Do you draw charts on graph paper and type your reports on a typewriter? How much does it cost to feed your horse that takes you to work everyday?
Not all innovation is pain free, but it is for the betterment of this country and the workers in it.
After the personal attacks and the whole teeth knocking out comments, go debatesturbation with yourself. I am done with you.
|
|
| 90 | Tree
ID: 39427218 Tue, May 02, 2006, 20:42
|
Box - talk about going over your head. three was no personal attack. MITH didn't threaten you. he merely pointed out that you were being insulting, and one of those people you insulted might knock your death down your troat...
Legge - I bet some of those who you speak of, be it legal or illegal immigrants, would disagree with that statement.
of course some would. i have no idea why a lot of you folks here who are anti-immigrant feel the need to take every thing said as absolute, "100 percent of all immigrants blah blah blah", when they're not blanket statements.
i do know that on the morning of Sept. 12, 2001, when i walked into the corner bodega in my neighborhood in Queens, myself, an Irishman, a Paki, and an Indian stood around and talked about the attack that happened to OUR country.
maybe it's because i live in the most ethnically diverse neighborhood on earth (seriously - there have been studies on this) and not some whitebread, cornfed midwestern city of ivory bliss, but to me, if we're here, we're all Americans.
it's in your heart, not on a piece of paper issued by the government.
|
|
| 91 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Tue, May 02, 2006, 20:45
|
They are? That's a myth. How free are you if the choice is work or your family starves?
By this logic the breadwinner of every poor working family around the globe is a slave. How much more could you possibly cheapen the term?
No. Stop endorsing modern day authorized slavery in this country. The Confederates would've loved you.
Sigh. A bit more, I guess.
If you or anybody else want to make that irreversibly negative life decision, "bring it on".
I wasn't trying to be a tough guy. I was trying to drive home a point. One that you apparently aren't interested in contemplating, judging by the speed and ignorance of your response.
Even if it doesn't, it is an American citizen getting the job.
Well whaddyaknow? A partial concession, even if you don't realize it.
Your failure to see the dually negative impact of outsourcing en masse to third world countries plus importing modern day slave labor to handle service jobs is a double whammy to the American worker.
Modern day slave labor is a real thing and for the most part has nothing to do with immigrant employment in the United States. Its shocking that you hold this point so essential to your position.
We can eventually survive the service industry transition, but we need at least one or the other of industry or service. Pick one or both. Do I need to explain the benefits of having a middle class to you?
You'll have to explain exactly how the survival of the middle class is at stake here. The middle class is not supported by unskilled employment any more. It hasn't been in decades. I fail to see how removing all noncitizens from the American workforce will halt the rate at which the middle class is shrinking.
Just like every other topic on these boards with you is flat out pointless. Innovation will do nothing, I know I know.
Clearly it is pointless. I've not made a case resembling anything close to "innovation will do nothing".
I make too many personal attacks. I made an earnest attempt today to put a lid on that and with one regrettable exception in the last sentence of post 75, I think I did rather well, considering.
You on the other hand, have chosen sarcasm and/or insults every time you have addressed me today. I've taken time to consider your arguments and addressed them point by point, matter of factly.
You're very defensive and you're more interested in saving face than you are objective discussion. Today, I've shown far more courtesy than you deserve and a world more respect than your arguments warrant.
|
|
| 92 | Boxman
ID: 4641524 Tue, May 02, 2006, 20:51
|
Sarge: "They most certainly could. Problem is the incentive to modernize equipment, practices or factories goes right out the window if you can quick fix the issue with illegal immigrant labor.
Have to take excception to this one. Incentive for modernizing equipment, is the bottom line. Modern equip = improved efficiency = lower unit cost in production. Corporate America already holds the US citizenry hostage, by demanding ever increasing tax abatements etc under threat of "moving the plant" and leaving this community responsible for our growth, with double digit unemployment."
But in this case, they can't move the farm, the construction site, restaurant, or Home Depot.
|
|
| 93 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Tue, May 02, 2006, 22:36
|
While the land itself cannot be moved, the operation upon that land most certainly can and has been.
Construction sites, are the result of job bids. Personally, I've never been comfortable with granting the job to the lowest bidder. I As for restaurants and Home Depot. They most certainly can move. All they need, is a vacant plot of land, and tax abatements. Then they acquire/lease theland, build a new building and viola! New outlet.
|
|
| 94 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Wed, May 03, 2006, 08:54
|
Post 80:
i have no idea why a lot of you folks here who are anti-immigrant feel the need to take every thing said as absolute
if we're here, we're all Americans
Um, you just made it an absolute. But, you did quantify it in post 80 as "to me," which you didn't do before. That works for me, your opinion.
But, I feel that I do need to reinforce that I don't know why you think people who are anti-ILLEGAL immigration are also anti-immigration. Too many people are combining these two things. I will put it in caps: I AM FOR IMMIGRATION, HECK I GREW UP WITH IT ALL AROUND ME AND FEEL SO MUCH MORE OPEN MINDED BECAUSE OF MY UPBRINGING. But, I am against illegal immigration.
maybe it's because i live in the most ethnically diverse neighborhood on earth (seriously - there have been studies on this) and not some whitebread, cornfed midwestern city of ivory bliss..
If the post is towards me, you are way off. I was born and raised in DC. I was a minority from K-12th grade (15% white). I grew up in one of the largest orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in the US (Kemp Mill - I think it was #5 when I was in school). My best man was black, my wedding party included a Viet Namese guy and Saudi Arabian guy. So, before you practically say that your opinion is more correct than everbody elses because of where you live, realize that you and I are not that far off.
|
|
| 95 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Wed, May 03, 2006, 09:14
|
legge, what we're seeing (and have seen for a bit of time now), is that many people who are vocal against illegal immigration either simply do not discern between illegal and legal immigration, or genuinely are against both.
That certainly might not be the case with you, but many who argue similarly don't care enough to bother drawing a line.
|
|
| 96 | The Treasonists Donor
ID: 171572711 Wed, May 03, 2006, 09:34
|
Is anybody here against illegal immigration AND against immigration?
|
|
| 97 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 09:43
|
Leggestand: The far left wants to paint everyone who isn't for completely free and open borders as a racist when that couldn't be further from the truth if they tried. I'm glad to see you're not allowing yourself to be falsely labeled.
Perm Dude: "legge, what we're seeing (and have seen for a bit of time now), is that many people who are vocal against illegal immigration either simply do not discern between illegal and legal immigration, or genuinely are against both."
I wonder if that's your view or the view of your party. You seem like a reasonable guy. Do you really that all conservatives or even the ones on this board want to end all immigration?
|
|
| 98 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Wed, May 03, 2006, 09:59
|
I didn't say that, Boxman. Really. I didn't even use the term "conservative."
|
|
| 99 | Seward Norse
ID: 587262710 Wed, May 03, 2006, 10:01
|
immigration poll
From the article: Finally, the public overwhelmingly sees illegal, not legal, immigration as the more serious problem—by 60 percent to 4 percent in the Pew poll. And in a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in August, 2004, 42 percent said legal immigrants are good for the country, while only 23 percent said they are harmful. But they expressed negative attitudes about illegal immigrants by a margin of 54 percent to 18 percent.
|
|
| 100 | Pancho Villa
ID: 519522811 Wed, May 03, 2006, 10:44
|
The far left wants to paint everyone who isn't for completely free and open borders as a racist
Sometimes these Baldwinesque generalizations are just too ridiculous to allow to stand without comment.
I'm not sure who you consider the far left, but the most rabid proponents of keeping the status quo for illegal workers are the employers who hire them. I would suggest that it would be impossible to know the political leanings of this diverse group of employers.
Perhaps if I stated that the far right wants to imprison and every worker in this country who doesn't have the proper papers and execute everyone trying to cross the Soutern border illegally, you'd see how meaningless these calssifications are.
There is no far left or far right, there is no consensus in this issue. There is Tancredo says and Kennedy says; Boxer says and McCain says; Richardson says and Arnold says.
Generic political terms do nothing to advance the debate, especially when they are meant only to polarize and divide.
|
|
| 101 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Wed, May 03, 2006, 11:27
|
Box, Legge, Et Al -
do you propose shipping all the illegals currently into this country back to thier countries of birth?
if yes, how do you suggest to do this?
|
|
| 102 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 11:39
|
Tree: No, only because the logistics are impossible, from my POV anyway. I think we should deport them as we find them, but for some massive gestapo-esque action, I cannot agree with that. The cops in this country, especially my state, have gone looney tunes already.
If you guys (meaning the left) would agree to building a wall, with a "gate" for those that complete the immigration/legalization/citizenship forms, and get seriously tough on the southern border I could see just making the existing illegals in this country pass an English test, pay back taxes and earn citizenship.
Sound fair?
|
|
| 103 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Wed, May 03, 2006, 11:43
|
I never said that I have a solution to the problem. But, I don't understand why people like yourself think illegal immigration is okay.
Here are the arguments I have seen from you Tree:
1. Illegal immigrants bring culture. So do legal immigrants. I am just asking for them to be legal, I am not asking for them to change their heritage and culture. 2. Deporting would break up families. That is the risk you run when you are illegal. If you die sky diving, it is a risk you run. I don't have any sympathy there. 3. We all are immigrants from somewhere else. True, but we are legal citizens. Again , I am not against legal immigration, I am against illegal immigration. 4. Illegals aren't stealing jobs from us. Maybe that's true, but they are stealing benefits.
What else do you have? I haven't heard one pro-illegal argument yet, but you will defend the practice. And if your real reason for being okay with it is because there is not an easy solution, then say it. At least recognize that there is a problem!
|
|
| 104 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Wed, May 03, 2006, 12:17
|
The problem, I think, is that the debate over illegal immigration masks the difficulties of people who want to be legal. Many illegals, for example, came here legally and are caught up in the years-long process that INS takes to process cases.
I'd have a lot of sympathy for the law-and-order crowd if I were to hear any constructive proposals regarding the difficulties to citizenship. All we're hearing runs from Bush's proposal to take citizenship off the table to shock that Mexican immigrants would wave Mexican flags in America.
|
|
| 105 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 12:25
|
"if I were to hear any constructive proposals regarding the difficulties to citizenship."
Ahh yes the old red tape. Problem is who do we trust to cut the red tape? The neo-conservative big government types or the left wing big government types?
Other than government bureacracy, is there anything else you put under the header of "difficulties to citizenship"?
That's a great point Perm Dude.
|
|
| 106 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Wed, May 03, 2006, 12:32
|
The truth is that people come here on 6-month visas, and even if they apply for permanent citizenship on day one the wait can be as long as two years just to get a hearing.
The INS is really in a class by itself with their backlog. Think Babe Ruth in 1927--so far ahead of everyone else it is stunning. And the way government is set up, this is not a political issue (that is, the red tape occurs despite which party is in power because the problems occur outside the political arena).
[And, just to be clear, I'm not saying that most illegals, or even many, are of the expired visa variety. Only that if there was a working process to foreign nationals becoming citizens this problem would be a heck of a lot smaller]
|
|
| 107 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Wed, May 03, 2006, 12:40
|
Box - If you guys (meaning the left) would agree to building a wall, with a "gate" for those that complete the immigration/legalization/citizenship forms, and get seriously tough on the southern border I could see just making the existing illegals in this country pass an English test, pay back taxes and earn citizenship.
this is pretty damned disgusting to me.
1. why must they pass an English test? what the crap does that have to do with anything? when my family came here, they didn't speak a lick of English.
additionally, who is going to pay for these english lessons?
2. many illegals already pay taxes, but never see the returns. do you also propose giving them back return on their taxes paid?
----------------------------------------------
Legge - you didn't answer my question. do you think we should return all illegals to their native countries?
to your points: 1. Illegal immigrants bring culture. So do legal immigrants. I am just asking for them to be legal, I am not asking for them to change their heritage and culture.
- no argument here. what's your point?
2. Deporting would break up families. That is the risk you run when you are illegal. If you die sky diving, it is a risk you run. I don't have any sympathy there.
- sky diving? what does that have to do with anything?
what you're advocating is punishing children who did nothing wrong. all they did was be born to illegals.
you're ok with that?
3. We all are immigrants from somewhere else. True, but we are legal citizens. Again , I am not against legal immigration, I am against illegal immigration.
- which brings me back to the question i asked you didn't address.
4. Illegals aren't stealing jobs from us. Maybe that's true, but they are stealing benefits.
- such as?
|
|
| 108 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 2241838 Wed, May 03, 2006, 12:51
|
Boxman but for some massive gestapo-esque action, I cannot agree with that
Good to see you come around. What changed your mind since post 3 when you were asking why INS didn't "round up a bunch of 'em at these rallies"?
Leggestand I haven't heard one pro-illegal argument yet
Check the link in post 71.
|
|
| 109 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 13:00
|
Perm Dude: "The truth is that people come here on 6-month visas, and even if they apply for permanent citizenship on day one the wait can be as long as two years just to get a hearing."
That's a problem right there. I don't recall the post, but I suggested in this(?) thread that they should fill out forms while still in Mexico. Two years is BS. It doesn't take two years to do anything. Why not start the paper process while they still live in Mexico to get the ball rolling?
Tree: Like Dusty Baker says, "C'mon dude, chill." :)
"this is pretty damned disgusting to me."
Sorry Charlie, compromise.
"why must they pass an English test? what the crap does that have to do with anything? when my family came here, they didn't speak a lick of English."
English is pre-dominant on street signs, forms, schools, all over the place. I would imagine it is damned hard to be very successful in life in this country without knowing English.
"additionally, who is going to pay for these english lessons?"
I don't know the tax laws as they apply to legal immigrants who pay taxes so I have to go off of what applies to citizens. There are Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits/deductions for people to take. They should be able to use them for this purpose.
"many illegals already pay taxes, but never see the returns. do you also propose giving them back return on their taxes paid?"
That assumes they are due a refund in the first place.
|
|
| 110 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 2241838 Wed, May 03, 2006, 13:06
|
I would imagine it is damned hard to be very successful in life in this country without knowing English.
I don't know that one's chances to become "very successful in life in this country" should be a consideration for people who come here to be migrant farm workers. Further, come to NYC. there are plenty on people who don't speak much English and get by just fine.
|
|
| 111 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 13:14
|
I hate to burp the baby, but Mith asked some questions that you guys might/might not care to know the answers to.
"Good to see you come around. What changed your mind since post 3 when you were asking why INS didn't "round up a bunch of 'em at these rallies"?"
Because we know where they are at the rallies. Big difference than a Tommy Lee Jones style manhunt.
"I don't know that one's chances to become "very successful in life in this country" should be a consideration for people who come here to be migrant farm workers."
I never said that. You missed yet another point.
|
|
| 112 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Wed, May 03, 2006, 13:21
|
Legge - you didn't answer my question. do you think we should return all illegals to their native countries?
If they don't agree to become legal citizens, then yes. I do agree with Box, though, that logistically speaking, this is near impossible.
And since I have answered yours, please answer mine:
Do you not think illegal immigration is a problem?
And for the record, all of the items I listed (1-4) came from posts BY YOU in this thread as reasons why people like Box and I are wrong. See posts 15, 32, 36; I looked over everything you posted in here as reasons we we are "wrong," and they have been refuted.
Reason 1, you agreed with me. Reason 2, I am not punishing children, the parents chose this route. It takes a sick person to somehow blame me because someone gets deported. That is about as disgusting a spin as I have seen. I have no hand in an illegal immigrant coming over illegally, yet I can be blamed for their deportation. An illogical guilt trip at its worst. I refuse to take blame for a choice someone else made. Reason 3, I've answered above. Reason 4, I took from one of your posts (addressed Katie about how many jobs she's lost to illegals). I gave you the benefit of the doubt and agreed with you, but said they do receive benefits.
So, my next question to you is, what is the benefit of having illegals here?
|
|
| 113 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Wed, May 03, 2006, 13:24
|
Hey MITH, I try not to register for publications, so, can you tell me some of the positives provided from illegal immigration that the articel notes? Thanks.
|
|
| 114 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 330331010 Wed, May 03, 2006, 13:29
|
Because we know where they are at the rallies. Big difference than a Tommy Lee Jones style manhunt.
Actually I'd surmise that its the other way around. The INS knows where the barrios are. At the rallies they are dispersed among supporters who almost surely number far more than the illegals. But regardless of who is right (or 'more right') it sounds strange for you to refer to such a "roundup" as a "gestapo-esque action" that you "cannot agree with" but then offer only logistics as the reason for why it is a bad idea. Apparently you are all for "gestapo-esque action" when you believe it can be effective?
I never said that. You missed yet another point.
If so, please explain it. Tree asked why immigrants should have to lean English before they are granted immigrant status, which is what you say should happen before they may live and work here. Your answer was that "it is damned hard to be very successful in life in this country without knowing English".
So if you aren't telling us that these people must display a fair potential for becoming "very successful", what are you saying?
|
|
| 115 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 330331010 Wed, May 03, 2006, 13:32
|
Legg I'm off to a meeting - will be back in a few. Send me an email and when I get back I'll reply with the text from the article.
|
|
| 116 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 13:37
|
Mith: "Tree asked why immigrants should have to lean English before they are granted immigrant status, which is what you say should happen before they may live and work here. Your answer was that "it is damned hard to be very successful in life in this country without knowing English"."
Knowing English, in and of itself, is not going to make one a success or failure, but your chances of success go up when you know English. It is for their own benefit and so they can read a stop sign and move about in society.
"But regardless of who is right (or 'more right') it sounds strange for you to refer to such a "roundup" as a "gestapo-esque action" that you "cannot agree with" but then offer only logistics as the reason for why it is a bad idea. Apparently you are all for "gestapo-esque action" when you believe it can be effective?"
Lest you forget that they are here illegally?
|
|
| 117 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Wed, May 03, 2006, 13:42
|
English is pre-dominant on street signs, forms, schools, all over the place. I would imagine it is damned hard to be very successful in life in this country without knowing English.
English is certainly not the predominant language spoken in my neighborhood. Hispanic dominates, followed by various southeast Asian languages, followed by English with a thick Irish brogue, followed by traditional English.
and my neighborhood is chock full of successful businesses where if i want the food, i have to ask for "Chicharron, y papas, y arepa con quese, ya cafe con leche."
sometimes, if i'm lucky, i can learn what something might be by saying "Come se dice en ingles 'Chicharron'", and the girl behind the counter will tell me.
and i've got no problem with any of the above.
"many illegals already pay taxes, but never see the returns. do you also propose giving them back return on their taxes paid?"
That assumes they are due a refund in the first place.
getting a return on your taxes is a lot more than just a refund
If they don't agree to become legal citizens, then yes. I do agree with Box, though, that logistically speaking, this is near impossible.
i think, given the chance, most illegals would prefer to be legal. that's just speculation on my part, however. i've got no proof to back that up.
Do you not think illegal immigration is a problem?
definitely. for a nation of immigrants, we have some whack ass policies regarding immigration - from the red tape/paperwork argument above, to inconsistencies like the "wet foot/dry foot" policy.
Reason 2, I am not punishing children, the parents chose this route. It takes a sick person to somehow blame me because someone gets deported. That is about as disgusting a spin as I have seen. I have no hand in an illegal immigrant coming over illegally, yet I can be blamed for their deportation. An illogical guilt trip at its worst. I refuse to take blame for a choice someone else made.
i'm not blaming you for the deportation. i'm blaming you for supporting families being split up, where the parents might be deported, but the children remain here.
|
|
| 118 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Wed, May 03, 2006, 13:47
|
Large roundups of groups with some being suspected criminals are frowned upon by SCOTUS.
I think we can agree that a good working knowledge of English is really a key to economic success in the US (and economic success is a reason nearly all immigrants come here). The question is the degree to which this should be encouraged.
Personally I'm not opposed to programs to help immigrants (illegal or not) learn English, reduce accents, and so on. Most immigrants coming from non-English speaking countries simply don't get the practice or teaching (when available) to become fluent speakers.
I'd certainly draw the line before making it a prerequisite. In general we should give people the freedom to make the best choices, and so long as their choices don't impact very poorly on society we should leave it at that. Otherwise we're starting to get very Big Brother-ish.
|
|
| 119 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 13:49
|
"English is certainly not the predominant language spoken in my neighborhood. Hispanic dominates, followed by various southeast Asian languages, followed by English with a thick Irish brogue, followed by traditional English."
I'm not talking about the spoken word or ethnic delis. I could care less what language people speak in. They do need to know English however for fairly obvious reasons.
"getting a return on your taxes is a lot more than just a refund"
I thought you meant refund. No, I'm not in favor of just giving them back the taxes they paid. That's ludicrous.
So then Tree, are you in favor of just open borders, come as you please, willy-nilly crossovers? What do you want out of the immigration debate presently going on?
|
|
| 120 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 13:53
|
Perm Dude: "I think we can agree that a good working knowledge of English is really a key to economic success in the US (and economic success is a reason nearly all immigrants come here). The question is the degree to which this should be encouraged."
A working knowledge of English should be a requirement. I'm not asking for Hemmingways, but enough to be able to survive in America on your own. This will be a huge help to their children as well who will enter English speaking public schools and hopefully college.
|
|
| 121 | Pancho Villa
ID: 519522811 Wed, May 03, 2006, 13:56
|
Lest you forget that they are here illegally?
Who gets the more severe punishment, the drug user or the drug dealer?
The job is the drug. The illegal worker is the drug user. The employer is the drug dealer.
Any idea of a roundup of illegal workers without holding the employers accountable is like filling the prisons with drug users while allowing the drug dealers to get off with paying a fine.
Do you really want to approach this issue purely in terms of law enforcement?
|
|
| 122 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:00
|
i'm not blaming you for the deportation. i'm blaming you for supporting families being split up, where the parents might be deported, but the children remain here.
Oy vey. Again disgusting. Here's how it works:
1. Husband/wife comes over illegally 2. They have a child on US soil (a citizen) 3. The couple is found to be illegal and deported 4. The child is old enough to make decisions on their own, and decides to stay. 5. Family is broken up
I am not involved in this situation, so, I can't take blame, yet you somehow think I should. Find the root of the problem, and it is #1, "Husband/wife come over illegally."
Do you truly not see the sickness in your argument? Trying to place blame on someone who is blameless? Trying to make someone feel bad for doing nothing wrong?
Again, I am blameless, and sure, so, are the children, but you need to take a better look at where you point that finger, because it sure as hell shouldn't be at me.
|
|
| 123 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:02
|
"Do you really want to approach this issue purely in terms of law enforcement?"
Since it is a legal issue, what is your approach? How would you handle things?
They are here illegally. That has to be dealt with if possible.
I have said from the beginning of this discussion that employers exploit latinos. But latinos are very far from stupid, they know what they're doing. That's why I'm interested in getting latinos as close as possible to real citizenship before they are allowed to come here.
Ideally, I'd love it for them to have a sort of "pre-approved" citizenship status before they come here for lack of a better term so that labor laws that apply to you and me apply to them as well. If employers hire illegal workers, then throw their butts in the clinck or fine them harshly. Preferably both.
|
|
| 124 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:03
|
Boxman: There is no indication that the children of immigrants have a burden on account of language. Indeed, growing up bilingual is a distinct advantage in nearly every field.
Again, the problem is with the requirement. College and military service have both been shown to be of benefit to getting ahead. Are you now for mandatory college for everyone, and bringing back the draft?
|
|
| 125 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 330331010 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:06
|
Boxman 119 They do need to know English however for fairly obvious reasons.
Again, come to NYC. See how many people are here and unable to communicate in English. It depends largely on the particular area you're talking about of course but in the general terms that you choose to discuss in, you're quite mistaken. People get by.
|
|
| 126 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:07
|
You can live here legally all your life and still not be a citizen.
The waiting list is estimated at 18 years to immigrate legally to the US from Mexico.
18 years.
That is what you have to address if you continually claim that you have no problem with legal immigrants, just illegal immigrants.
Otherwise you are just blowing smoke up your own ass.
|
|
| 127 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:14
|
The waiting list is estimated at 18 years to immigrate legally to the US from Mexico.
So, are you saying the solution is illegal immigration?
I have said before that I don't claim to have the solution to illegal immigration. I am not sure what you want me to address, though. 18 years is a long, and ridiculous amount of time, but I don't see how that should sway my opinion on illegal immigration.
|
|
| 128 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 330331010 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:17
|
leggestand
Email sent.
|
|
| 129 | Pancho Villa
ID: 519522811 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:19
|
In the urban(and many times rural as well) areas of California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico(I'm sure Texas too, but I haven't been there in 30 years), one can get by perfectly well speaking only Spanish, and I'm not talking just in the barrios.
|
|
| 130 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:23
|
Perm Dude: "There is no indication that the children of immigrants have a burden on account of language. Indeed, growing up bilingual is a distinct advantage in nearly every field."
I never said I only want them to know English and forget their native (or parents) language. Part of my daily job involves speaking with bilingual people. It is most certainly an asset and I make darn sure to mention that.
They need to know English though. I don't care if Spanish is their favorite and they want to retain that knowledge. Good for them, it'll make them more money actually. God bless. When they go for higher education, which I think we can all agree is something children will need, they must know English.
"College and military service have both been shown to be of benefit to getting ahead. Are you now for mandatory college for everyone, and bringing back the draft?"
No. Knowing English is on a much more basic, day-to-day functional level. Man would I love more people in college though.
Mith: "See how many people are here and unable to communicate in English. It depends largely on the particular area you're talking about of course but in the general terms that you choose to discuss in, you're quite mistaken. People get by."
That's all I'm asking for. Do they know their way around the highways and biways? Can they learn in an English speaking school? Do they know enough English to communicate in the event of an emergency? To fill out a job application? To understand consumer economics where they balance a check book and know they are getting correct change? To have a fundamental understanding of contractual agreements like apartment leases or home mortgages? That's what I want.
Biliruben: "The waiting list is estimated at 18 years to immigrate legally to the US from Mexico."
Do you know why that is? Is it backlog?
|
|
| 131 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:31
|
Why is it so long? People in power have no incentive to raise the quotas.
You can exploit laborers when you can hold fear of deportation over their heads.
Make it easier to immigrate legally and I guarantee that you will decrease the number of those who do so illegally. If you make it easy enough, you will eliminate the "problem". Ta da.
|
|
| 132 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 330331010 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:36
|
Boxman,
I'm curious, where do you live? Here, there are many government services and businesses that operate their public services in Spanish and other languages. Road signs and road maps work the same way in different languages. One of NYC's most popular banks is Banco Popular, which, obviously, caters to Spanish speakers. 10 cents in English has the same value as 10 cents in Spanish.
|
|
| 133 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:39
|
Boxman: My point was that there is no indication that children born here are not English proficient. As a way to support your point that immigrants should be required to learn English before coming here you state that this will be a help to their children.
I'm saying that that problem doesn't actually exist.
|
|
| 134 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:41
|
So, are you saying the solution is illegal immigration? - Leg
No. I am saying the consequence is illegal immigration.
|
|
| 135 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:45
|
MITH, thanks for the email.
Got through it, and it made some good points, a lot of which have been brought up and are logically correct, i.e. (1) the more people/jobs, the better the economy, as money circulation increases and (2) the whole "jobs Americans won't do."
After doing a quick search, it appears that there are about $7 million illegals in the country. I am sure they effect the national/local econmies, but how much? Do they really have any disposable income, which is what is needed to boost economic performance? I don't know.
As for jobs Americans won't do, I haven't figured out how I sway on this argument. Where I live, there is a mix of immigrants and citizens doing jobs I would not do, but I don't know much on other areas of the country and could imagine that there would be some sort of slowdown if all illegals were deported.
|
|
| 136 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:46
|
bili-Right, and the consequence of illegal immigration is deportation.
|
|
| 137 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:48
|
Clever, leg. Unfortunately untrue for the vast majority.
Nice sidestep, though. You must be an excellent dancer.
You ask for a solution. I offer one. I get a sound bite in return.
I don't have the patience for this that MITH and PD do.
|
|
| 138 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:51
|
MITH's pretty much said it all. we live in different boroughs, but i imagine our experiences are similar.
will English help? possibly. but just as Chinese would help me in Chinatown, and Spanish has helped me in my own neighborhood, it's not necessary.
there just isn't the need.
|
|
| 139 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:54
|
Mith: "I'm curious, where do you live?"
The Chicago area. The street signs are in English, business signs are in English. The schools use English as the primary language.
"Road signs and road maps work the same way in different languages."
We don't have that. I would guess there are road maps in other languages available somewhere.
Are you just completely discounting the importance of learning English? Do you place any value on it at all?
Perm Dude: "My point was that there is no indication that children born here are not English proficient. As a way to support your point that immigrants should be required to learn English before coming here you state that this will be a help to their children.
I'm saying that that problem doesn't actually exist."
If all their parents know is Spanish, where will they learn English? Schools help, but our public schools are brutal in quality. Having English speaking parents can only help.
|
|
| 140 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, May 03, 2006, 14:59
|
I don't think anyone is disputing it would be a net benefit to know English, Boxman.
What's your point? Are you suggesting we don't let anyone into this country who doesn't speak the King's English?
|
|
| 141 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:01
|
If all their parents know is Spanish, where will they learn English? Schools help, but our public schools are brutal in quality. Having English speaking parents can only help.
Again, you're describing (and presenting a solution for) a problem which doesn't exist. Children of immigrants, even with non-English language home life, are not language disabled.
It's like saying that the Yankees would have been successful in those years immediately before Matsui took over left field because that was a big hole for them. That fact that they were successful points to the fact that it really wasn't a problem in the end--not a barrier to success.
|
|
| 142 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 330331010 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:02
|
We don't have that. I would guess there are road maps in other languages available somewhere.
What would be the point of a Spanish road map? "Main Street" in Spanish is "Main Street".
Are you just completely discounting the importance of learning English? Do you place any value on it at all?
In my opinion a strong command of English is extremely important. In fact my personal English language skills fall far short of what I feel they should be and I'm actually quite self-conscious of my writing because of that. But that's me and my personal standards. I'm not interested in imposing them on anyone else. I've seen first hand that people can get by just fine in America without leaning English so I fail to understand why you and many others want the government to step in with more legislation and laws force it on them before you'll allow them to live and work here legally.
|
|
| 143 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:07
|
bili-you offered a solution??? Was it when you said "make it easier to immigrate legally?" That's a pretty vague solution. Make it easier how?
|
|
| 144 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:07
|
Raise the quotas.
|
|
| 145 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:07
|
Biliruben: See #120 & 130 please.
Perm Dude: "Children of immigrants, even with non-English language home life, are not language disabled."
Knowing English is more important to a children's life in this country than having Matsui in left is important to the Bronx Bombers, my second most beloved ball club.
The Yanks still have A-Rod, Jeter, and a lineup full of studs. A child of immigrants has no such other trump card. English is the groundwork to being a success in this country. It helps a lot. It would be like asking Big Stein to make a winner with no farm system and a 15 million dollar budget.
|
|
| 146 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:10
|
I do need to agree with MITH, PD, and Tree on the English speaking issue. Sure, I think English helps everyone who wants to succeed. But should it be required? I don't think so. I think MITH's post 142 hits the nail on the head for me.
|
|
| 147 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:11
|
Wow. You ARE suggesting it should be a requirement.
There are advantages and disadvantages of varying degrees in our lives. For you to patarnalistically and arbitrarilly demand that someone learn English is very big brother/big government of you.
|
|
| 148 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:16
|
bili-
What repurcussions could we see by raising the quotas? Overpopulation? Larger lower income areas? Higher unemployment rates?
I agree that there must be an easier way, but consequences will come with any change. So, lt's say we raise the quotas and get the number of illegals down, what is the next problem we will have to solve? This is a serious question, because I agree, raising the quotas is easy to do, and easy to make happen, but if it was the best thing to do, wouldn't it have been done?
|
|
| 149 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:24
|
I would take a stepped approach, gradually increasing quotas so as not to impact our economy, and strain the necessary resources with a large increase in population all at once. Allow us to absorb the new immigrants and increase support structures to improve intregration into our society.
Long term, which is the way we should be thinking, I think this may well solve more problems than it will create. The demographic nightmare that we have regarding SS and medicare would be mitigated by broadening the age pyramid at the bottom. We will be in desperate need of lower cost service workers going forward as baby-boomers age, particularly in health care. Already the nurse shortage is reaching crisis levels.
We need hardworking immigrant labor. Our country has always thrived throughout it's history on it. It will continue to.
|
|
| 150 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:29
|
Mith: "In my opinion a strong command of English is extremely important."
I couldn't agree more. That's why I want them to learn English.
"In fact my personal English language skills fall far short of what I feel they should be and I'm actually quite self-conscious of my writing because of that. But that's me and my personal standards. I'm not interested in imposing them on anyone else."
Are government laws requiring public/private school attendance until 16 an act of big government or a domineering government? Are collegiate or governmental education requirements of "x" amount of years in math, science and reading in high school an act of big government? It's common sense to me.
"I fail to understand why you and many others want the government to step in with more legislation and laws force it on them before you'll allow them to live and work here legally."
Because they need it like you admitted to above.
Biliruben: "Wow. You ARE suggesting it should be a requirement."
Yes, but not like the "King's English" you alluded to before.
|
|
| 151 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:37
|
As far as overpopulation goes, unless you listen to the National Association of Realtors, there is no land crisis in the United States. Our population density is 30 people per km^2.
Compare that with Mexico, which is nearly double, with less arable land, the EU which is quadruble, and Bangladesh which has more than 1000 people per km^2. Even if the entire population of Mexico packed up and moved north, it wouldn't be a problem, if it were gradual enough. Maybe we should just annex it (I kid).
|
|
| 152 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:40
|
bili-has anyone proposed this type of solution? I think it makes sense and sounds easy enough, but that usually means I must be missing something.
|
|
| 153 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:44
|
This is a serious question, because I agree, raising the quotas is easy to do, and easy to make happen, but if it was the best thing to do, wouldn't it have been done?
The best thing to do for whom? That's the question you should be asking. There will be winners and losers, but on margin I believe our country would greatly benefit.
Sure, there will be job displacements and hardship, but if you ask an economist, that is a healthy consequence of capitalism.
Sure, some industry costs that have relied on illegal labor might suffer (and rightly so), and the price of commodities might rise, and some industries might no longer be able to survive in the US, but I am confident others will take their place.
As much as I think capitilism is a flawed economic system, It's ability to manage these sorts of impacts and allocate and reallocate resources is one of it's major strengths.
|
|
| 154 | Madman
ID: 230542010 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:47
|
Sure, there will be job displacements and hardship Do you have evidence for this?
Seems to me like there might be more job displacements and hardships if we insist on employing low wage work elsewhere rather than here.
|
|
| 155 | Madman
ID: 230542010 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:50
|
br 149 -- I like it.
I'm also glad to see the unstated corrollary from others on the left who have voiced similar approaches: abandonment of the unsubstantiated theory that a wide income gap may hamper economic activity. Your post seems like a direct contradiction of that approach, and I'm glad to hear it.
|
|
| 156 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:50
|
This might be a stupid question because I know nothing about the quota aspects of this so I'm just asking.
How do we decide who gets to come in? First come, first serve? Do we reserve "x" amount of slots for those who need to come in here because of religious or other forms of persecution?
|
|
| 157 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:53
|
Then also, how do you enforce quotas without a lock-tight border?
|
|
| 158 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 330331010 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:56
|
Because they need it like you admitted to above.
See, that's the thing. I never admitted to any such needs. I said its extremely important. Like keeping your credit in good standing is extremely important.
|
|
| 159 | Madman
ID: 230542010 Wed, May 03, 2006, 15:58
|
bxman -- well, there are rules governing this sort of thing. I would argue that changes made in the 1960s toward geographic quotas were a bad idea. But we'd probably have to live with that to some extent.
I'd argue that it should be made based upon demonstration of skill and/or family situation more than geography.
BR -- just to clarify my smarmy 154 ... I'm not in the mainstream on this, but my impression is that immigration creates jobs in an amount roughly equal to the number of potential job seekers.
Here's a thought experiment. We typically think of immigration where people cross a border. Instead, think of a border that crosses people. The net final impact of either change is identical: an expansion of the workforce. However, intuitively, no one would say that moving the border would displace US workers. But they are logically identical, since jobs aren't geographically constrained -- especially not within a country.
That's just one cutesy thought-experiment reason for my position. Ultimately, however, I hold it because of a version of the oft-discarded Say's law. More recently, I believe David Card has presented some empirical evidence that may support my position. Not totally sure.
|
|
| 160 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 16:09
|
Not to derail anything, more or less as a supplement to what we're talking about, I think we should look back at Mexico's favorite U.S. President, President Polk.
Wiki-Polk
|
|
| 161 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 16:17
|
Mith: "See, that's the thing. I never admitted to any such needs. I said its extremely important. Like keeping your credit in good standing is extremely important."
But then is that to imply that you don't need good credit?
|
|
| 162 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 330331010 Wed, May 03, 2006, 16:19
|
But then is that to imply that you don't need good credit?
Not nearly enough to warrant federal legislation to enforce it.
|
|
| 163 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, May 03, 2006, 16:24
|
Madman - No, I don' have any evidence to respond your smarmy question. ;)
I was just imagining Citizen Pedro, sitting behind a security desk, snoring the night away at $12/hr. I then imagine Immigrante Raul, hungry for work, willing to walk the perimeter of General Food's tortilla warehouse for $8/hr. Citizen Pedro will likely have his job displaced. Though long-term, he will likely find another.
I tend to agree with your non-mainstream idea, btw.
Leg - I think the reason we don't do this is largely political. The potential losers hold the poltical clout.
|
|
| 164 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, May 03, 2006, 16:28
|
Also, I don't think this will increase economic disparities. It will decrease large corp's bottom line, impacting both the management of said corps as well as their stock holders, downward.
It will also increase the hourly wage of those immigrants who came to the US. Or raise the wage of all who live in the fictional land which the border, after moving, no encompases. Again, no evidence.
|
|
| 165 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 16:40
|
Mith: I think you're missing the greater point about the need for English. You have admitted that it is "extremely important" and you are right. Knowing English is vital not just for the immigrant but for the society they are blending in to.
Are doctors to be held liable if a patient misinterprets an English written prescription drug instruction? That's but one example.
Seems like we'll have to agree to disagree but if we already require so many years of math, science, and reading, we ought to require people entering this country to have a fundamental knowledge of English for their own safety, our safety and especially if they want to get a good education.
|
|
| 166 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Wed, May 03, 2006, 16:42
|
Box - your arguments are getting absurd.
i mean, life would be simplier for some people if they learned to drive.
should we make it mandatory that people know how to drive?
life would have more opportunities for you if you spoke a language in addition to English.
should we make it mandatory for all English speakers to be bi-lingual?
etc etc etc.
|
|
| 167 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Wed, May 03, 2006, 16:44
|
Knowing English is a fundamental key to success in this country and it makes things safer for the immigrant and for us. Knowing English also helps the child immigrant ease into school better. That should be as plain as day.
|
|
| 168 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Wed, May 03, 2006, 17:31
|
no one is arguing that point.
what people are arguing, is your desire to make it law, which brings me back to post 166.
|
|
| 169 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Wed, May 03, 2006, 17:41
|
Boxman 165 I think you're missing the greater point... Knowing English is vital not just for the immigrant but for the society they are blending in to.
If that's a point that you've already made here (for me to miss) I haven't seen it. As far as I can tell you haven't backed it up aide from your question about English prescrip instructions and with all due respect, protecting English-only businesses from liability isn't a very impressive argument. No law or civil precedent I'm aware of requires doctors or pharmacists to provide instructions in the patient's written language. What if the patient is blind? Should we deny all blind immigration applicants because they can't read a pill bottle?
but if we already require so many years of math, science, and reading
We don't require citizens to learn math, science and reading. We do try to force minors to develop a fair command of those things - while they are minors. But if they turn 16 without ever having gone to school we don't kick them out, so there's no equivolency between forcing immigrants to learn English before living or working in America and enforcing schooling standards on American children.
In post 150 you asked, "Are government laws requiring public/private school attendance until 16 an act of big government or a domineering government?"
Well my answer is 'possibly big government but not domineering government' but I've already explained in the preceding paragraph why that comparison is not analogous. Really it feels very strange for a lefty like me to be asked that question from a self described conservative who recently wrote that "government is never the answer". I suggest you ask some very smart anti-big-government conservatives that same question for an answer presented in your terms. Madman?
Anyway, you've managed to avoid my most important point: I and just about everyone else who lives in a culturally diverse place sees people who don't speak English doing their thing and getting by just fine every day.
As an aside I'm awfully surprised to here that you live near as large an urban center as Chicago and don't have much experience with people who don't speak English.
|
|
| 170 | bibA
ID: 513512922 Wed, May 03, 2006, 18:20
|
Here in Long Beach, Ca. I see non English persons working every day. Like I said, they are WORKING. Probably half the yards in my neighborhood are tended by Spanish speakers. Roofs are constantly being replaced, with much of the work, especially the tear-offs, being done by Spanish speakers. Advertisements being left on our porches, most of the contracted for construction work, swimming pools being built or upgraded, garden nurserys being tended to, trees being trimmed, houses being cleaned, nannies watching over our children as we are off to work, etc. - many more occupations I'm sure that I cannot recall immediately.
These people seem to be very hard working and trustworthy. We have grown accustom to this situation being part of our society, and most of us are amazed at how hard and diligent they consistently perform their tasks.
Personally, I feel just as eager to learn their language as I have a desire that they speak mine.
When I hear complaints about them, it is invariably by people who use their services anyway.
|
|
| 171 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Wed, May 03, 2006, 21:37
|
Re #150: Are government laws requiring public/private school attendance until 16 an act of big government or a domineering government?
I missed this question. As a homeschooling parent, I have to say: Don't believe the hype! No state requires public/private school attendence, at any age. If they did you would see a large number of very pissed off homeschoolers.
|
|
| 172 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Wed, May 03, 2006, 22:00
|
f you guys (meaning the left) would agree to building a wall, with a "gate" for those that complete the immigration/legalization/citizenship forms,...
Yea. The "wall" worked so well at keeping Berliners in Berlin. And they even had machine guns mounted on it too. Sorry Box, but that idea right there, is the single most ludicrous thing the right has put forward, since Reagan announced that ketchup counted a vegetable serving in the school cafeteria.
|
|
| 173 | bibA Sustainer
ID: 261028117 Wed, May 03, 2006, 22:40
|
hmmmm.....that would be quite a project, building that wall over hundreds of miles. Wonder where we could get the labor.
It would be great tho, maybe it could be observed from space, like the one in China. Would we call it the Great Wall II?
|
|
| 174 | Tree
ID: 247317 Wed, May 03, 2006, 22:57
|
Would we call it the Great Wall II?
There's a Mexican restaurant in my 'hood called "The Great Wall II"...owned by a couple of Chinese guys...
|
|
| 175 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Wed, May 03, 2006, 23:09
|
Yeah, but it's the original!
[sorry, bad Original Ray's joke...]
|
|
| |
| 177 | Tree
ID: 284944 Thu, May 04, 2006, 06:22
|
Yeah, but it's the original!
[sorry, bad Original Ray's joke...]
what's funny is that i had a friend recently visiting from out of town, and i was explaining the whole Ray's thing too him...
|
|
| 178 | Boxman
ID: 142144 Thu, May 04, 2006, 06:47
|
Sarge: Nowhere did I say the wall was the only thing I'd use and I never said I would use it to keep all people out.
The wall would be used in conjuction with a streamlined government process so that latinos could enter this country easier. The law abiding immigrants wouldn't have a problem with the wall. They'd enter with their paperwork thru the gate. Now the drug traffickers and those who have other intentions on the other hand would have a bigger problem.
|
|
| 179 | Tree
ID: 284944 Thu, May 04, 2006, 07:25
|
The wall would be used in conjuction with a streamlined government process so that latinos could enter this country easier.
1. why just Latinos?
2. what about our other borders, from Canada to the north, the Pacific to the West, and the Atlantic to the East? shall we wall those as well?
|
|
| 180 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Thu, May 04, 2006, 10:49
|
"The Wall", would be the single largest, most obscene waste of tax dollars I can imagine. (even compared to star wars, since that program yielded I believe, some science we may put to use. "The Wall', would serve only to employ latino bricklayers and concrete workers across S Tx, AZ, NM and CA)
|
|
| 181 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Thu, May 04, 2006, 11:31
|
Sarge: A person coming here playing by the rules would have absolutely nothing to fear from a wall. Neither would someone fleeing for religious or other persecutory reasons.
Why would someone want to hop a wall between Mexico and the U.S. if all they need is paperwork and they can walk right in?
If you're asking me to feel sorry for those that want to skirt the rules, then you're talking to the wrong guy.
|
|
| 182 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Thu, May 04, 2006, 11:34
|
"Nothing to fear" is a phrase used far too often to excuse bad or unethical behavior. Mexicans don't have any reason to fear such a wall. But Americans should--what does it say about us as a country?
Streamlining the INS would make an expensive wall unneeded.
So would a better attitude about immigration, but my bet is on the INS getting streamlined before any real attitude changes.
|
|
| 183 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Thu, May 04, 2006, 11:36
|
1. why just Latinos?
2. what about our other borders, from Canada to the north, the Pacific to the West, and the Atlantic to the East? shall we wall those as well?
|
|
| 184 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Thu, May 04, 2006, 11:43
|
Perm Dude: "But Americans should--what does it say about us as a country?"
It says if you want to come here, do so legally and we'll welcome you, otherwise, stay out.
Tree: Those questions are just too absurd to answer and if you cannot see the difference between our southern border versus the north, east, and west borders then I don't know how to broach this topic with you.
|
|
| 185 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Thu, May 04, 2006, 11:49
|
I said nothing about "fear". I refer to the utter waste of huge tax dollars, in the raw cost of building a wall, which wouldnt accomplish anything anyway. Walls dont work. They didnt stop Genghis Khan, they didnt stop East Berliners and one wont stop illegals from leaving behind a life of utter poverty and desperation.
|
|
| 186 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Thu, May 04, 2006, 12:07
|
"They didnt stop Genghis Khan"
Will the Mexicans be invading this country militarily?
"they didnt stop East Berliners"
See my previous posting about allowing those seeking asylum from persecution. I wouldn't want to stop those fleeing genocide or religious oppression from entering this country. They could walk right in.
"wont stop illegals from leaving behind a life of utter poverty and desperation."
They can fill out paperwork and come in like everybody else. Otherwise tough titty says the kitty.
|
|
| 187 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Thu, May 04, 2006, 12:29
|
Boxman: If we really wanted to say that, we'd have a working legal immigration policy.
Putting up a wall while having no real process for people who want to come here legally just says: Stay out.
Ironically, by having no wall and no legal access (which, in essence, is a large legal wall), we are saying that we do not welcome those who want to come here legally. Your way to address that is to put up a large physical wall.
You're solving the wrong problem.
|
|
| 188 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Thu, May 04, 2006, 12:47
|
Tree: Those questions are just too absurd to answer and if you cannot see the difference between our southern border versus the north, east, and west borders then I don't know how to broach this topic with you.
why are they absurd. you brought up the points.
again - you live in - where, small town Illinois?
in my neck of the woods, illegal immigrants from Asia come in by the boatload.
so, you are saying that those illegals are ok?
then, it's no different than the policy of the U.S. which allows illegals from Cuba to stay here if they get here.
|
|
| 189 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Thu, May 04, 2006, 12:55
|
My point Box, is that the walls have not worked. Whether a "military invasion" or a simple migration, walls dont stop people from moving.
If the Berlin Wall, complete with machine guns and guards with shoot to kill orders didnt stop people from crossing, how would an unmanned wall prevent people from crossing?
Point is...it wont/wouldnt. ALL it would do, and I mean ALL, is to cost the US taxpayers a sh*tload of money and make us look pretty damn stupid to boot. (Of course, Nov 2004 did that too, so what the hell?)
|
|
| 190 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Thu, May 04, 2006, 12:57
|
I have seen estimates that around a 3rd of Mexican illegal immigrants come via other countries as well.
The wall idea, beyond being an absurd waste of money, would be worse than useless.
Until Boxman and other knee-jerk anti-immigrant nuts get it into their brain that getting here legally is near impossible for the vast majority of Mexicans, he's going to continue to tout idiocy like this.
If you fix that problem, a wall becomes unnecessary, even granting that you are stupid enough to spend the hundreds of billions that it would take to make it mildly effective.
|
|
| 191 | Madman
ID: 230542010 Thu, May 04, 2006, 13:17
|
The wall idea, beyond being an absurd waste of money, would be worse than useless.
Sigh. And I suppose you have a better idea for providing poor immigrant Hispanics an opportunity to practice Graffiti?
|
|
| 192 | Madman
ID: 230542010 Thu, May 04, 2006, 13:18
|
191 is a joke, btw. Been listening to too much Colbert.
|
|
| 193 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Thu, May 04, 2006, 13:29
|
Why are y'all wasting your time arguing with a brick wall over a brick wall? Boxman, who obviously has NO personal experience with Spanish speaking humans, has a million generalities floating around in his head and they sound a lot like the generalities spewed forth by right-wing AM pundits.
First, I believe in a more radical immigration policy which allows for open borders. If you want to come to the US to work, welcome. If you want to visit, by all means, come on over.
Immigration is not limited to Mexicans crossing the border. I have tons of friends who are here with Green Cards, with Student Visas, who naturalized and a few who won the Lottery. A lot of "illegal" immigrants are great people who are overstaying their visa. The bill that would consider them felons is abhorant on its face.
Our oppressive immigration policy has many, many implications for anyone who just wants to visit the US. My girlfriend has been a US citizen for 8 years. Ever since 9/11, it has become extremely expensive for certain foreign visitors to apply for a tourist visa. Her family from Poland has to call a 1-900 number to just request an application and the whole thing costs over $100. Her nephew was denied a tourist visa simply because he is young, the Feds are afraid that he may try to stay here. It is so insulting.
I'm tired of the old Cold War double standard regarding immigration that is still in place. What is the difference between a raft-load of Cubans and a raft-load of Haitians? Well, the Cubans are welcomed into our country while the Haitians are threatened by the Coast Guard. Sneak out of Russia in the 70's and you are welcome here. Escape Russia's economic nightmare today and tough luck.
Watch Ric Burns' New York series and you can't help but feel proud of our long history of welcoming all comers with a pat on the back. I want that policy back.
As for the ridiculous stereotypes regarding English and immigrants, Boxman, you are clueless. My grandparents were very involved with her church's Cambodian/Laotian refugee program in the late 70's - early 80's. Grandma welcomed dozens of families with nothing more than the shirts on their backs and helped them find housing, distributed donated clothing, and tutored the kids with their schoolwork. No one spoke a word of English, but the kids caught on FAST. They then served as rough translators for their parents and grandparents. The parents eventually spoke English well enough as a second language, the grandparents never learned much, and certainly didn't need to. Today the young kids who learned English in elementary school have kids of their own, some of whom are on the basketball team, some of whom are honor students, some of whom are in gangs or dress as if they are, but all of whom have no accents and are Americans. Most of their parents are citizens now, but those who are not pray that they don't end up a statistic like the poor souls in nightmare stories like these. And guess what, what happened with the SE Asians is the same pattern you will find for our Latino friends from the south. If Boxman had his way, none of these people who have been let into the country because they didn't speak English before immigrating. My girlfriend wouldn't have been let over, either, though I promise you she now speaks English better than Boxman.
I'm a feverant believer in ammesty and open borders for America. We are a country of immigrants and should remain so. That said, I don't believe that all nations should have the same policy. I accept that there are cultures worthy of protection, very old cultures that created languages and a common people. Americans have never been a common people and we didn't create English.
|
|
| 194 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Thu, May 04, 2006, 14:20
|
...wasting your time arguing with a brick wall over a brick wall?
And the Golden Hammer Award (for hitting the nail on the head), goes to......
Seattle Zen!!
|
|
| 195 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Thu, May 04, 2006, 15:03
|
What SZ doesn't tell you is how you pay the mortgage when our wage scale plummets to world average in his plan.
|
|
| 196 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Thu, May 04, 2006, 15:04
|
SZ's idea isn't even half-baked.
|
|
| 197 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Thu, May 04, 2006, 15:09
|
If the Berlin Wall, complete with machine guns and guards with shoot to kill orders didnt stop people from crossing, how would an unmanned wall prevent people from crossing?
A. Why leave them unmanned? Americans would foot the bill for INS agents galore.
B. Just how many East Germans do you believe managed to cross the Berlin Wall? Millions?
|
|
| 198 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Thu, May 04, 2006, 15:09
|
C. Sensors.
|
|
| 199 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Thu, May 04, 2006, 15:48
|
re 197 (b)...and your point is? (or are you in fact implying that we too should man the wall with shoot to kill orders?)
(c) only works if you have personnel to respond to a sensor alarm. Of course, it further assumes that the respondents wont grow complacent after the sensors respond to a coyote for the 73rd time in the past week.
|
|
| 200 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Thu, May 04, 2006, 15:55
|
A. Why leave them unmanned? Americans would foot the bill for INS agents galore.
you're kidding, right?
|
|
| 201 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Thu, May 04, 2006, 15:55
|
Boldwin: "SZ's idea isn't even half-baked."
So true, if the torch wielding PC "What About Their Feeeeeelings?" mob has gotten ahold of something, it doesn't matter if it's 2+2. They'll say it's 5-1/4.
Notice how quick they were to pat themselves on the back. Never mind checking their due diligence.
|
|
| 202 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Thu, May 04, 2006, 16:19
|
What's this "feelings" thing you have going on about the Left, Boxman? Really, you should at least give some thought that human rights (a reflection of respect for God's creations) have ethical merit.
|
|
| 203 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Thu, May 04, 2006, 17:34
|
A. Why leave them unmanned? Americans would foot the bill for INS agents galore. - B
you're kidding, right? - T
Of course not, they're willing to do it for free themselves, they so want it done.
|
|
| 204 | Boxman
ID: 142144 Thu, May 04, 2006, 18:58
|
Perm Dude: "Really, you should at least give some thought that human rights (a reflection of respect for God's creations) have ethical merit."
Let's not throw these people into the same sad bag as those in Africa or Kosovo. That's not even a close comparison.
|
|
| 205 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Thu, May 04, 2006, 19:00
|
It has to be genecide for you to give a fig about your fellow human being?
|
|
| 206 | Boxman
ID: 142144 Thu, May 04, 2006, 19:07
|
Reread my posts in this thread detailing how I think business takes advantage of latinos and then rethink your question.
|
|
| 208 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 45452416 Thu, May 04, 2006, 19:17
|
First and foremost I agree with nerves assessment that this new "crisis" is purely manufactured. I'm starting to believe more and more that very little happens by pure conincidence. That said...
Watch Ric Burns' New York series and you can't help but feel proud of our long history of welcoming all comers with a pat on the back. I want that policy back.
With all due respect, zen, I doubt very seriously you want our "good old days" immigration policies back. If we look the history of US immigration concerns and laws, it would be easy to conclude that we've has been preoccupied with three issues:
Maintaining our original racial and religious characteristics. From our founding days until WWII our emphasis (by virtue of the quotas set) was on admission of white, christian, western europeans; from the end of WWII to now our concern has been to maintain our "family values" of capitalism and (at least paying lip service to) democracy.
Without exception, we always stressed our needs for skilled labor and scientific knowledge - witness the mass amnesty given to Nazis post WWII.
By and large we kept our doors open to the persecuted.
But as far back as the late 1800's immigration laws were prejudicial and kept numbers down. The first true immigration statute ever passed had to due with banning Chinese from coming here.
For what it's worth, in the last 30 years, Congress has tripled legal immigration levels. What more do you want?
And while it's a position that runs counter to my generally liberal stance on things, I think it's time to either put a moratorium on immigration, or to stop giving incentives (read: access to the broad social safety net and things like the ability to register a car!!!) to illegals. A freeze is the only way to step back, assess and address the issue.
|
|
| 209 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Thu, May 04, 2006, 19:19
|
He's all over the place. He doesn't even know what his own positions are.
First its a case of modern day authorized slavery - and he'll mock the feeeelings of any one who disagrees. But when it is one of us who simply suggests a human rights issue we're accused of likening it to "Africa" or Kosovo.
|
|
| 210 | Myboyjack
ID: 5354818 Thu, May 04, 2006, 19:26
|
First its a case of modern day authorized slavery - and he'll mock the feeeelings of any one who disagrees. But when it is one of us who simply suggests a human rights issue we're accused of likening it to "Africa" or Kosovo.
You're assuming a position on slavery.......;)
|
|
| 211 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Fri, May 05, 2006, 13:15
|
Just so I don't get yelled at for being "disorganized" like how katietx was by Mith, I'll say this in this thread.
HAPPY CINCO DE MAYO!
|
|
| |
| |
| 214 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Mon, May 08, 2006, 01:25
|
Here's a close approximation of Boxman, though I doubt he's as hansom as the man here.
|
|
| |
| 216 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Mon, May 08, 2006, 15:44
|
MITH - i actually asked that question was back in post 179. Boxman chose to scoff at it.
|
|
| 217 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Mon, May 08, 2006, 15:51
|
From your article, Mith, "Of the 11.1 million who are in the country illegally, 13 percent are Asian and 78 percent Latino, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. While Mexican protesters at the May 1 marches proudly wore T-shirts and held signs that defiantly proclaimed they were in the United States illegally, most undocumented Asians choose to remain invisible, even within their own ethnic communities."
How about focusing on the 78% part of the problem first and then see how things look?
|
|
| 218 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Mon, May 08, 2006, 15:56
|
How about focusing on the 78% part of the problem first and then see how things look?
Selectively prosecuting only certain cases based specifically on ethnicity?
|
|
| 219 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Mon, May 08, 2006, 16:13
|
First, prosecuting has nothing to do with it. The idea of a wall is to keep out the illegals while they get their papers in order so they can come here legally.
No, selectively focusing on the wide open southern border where the 78% of illegals come from. 78% of any problem is a huge chunk and not a bad place to start.
(Man, there would be nothing that you and Tree would love more if I were a bigot. You dig and dig and dig and try to find something as if the only way somebody could be for a wall is because they are a bigot. I gotta be honest with you. I could care less what race, color or creed someone is.)
|
|
| 220 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Mon, May 08, 2006, 16:34
|
Relax, Boxman. I haven't called you a bigot or intended as much. I wrote that simply to point out what looks like a flaw in your proposed approach. Now:
First, prosecuting has nothing to do with it. The idea of a wall is to keep out the illegals while they get their papers in order so they can come here legally.
OK, I think you're a little seperated from the greater point. My question about where to put the wall in the hyperlink was sarcasm. Obviously, there can be no wall to keep Asians out. You responded:
How about focusing on the 78% part of the problem first and then see how things look?
Of course a wall won't help in dealing with any of the illegals who are already here. So my response in post 218 has nothing to do with a proposed wall and refers more to (if anything specific) the proposal to make all illegals felons.
So (back to your 219 now) it is about prosecuting. Unless I have misunderstood you all this time and you are actually opposed to that particular proposal or are otherwise in favor of keeping all illegals here in America.
|
|
| 221 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Mon, May 08, 2006, 17:09
|
Mith: What the wall will help do (coupled with a more streamlined governmental paperwork system)is greatly lower the inflow of illegals. This will give law enforcement somewhat of a breather.
I have said in earlier postings that I am against kicking down doors in neighborhoods just to randomly find them. The logistics (and odds) of finding all the millions of illegals is impossible. We must do what we can however when we can do it. It's also high time to go after the illegals.
I don't care if an illegal is Asian or Latino. Get them out. Now if the Asian is from China and a member of the Falun Gong (just as an example) and came here to escape persecution and didn't know our processes, I would be much more sympathetic.
|
|
| 222 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Mon, May 08, 2006, 17:26
|
and came here to escape persecution and didn't know our processes, I would be much more sympathetic.
so, you dedicate the manpower to each individual case?
what of the women in my neighborhood, known far and wide for the Arepas she sells on the street off her cart under the 7 train, who was a judge in her native Columbia, but fled because the Medallian (sp?) Drug Cartel tried to kill her?
does she count in your list of acceptable illegals?
|
|
| 223 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 24311321 Thu, May 18, 2006, 16:47
|
Here's a little history from a different time. ----------------------------------------------
Operation Wetback 1954
Operation Wetback was a repatriation project of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service to remove illegal Mexican immigrants ("wetbacks") from the Southwest.
...
The resulting Operation Wetback, a national reaction against illegal immigration, began in Texas in mid-July 1954. Headed by the commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization Service, Gen. Joseph May Swing, the United States Border Patrol aided by municipal, county, state, and federal authorities, as well as the military, began a quasimilitary operation of search and seizure of all illegal immigrants. Fanning out from the lower Rio Grande valley, Operation Wetback moved northward. Illegal aliens were repatriated initially through Presidio because the Mexican city across the border, Ojinaga, had rail connections to the interior of Mexico by which workers could be quickly moved on to Durango. A major concern of the operation was to discourage reentry by moving the workers far into the interior. Others were to be sent through El Paso. On July 15, the first day of the operation, 4,800 aliens were apprehended. Thereafter the daily totals dwindled to an average of about 1,100 a day. The forces used by the government were actually relatively small, perhaps no more than 700 men, but were exaggerated by border patrol officials who hoped to scare illegal workers into flight back to Mexico. Valley newspapers also exaggerated the size of the government forces for their own purposes: generally unfavorable editorials attacked the Border Patrol as an invading army seeking to deprive Valley farmers of their inexpensive labor force. While the numbers of deportees remained relatively high, the illegals were transported across the border on trucks and buses. As the pace of the operation slowed, deportation by sea began on the Emancipation, which ferried wetbacks from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, and on other ships. Ships were a preferred mode of transport because they carried the illegal workers farther away from the border than did buses, trucks, or trains. The boat lift continued until the drowning of seven deportees who jumped ship from the Mercurio provoked a mutiny and led to a public outcry against the practice in Mexico. Other aliens, particularly those apprehended in the Midwest states, were flown to Brownsville and sent into Mexico from there. The operation trailed off in the fall of 1954 as INS funding began to run out.
It is difficult to estimate the number of illegal aliens forced to leave by the operation. The INS claimed as many as 1,300,000, though the number officially apprehended did not come anywhere near this total. The INS estimate rested on the claim that most aliens, fearing apprehension by the government, had voluntarily repatriated themselves before and during the operation. The San Antonio district, which included all of Texas outside of El Paso and the Trans-Pecos,qv had officially apprehended slightly more than 80,000 aliens, and local INS officials claimed that an additional 500,000 to 700,000 had fled to Mexico before the campaign began. Many commentators have considered these figure to be exaggerated.
Various groups opposed any form of temporary labor in the United States. The American G.I. Forum, for instance, by and large had little or no sympathy for the man who crossed the border illegally. Apparently the Texas State Federation of Labor supported the G.I. Forum's position. Eventually the two organizations coproduced a study entitled What Price Wetbacks?, which concluded that illegal aliens in United States agriculture damaged the health of the American people, that illegals displaced American workers, that they harmed the retailers of McAllen, and that the open-border policy of the American government posed a threat to the security of the United States. Critics of Operation Wetback considered it xenophobic and heartless.
|
|
| 224 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Thu, May 18, 2006, 16:54
|
Those were the days. Give Ike credit for being willing to defend the border. The country has changed since then, and no longer has the will to do that.
Toral
|
|
| 225 | Myboyjack
ID: 5354818 Sun, May 21, 2006, 14:33
|
Which is why Mexico is Mexico and we're not.
If Arnold Schwarzenegger had migrated to Mexico instead of the United States, he couldn't be a governor. If Argentina native Sergio Villanueva, firefighter hero of the Sept. 11 attacks, had moved to Tecate instead of New York, he wouldn't have been allowed on the force.
Even as Mexico presses the United States to grant unrestricted citizenship to millions of undocumented Mexican migrants, its officials at times calling U.S. policies "xenophobic," Mexico places daunting limitations on anyone born outside its territory.
I guess ther'll be some people who read that and think it fodder for restricting immigration from Mexico. I thinks it's one of the reason we're ahead.
|
|
| 227 | StomoDotCom
ID: 534492316 Tue, May 23, 2006, 18:03
|
I was just watching something on the news and they were interviewing this woman out of Tri-State area (I think it was Ohio or Indiana I can't remember)or something (on Headline News go figure) complaining about immigration being such a huge problem, because her children and grand-children will not be able to find a job here someday.
I'm just curious but does every American envision their child working at the back of a diner for $3 bucks an hour, or biking across Roosevelt Avenue to get your Dim Sum and Chicken with Brocoli to you under 30 minutes? I mean are people legitimately worried about illegal immigrants coming here and taking jobs?
I have a friend that used to be illegal, and his life hasn't dramatically changed since he met his wife who was a US citizen. But he graduated from a university in Peru and planned on continuing his studies in Europe. He finished as an engineer and had to leave because of crime. And so he came here, and now works as a delivery boy. Granted that he's legal, it is still hard to find a job as an engineer, because apparently not all classes in engineering (or all engineering for that matter) is the same anywhere, so he'd basically have to go back to college. He's a citizen and yea maybe he has a social security card now, but at 34 he's still unable to do much.
I mean seriously, what are people complaining about in terms of jobs? Immigrants are taking all the restaurant jobs, so we should keep them illegal? That's a joke. Americans should show more esteem and get over the fact that their children may have a hard time being a dish-washer once they finish School.
|
|
| 228 | StomoDotCom
ID: 534492316 Tue, May 23, 2006, 18:04
|
But just to add, illegal immigration should be controlled someway and somehow...whether by border patrol or not. But those already here can't just be hung out to dry.
|
|
| |
| |
| 231 | Tree
ID: 5561918 Mon, Jun 19, 2006, 19:07
|
Pa. city poised for immigration crackdown
Last week the mayor of this former coal town introduced, and the City Council tentatively approved, a measure that would revoke the business licenses of companies that employ illegal immigrants; impose $1,000 fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants; and make English the official language of the city.
"Illegal immigrants are destroying the city," said Mayor Lou Barletta, a Republican. "I don't want them here, period."
Barletta said he had no choice but to act after two illegal immigrants from the Dominican Republic were charged last month with shooting and killing a 29-year-old man.
so, when white people kill someone, maybe we oughta ban them too?
|
|
| 232 | Motley Crue
ID: 2192327 Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 10:36
|
Operation Return to Sender
Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (or ICE) is a team of badass cops that drop in on wanted or fugitive immigrants and take them into custody to return to their countries of origin. The people the ICE team are hunting have mostly either been ordered out of the country already by immigration judges, or are wanted for some crime. Some are criminals in their home nations.
According to the article linked, the ICE team mostly catches collaterals; i.e. illegals other than those they were looking for. These people are still rounded up and sent home in order to stir the pot within the community of illegal immigrants. The secondary goal is to get the illegals to feel nervous. I'm sure it's working.
There were several examples cited of women and children who were encountered by the ICE team and deemed to be illegal aliens. But in the story, the ICE agents let them go with an instruction to report to an immigration office. That's unlikely. I found this incident to be a bit disturbing, however: One target, a 32-year-old Mauritanian man ordered out of the country in 2000, was enjoying the World Cup match between Italy and France one minute, and scrambling to explain his immigration status the next. "I don't have all these things!" he protested when Pilat asked for his passport. As his tearful wife, a naturalized citizen, cradled the couple's 2-year-old American-born son, the man was hustled out of the family's apartment and into a van. Marc Raimondi, a DHS spokesman, knows stories like this one can make the department seem hardhearted. "But if he had left the country when he was supposed to," he says, "he wouldn't even have that kid."
In particular, the fact that his wife is a citizen means that he would have been eligible for permanent residency, if he'd not already been ordered to leave the USA. That child has to live without his father now, because of this focus on getting certain illegal aliens. I think that if these guys (the ICE agents) are able to use their judgement during these raids (which they ostensibly are) then this Mauritanian man ought to have been allowed to stay. Hopefully he is able to challenge his deportation in court, at any rate. By deporting him now, it damages greatly his son's prospects for the future. Are we so intent on getting our man that we want to screw over American citizens (like the wife and child) in the meantime?
|
|
| 233 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896 Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 12:59
|
Are we so intent on getting our man that we want to screw over American citizens (like the wife and child) in the meantime?
WE? No. This administration? Abso-fvcking-lutely.
|
|
| 234 | Matt S
ID: 33644316 Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 14:34
|
Sorry sarge. The administration is a representation of the people that voted them in power.
The rest of the world can only hear "we don't support the administration" from nearly every American (I've never met a Bush supporter in person - EVER) for so long before the onus is put back on the general populous.
If the American public really believes it's government is corrupt, undemocratic and immoral then they should overthrow that government. That is why you gave yourselves the right to bear arms.
|
|
| 235 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896 Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 14:38
|
I feel quite safe and comfortable, in that nobody I know of believes for one second that I supported the current administrations election or re-election.
|
|
| 236 | Matt S
ID: 33644316 Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 15:16
|
Well it's good that it makes you comfortable, but that doesn't help the rest of the world.
Basically, what I'm saying is that if you really didn't like what your government was doing, you'd be doing more to stop it.
I'm just jabbin ya, but to a certain extent my point is valid. This passive resistance movement is growing ever weaker to acheive anything. I hold very little confidence that the democratic process, as it currently stands, has any hope of changing things. A large percentage of people have no way to let their displeasure be known (they could vote in the democrats, but I think we all know by now the difference between the two parties are so minimal it wouldn't have much impact on the issues at large.)
So really. Whaddya gonna do?
|
|
| 237 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896 Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 15:36
|
Well, unless I'm prepared to make like Simon Bolivar in Brazil. I'm gonna continue to do what I have in the past. Volunteer work for the opposing candidate/party. Write letters, challenge (dare??) prosecutors to file charges against members of this admionistration, etc etc etc
|
|
| 238 | Motley Crue
ID: 2192327 Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 16:40
|
In Brazil?
|
|
| 239 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896 Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 17:39
|
Always have done that. Associated him with Brazil for some reason. How about...B-o-l-i-v-i-a?
|
|
| 240 | Tree
ID: 19731619 Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 23:30
|
*THIS* is a fantastic story...
CHICAGO - Immigration activists around the country are taking up the cause of a single mother who invoked the medieval principle of sanctuary and took refuge in a Chicago church rather than submit to deportation to Mexico.
Elvira Arellano, 31, was holed up for a second day Wednesday at Aldalberto United Methodist Church with the support of the congregation's pastor. With her was her 7-year-old son, Saul, an American citizen...
|
|
| 241 | boikin
ID: 547341320 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 01:27
|
i think this was on a law and order episode and honestly if my job was to inforce the law i would go right in and take her out. This is not Highlander there is no i am on holy ground i am safe rule here. I find the this a mockery of the legal system and violation of church and state. If i was to harbor a fugitive i would be put in jail.
|
|
| 242 | Perm Dude
ID: 267261615 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 01:42
|
Catholic bishops have been on record of offering sanctuary as well.
Police cannot enter the church in order to arrest someone once the sanctuary has been invoked. You would see a huge riot if they started doing that.
|
|
| 243 | Boxman
ID: 34751126 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 06:31
|
the cause of a single mother who invoked the medieval principle of sanctuary
I didn't think this country was in existence during the medieval years.
Catholic bishops have been on record of offering sanctuary as well.
Especially to 7 year old boys. ;)
Police cannot enter the church in order to arrest someone once the sanctuary has been invoked. You would see a huge riot if they started doing that.
Storm the church right now. Everyone on these boards knows that I am a Christian and believe in Jesus and God, but if they don't enter the church and arrest this illegal alien and handle her in accordance with the law then we might as well just pack up and start a new country.
The funny thing for me personally is that it has created strange bedfellows, liberals and the Catholic church.
What happens on the day that a terrorist suspect requires "sanctuary" in a mosque in Chicago? Will the ACLU, Mayor Daley, Rep. Gutierrez and the rest of the liberals stand outside of there?
|
|
| 244 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 06:33
|
Jesus Christ, according to the bible, was the worlds ultimate liberal. You may want to reconsider the snide condescension you show whenever you use the word.
|
|
| 245 | Tree
ID: 13744175 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 06:49
|
xenophobia is the best thing. EVER!
i realize i'm just guessing, but based on other arguments, i'm presuming that boikin and boxman are pro-family.
so, it's rather ironic they are in favor of actions - potentially violent and disturbing actions - that could seperate a family.
when i hear phrase like "storm the church right now", i can only shake my head and laugh a little, especially when it's followed by a phrase like "I am a Christian and believe in Jesus and God..."
i don't pretend to know the teachings of Jesus, but i am friends with a LOT of Christians (including my best friend, who converted from Judaism to Christianity), and i would wager a lot of money that every single one of them would say that Jesus would be morally opposed to invading a church, and yanking a mother from her child, and sending her away.
|
|
| 246 | Boxman
ID: 34751126 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 07:07
|
We are supposed to have a seperation of church and state, right?
|
|
| 247 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 07:57
|
tree - FTR, are you in favor of people being able to invoke the medieval "sanctuary" claim? Do you believe that clergy should be able to prevent the State from making a lawful arrest, at the discretion of the clergy, regardless of the charge?
If not, what is your issue with what boiken and Boxman are saying here?
Also, explain why deporting this mother would "separate" her from her child (who is a Mexican citizen in addition to beign an American)
The funny thing for me personally is that it has created strange bedfellows, liberals and the Catholic church.
You really are ignorant of the teachings of the Church. The Catholic church is far Left of most of Americans on virtually every issue on the political map. Pro-Life and procreation issues are the exeption, not the rule.
|
|
| 248 | Motley Crue Dude
ID: 439372011 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 09:09
|
i realize i'm just guessing, but based on other arguments, i'm presuming that boikin and boxman are pro-family. -The Treester
Tree, you've been hanging out here too much. You've started lobbing generalizations all over the place in an apparent attempt to categorize everyone whom you disagree with into the same group. Maybe it would be more constructive to address the points, rather than what ilk of society the posters belong in?
|
|
| 249 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 10:11
|
MBJ - i'm not sure yet where i stand on the "sanctuary" claim. i do know where i stand on immigration, however.
in this case, specifically, we are now actually faced with two terribly frightening options, if law enforcement persues this case.
1. we split up a mother and child, because one is an American citizen, and the other is not. 2. we deport an American citizen.
MC - i was VERY specific with saying "i'm just guessing..."
i didn't state it factually - if you are, indeed, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc etc, i apologize to you personally.
|
|
| 250 | katietx
ID: 157591212 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 10:53
|
This is a very slippery slope, both in allowing her to stay AND the continuation of allowing all children born in the US to be granted US citizenship.
The latter is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Additionally, if they do indeed arrest this woman, the pastor should also be arrested for complicity in harboring a fugitive. In the strict sense of the law, he is guilty of a federal offense since a warrant has been issued for her. (MBJ can chime in here if I'm wrong)
What I find even more disturbing is that 2 US representative from IL (dems) actually worked on her behalf to help her stay in the country. Why? Now that the "grace period" is up, they should step in and communicate with her that she must turn herself over to the authorities. IMO they would gain some serious credibility by defusing the situation.
|
|
| 251 | Perm Dude
ID: 17746178 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 11:01
|
Well, the second is a Constitutional matter. Anyone born here is a US citizen.
What this all boils down to is a real problem with our immigration laws. The sad fact is, if someone wants to do the right thing and come here legally, it takes a seriously long time if you are from a country like Mexico. When we discourage legal immigration through ridiculously long backlogs and other restrictions, we encourage illegal immigration.
People will do all sorts of things to try to do right by their own family. And while many illegal immigrants are law-abiding when they get here, work hard to provide for their family and so on, it isn't really that difficult of a choice. Imagine someone told you that you can make 3-4 times as much money in Canada, but that you had to wait 15 years. Or, you can just sneak across the border. When your family is involved it isn't that hard of a choice.
|
|
| 252 | Motley Crue Dude
ID: 439372011 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 11:16
|
PD, I'll add that it isn't just hard for people from Mexico or third world countries to immigrate to America. It is actually difficult, very difficult, for anyone to immigrate here, unless you are marrying a US citizen, investing a million or more dollars here, or can find an employer to sponsor you. And let's face it, it's not very simple to get in position to do any of those things either.
I agree, though, that it might take the average Mexican a much longer time to satisfy the appropriate conditions than it would a person from say the United Kingdom.
|
|
| 253 | katietx
ID: 157591212 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 11:40
|
And why shouldn't it be difficult to immigrate?
While I agree its likely that most of those here illegally work hard for their families, it puts a tremendous burden on public facilities such as hospitals and schools-not to mention the bilking of the welfare system.
Additionally, lets not forget that this woman was arrested and deported once before while working at O'Hare cleaning airplanes - using a stolen SS number.
|
|
| 254 | Perm Dude
ID: 17746178 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 11:52
|
Well, there certainly is a strain public services (you didn't mention road wear, environmental damage, and recreational use). But overall immigration is a positive thing: lower wages for immigrants translates into lower food and clothing costs (which make up a larger percentage of the budget for the poor, for instance).
And working adult immigrants (which are nearly all of them) pay taxes toward those services.
Additionally, access to cheap labor is a key to economic survival. There is evidence that England's liberal immigration policies, for instance, has constributed to their current "mini-boom" economy while the rest of Europe (with more restrictive immigration laws) see their economies flatten out.
There is also a pragmatic point: Would you prefer an underground shadow illegal immigration problem, or an upfront legal one? The people are already here.
|
|
| 255 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 11:58
|
And why shouldn't it be difficult to immigrate?
Because they are human beings trying to not to starve by working hard and honestly. Why should we make that diffucult? Is it to make sure that the people lucky enough to be born here, but too sorry and lazy to work have full access to the welfare trough? Is that the point in trying to keep hard working people from opportunity?
|
|
| 256 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 12:05
|
i hate white people. a lot.
|
|
| 257 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 12:06
|
racist pig.
|
|
| 258 | katietx
ID: 157591212 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 12:14
|
MBJ & Perm...Lets just open the borders. Why have any immigration laws? If they are such hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding folks then any immigration laws should be struck from the books. After all, its not a fact that the fastest growing gangs in the US are Latino - usher in ukula - its a conspiracy fostered by the Bush administration.
Let 'em all in. Pretty soon English will be the 2nd language. Better order those Spanish language CD's before the price goes up.
|
|
| 259 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 12:18
|
Lets just open the borders.
OK.
|
|
| 260 | biliruben
ID: 535193010 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 12:20
|
Glad you've finally seen the light, Katie!
|
|
| 261 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 12:29
|
Other immgrant groups that have put a "strain" on our public resources and formed "fast[] growing gangs":
Scotts Irish Germans Italians More Irish Eastern European Jews Chinese Japanese Slavs
Just think if "we'd" have drawn the line on immigration before these groups got in, how much better off we'd have been!
NOTE: "We", as used above, excludes me, since my predecesors didn't come from England and were not wanted here when they came
|
|
| 262 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 12:35
|
Unfortunately my days of recreational use of hot, young immigrants are over. But Katie has a point, the road wear of low-riders scrapping asphault, not to mention the air pollution caused by those old Impalas driven by the FASTEST growning gangs in America, makes you long for the days of the unwashed Irish washing ashore.
|
|
| 263 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 12:39
|
My family migrated to this country in the very early 1900's, shortly before WWI. Originating in northern Germany from the area surrounding the Kiev Canal. No way, can I condone making immigration anymore difficult than it already is. If it were, my predecessors may have been killed off long ago, leaving me and my offspring as non-existant as a compassionate republican.
|
|
| 264 | Perm Dude
ID: 17746178 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 12:57
|
katie: First of all, there is a huge difference between having valid and working immigration laws and having none at all. I'm for the first because what we have is broken. We should not let in, for example, felons, sex offenders, or a whole list of others who will not contribute anything.
Latino gangs are a problem. In fact, here in the Poconos we are grappling with the beginnings of gangs and they are almost all Latino. But the vast majority of the members of those gangs are US citizens. Are there any other criminal activities that legal minority citizens engage in that you want to use as fodder in a discussion about illegal immigration?
|
|
| 265 | katietx
ID: 157591212 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:00
|
*sigh*
I'm not saying it should be more difficult, just that the difficulty in immigrating to this country is ok as is.
And, that the laws currently on the books should be upheld. Since the immigration laws are federal in nature, perhaps the solution to enforcing in a more cohesive way would be to have the states pass laws that parallel the federal ones. This might possibly lead to actual enforcement. What a concept.
|
|
| 266 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:05
|
just that the difficulty in immigrating to this country is ok as is.
How can you back that up, aside from a blanket accusation that immigrants are gang members?
Obviously, there is a huge disparity betwen the market for immigrant employment and the number of immigrants who are legally able to get here.
|
|
| 267 | J-Bar
ID: 14461512 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:07
|
IMO the difficulty with immigrating legally is directly related to the illegal immigration problem. If there were not so many 'line cutters' to deal with then those that were doing things correctly could be served in a more efficient manner. If (and these numbers are for clarity only) 2 mil people are allowed to immigrate here each year and 3 mil are estimated to come in illegally then that just backed up the sytem by a year and a half. Simple but I hope it makes my point.
|
|
| 268 | Perm Dude
ID: 17746178 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:10
|
We're dealing with something very similar here, in which a local councilman wants to pass ordinances dealing with illegal immigrants (making it a crime, essentially, to do business with illegals).
But the federal government has a pre-emtive right in this area. Putting state and local ordinances in place, some poorly written and often contradictory, would make it more difficult to fix the underlying problems, even if it were legal for the state to do so.
Indeed, that type of solution is like fixing a bad road by trying to fill in some potholes near your house. It doesn't really fix the problem--sometimes you need to rip the whole road up and re-do it.
There are plenty of things we can do that will help the situation out, and at this point in time proper and timely administration of the laws are more important than "upholding" the laws.
And Bush's plan, which leaves a large number of people in the country as a permanent low-income work force without hope of citizenship, is probably the worst of all the plans out there.
|
|
| 269 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:11
|
I think I covered this ground a while ago here, but they've got to front load the process and get them in here legally to begin with. Waiting 15 years or whatever it is for citizenship is crap. But they should not be allowed to be here unless they are citizens, on vacation, going to a university, or fleeing persecution.
|
|
| 270 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:15
|
The gal in the church IS fleeing persecution.
|
|
| 271 | Perm Dude
ID: 17746178 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:17
|
J-Bar: I think the "line cutting" question is a very legitimate one. Many legal immigration advocates are against the Bush plan for that very reason. When you want to encourage legal immigration is doesn't make sense to reward people by letting them by, essentially, with time served.
|
|
| 272 | katietx
ID: 157591212 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:30
|
The gal in the church IS fleeing persecution.
What kind of "persecution" is she fleeing? Perhaps you meant "prosecution?"
|
|
| 273 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:37
|
Her child is an American citizen. Like it or not, agree with it or not, its a fact of law. To deport her, is to make the child an orphan. To deport both, is to deny a US citizen their rights of citizenship. If one would do the first, then they are persecuting the mother for "losing the gentetic lottery". If one would do the second, then they themselves should be deported as that child has EVERY entitlement to the protections of our Constitution.
How is it that the "right", sees fit to "protect the rights of the unborn", but sees fit here to try and deport a born, US citizen?
|
|
| 274 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:40
|
Sarge: Do you feel this woman should be allowed to declare sanctuary inside a church?
The alternative is deporting the mother and leaving the child behind. I wouldn't want to do that. The mother is here illegally and has got to go. If that means taking her child with her, so be it.
|
|
| 275 | Perm Dude
ID: 17746178 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:43
|
Deporting a US citizen?
You didn't ask me the question, but the ability of churches to offer sanctuary should never be infringed.
|
|
| 276 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:45
|
No Box...it means we grant the mother asylum. We do NOT expel US citizens for the sins of their parents. Or should we next persecute parents for the sins of their children? Start maybe with Ted Bundys folks? Dahmers?
The child is a citizen. That SHOULD render that child immune from deportation. The woman is his mother. If she weds a US citizen, shes a citizen. But parenting a US citizen doesnt grant some degree of clemency?
I cannot, and I will not, agree with denying the rights of ouor laws to an American citizen. Nor can I agree with making an orphan out of a child, for purely political points. Its BS, you know it, you just wont admit it since to do so is to disagree with your politics.
|
|
| 277 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:47
|
just deport them both, the giving citizenship being born in country is a flawed law and was made in order to grant citizenship to slaves after the civil war so that they would not have to go through any formal process not as a handout. As examble of how it should work and at the same time the silliness of it. I have a friend who's sister just happened to be born in Australian and was therefore a citizen of austrailia till she was 18 at which piont she had to choose between the US and Australia citizenship.
|
|
| 278 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:50
|
flawed or not, it IS the law. What other laws should we ignore? On whose decisions? Once laws become "optional", they are no longer laws. Once we lose the rule of law, we lose the ability to maintain an orderly society. Or are these simple human facts too complex for the right to comprehend?
|
|
| 279 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:52
|
Sarge, you didn't answer my question.
Anyway, maybe you'll listen to Barack Obama.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) echoed U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) in expressing sympathy for Arellano but agreed with him that it was not appropriate to intervene.
"I don't feel comfortable carving out an exception for one person when there are hundreds of thousands of people just in the Chicago region alone who would want a similar exemption. And I think that if we're going to deal with these issues, we've got to deal with them in a comprehensive way that affects all people, not one by one," Obama told reporters in Springfield.
Perm Dude: You didn't ask me the question, but the ability of churches to offer sanctuary should never be infringed.
How do you accomplish the seperation of church and state while at the same time giving the church that kind of power?
|
|
| 280 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:52
|
What the heck are you talking about, boikin.
People who are born here shouldn't be deemed citizens? Let's start with you then.
|
|
| 281 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:54
|
re 274...Yes.
One word, only 3 letters. Shouldnt be too difficult for oyu to comprehend,d since you have apparently been unable to garner that response form my posts.
|
|
| 282 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:56
|
So then Sarge, do you believe that any person guilty of breaking a law should be allowed to declare sanctuary?
|
|
| 283 | Perm Dude
ID: 17746178 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:56
|
being born in country is a flawed law and was made in order to grant citizenship to slaves after the civil war
Well, it is a Constitutional matter. Flawed or not, it is in the Constitution and has been upheld several times.
|
|
| 284 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 13:59
|
I am saything the law should be reworded. I am not saying that it should not be followed. So bili citizenship should be based on where you are born not where you are from? That does not make anysense. And for the record I would start with myself unlike most people i try and beleive in what i say not just say it.
|
|
| 285 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:09
|
How could one born in the US, not be from the US?
No Box, and I know where you're going. Dont bother bringing up a strawman like well then murderers, rapists etc etc etc. Inapplicable. The extenuating circumstance here, is that the child is an American citizen. I dont give a good gdmn whether you agree with his being a citizen or not. HE IS ONE. Period.
|
|
| 286 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:12
|
The extenuating circumstance here, is that the child is an American citizen.
Well a lot of criminals have children who are American citizens, should they also have sanctuary to avoid the law?
|
|
| 287 | Perm Dude
ID: 17746178 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:15
|
You're mixing up two things. Sanctuary is intended not to avoid justice, but to avoid injustice.
American citizens don't face deportation, with or without children.
|
|
| 288 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:17
|
So the only citizens are native Americans, boikin?
And not even them, really. They came from Asia 10,000 years ago.
You are making absoulutely no sense. How do can you say someone isn't from where they were born?
|
|
| 289 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:18
|
didnt bother eading the second part of post 285 did you? too many letters for you?
|
|
| 290 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:25
|
How could one born in the US, not be from the US?
lets see my friends sister who was born in australia was from austrailia.
So the only citizens are native Americans, boikin?
no just those born to citizens.
|
|
| 291 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:29
|
That isnt the law boikin. That may be the way you think it should be, but that isnt the way it is. We in the US, do not deport our own citizens.
|
|
| 292 | Perm Dude
ID: 17746178 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:30
|
Well, you can call it all you want, but that's not what the Constitution says. And that's what we go by.
|
|
| 293 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:32
|
sarge what are you saying? i was clearifing my piont not stateting the law.
|
|
| 294 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:34
|
So a couple from Canada immigrates to the US, works here legally for 10 years, have some children. They live the rest of their days here.
Those children should be citizens of Canada even though they've never even been there?
That's the most bone-headed idea I've ever heard. I think I'll still to the founding father's idea. Thanks anyway.
|
|
| 295 | Motley Crue Dude
ID: 439372011 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:38
|
IMO the difficulty with immigrating legally is directly related to the illegal immigration problem. If there were not so many 'line cutters' to deal with then those that were doing things correctly could be served in a more efficient manner. If (and these numbers are for clarity only) 2 mil people are allowed to immigrate here each year and 3 mil are estimated to come in illegally then that just backed up the sytem by a year and a half. [267]
This is not right. The USCIS (the Immigration department) doesn't deal at all with illegal immigrants, for the most part, unless and until the illegals show up and ask for something. And as a rule they never do that! So the USCIS is dealing almost exclusively with people who file requests and petitions legally, or else that small percentage of illegals that are ensnared by Federal marshalls or via other bad luck. Truly, most illegal immigrants have nothing to do with the "administrative burden" facing the Immigration agencies in America.
Perm Dude's point in [271] makes sense: if amnesty is granted, the floodgates would open and formerly illegal immigrants would create a massive burden on the Federal Government.
But they should not be allowed to be here unless they are citizens, on vacation, going to a university, or fleeing persecution. [269]
Dude, probably 90% of legal immigrants don't meet those criteria. Learn the term "permanent residency" and add it to you lexicon.
|
|
| 296 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:39
|
well i am not sure how may founding fathers where alive when the 14th admentment was passed bili. Not to mention i sure the founding fathers would side with extreme right on the citizenship arguments since they seemed to think that slaves where 3/5 of a person.
|
|
| 297 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:39
|
reread the first sentence in post 284. (Shouldnt be necessary, since its your post.) The reread your post 290. You certainly are saying thats the way you think the law should be. I dont care how you think it should be, I care h-o-w i-t i-s. The boy is an American citizen and thus entitled to the full protections of our nations laws. End of discussion.
|
|
| 298 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:43
|
that is fine deport the mom then and the send the boy where he wants to go. I never said he was not a citizen though i probably should not have used the word 'deport' with him and use the term 'send'.
|
|
| 299 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:44
|
so, you'd prefer in your "pro family values" political-right-lean, to make an orphan out of a child whose parent is both alive and unproven to be unfit?
Rather strange way to promote "family" values.
|
|
| 300 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:48
|
find one post where i have ever claimed to support "family" values.
|
|
| 301 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 14:56
|
boikin, thats the mainstay battle cry of the right. Its a part of the very definition that ilk has attempted to claim as its exclusive copy-righted viewpoint.
|
|
| 302 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 15:01
|
sarge i still confused as what this has to do with my argument.
|
|
| 303 | Motley Crue Dude
ID: 439372011 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 15:02
|
Wow, you are using Tree-like generalizations now, sarge.
Maybe address the points, rather than your perceived notion of what an individual believes?
|
|
| 304 | Perm Dude
ID: 17746178 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 15:09
|
By way of background, the 14th was intended to overturn the Dred Scott decision in which Taney wrote that citizenship was enjoyed by two classes of people:
1. white persons born in the United States as descendents of “persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States and [who] became also citizens of this new political body"
2. Naturalized citizens.
This had several big holes in it, of course. Those who were excluded from this definition:
1. Children of nationalized citizens 2. Non-whites, even if descended from free men at the adoption of the Constitution
|
|
| 305 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 15:12
|
I did address point-by-point MC, the contentiopn that the boy should be deported. A point on which boikin finally yielded. Yet he insists on the deportation of the parent of the minor child. I asked the pointed question, how that reconciles with the rights claims of being pro-family. Its not an over generalization. It goes to the very heart of the political claims of the right within our political spectrum.
|
|
| 306 | Pancho Villa
ID: 366352418 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 15:42
|
The child shouldn't be deported . The mother should.
That's the law. If the mother wants to remain united with the child, she can take the child with her back to Mexico.
Otherwise, you're creating a nightmare of a precedent.
|
|
| 307 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 15:43
|
The law also provides for clemency. Any reason to not grant it?
|
|
| 308 | Pancho Villa
ID: 366352418 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 15:55
|
The law also provides for clemency. Any reason to not grant it?
I don't know all the specifics, but anchor babies are a problem to begin with. Setting a precedent that promotes a problem would be a reason.
|
|
| 309 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 16:03
|
So basically you're saying to tell this mother no, cause otherwise someone else will ask? Damn, sorta like giving women the vote huh? Suddenly the blacks wanted to vote too. What else would you deny, out of fear that someone else will want it?
|
|
| 310 | Motley Crue Dude
ID: 439372011 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 16:12
|
I think there ought to be a provision in the law to allow parents of American citizen minors to have emergency legal residency. The problem is that would last until the kid is 18, or basically for another decade. So she becomes a defacto immigrant.
The number of cases to which this is actually applicable is small in practice, simply because few illegals are ever brought to the attention of the USCIS and ordered deported. There are many many more people that live long lives here and never have any interaction with Immigration.
This issue is not nearly as significant in the grand scheme of things as it is being portrayed at this time, by both the politicians and media. It appeals to the American sense of patriotism and what it means to be an American, and that is the only reason it is constantly being brought up. All of these situations occur at such a low rate that if people realized how much time we waste on it proportionally relative to say, the deficit or the wars in the Middle East, they'd laugh at themselves.
|
|
| 311 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 16:16
|
That I'd agree with MC. This really isnt so severe a "problem" as to require all the attention/money that it seems to be drawing.
|
|
| 312 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 16:16
|
sarge yes that is how should be the law is the law. the special treatment of the law is what cuases problems not solutions and to compare this to giving people the right to vote is illogical they where asking for a change in the law not excpetion to the law.
|
|
| 313 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 16:17
|
To ask for clemency, is not to ask for an exception to the law. It is to ask for the excercise of a provision of the law.
|
|
| 314 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 16:27
|
I dont know why i bother, they will let her stay. Somebody else will probably do it and before you know it nothing happens. The american public is way to lazy to care.
|
|
| 315 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 16:32
|
I care deeply - about carrying on the traditions of our forefathers who ignored the racists and xenophobes to welcome hardworking immigrants to the long-term betterment of our country.
|
|
| 316 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 16:41
|
I am not sure who those forefathers where being half of them owned slaves. You might want to check there records on welcoming all who wanted to come.
|
|
| 317 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 16:46
|
I'm not saying they were perfect, boikin, but the ones who supported more open borders were correct, no matter their other faults.
I don't understand your argument, or whether you are even making one.
Point blank question for you, boikin: Do you feel that immigration throughout our history was good for our country or bad for our country on the whole? Yay or nay?
|
|
| 318 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 16:55
|
that is fair question yes immigration has been a good thing but that does not change the fact i support the execusion of the law they are not mutally exclusive.
the piont i was trying to make with your founding fathers was that they are not a good example. You find me a founding father who thought emmergrants from, eastern europe, asian, africa.... where a good idea. they supported immigration that suited them.
|
|
| 319 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 17:10
|
Okay. I'm not really in the mood for historical nitpicking and the discussion of the definition of forefather, so I'll leave that to someone else. We don't seem to disagree on my fundemental point, and if a law is bad, it should be changed or at worst ignored.
|
|
| 320 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 17:17
|
I agree if a law is bad it should be changed, but not ignored because we live in a common law society presidence is 9/10ths of the law and starting a presidence of ignoring laws is not a good thing.
|
|
| 321 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 18:49
|
If you think we enforce more than a small fraction of our laws, you aren't paying attention.
Let's start with the billions in taxes evaded by the rich using off-shore accounts, and work down from there, shall we?
|
|
| 322 | Motley Crue
ID: 2192327 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 22:34
|
Last week I rolled through a stop sign.
Now I feel guilty. Way to go, bili.
|
|
| 323 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 22:57
|
You can pay my ticket if it'll help you to feel less guilty. $167 for running a stop sign, I didnt run. Saw the cop sitting there, stopped, signaled, checked traffic then went. STILL got pulled over. Founbd out later, he's done this to others. But what do you do? He's the Lt on the PD. Gonna stand in front a small town TX Magistrate and say, "Your Honor, your Chief of Police is a lair."
Wonder how far that would get you?
|
|
| 324 | boikin
ID: 547341320 Fri, Aug 18, 2006, 01:35
|
Sarge that happened to me once i took it to court and guess what i won. it is allways nice when you have a camera with you to provide evidence.
Let's start with the billions in taxes evaded by the rich using off-shore accounts, and work down from there, shall we?
finding loop holes in the law is not the same as breaking them that is called being smart and if they are breaking the law they should be prosecuted.
though i have to say all this talk reminds me of something i once heard from a russia gangster about the difference between Russia and the US in Russia there are lots of laws so you people do feel obligated to obey them [they know they can not all be enforced], while in america there are few laws and they are obeyed [inforced].
|
|
| 325 | katietx
ID: 157591212 Fri, Aug 18, 2006, 02:30
|
Sarge that happened to me once i took it to court and guess what i won. it is allways nice when you have a camera with you to provide evidence.
huh? I guess sarge could have stopped, gotten out of the car, gone to the front, taken a picture of the empty car (hoping the camera had a time/date stamp). Gotten back in the car and when the cop pulled him over said, "Hey, I just got a picture of my car sitting empty at the stop sign."
No, a camera would not have worked.
|
|
| 326 | bibA Sustainer
ID: 261028117 Fri, Aug 18, 2006, 02:38
|
katie......use your head woman. Sarge could have, and should have, set up his camera in advance to where it was able to view the intersection as he made his complete stop, and was then pulled over and ticketed for failing to do so. Was probably one of those days where he was not considering all eventualities, like biokin does.
|
|
| 327 | Motley Crue Dude
ID: 439372011 Fri, Aug 18, 2006, 09:15
|
Heh. boikin made a whoopsie in that post.
|
|
| 328 | biliruben
ID: 535193010 Fri, Aug 18, 2006, 09:48
|
The facts were a larger woopsie than the lack of a negative.
|
|
| 329 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Fri, Aug 18, 2006, 14:18
|
Bili which parts where facts most of that was opionion though the story about traffic ticket was fact. Anyways back to the haveing a camera in the car. I have another story relating to that. I had a friend who's car was hit by a city bus and she happened to have her camera with her, So she took pictures of the accident scene and the damages. Later on the pictures saved her in court when the city tried to claim she had caused the accident. So joke all you want but some form of evidence is better than none.
|
|
| 330 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Fri, Aug 18, 2006, 14:19
|
what form of evidance would have proven that I stoipped at that particular stop sign, on that particular date, at that particular time, contrary to the allegation levelled by the local Chief of Police? (1 man small town police force btw)
|
|
| 331 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Fri, Aug 18, 2006, 14:19
|
Bili which parts where facts most of that was opionion though the story about traffic ticket was fact. Anyways back to the haveing a camera in the car. I have another story relating to that. I had a friend who's car was hit by a city bus and she happened to have her camera with her, So she took pictures of the accident scene and the damages. Later on the pictures saved her in court when the city tried to claim she had caused the accident. So joke all you want but some form of evidence is better than none.
|
|
| 332 | Perm Dude
ID: 477401810 Fri, Aug 18, 2006, 14:21
|
That is certainly true. I do see sarge's point, which is not whether he was right but whether forcing the issue in a small town is worth the consequences. Sometimes being right isn't enough to protect you from people in power who abuse it.
|
|
| 333 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Fri, Aug 18, 2006, 14:26
|
The "fact" where you say America has few laws.
I actually agree with what I think your point was (as an aside, I've never seen a "researcher", except maybe myself, struggle so with the English language, so I'm not positive), if that point was that more laws don't necessarily make a society more law-abiding, and they perhaps make it less-so.
|
|
| 334 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Fri, Aug 18, 2006, 15:34
|
though i have to say all this talk reminds me of something i once heard from a russia gangster
bili please read
|
|
| 335 | Motley Crue Dude
ID: 439372011 Fri, Aug 18, 2006, 15:41
|
Gosh I hate citing the same column twice in one day, but it's so darn appropriate.
It's apparent that boikin has daily smackdowns with the English language and the English language usually wins.
|
|
| 336 | boikin
ID: 207401013 Fri, Aug 18, 2006, 15:50
|
??????????????????
|
|
| 337 | katietx
ID: 157591212 Fri, Aug 18, 2006, 16:13
|
ROFLMBO at #335
Some punctuation would nice. "-)
|
|
| 338 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 16:31
|
Hooray for lame duck GW and his lame duck cronies for getting this rediculous border fence thing passed.
even some of his own constituents don't want the damned thing...
the article wraps up with two pretty ringing quotes.
A fence "sends the message that you're not wanted or you're not welcome. I know I would be insulted," said Steve Ahlenius, president of the McAllen Chamber of Commerce. And he questioned whether a fence would even work: "Human instinct is that if you have a 10-foot fence, you're going to find an 11-foot ladder."
and my personal favorite, which pretty muchs sums up the America we've become under GW Bush and his Republican congress.
"Here we are in the midst of an economic mega-boom and we're building fences," said Laredo Mayor Raul Salinas. "What ridiculous symbolism. Here we are tearing walls down around the world and we're putting up walls."
|
|
| 339 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 16:33
|
who wants to bet a puppet co hidden deep under some umbrella held by Haliburton, gets the fence building contract?
|
|
| |
| 341 | Tree
ID: 26238116 Sun, Mar 11, 2007, 18:36
|
Immigration raids split families
not that it's really news, but it's more proof that the "pro-family" conservatives are anything but.
This past week in Massachusetts, most of the 361 workers picked up in a raid at a New Bedford leather-goods factory that made vests and backpacks for the U.S. military were women with children, setting off what Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick called a "humanitarian crisis."
Community activists scrambled to locate the children, offer infant-care tips to fathers unfamiliar with warming formula and changing diapers, and gather donations of baby supplies. One baby who was breast-feeding had to be hospitalized for dehydration because her mother remained in detention, authorities said.
|
|
| 342 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418 Wed, May 02, 2007, 19:42
|

Immigration protests smaller, just as passionate
"Today we are here to say, immigrant rights are human rights," said Michael Ramos, director of social justice ministries for the Church Council of Greater Seattle. He is working with more than 15 local congregations to revive the sanctuary movement to house or otherwise support people in danger of being deported.
|
|
| |
| |
| 345 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Oct 09, 2007, 15:16
|
Standard rightwing-whacko-lunacy...."Either you're with us or you're an enemy of the state..." bs. A LOT, of good reason to oppose the fence, not the least of which is that it wont work anyway and will cost taxpayers billions before its constructed.
|
|
| 346 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Tue, Oct 09, 2007, 15:19
|
is this real? or was he just saying this sarcastically?
|
|
| 347 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Oct 09, 2007, 15:27
|
would that query even be posed if it had been a left-winger making a similar comment? Tancredo was serious.
|
|
| 348 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Tue, Oct 09, 2007, 15:47
|
Acctually i posted that because the article asked that and i was looking for some follow up info, given the whole article was only 3 paragraphs long.-
and sarge why are you so quick to stereo type people. i hope i never become bitter like you.
|
|
| 349 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Oct 09, 2007, 16:59
|
check out Tancredo for yourself, then decide for yourself. It isnt bitterness on my part boikin...its having faced the facts.
Tancredo for President website
FOXNews interview with Tancredo
Cost for 700 miles of double fence could exceed $49 BILLION
Douglas Massey, a professor of sociology at Princeton University who studies the border and illegal immigration, said the government should spend its money differently.
"It's a waste of money," he said. "If you want to increase security, better to use some of that money for ports and transportation systems. If you want to lower the rate of Mexican immigration to the U.S., I would spend it on development assistance for Mexico."
A guest worker program would reduce the illegal traffic at the border, he also said, and free up the Border Patrol to focus on keeping out drug smugglers and potential terrorists.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., who has spoken adamantly in favor of restricting both legal and illegal immigration, remains a supporter of the fence for security reasons as well.
"It's simple: What did 9/11 cost us versus what would it cost to maintain a fence to help prevent that?" said Carlos Espinosa, a Tancredo spokesman. "If we could prevent another terrorist attack, then absolutely it's worth it."
Ahhhh there it is...the "9/11 Card". Pathetic. Just precisely, how tall would this fence be, if it were to be capable of preventing another terrorist attack like the one on 9/11??
|
|
| 350 | Perm Dude
ID: 45959914 Tue, Oct 09, 2007, 17:10
|
Well, apparently you are unaware of the other 9/11 terrorists, sarge. The ones who hijacked the F150 with nothing but boxcutters in their pockets ("Just Like the Real Terrorists") and a language unlike any spoken here ("Spanish"). They drove it straight into the Winn-Dixie parking lot, where the death toll could have been hundreds if their vehicle was a 747 full of fuel. Stopping the vehicle, they got out, said something incomprehensible to the driver ("Grassy ass" or something like that) then sauntered off toward the store, wearing clothing similar to, or in some reports identical to, store employees.
|
|
| 351 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Oct 09, 2007, 17:38
|
Questions for those who say the fence will "stop terrorists like those who attacked us on 9/11...":
1) Which US border, did the 9/11 terrorists cross to enter this country?
2) How many of those terrorists, were of Hispanic descent?
3) How many, are known to have a fluent ability in Mexican/Puerto Rican/Spainish?
|
|
| 352 | biliruben
ID: 17502215 Tue, Oct 09, 2007, 17:51
|
Xenophobia is just about the only plank left in the Republican platform.
If you take that away, they'll fall straight to SATAN!
|
|
| 353 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Oct 09, 2007, 18:45
|
roflmao...for some reaon, I picture "Church Lady", as I read the above post.
|
|
| 354 | biliruben
ID: 17502215 Tue, Oct 09, 2007, 18:50
|
That was the image I was trying to conjure! Success.
|
|
| 355 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Oct 09, 2007, 18:57
|
Dana Carvey would be proud bili. :)
|
|
| 356 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 07:05
|
Another Immigrant Seeks Sanctuary In Church
The Chicago church that once gave sanctuary to an undocumented immigrant is in the national spotlight again Sunday night, this time for housing another undocumented immigrant.
The woman is set to be deported Monday, but is now calling Adalberto United Methodist Church home. CBS 2's Katie McCall reports on her plea for protection.
Elvira Arellano's picture still hangs on the door of the Humboldt Park church that housed her for months, and once again this site finds itself at the center of a heated debate over immigration. Flor Crisdostomo told reporters Monday she embarks on an adventure.
In Spanish, she said, "I'm going to stay here and fight for my people."
I'm sure all the liberals on this board will say there is a seperation of church and state in this country and that we ought to remove this person from the church and proceed with deportation.
|
|
| 357 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 07:43
|
Seperation of church and state has nothing to do with any demand that law enforcement remove illegal aliens from places of worship.
|
|
| 358 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 08:46
|
I'm sure all the liberals on this board will say there is a seperation of church and state in this country and that we ought to remove this person from the church and proceed with deportation.
The Taj Mahal is, from what i've heard, a very beautiful building.
the above statement is as relevant to the immigration issue as your statement regarding separation of church and state.
since you have no idea what the First Amendment says in regards to Church and State, i'll re-print it here for you:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
so, yes, please tell us what that has to do with immigration, or an immigrant seeking asylum in a church. I mean, aside from your Jagwellian attempt to disparage "liberals"...
|
|
| 359 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:03
|
Why are churches permitted as places of sanctuary; free from the grasp of the law? They should go in and get her.
Keep it up girls. Keep twisting your BS stances on church and state, but then when it fits your immigration agenda you'll find anything to put a square peg in a round hole.
|
|
| 360 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:06
|
And here I always thought it was the Republicans who for years had tried to claim sole right to the title Christian. The practice of church-sanctuary, is as old as the church itself and has a wee little less than NOTHING to do with Liberal-Conservative-Immigration-Seperation of Chruch and State. What IS consistent in your post Box, is that like too many Republicans these days, you spout off with platitudes until those positions are no longer "convenient" for you. Then, you abandon them like rats on a sinking ship.
|
|
| 361 | Perm Dude
ID: 46046287 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:09
|
Why are churches permitted as places of sanctuary; free from the grasp of the law? They should go in and get her.
Churches have always held sanctuary status, literally for centuries. Yes, a power can go in, by force, and take what they want but typically even very bullheaded powers will respect the sanctuary of a church and negotiate a settlement. It isn't like they aren't going anywhere.
Surely you can imagine a church shielding someone from an unjust law? Perhaps you don't feel this one to be unjust, but it probably doesn't take a lot of imagination to think of an unjust law or judicial decision that someone is being subjected to?
|
|
| 362 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:10
|
Here we go. The Home Gamers are half cocked and ready to look like hypocrites again. All we need is SZ and the gang is all here.
|
|
| 363 | Perm Dude
ID: 46046287 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:10
|
?? What are you talking about?
|
|
| 364 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:12
|
Their newfound fallback posture PD. When they spew forth garbage and get rebuked; they resort to JHS playground name-calling. That way, they dont have to contend with the issues.
|
|
| 365 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:16
|
PD, an "unjust" law is still a law.
|
|
| 366 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:17
|
He's all over the place. Until he figures out what his own argument is I don't see any point in responding.
|
|
| 367 | Perm Dude
ID: 46046287 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:23
|
Yeah, I agree.
So, Boxman, if the parents of a pregnant 16-year-old got a court order forcing her to submit to an abortion, the feds should just raid the church she is taking sanctuary in and rip that baby from her body, yes? Just making sure I understand your position on the law here.
|
|
| 368 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:25
|
Seperation of church and state. That's what you guys preach. That's the law of the land. Otherwise, we'd have churches full of criminals. Other than the child molesting priests.
|
|
| 369 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:32
|
As Tree pointed out above Box; Seperation of Church and State refers specifically to preventing the establishment of an OFFICIAL governmentally endorsed religion. If you think back to the "Middle Ages", The Bishop of Canterbury as one ex, was as much a political office as it was a religious one. Preventing THAT, is what the Seperation clause is all about.
|
|
| 370 | Perm Dude
ID: 46046287 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:33
|
That doesn't actually make any sense.
|
|
| 371 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:41
|
This silly attempt to expose a hypocrisy he dreamed up is made even more hilarious when he (of all people) couples it with his referencing of left-leaners here as "Home Gamers".
|
|
| 372 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:45
|
Seperation of church and state. That's what you guys preach. That's the law of the land. Otherwise, we'd have churches full of criminals. Other than the child molesting priests.
and you missed the whole point of not just SoCaS, but also of Sanctuary. it's like you didn't even read any of the posts in this thread aside from your own. i assure you if Ted Bundy went to a church for sanctuary, he'd end up in prison sooner rather than later.
The Home Gamers are half cocked and ready to look like hypocrites again.
the irony and humour of a Rightist making this accusation after the first six years of the Bush Tragedy is immense.
what amazes me more and more about this board - and probably elsewhere in the political spectrum - is that those that lean right are clearly so desperately grabbing at straws.
it is positively mind boggling watching people like Boxman, Baldwin, and Jag spew hate and nonsense, and try to catch people in some sort of "trap" that exists only in their minds.
even when shown - clear as day - why they aren't making any sense, they don't retreat. they just back up their nonsense with more nonsense. it's no wonder the level of discourse here, and in the entire country, is at an all-time low.
Steve Houpt sits back, and probably shakes his head, and can't even bring himself to post. MBJ barely gets involved anymore.
it's kinda sad, and has just really stifled this board that the Axis of Absurdity are the main three posters supporting the side of the political spectrum leaning right.
|
|
| 373 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:49
|
the irony and humour of a Rightist making this accusation after the first six years of the Bush Tragedy is immense.
what amazes me more and more about this board - and probably elsewhere in the political spectrum - is that those that lean right are clearly so desperately grabbing at straws.
I'll challenge Boxman's latest catch phrase directly by noting that I don't agree at all with the above at all. Hopefully that makes Box feeeeeeel a little better.
|
|
| 374 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 13:13
|
This silly attempt to expose a hypocrisy he dreamed up is made even more hilarious when he (of all people) couples it with his referencing of left-leaners here as "Home Gamers".
Not all left leaners. Just you, Tree, Sarge, and Zen. Never in my life have I seen a group of people that agrees on so much so often that aren't officially part of some agenda driven organization. Married couples, lifelong friends, coworkers etc. will sometimes have disagreements. You four are like a little b!tch click in high school. I think it has something to do with the fact that you guys are in fantasy sports leagues together and none of you want to start a serious debate or argument amongst someone whom you have an online relationship with and are also on the same side of the aisle.
If you don't like it, that's not really my problem. That is precisely how you guys act and I certainly did not mention all left-leaners on this forum as you implied; just you four.
|
|
| 375 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 13:25
|
Just you, Tree, Sarge, and Zen. Never in my life have I seen a group of people that agrees on so much so often that aren't officially part of some agenda driven organization. Married couples, lifelong friends, coworkers etc. will sometimes have disagreements. You four are like a little b!tch click in high school. I think it has something to do with the fact that you guys are in fantasy sports leagues together and none of you want to start a serious debate or argument amongst someone whom you have an online relationship with and are also on the same side of the aisle.
lol. wow, how little do you know. if it wasn't for Jag, you'd have cornered the market on stupidity.
1. have you not seen how many times MITH has called me out on this board? it's countless. i mean, literally countless, and quite often it's harsh and fairly angry.
in fact, you saying MITH is afraid to confront people from "the same side of the aisle" certainly ranks as one of the mis-informed things ever said on this board.
2. i'm pretty sure i'm in no fantasy leagues with Sarge, one with SZ (and it's connected here to the poliboard), and i'm pretty sure i'm no longer in any fantasy leagues with MITH either.
good lord, that was comical. you are providing me with a laugh a minute today, and for that, i love you. like, in a big 'ol man crush way. you are the BEST!
|
|
| 376 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 13:29
|
Never in my life have I seen a group of people that agrees on so much so often that aren't officially part of some agenda driven organization.
That's because you refuse to turn your critical eye on yourself and your pal Jag here. I could point you to some very notable, fundamental disagreements I've had with Tree and Sarge over the years. In this thread alone I can't stand with much of what tree has written. Zen is very far to the left of me on the bulk of political issues.
I think it has something to do with the fact that you guys are in fantasy sports leagues together
I'm not in any fantasy sports leagues with Zen, haven't been in years. Never been in a fantasy sports league with Sarge.
none of you want to start a serious debate or argument amongst someone whom you have an online relationship with and are also on the same side of the aisle.
Positively hilarious, I've been in many leagues with Tree over the years and continue to play fantasy football with him. And I'll be glad to point you to various extensive and sometimes harsh arguments we've had.
If you don't like it, that's not really my problem.
Hey I never said I don't like it. And it's certainly not a problem on my end either. It's just incredible how willing you are to invent something like this for the purpose of coming up with what sounds like a snappy insult/catchg phrase to throw around. We've seen it before. So if you're not concerned with putting on display what a fool you can be, why should I care? Whatever it takes to make you feeeeeeeel good about yourself.
|
|
| 377 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 14:23
|
hey, Boxman - this thread is calling your name for a response.
then again, you really don't have one.
|
|
| 378 | Jag
ID: 360261522 Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 14:28
|
Mith, I really wish you and Tree would stay on topic, this thread is about illegal immigrants.
|
|
| 379 | Perm Dude
ID: 46046287 Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 14:35
|
Is it? I believe this thread is about immigration. The fact that neither you, nor Baldwin, are willing or able to differentiate between the two tells us you really can't tell the difference between right and wrong.
|
|
| 380 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 14:37
|
Jag? 375 and 376 were in direct response to Box post of 374 wherein he mistakes his opinion for fact... yet again;
I think it has something to do with the fact that you guys are in fantasy sports leagues together...
I am not and do not recall ever being in a Fantasy League with Tree or MITH.
|
|
| 381 | Jag
ID: 360261522 Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 14:45
|
calling on Congress to offer legal status and citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants.
The entrie protest is ABOUT illegal immigrants.
Using your logic, anti-war protests are about white, pot-smoking, hippie Liberals.
|
|
| 382 | Jag
ID: 360261522 Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 14:51
|
Sarge, I know what the posts were about, I just thought turnabout would be funny considering how many times I have been chastised.
|
|
| 383 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 14:59
|
I just thought...
and therein lies the problem.
|
|
| 384 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514 Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 15:05
|
Jag you are right. My apologies to you and the forum for allowing myself to be baited. I'll try harder to keep my posts on topic. Hopefully others will do the same.
|
|
| 385 | Jag
ID: 360261522 Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 15:10
|
Nothing wrong with a good ol' pissing match occassionally. Adds a little entertainment.
|
|
| 386 | Perm Dude
ID: 46046287 Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 17:38
|
Finally revealed, the results of Jag's Geography test:
:)
|
|
| 387 | AirJar
ID: 351123160 Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 23:44
|
and the problem with this (386) is what?
|
|
| 388 | Tree
ID: 35024315 Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 06:36
|
i hope 387 is a joke, but seeing how this board has being going lately, i fear its not.
|
|
| 389 | Tree
ID: 3212518 Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 20:31
|
well, apparently all Americans in border towns don't want any fence...
Local leaders and residents who are fighting the fence have become increasingly frustrated with what they regard as the federal government's heavy-handed tactics, which include threatening letters, lawsuits and swift legal judgments.
"They come in here like storm troopers," Mayor Chad Foster said. "They are steamrolling the people and abusing our liberties and are absolutely out of control."
|
|
| 390 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 20:50
|
well, apparently all Americans in border towns don't want any fence...
Really? All?!
Oh I don't know about that.
Agency spokesman Michael Friel said of the roughly 600 border landowners contacted nationwide, about 100 refused to grant permission to survey their property.
So 100 out of 600, a significant minority, now constitutes all?
|
|
| 391 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 21:19
|
obviously Box, English Comp is a test you did poorly on/in. Tree's post says; ""apparently all Americans in border towns DON'T want any fence.."
The meaning, is that NOT all Americans in border towns want....
really now...its like what? 4th grade English?
|
|
| 392 | Tree
ID: 3212518 Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 23:43
|
good lord. just when i didn't think it could get any worse.
|
|
| 393 | Perm Dude
ID: 3714358 Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 23:44
|
One would think, given the fear mongering by the pro-fence people, that the border towns would be nearly unanimous in their desire for a fence. After all, they are the first towns to be overwhelmed by these job-stealing, security-risk, sending-their-money-back-home, law-breaking people.
The fact that these towns are not all behind the fence (indeed, nearly 100 wouldn't even let in the surveyors) is telling. We don't know whether this number will go up much when it comes to towns actually allowing the fence to be built, but it has to be a bottom number.
|
|
| 394 | Tree
ID: 4113165 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 06:35
|
it reminds me of the TV series Jericho, as the rag tag group of small-town survivors fights valiantly against their bigger-town aggressors.
|
|
| 395 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 08:14
|
So if these border town, or border states for that matter, decided to champion issues that you don't support like outlawing abortion or less gun control, would you be as strong in your support of them?
|
|
| 396 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 08:47
|
So if these border town, or border states for that matter, decided to champion issues that you don't support like outlawing abortion or less gun control, would you be as strong in your support of them?
come on. is that a serious question?
these border towns will be DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY A FENCE THAT RUNS THROUGH THEM. it has the potential to negatively affect their economy, their way of life, their cultural venues, their social venues, and so on and so forth.
a debate on abortion or gun control is not relevant in the very least tiny little bit here.
nice try though.
|
|
| 397 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 08:58
|
their way of life, their cultural venues, their social venues, and so on and so forth.
You don't think abortion and gun control along with other issues have an effect on those very same things?
|
|
| 398 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 09:02
|
395 was a very fair question. In my opinion local municipalities should absolutely reserve the right to determine their own abortion and firearm restrictions to the extent that the constitution allows.
|
|
| 399 | Seward Norse
ID: 297412913 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 09:06
|
This is why Alaskans have a hard time with not being able to drill ANWR. I almost always feel that we should listen to the locals.
|
|
| 400 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 09:14
|
In my opinion local municipalities should absolutely reserve the right to determine their own abortion and firearm restrictions to the extent that the constitution allows.
fair enough. i've got no issues with that. but it's when a town/city/state wants to go against the Constitution.
however, i don't know that it's relevant to the direct issue, which, i suppose, is ultimately neither here nor there.
btw Box, did you notice that MITH disagreed with me. i thought that might be worth noting, considering your beliefs that none of us ever disagree.
|
|
| 401 | Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 21:49
|
If you ever needed proof Tree was a complete idiot then his statement that fencing out illegals would negatively effect the local economy should remove any doubt.
Illegals are bankrupting the border states thru overwhelming social service demands.
That's why 'amnesty John McCain' can't even carry 'his' own state in the primaries.
|
|
| 402 | Perm Dude
ID: 3615610 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 22:18
|
Arizona results
Man you've turned into a real idiot. Repeating far-right bumper sticker mottos while actual facts mean little--something to be run over, quickly, as though the forcefulness of pushing them over is a measure of yourself as a man and a Christian.
|
|
| 403 | Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 22:21
|
Well last time I heard the projected winner [@9:30 pm Tues] it wasn't McCain.
|
|
| 404 | Perm Dude
ID: 3615610 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 22:23
|
Fair enough.
|
|
| 405 | Tree
ID: 23122619 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 22:32
|
If you ever needed proof Tree was a complete idiot then his statement that fencing out illegals would negatively effect the local economy should remove any doubt.
Baldwin - i realize you don't read. or, quite likely, can't read.
you prefer insults over intelligence, regurgitation over research, and fallacies over facts, but still, if you'd bothered to read the article i linked, you would have read that a fence would indeed negatively affect the local economy in the U.S. border town featured.
it also would have affected emergency services, because when a tornado wrecked both towns on each side of the border, it was the Mexican town that sent help to their American compatriots.
you're a vile, disgraceful, disgusting, xenophobic and intolerant child, and it's a damned shame that some of the more intelligent and reasonable conservative posters left the board while you stuck around to spew your hate-filled dung.
|
|
| 406 | Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 23:05
|
Research? Yes by all means let's research...
California now spends 10.5 billion per year on illegal aliens costing the average family $1,200 per year and judging by the propositions that keep passing they wouldn't mind if that figure stopped growing.
|
|
| 407 | Tree
ID: 01512517 Mon, Feb 25, 2008, 19:38
|
and more American citizens who live on the Texas-Mexico border who don't want a fence...
If it can be smuggled or dumped across the US-Mexico border, Ray Loop has probably seen it turn up on his South Texas farm: Bags of dope, Chinese immigrants, dead bodies, you name it.
But Loop says he is facing his biggest threat ever, not from illegal activity but from the government's proposed solution to it: a massive border fence that would cut right through his property and leave him in what he calls a "no-man's land
|
|
| 408 | Tree
ID: 376361213 Sat, Jul 12, 2008, 18:52
|
every so often, 3 high school buddies and myself get together for an "email reunion" where we catch each other up on our lives. I last saw Jimmie about a year and a half ago, Jeff about 4 years ago, and i haven't seen Erik in 20 years.
we're all pretty different people.
Jeff is a strong republican, VERY conservative christian who served in iraq and afghanistan and is a career military guy and an officer. he married a woman he met in the military, and along with their son, are a fairly stereotypical military family.
Jimmie is a moderate republican, christian, who married the high school slut when they were 19, and they are now weekly churchgoers with three great kids, and she's a 3rd grade teacher and he's a computer guy.
Erik is jewish, and a financial guy in atlanta. he's a democrat, and he and his japanese wife are expecting their first born in a few months.
today, jeff said "We do like it in DC, though. We have gotten to do more things here than we have ever done in North Carolina, Missouri, or Georgia. The kids love riding the Metro or, as Jonathan calls it, the choo choo. The only thing that really bugs the crap out of us is that there are fewer English speaking Americans here than foreigners. It takes forever to order or purchase something because you have to freakin' point and speak slowly for them. In fact, I don't think I saw as many turbans in the middle east as I do here.
Amazing! I got my hair cut the other day by an Afghani woman. I have been to Afghanistan countless times and I have to come back to MY country to get my hair cut by one. "
this of course, was met with a firestorm of response from me. i quoted the New Colussus. I spoke about how these people are coming here to make a better life for themselves. and so on. the same stuff all of y'all have seen me say before,
then Jimmie chimed in. and surprisingly, he didn't agree with Jeff: "Last time that Josh came and visited Fort Worth a few years ago (which was the first time in a dozen years), we were driving around and eventually the discussion worked its way around to the fact that he and I are completely different yet we've remained such good friends over the years. Even though we only see each other every year or so and we have opposing views on tons of things from religion to politics to music and on and on and on....we still genuinely enjoy each other.
Diversity is what makes this country great. I've seen diversity all over this country...in Chicago, Manhattan, Miami, DC, and even in small towns. I enjoy the food and the people mostly. Sure I get irritated every time I pick up the phone to get some help and I talk to someone from India, but ever since I spent a month there myself in Bangalore, I have a better appreciation for them and a realization that they're just trying to earn a living like the rest of us.
The irritating thing for me is that we don't have enough Americans that are willing to do some of the things that the Indians and Chinese are willing to do...therefore all our jobs are going there. And it's very rare here to see anyone but Mexicans doing all the manual labor....from building roads to building houses. I'm sure that a good portion of them are illegal and who do you think is employing them? At the heart of it, it's our government. "
and then he kept going...for another dozen or so paragraphs, concluding with: "It still bothers me that every time I get donuts, there's a Korean that's been here for 20 years and still can't speak English well...but then I remind myself that I don't see very many white boys like myself getting up at 3am just to get started on making donuts for people. That's capitalism and I love that opportunity too. We as Americans have gotten too lazy with all our Wii's, XBOX's, PSP's, iPods, iPhones, LCD TV's, Plasma TV's, Blu-Ray players, etc to even think about earning a living. I may be a white Christian boy born and raised in the south but I love that I have friends that I can speak honestly and openly about junk like this and it doesn't offend any of us.
That's what we need more of in this country is a willingness to exist with each other even though we can be so different from each other. And if we can spread some of that around the world too (while not totally Americanizing other cultures) then we can all do some good and be better off for it."
Erik decided to stay out of the conversation, but then, realized, that he indirectly contributed when he said "I am not sure I can add much that hasn't been already said... that and I am very distracted in that Kumiko is 38 weeks pregnant and I am on high alert for any contractions. Actually that does add something to the conversation in that she is Japanese. When I look at my ancestral background that means that when Abby is born she will be... 50% Japanese, 31.25% Russian, 12.5% Polish, and 6.25% Romanian... but 100% American!"
Ultimately, based on later parts of the conversation, it seemed to get Jeff thinking. I think it made him see that diversity is crucial to this country continuing to exist. I think it made him see that a lot of the jobs the immigrants do are simply not going to get done by people born in the U.S.
he was a bit more contrite, and i think, a bit more understanding.
it was a very interesting conversation, and i'm feeling that Jeff may have a better understanding of what these people go through, and what they're trying to accomplish, and really, that having them here is a boon, not a bust.
it also made me realize that often, people like Baldwin and Boxman are truly, truly, on the radical far right with many of these things.
my friend Jeff is far and away the most Conservative person i've ever met. Yet, when faced with reason and logic, he at least stops and turns a critical eye, and contemplates, and lord, could even change his mind. And if he can have a moment of reflection like that, it floors me that other people prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and go "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
|
|
| 409 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sat, Jul 12, 2008, 19:11
|
it also made me realize that often, people like Baldwin and Boxman are truly, truly, on the radical far right with many of these things.
Such as....?
|
|
| 410 | Tree
ID: 376361213 Sat, Jul 12, 2008, 20:56
|
without going back and looking, i would venture that at least 90 percent of the posts in this thread from Baldwin would preach his far right radicalism.
|
|
| 411 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sat, Jul 12, 2008, 21:03
|
without going back and looking, i would venture that at least 90 percent of the posts in this thread from Baldwin would preach his far right radicalism.
You put me in there too. Care to comment or are you just in hate mode?
|
|
| 412 | Tree
ID: 376361213 Sun, Jul 13, 2008, 00:04
|
i'm pretty much just in hate mode. :o)
but, you're right. i should go back and read a little more carefully what you have to say before i lump you in with Baldwin and all *his* insanities.
|
|
| 413 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Jul 13, 2008, 05:23
|
I'm convinced you and Boldwin play poker every Friday or meet at the local watering hole when the game is on. ;)
BTW, #411 was not an attempt to distance myself from Boldwin. I figured since you made that statement that you had proof.
|
|
| 414 | Tree
ID: 13714198 Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 11:19
|
U.S. teen: 'I felt like there were no dreams for me'
In (Julie) Quiroz's case, she was born in Washington state, lived there her entire life and went to school there. But her mother, Ana Reyes, entered the United States illegally before Quiroz was born and U.S. immigration officials caught up with her last year on her birthday.
"I was there when they handcuffed her," Quiroz says. "I was there when they took her down."
Two of her brothers, who had come with their mother to the United States when they were young children, also were taken into custody.
yep, we're a pro-family nation. cuff' em, stuff 'em, and split 'em up.
|
|
| 415 | Boldwin
ID: 34845818 Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 19:14
|
So now you want to make all the ancestors and relatives of anyone born in the USA, USA citizens?
|
|
| 416 | Tree
ID: 268421018 Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 19:44
|
no Baldwin, i want our government to not split up families.
it's something you're completely against too, unless the people being split up have brown skin, then you're ok with it.
|
|
| 417 | Boldwin
ID: 34845818 Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 21:41
|
When someone emigrates it's pretty clear just who is doing the family splitting. There is one sure way to unsplit. Everyone go home. Not an option for the FLDS, should have been an option for Terri Schiavo.
|
|
| 418 | Tree
ID: 268421018 Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 22:25
|
cute when you bring up unrelated issues.
the fact is that you fully support separating american-born children from their parents. and you have the right to support that.
it just makes you a hypocrite, but that never stopped you before.
|
|
| 419 | Boldwin
ID: 34845818 Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 22:42
|
Just once I'd like a liberal to honestly admit why they want to destroy borders and immigration law.
It sure isn't because liberals love family.
|
|
| 420 | Tree
ID: 328481021 Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 22:51
|
baldwin - it's been pointed out to you many times, but you plug your fingers in your ear and yell loudly so you don't have to hear.
many of us don't see the world in black and white, unlike you. everything is grey. you live in generalities, because you can't handle things otherwise.
and, the reality is, we do need to destroy our current immigration laws, because they simply don't work. yes, there need to be laws. but the ones now, just don't work.
and by the way - my favorite generality in your post was that liberals don't love family. in a litany of dumb things you've said, that's high up there.
|
|
| 421 | Boldwin
ID: 34845818 Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 02:41
|
we do need to destroy our current immigration laws, because they simply don't work
It's amazing how many laws don't work when liberals insist that they not be enforced.
Sabotage it then insist marxist alternatives are neccessary.
Generalities work because liberals are so predictable.
|
|
| 422 | Boldwin
ID: 34845818 Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 02:43
|
Tree
How much resistance would you put up to an Obama plan to raise our kids in Kibutzim?
|
|
| 423 | Boldwin
ID: 34845818 Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 02:47
|
Considering PD's in another thread successfully pointing out McCains earlier support for a youth corps maybe a better question is how much resistance McCain would put up to the idea of raising our kids in kibutzim.
|
|
| 424 | Tree
ID: 37847115 Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 07:00
|
It's amazing how many laws don't work when liberals insist that they not be enforced.
some laws made, unfortunately, are not well thought out, and thusly, difficult to enforce. but, then again, you don't care about that. your only concern here is enforcing a law that forces children from their families.
How much resistance would you put up to an Obama plan to raise our kids in Kibutzim?
seriously. are you that stupid? that blind? that ignorant?
perhaps you forget. perhaps you're stupid. perhaps you're ignorant. i'm american. i'm jewish. but i'm not an israeli. i've spent 39 1/2 years of my life in the US, and 2 months in Israel.
you act like being jewish = being israeli. you act like jews are some cult (ironically enough). i'm sure you're aware, but here's a reminder - Judaism is a religion. Israel is a country. they are not universally intertwined.
why would i want American children raised in a foreign country. not only does that make no sense, your attempt at linking it somehow to the immigration debate belings in our "WTF thread", because i just don't even follow your logic.
i really do think that when it comes to something other than white, radical christian america, you really have no clue what you're speaking of, and talk out of your ass more often than not.
thanks for giving me one of those kool aid out of my nose moments this morning Baldwin. too rich. you're a funny funny man with a totally weird and illogical way of thinking.
|
|
| |
| 426 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 10:08
|
It's not a friendly border. It's a reconquista border.
|
|
| 427 | walk
ID: 181472714 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 10:27
|
Hispanic Beatings and Killing in Long Island (NY)
This case, and these incidents, have been getting a fair amount of press in NY over the last few months. It's an awful shame, and a catch-22 for immigrants. Just throwing this into the equation here.
|
|
| 428 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 11:14
|
It's a reconquista border.
more proof from you, for me, that if someone's got a shade of brown to their skin color, you like them a whole lot less than if that skin tone is a whiter shade of pale.
|
|
| 429 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 11:21
|
It's what THEY call it, you moron.
|
|
| 430 | Perm Dude
ID: 21020822 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 11:29
|
Nice. You do realize that much of the American SW, including Texas, was taken by force from Mexico, yes? Moron?
For this reason we should build a fence higher and stronger?
What kind of fence would Jesus build?
|
|
| 431 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 12:14
|
It's what THEY call it, you moron.
again with the name calling. meanwhile, you continue to ignore and refuse to dispute my claims.
check your history. most of this country was taken from others, be they Native Americans or Mexicans.
|
|
| 432 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 12:19
|
check your history. most of this country was taken from others, be they Native Americans or Mexicans. technically speaking all of it was taken from Native Americans none was taken from Mexicans, sense they had just taken it from the native Americans too.
|
|
| 433 | Perm Dude
ID: 21020822 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 12:37
|
Well, Native Americans never felt they "owned" it. But most recently it was taken from the Mexicans, who did feel they owned it. And we did, at the time, as well.
|
|
| 434 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 12:58
|
Maybe they did not "own" it but they lived on it and were moved off to reservations and were killed for it. some one always "owned" it before the current owner. And historically speaking most of lands that are in discussion here were under native control not Mexican or America during transfer of "ownership".
|
|
| 435 | Perm Dude
ID: 4022914 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 15:23
|
I'm not so sure your point. Because lands lived on by the Native Americans were stolen then the rest is OK? If you're leading into an excuse to break into my house I'm afraid I'm going have to set up a little ass kicking...
:)
|
|
| 436 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 15:27
|
Occasionally, an immature user will bombard the forum with inappropriate messages. Usually, moderators are around and quickly clean up the situation, but sometimes this will happen while the board is temporarily unattended. If this happens, please heed the following advice:
(1) Please do NOT respond to any inappropriate messages. Any harsh responses only serve to encourage this behavior. If we show a group resolve to totally ignore these intrusions, we will thwart the craving for attention. Thus, no matter how much you want to respond to abusive messages - PLEASE DON'T. (Consider this a form of "shunning".)
(2) If inappropriate posts are not being addressed, send me an email. I spend a lot of time online, but (believe it or not), not all of it is at this forum.
(3) Users who post profane or disruptive messages will be blocked from the ability to post new messages. If you engage an abuser in a profane exchange, you risk losing your privileges as well.
As we all know, the world is full of jerks who crave attention and who don't know how to conduct themselves in public. Although the overall quality of the messages at this forum is usually quite high, occasional unfortunate episodes have occurred in the past, and will occur in the future. Be assured that they will be dealt with as quickly as is possible. But please let me (and the moderators) handle these situations.
Be strong. Ignore them.
It seems that Boxman isn't available. I'm SUUUUURE that he will agree with me posting this.
Right?
|
|
| 437 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 16:02
|
I'm not so sure your point. Because lands lived on by the Native Americans were stolen then the rest is OK? If you're leading into an excuse to break into my house I'm afraid I'm going have to set up a little ass kicking... i was just pointing out that Tree was wrong when he said the land was taken away from Mexicans and that it was taken away from the native Americans as why that is important, you will have ask tree what his point was because i was not sure, i was trying to correct conversation for historical accuracy.
|
|
| 438 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 17:37
|
Yeah, Tree shouldn't have called Boldwin a racist with no proof.
|
|
| 439 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 18:02
|
Riiiiiiiiight. That.
So, that "let's be nice to each other" garbage only applied to people you disagree with, then?
|
|
| 441 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 18:10
|
Are we playing the kindergarten "he started it" defense now?
Just for the record. I'd really like to know.
|
|
| 442 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 18:11
|
So you won't say which happened first, 428 or 429?
|
|
| 443 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 18:23
|
FactTree called me a racist for calling the assault on our border 'reconquista'.
Fact: The link I provided gave proof that reconquista is the term Mexicans are using for the assault on the border.
Fact: If they are proud to call it the reconquista, my pointing that out isn't racist.
Fact: Tree is a moron too lazy to read the links provided, too lazy or incompetent to learn this reconquista fact proven repeatedly in this forum, too quick to call others racist, too self-assuming to realize he doesn't have the chops to be interacting with this forum.
|
|
| 444 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 18:30
|
It should also be noted that this forum has been acting in harmony until this happened. Tree, the cause of this exchange, has facilitated this back and forth via an unwarranted labeling of someone as a racist.
The thread I started doesn't seem too far fetched anymore does it?
I would appreciate the "other side of the aisle" in this forum if they would state the obvious and agree that Tree calling Boldwin a racist was unprovoked and unwarranted.
People like Mith who pride themselves on policing this forum (not insulting him here) would do their credibility a big nudge up here just like how he pointed out Tree's error in a different thread recently.
|
|
| 445 | Mith
ID: 148402816 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 18:51
|
Yes, Tree once again displays his worst in posts 424 and 428.
However: 1. I most certainly do not "pride myself on policing this forum"
2. It should also be noted that this forum has been acting in harmony until this
I assume you mean there's been harmony since the last time you mocked a simple request that you support your claims? Or do hostile posts only count when they come from the left side of this forum?
|
|
| 446 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 19:01
|
Do we really want to do this?
It's plain fact we've been going around on media bias for over three years. Futile eh?
|
|
| 447 | dwetzel on BB
ID: 559392915 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 19:12
|
Mith, don't bother. Obviously Boxman wants to play by kindergarten rules here. Treat him accordingly.
If he doesn't care if Boldwin calls someone a moron, then he has no right to tell anyone else they can't. I am not the least bit surprised, of course. No reason to expect better from his kind, who continually demonstrate no integrity at all.
|
|
| 448 | Mith
ID: 148402816 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 19:13
|
You made a specific claim about the coverage of Israel that frankly I've never seen made at this forum before. So, no, we hadn't been going around on that particular issue for years.
Put up or shut up used to be an accepted rule around here when this forum was worth coming back to every day. Steve Houpt was reverantly nicknamed "Source" for the lengths he'd go to track down information.
Now a request that you support your position is legitimate grounds for snickering dismission.
|
|
| 449 | dwetzel on BB
ID: 559392915 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 19:17
|
That is because he is a moron. (We have established that he is okay with this term.)
|
|
| 450 | Mith
ID: 148402816 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 19:20
|
That is because he is a moron
I really fail to see how that helps anything.
|
|
| 451 | Perm Dude
ID: 4022914 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 19:33
|
It gives us a baseline upon which we can all agree.
|
|
| 452 | DWetzel on BB
ID: 559392915 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 19:48
|
If you would prefer "intellectually dishonest hypocrite and morally bankrupt", I can accept that change.
how are we supposed to react to someone who starts the 'be nice to each other' thread then eggs Boldwin on while he says that? How are we supposed to care what he thinks after that? Seriously.
|
|
| 453 | Boldwin
ID: 34044918 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 20:13
|
You will notice who came back coincidentally when people started being called racist. You might also read the title of the thread more carefully.
|
|
| 454 | dwetzel on bb
ID: 559392915 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 20:42
|
I can read it just fine. Do you have a point?
|
|
| 455 | Boldwin
ID: 34044918 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 21:26
|
how are we supposed to react to someone who starts the 'be nice to each other' thread then eggs Boldwin on - dwetzel
Well actually it was the, 'Tree Is Gone: Let's Be Nice To Each Other' thread and things predictably went to hell as soon as the qualifier in that title no longer applied.
|
|
| 456 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 23:09
|
FactTree called me a racist for calling the assault on our border 'reconquista'.
Fact: i called you a racist for the myriad of posts you make that show - to me - you have less regard for people with a darker skin tone than your own. it wasn't just one incident.
i think your attitudes toward mexicans (hey, it's ok to shoot them, even if they're running away) , muslims (hey, it's ok to imprison them indefinitely, even if they haven't done anything wrong), and an african-american president (the obscene lengths and lies you went to in an effort to discredit Obama), show to me, that you're a racist.
it's my opinion. right or wrong, i'm entitled to it.
Fact: The link I provided gave proof that reconquista is the term Mexicans are using for the assault on the border.
some mexicans. not all mexicans.
Fact: If they are proud to call it the reconquista, my pointing that out isn't racist.
it's about context, and source. the context you use, and the source being you, appears, again - to me - to be racist.
Fact: Tree is a moron too lazy to read the links provided, too lazy or incompetent to learn this reconquista fact proven repeatedly in this forum, too quick to call others racist, too self-assuming to realize he doesn't have the chops to be interacting with this forum.
i read the link. you can't have a conversation without calling people names.
It should also be noted that this forum has been acting in harmony until this happened.
says the guy who actually started an entire thread singling one person out. then, when called on it by that person, didn't even have the balls to respond. safe to post that thread when i'm not around, but won't comment in it when i am.
Well actually it was the, 'Tree Is Gone: Let's Be Nice To Each Other' thread and things predictably went to hell as soon as the qualifier in that title no longer applied.
the entire notion of that thread is an exercise in the exact opposite of being "nice to each other".
again, i've got no problem admitting that i get into the fray here. but when the baldwins and boxman of the board can't acknowledge that they are of equal guilt, then it just doesn't matter.
as for MITH, i don't believe he takes pride in policing the form. i do believe he feels he's doing the right thing in calling people out - such as me, repeatedly - because its for the best of the board.
but when it comes to people like baldwin and boxman, they want to play by a different set of rules for different people. it would be quite obvious to an outside observer, but hey, so be it.
|
|
| 457 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 01:07
|
On reflection, we shouldn't be surprised that they don't care. It's the same path that the wingnut right has taken in every case over the last eight years--damn the facts, damn human decency, anything to try to demean and dehumanize everyone and everything that doesn't agree with their narrow, misguided view of the world.
That Boxman is so transparent about not giving a damn about what's right is only to be expected. He's too busy fellating Boldwin to think straight anyway.
|
|
| 458 | Boldwin
ID: 34044918 Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 13:49
|
I am unable to avoid the obvious deficiencies in Tree's posting and expressing my dissatisfation directly, however I avoid the tastelessness of #457, not to mention that I avoid immitating the tasteless drek Tree dumps into the forum.
Please find a bridge on the road to the absolute bottom, go no further and avoid the uncalled for scatalogical, deviant, blasphemous or otherwise unmentionable comment.
|
|
| 459 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 14:06
|
as usual Baldwin, you don't dispute my accusations, and instead try and steer the subject in a different direction.
|
|
| 460 | Boldwin
ID: 34044918 Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 14:29
|
#443 was all the answer you deserve.
|
|
| 461 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 16:07
|
458: You have your own despicable brand of dreck. You don't need his.
Boxman's even worse. He's a blatant hypocrite, as can be clearly seen in this thread. At least you have a warped sense of consistency that is somewhat reassuring.
|
|
| 462 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 16:10
|
And in fact, Boldwin, since you seem to miss the obvious, #458 is mild compared to the garbage that you regularly spew.
|
|
| 463 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 16:22
|
#443 was all the answer you deserve.
like i said, no denial on your part.
|
|
| 464 | Boldwin
ID: 34044918 Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 20:32
|
I reserve the right to ignore trolls.
|
|
| 465 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 21:48
|
which, if course, you're not doing, which just lends further to my claims.
but it's good. i'm done with this line of questioning. you've said enough.
|
|
| |
| |
| 468 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, Oct 26, 2009, 09:52
|
Hotel owner tells Hispanic workers to change names
Then (new hotel owner Larry) Whitten told some employees he was changing their Spanish first names. Whitten says it's a routine practice at his hotels to change first names of employees who work the front desk phones or deal directly with guests if their names are difficult to understand or pronounce.
"It has nothing to do with racism. I'm not doing it for any reason other than for the satisfaction of my guests, because people calling from all over America don't know the Spanish accents or the Spanish culture or Spanish anything," Whitten says.
Martin Gutierrez, another fired employee, says he felt disrespected when he was told to use the unaccented Martin as his name. He says he told Whitten that Spanish was spoken in New Mexico before English. "He told me he didn't care what I thought because this was his business," Gutierrez says.
"I don't have to change my name and language or heritage," he says. "I'm professional the way I am."
|
|
| 469 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Mon, Oct 26, 2009, 11:06
|
Yeah, I saw that a couple of weeks ago. I'm not sure he really understands that sometimes people go to places expecting to hear Spanish!
|
|
| 470 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 12:43
|
When I read a story like this it makes me realize how flawed our immigration policy is.
long story short, poor kid from central america makes good after his parents move to the US, and goes to Harvard. But his future is uncertain.
Luis carries an employment authorization card marked "not valid for re-entry to the United States." If he leaves, he won't be let back in. Although Luis is in the country legally, his temporary status offers no path to permanent residency or citizenship.
Because his status as an immigrant from El Salvador is reviewed every 18 months, he doesn't know if he'll be able to remain in the country legally after graduation if Congress doesn't pass the Dream Act. The legislation would offer a path to citizenship to immigrant college students who come to the U.S. as children.
The Dream Act is a good one. I can't imagine anyone being against it.
|
|
| 471 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 01:53
|
anti-immigrant sentiment...
Leaders of the five Native American nations that comprise the Iroquois League – comprised of the Mohawk , Oneida , Onondaga , Cayuga , and Seneca peoples – issued a joint statement today declaring anyone who entered the country without their permission after members of the League arrived (here between 25,000 and 60,000 years ago) to be an illegal alien who should be denied all government benefits as a first steps towards deportation...
...In a related development, 10,000 angry Tea Partying Medicare recipients protested against themselves today, demanding that “government health care keep its grubby hands off our government health care.” Said one protestor, “I simply hate myself for benefiting from a program that proves that everything I stand for is flat-out wrong.”
|
|
| 472 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Apr 23, 2010, 20:19
|
another blow to freedoms...
gee, i wonder how many hispanics vs. anglos will be stopped and asked their immigration status under this new law.
|
|
| 473 | J-Bar
ID: 473182517 Sun, Apr 25, 2010, 18:19
|
Why is it profiling to allow a police officer the authority during a traffic stop or any other legal detainment to also include citizenship as part of the papers requested (i.e. ID, driver's license, address, name, insurance)? I believe to be consistent with our current laws that probable cause for the initial detainment should still be the standard. I believe the States should also have their own task force for the businesses that blatantly disregard employment laws and should be able to go based on judges orders just like they can for other situations. States should not only have the right to do away with Sanctuary cities but have the obligation to protect it's citizens. I know, I know I am a bigoted racist and shouldn't even comment on this board but oh well.
|
|
| 474 | tree on the treo
ID: 287212811 Sun, Apr 25, 2010, 19:00
|
be honest with yourself. are white people going to be asked for proof of their immigration status as often as hispanics?
and if you actually say yes, please explain to me what YOU would offer up as proof of your immigration status when asked?
|
|
| 475 | J-Bar
ID: 473182517 Sun, Apr 25, 2010, 19:13
|
No problem, proof of citizenship required to get state issued driver's license or ID. Yes i feel that all should have to prove it the same way. Also the allowance of all governmental agencies to verify citizenship and report those that aren't also helps assist in correcting a problem that is way overdue in being addressed. The solutions in my view are fairly easy.
|
|
| 476 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sun, Apr 25, 2010, 19:39
|
I actually mostly agree with J-Bar on this one. If you're here illegally, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that claim "but that's a bad way to catch me!"
I'd be in even more agreement with it if we had much more reasonable legal immigration policies. If people want to be here legally, contribute and work, why the heck are we throwing up barriers in their way?
(Right now, I'm also fully in favor of throwing a lead-lined book at the gonads of businesses hiring illegals.)
|
|
| 477 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Sun, Apr 25, 2010, 19:54
|
so get proof upon issuing a DL or ID card. Then during a traffic stop, ask for the DL. If they have one, they shouldnt need further proof. The problem with this law, is that a white wont be asked for proof while almost every Hispanic will be asked. THAT, makes it prejudicial. (The assumption must be that the individual is not here legally, or they would not be required to prove otherwise. Seems to me, this is contrary to our form of Constitutional Law.)
|
|
| 478 | tree on the treo
ID: 287212811 Sun, Apr 25, 2010, 19:58
|
j-bar....a driver's license is not proof of citizenship.
|
|
| 479 | bibA
ID: 343462519 Sun, Apr 25, 2010, 20:46
|
I think he is saying that to get the driver's license in the first place, the person should be required to show proof of citizenship.
|
|
| 480 | tree on the treo
ID: 287212811 Sun, Apr 25, 2010, 20:48
|
maybe so.
but that has nothing to do with the law in question...
|
|
| 481 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Apr 25, 2010, 21:55
|
You don't have to be a citizen to get a driver's license. Lots of legal immigrants have them.
|
|
| 482 | Frick
ID: 54325267 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 08:26
|
And it would require a major overhaul of a states driver's license or State ID card to indicate if a person was a citizen? Or if they were in the US legally (e.g., student visa)?
|
|
| |
| 484 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 09:40
|
#482: That is solving the wrong problem.
The law in question intrudes on an area which is entirely within the purview of the federal government, and does so in a way which invades the rights of people.
It gives police probable cause to hassle brown people, for no real reason at all.
|
|
| 485 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 10:16
|
The law in question intrudes on an area which is entirely within the purview of the federal government, and does so in a way which invades the rights of people.
That's the reason this is a bad law. Of course, I'd worry more about the intrusion if the Federal government ever gave any heed to that concern in the reverse.
I'm not particularly upset that law enforcement in Arizona might have more reason to suspect that Latinos might be more likely to be illegals than Whites or Blacks. The Constitution doesn't require people to suspend disbelief or common sense. However, the fact is, it is not the providence of local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.
|
|
| 486 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 10:19
|
Exactly. We wrestled with that issue in my town when an anti-illegal immigration ordinance was proposed. Our solicitor was very clear that the law, if passed, would involved dragging the town into a lawsuit which we would lose in the end.
|
|
| 487 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 10:34
|
J-Bar: I know, I know I am a bigoted racist
Very good, acceptance is the first step towards recovery.
We are all too aware of the accusations that President Obama's health care reform is "socialist". How can Arizona's law be anything other than "fascist"? Seriously, that's exactly what it is - the government demanding that people show them papers proving that they may be there.
Conservatives could always be counted on to oppose national registries of any sort. Anti-gun registration, hell, many conservatives are anti-census. But if there's some sort of fascist plan to harass Mexicans, go for it! Arizona sucks. Sure would avoid it if I were traveling from abroad.
|
|
| 488 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 10:47
|
At a time when they're trying hard to attract MLB teams to come to AZ for srping training. Good thing there are not very many Latins on spring training rosters...oh wait...
|
|
| 489 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 11:11
|
And it would require a major overhaul of a states driver's license or State ID card to indicate if a person was a citizen? Or if they were in the US legally (e.g., student visa)?
they already provide for this, a student visa will only get you a one year DL which you have to renew yearly and it states that you are a vistor on it. Or at least that is how it is done the state of florida.
|
|
| 490 | J-Bar
ID: 473182517 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 13:29
|
Why is it wrong, during the course of a routine traffic stop or other legal detainment to also check citizenship? How is this a violation of rights? I do not agree that blatant harassment would occur and if it does then those violators should be taken care of administratively.
SZ - i believe hand gun owners are required to be registered. Only problem I see with the census is that it should be a count without demographics. Race in my mind is an irrelevant statistic and should not be on applications, school records, or anything else (another thread I am sure).
The whole if we made it easier for lawful immigration to occur then we would not have as much illegal immigration. I believe this is a false premise. The time consuming lawful process is made that way by the line cutters. Ex. I am at LL ballgame in line for a snow cone and i am 2nd in line when 2 games finished and the players from those games got in line at the back door to get their free snow cones. My normal wait of 1 to 2 min now became 30 min because the resources available to serve me did not change (Not a great example because the boys paid for the snow cones in advance). Once the line cutters are eliminated and placed in the lawful line then it can work.
|
|
| 491 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 13:35
|
Why is it wrong, during the course of a routine traffic stop or other legal detainment to also check citizenship?
because it's not the duty of a local police officer to enforce immigration law.
i'm still waiting for you to answer the question - if you're asked for proof of your immigration status (and remember, having a driver's license is not proof), what would you show?
|
|
| 492 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 13:40
|
The problem with that part of the argument, J-Bar, is that I don't think you realize just how onerous legal immigration is. We don't have the resources to assist people that want to be in the country legally NOW. Those people who want to do the right thing and stand in line can have their snow cones in 2013 or so. If we try to put any more people in that line, the polar ice caps will have melted before we can give them the snow cones.
At some point, even people who want to do the right thing will still do the wrong thing (in this case, immigrate illegally), just because the risk/reward ratios are so horribly screwed up.
If you're caught immigrating illegally, the punishment is what, get sent back home and not be allowed to immigrate legally? That's not much of a punishment if you were going to have to wait forever to be able to immigrate legally.
Make it easier for people to immigrate legally, and that illegal immigrant line will go down. Further, the people who are still immigrating illegally are likely to be doing so for reasons that we already don't want them here, so now we're better able to focus resources on real threats.
Right now, systemically, it's kinda hard to tell illegal immigrant A (picking strawberries in some field for 14 hours a day to feed his family) with illegal immigrant B (planning to blow up an airplane in a few years)--which makes it a damn sight easier for person B to blend in and do their job.
If you punish those two people the same, you're clearly either not doing nearly enough to punish person B on security grounds, or doing way too much to punish person A on humanitarian grounds.
|
|
| 493 | J-Bar
ID: 473182517 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 13:52
|
Tree, do not have to show anything but my id and they can run it through AVS just like employers. Not hard to implement.
Dwetz- your argument is exactly what i said. If the resources were not being used by those here illegally then the legal process would work significantly better. Whatever the number is determined annually that can be allowed to immigrate based on the many variables is consumed by the illegals because the resource use has to be accounted for regardless.
|
|
| 494 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 13:56
|
Then maybe I somewhat misunderstood, or we're approaching it from different directions.
"Whatever the number is determined annually that can be allowed to immigrate based on the many variables is consumed by the illegals because the resource use has to be accounted for regardless."
I'm of the possibly misguided belief that we're already spending quite a bit in other areas that isn't reflected in the obvious, and on humanitarian grounds don't really care if it costs somewhat extra in enforcement, that the correct answer to how many we should let in is "as many as want to be here and can contribute to society".
|
|
| 495 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 13:56
|
Actually, the cost of administering the legal immigration and the cost of policing illegal immigration are entirely separate budget items. I agree that more resources need to be pumped into the legal immigration side, to make in *much* easier for those who want to live and work in this country to do so.
But, as MBJ points out, local and state police are not authorized to do immigration checks on people.
|
|
| 496 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 14:02
|
They may not currently be able to, but from a practical (as opposed to a legal mumbo jumbo) perspective, if there's a way to semi-easily make it happen (via markings on state IDs/driver's licenses, or whatever), they probably ought to be able to. Massive conservation of resources.
And more importantly, perhaps, the ones that are coming in contact with law enforcement are the ones that we're most likely to want to know about to begin with.
I understand the "yeah, but are you going to check everyone or are you going to profile" arguments. The simplest way to prevent that problem is to make checking citizenship/immigration status a check that is basically idiotically easy and incidental to everything else. (And yeah, I know there's some separation of state vs. federal powers crap to get through.)
|
|
| 497 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 14:06
|
Tree, do not have to show anything but my id and they can run it through AVS just like employers. Not hard to implement.
a national database of everyone living in this country isn't hard to implement!?!?
are you kidding me?
tell me, how do you propose to do this?
|
|
| 498 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 14:12
|
However, the fact is, it is not the providence of local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. - MBJ
So when a traffic cop stops a van full of half-dead mexicans packed like sardines what should be their response and what is their legal obligation atm?
|
|
| 499 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 14:19
|
If they suspect immigration problems and the people in question can't prove they are in the country legally, the police can hold the people until INS takes them.
|
|
| 500 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 14:19
|
But the police better hope that van isn't going to the Mayor's house to put up a new deck...
|
|
| 501 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 14:39
|
...because that's a job American's aren't willing to do?
|
|
| 502 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 14:44
|
They're non-union, hard working, Christian, and support their families. I'd have thought you'd be all over that.
|
|
| 503 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 14:49
|
They're non-union, hard working, Christian, and support their families. I'd have thought you'd be all over that.
psssst...many of them have brown skin.
|
|
| 504 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 14:53
|
Only from long hours in the sun...
|
|
| 505 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 15:03
|
solid point, of course. brown is brown, the origin matters not.
|
|
| 506 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 15:03
|
The problem with that part of the argument, J-Bar, is that I don't think you realize just how onerous legal immigration is.
This is a false premise, I can say from recent first hand experience, it's not that big a deal if you follow the rules and have some education. For uneducated mirant workers: not so much.
So when a traffic cop stops a van full of half-dead mexicans packed like sardines what should be their response and what is their legal obligation atm Boldwin
If they suspect immigration problems and the people in question can't prove they are in the country legally, the police can hold the people until INS takes them. Perm Dude
We used to hold them. INS has no interest in them, in general. We always cut them loose. DOn't even waste money on jailing them for something we're not involvved in. If they are state lawbreakers,prosecute them. If not, I've always believed in sticking to my job. In this case, it's just not the job of the states to enforce immigration laws.
They're non-union, hard working, Christian, and support their families.
I don't thinl Boldwin considers Catholics Christians?
|
|
| 507 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 15:09
|
You no longer hold them? Interesting--I didn't realize INS' disinterest was so active. That's too bad.
|
|
| 508 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 15:10
|
psssst...many of them have brown skin.
I don't think that history backs up the racist charge. Do really think that if these were Scotts or Irish or Jewish or Italian or Polish immigrants coming by the millions and overexending state resources and stuffing the lower echelon of the work force while bringing a certain criminal element to their communities that there would any less a backlash? I don't see it?
|
|
| 509 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 15:13
|
1) My understanding is that somehow law enforcement is actually prevented at every level from enforcing the law. That such an untenable situation could prevail for so long is a red flag that government is disconnected and fraudulent.
I'd like to see a precise explanation for how law enforcement are required to ignore the law.
2) I think christendom as a whole has been nine tenths Plato and one tenth Christian since at least 400 AD.
|
|
| 510 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 15:13
|
You no longer hold them? Interesting--I didn't realize INS' disinterest was so active. That's too bad.
Judges don't even ask anymore. Don't want to know. On occassion, if it's someone we really want rid of (eg, a bif time drug trafficker) we might seek some INS help at high levels. Run of the mill cases: we don't care and from their inaction over the years - neither does INS.
|
|
| 511 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 15:14
|
2) I think christendom as a whole has been nine tenths Plato and one tenth Christian since at least 400 AD.
Fair enough. A tenable position.
|
|
| 512 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 15:35
|
"This is a false premise, I can say from recent first hand experience, it's not that big a deal if you follow the rules and have some education. For uneducated mirant workers: not so much."
Those don't count?
|
|
| 513 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 15:39
|
good column, brings up some solid points
...where was the Tea Party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom?
It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the tea partiers into apoplexy.
|
|
| 514 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 15:46
|
Dwetzel - I was responding to your statement. Legal immigration is not, generally, onerous or unduly cumbersome. It's certainly easier for a Mexican national to legally come to America than for a Honduran to leagally immigrate to Mexico, for instance.
It is probabaly hard to navigate for people unused to following any proceedure or the rule of law. That is not the rule nor is it necessarily the fault of the US. Mexico, as a nation recieves a tremedous boon from immigration of her citizens to the US. It's the 2nd largest influx of cash into her system. We should press Mexico to facilitate legal immigration for her uneducated citizens while reforming our laws.
|
|
| 515 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 16:17
|
MBJ-- I do understand what you're saying. I'm saying that if it is difficult for the migrant workers to be here, and we have already established that our country and economy needs said migrant workers, maybe we ought to be doing something significant to make it easier.
Just because Mexico probably does it even more wrong doesn't mean our system is any good.
Since you seem to know a good deal about this, what's the average time and cost for a random person wanting to immigrate legally to the US? And what are the odds that they are allowed to legally do so? Assume no red flags that would prevent them from coming into the country (for instance, no criminal record), but please try to take everyone into account and not just what we'd consider "highly skilled workers".
|
|
| 516 | Myboyjack
ID: 447112610 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 17:19
|
I only know of the experiences of family and friends, from Mexico, Germany, Venuzuela and Spain. I currently am the US sponsor of 2 immigrants. Their experiences were a matter of months and fairly straight forward.
If I had my way, we wouldn't have limitations on immigration ( of course we also wouldn't have many of the social saftey nets that illegal immigration is sapping). But, under our current limited system, is there any problem with choosing skilled immigrants first? I don't think so. I also don't accept your premise a country experiencing 10% unemployment needs illegal immigrants for the work force. The fact that they need the jobs is all the reason I need to allow them here to feed their families.
|
|
| 517 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 17:34
|
I also don't accept your premise a country experiencing 10% unemployment needs illegal immigrants for the work force.
Or does illegal immigration create a 10% unemployment rate. if all illegals became legal they would not be allowed to pay them less than minimum wage, now maybe that 10% could get jobs because everyone would be paid the same. On the other hand does the economy actually grow because I can pay illegal less than i would a citizen? It is like exporting jobs with out leaving the country.
|
|
| 518 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 17:48
|
MBJ, I think we're on the same page regarding what should be. Given the current limits on the system, of course you prefer the relatively more skilled. I think we also agree that the current limits on the system need to not be in place.
Boikin's point is a tricky one--and I don't know the answer. My guess is that some of those jobs go away, some of them get bumped up to minimum wage, and some of them just result in higher prices for the products of the companies that employ them. All of which I'm fine with--and they're all vastly superior to the current situation where businesses are routinely allowed to get away with flouting the minimum wage laws. If a business can't operate without paying minimum wage to it's workers, then they can go out of business.
|
|
| 519 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 17:59
|
I don't think illegals create much, if any, of the numbers that make up the unemployment rates. The unskilled and seasonal jobs are vastly undercounted in fixing the rates.
Meanwhile, I think the relatively high unemployment levels act as a detriment to illegal immigration. Fewer landscapers, Wal-Mart employees, deckmakers, etc are needed these days.
In general I agree with MBJ, but my experience has been that the process can be extremely long for many people. INS indicates that the time, once they receive an application, can be from 5 months to two years and my experience has always been on long side of that range--and that is for those who have their ducks in a row (sponsors, job waiting for them, etc).
|
|
| 520 | Farn @ work Leader
ID: 451044109 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 18:23
|
I live and teach in Phoenix. The repercussion of this law will be seen both in this neighborhood and on this campus.
I have a student who has been waiting for his citizenship to be approved for 3 years. He is not rich and has to wait along with everyone else. He turns 18 in September and is graduating. He does have one advantage in that his dad has been approved for citizenship, so more than likely he will be approved as well. But the process is very long and VERY expensive. And considering most immigrants come here looking for a chance to make money its very hard for them to go through the process.
I really don't think this law will stand the test of time, at least not in the way its worded. I have no issue with requiring people to be legal immigrants to be here. But you can not hassle people based on their appearance. Police already have the right to ask people for paperwork if they are stopped for a different illegal activity. This law seems to be giving carte blanche to the police to ask for proof from people who they suspect are here illegal but may not have already committed a crime. I don't see this holding up.
But either way its not a popular law here by immigrants, minorities, or caucasians.
|
|
| 521 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 18:30
|
What do you feel when you look at the out of control situation just across the border, Farn?
You are ok with just waving that thru to Arizona?
|
|
| 522 | Farn @ work Leader
ID: 451044109 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 18:34
|
I'm not ok with waving them through at all. I want to see the process become a little easier. Now that said, I do not want to see the standards lowered at all. I want our US citizens to be held to the highest standard. But I'd like to see the process move a little faster and be a little more affordable.
A knee jerk idea: take all the unemployed people down here and hire them to work in the immigration department. That creates a lot of jobs and will help to get people legalized faster, at what could be a cheaper rate (if speed lowers price despite more employees), and would lower our unemployment rate. No idea if that's a legitimate idea but its one I kicked around last week with my kids as the law was being discussed.
The big problem for these people is the crazy cost and how time consuming it is. Its just so hard when they really don't have money.
|
|
| 523 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Apr 26, 2010, 18:57
|
I wonder why knee-jerk conservatives believe anyone talking about immigration reform wants to "wave" anyone through.
I have no problem with doing a skills test in order to accelerate the process for those with needed skills. The problem is that this system doesn't really do such a thing, because of the racist carryovers of per-country limits that are still in-place regarding legal immigration.
|
|
| |
| 525 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 11:30
|
A knee jerk idea: take all the unemployed people down here and hire them to work in the immigration department. - Farn
That does seem to be a job Americans aren't willing to do.
|
|
| |
| 527 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 12:11
|
You'd think they would have figured it out after they lost the Super Bowl because of the MLK, Jr. Holiday flap.
|
|
| 528 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 12:19
|
Aeromexico suspends flights to Arizona because of new immigration law
That is probably what they want.
|
|
| 529 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 13:09
|
The minutemen are crying in their beer now.
|
|
| 530 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 13:39
|
The minutemen are crying in their beer now. Arizona is bigger than a handful of people you relate to.
that one boycott is just the tip of the iceberg. there will be many, many more. San Francisco's Board of Supervisors is going to vote today on a boycott of Arizona.
Republicans are starting to criticize the bill.
SC Senator Lindsey Graham believes the law might be unconstitutional.
Marco Rubio, a VERY influential Hispanic voice in the Republican party was also very critical of the bill.
That's not really something Americans are comfortable with, the notion of a police state," Rubio said of the Arizona bill.
|
|
| 531 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 13:51
|
None of those people live in Arizona. Why should they care.
I'm sure they are devastated with the news of the san francisco boycott.
|
|
| 532 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 13:56
|
None of those people live in Arizona. Why should they care.
because it affects all of us?
I'm sure they are devastated with the news of the san francisco boycott.
you're right. Arizona businesses are thrilled with the prospect of losing potential business.
|
|
| 533 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 13:57
|
Keep the C-n-P going..."That's not really something Americans are comfortable with, the notion of a police state," Rubio said of the Arizona bill. "But I don't want to underestimate the level of frustration from a law enforcement aspect that exists in Arizona. You have serious violence crossing the border, and they're fed up. Particularly with federal inaction."
He did not say outright whether he opposes or supports the bill. I'm not even comfortable with the idea of needing 'to show my papers' but if that drug war crosses the border there are going to be more problems than carrying ID around.
|
|
| 534 | Farn @ work Leader
ID: 451044109 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 13:58
|
B7, I live here. Is it ok for me to be upset?
Business here are not happy. And before you come back with "the same business hiring illegals?" let me say that its the major businesses that are unhappy. Those that hold big conferences, like the Phoenician Resort. Or any of the other big resorts here. This isn't going to go over very well at any of them.
|
|
| 535 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 14:02
|
I'm sure they are devastated with the news of the san francisco boycott.
*Trying to follow the liberal headspace- Anyone who disagrees with me is a biggotted homophobe
- I'll threaten them with SF staying away from them
Puzzled or amused, so many options.
|
|
| 536 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 14:48
|
He did not say outright whether he opposes or supports the bill.
absolutely. nor did i say where he stood. my words were careful and accurate in saying he was critical of the bill.
I'm not even comfortable with the idea of needing 'to show my papers' but if that drug war crosses the border there are going to be more problems than carrying ID around.
the drug war HAS crossed the border. where have you been?
*Trying to follow the liberal headspace
* Anyone who disagrees with me is a biggotted homophobe * I'll threaten them with SF staying away from them
Puzzled or amused, so many options.
ignorant is probably the better option in this case.
this has nothing to do with homophobia, well, i suppose, unless you're involved.
nice try though.
|
|
| 537 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 15:08
|
I understand Tom Tancredo is against it as well. His signature issue is immigration, so for him to be against it on privacy grounds says a lot.
|
|
| 538 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 15:16
|
B7, I live here. Is it ok for me to be upset?
Sure. I read where 70% of Arizona is in favor of the new bill.
Do they make a lot of gay merchandise in Arizona?
|
|
| 539 | Farn @ work Leader
ID: 451044109 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 15:42
|
Do they make a lot of gay merchandise in Arizona?
Would you like to clarify this comment or let it stand on its merit?
Yes, the poll did say 70% of Arizon residents are in favor. Of course I believe the poll is based on call landlines of random residents. Do you know what the demographics of landline owners are? I know I don't own one. Nor do about 75% of my friends.
If they want to get a fair representation of the people why not put it on the ballot and let all registered voters have a crack at it?
|
|
| 541 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 15:51
|
I believe that poll also indicated that over half of the respondents acknowledged that the rights of citizens will be violated in some fashion because of the law. Most people don't care however, seemingly trading handing over some rights to the government in exchange for feeling better about immigration.
Of course, when you believe illegal immigrants are intentionally causing freeway accidents you might respond with rights-reducing legislation.
|
|
| 542 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 16:05
|
I was trying to calculate the effect of the san francisco boycott on the Arizona economy. If they don't make a lot of gay merchandise ,then the boycott will have a lesser effect. How is that dumb, ignorant, and yep, homophobic.
|
|
| 543 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 16:21
|
San Francisco's proposed boycott isn't the answer, IMO, but it could very well have economic consequences for Arizona. Depending on how it is crafted, it could end conference attendance, sports teams, and many other things.
I realize your are going (in post after post after post) for the cheap joke. Yeah--there are lots of male homosexuals in that city. We get it.
Businesses, by and large, don't give a crap about the sexual orientation of their customers. Which is why business owners are a little iffy on this whole thing.
|
|
| 544 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 16:34
|
WTF is gay merchandise?
|
|
| 545 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 17:12
|
more voices against the law.
Former U.S. Rep. Joe Scarborough, conservative host of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC: “It does offend me that when one out of every three citizens in the state of Arizona are Hispanics, and you have now put a target on the back of one of three citizens who, if they’re walking their dog around a neighborhood, if they’re walking their child to school, and they’re an American citizen or a legal, legal immigrant, can now put a target on their back and make them think every time they walk out of their door, they may have to prove something. I will tell you that is unAmerican. It is unacceptable, and it’s unAmerican.”
and at least one sheriff in Arizona doesn't like the law either: Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told ABC News that the immigration law is "racist" and that he "has no intention of complying with it."
|
|
| 546 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 17:41
|
and now Jeb Bush...
It's difficult for me to imagine how you're going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well," (said Bush).
|
|
| |
| 548 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 19:27
|
probably best just to cut the whole state loose and let it float down to Mexico.
Is there such a thing as "forced succession"?
|
|
| 549 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 19:34
|
Someone is unclear on the whole desert concept.
|
|
| 550 | biliruben
ID: 113582522 Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 19:57
|
okay, blow.
|
|
| |
| |
| 553 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 12:34
|
Karl Rove chimes in...oh, and Sarah Palin too...
Attorney General Eric Holder said earlier this week that the law could face a constitutional challenge.
That forecast was echoed by GOP strategist Karl Rove, who told an audience at a senior center in Florida that the bill could face "constitutional problems."
"I wish they hadn't passed it, in a way," Rove said, according to the Orlando Sentinel.
and, of course, Palin imparted her "wisdom".
Former Alaska governor and vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin called Obama’s warning a “myth” during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Tuesday.
“It's shameful, too, that the Obama administration has allowed this to become more of a racial issue by perpetuating this myth that racial profiling is a part of this law,” she said.
|
|
| 554 | Farn @ work Leader
ID: 451044109 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 14:16
|
Gov. Brewer's approval rating is up
Keep in mind this is another telephone poll, which usually excludes those with cell phones.
|
|
| 555 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 14:23
|
I don't doubt her approval is up. George Wallace's approval went way up, too.
|
|
| 556 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 14:31
|
I find it interesting that everyone is coming out against the law but at the same time is seems to be rather popular in AZ. To me there seems to be a real disconnect between the people of AZ and the rest of country. What is going on in AZ that is making people feel this way and it seems to me there are better solutions than passing laws and protesting these laws.
|
|
| 557 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 14:31
|
“It's shameful, too, that the Obama administration has allowed this to become more of a racial issue by perpetuating this myth that racial profiling is a part of this law,” she said.
Can someone honestly be THIS ignorant? No one I know of has said that racial profiling is PART of the law. But common sense dictates that it will be part and parcel of enforcing this law.
1) Out of 100 traffic stops involving a lone driver of "light skin" tone; how often will said driver be asked for proof of citizenship?
2) Out of 100 traffic stops involving a lone driver of Hispanic origin, how often will said driver be asked for proof of citizenship?
Vast difference? Profiling is being practiced. Plain and simple.
|
|
| 558 | Farn @ work Leader
ID: 451044109 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 14:37
|
I could be wrong but I think the reason why the people of Arizona aren't necessarily fighting this law is because they really hate the illegal immigration.
If there was a poll that asked "Are you really in favor of this law, which may infringe on the civil rights of citizens, or are you just against illegal immigration?" I think you'd see a different poll. I really believe most residents are against the illegal immigration and want that fixed but I'm not sure they believe in infringing on civil rights.
|
|
| 559 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 14:40
|
The people have also been stoked by the politicians eager to show how "tough" they are on this. It isn't as if illegal immigrants have a real constituency--this is like being "tough on crime."
In fact, while studies show that crime rates by illegals are much lower than for citizens, fear of crime by illegals is a very powerful thing. And useful for politicians to use.
Same thing happened here in PA, where a murder by an illegal immigrant caused all sorts of backlash and anti-illegal immigration ordinances by local authorities (all of which were dropped, or declared improper).
|
|
| 560 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 14:44
|
Farn is exactly right. Arizonans are overwhelmed enough by illegal immigration that they many aren't concerned about the unconstitutionality of the law.
I wrote elsewhere today: I think the suddenly boiling-over anti-illegal-immigration sentiment on the right (and all the stuff that comes with that) might ruin the midterm election gains the Republicans are expecting this November. The continued high unemployment rate and rightist scare tactics about rising budget deficits had attracted enough independants to have the Republican party poised for a comeback, according to the poll trends.
Now they risk losing a lot of support from socially conservative hispanics, who tend to vote republican, especially in the south. They're cheering the AZ governor right now, but I think she might be their undoing.
|
|
| 561 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 15:45
|
Why dont we bring are troops home and put them on the border down there. To me its a waste of time for them to be in Afghanistan and Iraq. On the way home drop a couple bombs on Irans nuclear facility and be done with it. Can any body tell me what we are going to get out of Afghanistan by fighting a war over there.
|
|
| 562 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 15:57
|
PD
politicians eager to show how "tough" they are on this
Eager to talk tuff you mean. Find any of them effectively being tuff.
It isn't as if illegal immigrants have a real constituency
Are you kidding? The Dem party. Expand the voter rolls with those seeking handouts.
while studies show that crime rates by illegals are much lower than for citizens
Prove that. The only way that could appear true is if police don't keep track of that fact. Oh wait, they avoid the issue like the plague. The other don't ask/don't tell.
|
|
| 563 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 16:30
|
Eager to talk tuff you mean. Find any of them effectively being tuff.
There is no difference between those two statements when it comes to politicians. Largely, politicians are tough merely by talking tough. Witness John McCain's inane comment I posted above.
Prove that
The picture of crime on border areas is a tough one. While we hear all about the drug wars in Mexico, directly across the border is El Paso, one of the safest cities in the United States. To hear the "tough talk" crowd, you'd think a city like El Paso would already be under siege from spillover violent crime. But there has been virtually none.
Does this mean illegals don't commit crimes? Not at all. But it does mean that illegal aliens are not intent on crime any more than regular citizens are.
|
|
| 564 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 16:38
|
It isn't as if illegal immigrants have a real constituency
Are you kidding? The Dem party. Expand the voter rolls with those seeking handouts.
you do much better with your arguments when you don't fall back on stupid generalizations that aren't true.
|
|
| 565 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 17:07
|
most interesting part from post 563:
Had the government not cracked down at the border, he says, "the undocumented population would be half what it is now." A fence intended to keep illegal immigrants out is serving beautifully to keep them in.
|
|
| 566 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 17:28
|
There is no difference between those two statements when it comes to politicians. Largely, politicians are tough merely by talking tough. - PD
Words are cheap. Actions are what count.
Democrats do have an annoying trait of imagining that talking the talk counts for something.
|
|
| 567 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 17:32
|
You misspelled "politicians" at the start of your last sentence, I think?
|
|
| 568 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 17:34
|
On the otherhand, nice source, nice counter-argument.
I still don't buy the idea that enforcing the border is a bad idea, but I'll grant that author the point that this isn't a zone immune to the law of unintended consequences. Doing the right thing comes with a price. I'll deal with it.
|
|
| 569 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 17:48
|
I still don't buy the idea that enforcing the border is a bad idea
I certainly agree with this. Where we might disagree (perhaps) is the level of enforcement, and the balance of rights.
That article was the first place I've seen the argument that the wall prevents Mexicans who are illegal from returning--a point I never thought about before.
|
|
| 570 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 08:42
|
Connor FriedersdorfOn the Arizona immigration bill, a few words - I am a firm opponent, despite my overall desire for better enforcement of federal immigration law. Put simply, I do not trust Arizona police, especially in Maricopa County, with the additional discretion they’ve been given. Sheriff Joe Arpaio already presides over a police department credibly accused of racial profiling — and as reporting by William Finnegan in The New Yorker and Radley Balko in Reason make clear, the criminal justice system in Arizona’s biggest metropolitan area is rife with serious problems that threaten the liberty of citizens and immigrants alike.
Beyond the near inevitability of racial profiling, there is the conventional objection to local police enforcing immigration law: doing so discourages people in immigrant neighborhoods from working with police. Undocumented residents won’t act as witnesses or good Samaritans or report being victimized by crime if calling 911 might well result in their deportation. It is folly to alienate so many residents from police officers who require their cooperation to keep all Arizonans safe.
Personally, I’d like to see a path to citizenship for folks already here illegally, and an increase in the number of immigrants able to come here. As a political matter, this can only happen once the southern border is secured — and reluctant as I am to reach this conclusion, I think that’s as it should be: the amnesties of the past have promised better enforcement, but it’s never been delivered, effectively kicking the problem down the road, or even exacerbating it.
On the other hand, I am loath to support better enforcement unaccompanied by the guarantee that once illegal immigration is under control, legal immigration will be expanded. Yes, immigration imposes costs on some Americans, but that has always been the case, and the cost born by the natives in the much poorer America that my ancestors immigrated to were much higher. It doesn’t seem fair to keep newcomers out so that I can pay marginally less in local taxes, or even so that a poor American can earn marginally more at their job.
My proposal:
— A physical wall along the entire Mexican border. I don’t like the symbolism of closing the country to newcomers either, but realistically, the status quo is worse for everyone involved: we’ve got a partial wall that incentivizes border crossings through the most dangerous parts of the desert, and a corruptible, heavily armed border patrol hunting illegal immigrants by day and night. A solid wall would significantly reduce the number of illegal crossers, it couldn’t be corrupted by drug traffickers, it wouldn’t ever abuse illegal immigrants it deters — it is, all things considered, the least bad solution, and it is mere sentimentalism to instead favor the status quo, a partial wall and the symbolism of armed border guards and a deadly desert rather than a tall slab of concrete.
— Automatic increases in legal immigration quotas pegged to every measurable decrease in illegal immigration.
— The auction of lots of visas for high-skilled immigrants, with the profits allocated to jurisdictions that bear the costs of low skill immigrants.
— Pass the DREAM act. I've long opposed a wall and still hate the idea but I think it's time for the left to look at compromise.
|
|
| |
| 572 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 11:47
|
There are two kinds of republicans who oppose this bill.
Globalists who are as interested as the left in blowing this country up and handing it away.
Fuzzy thinkers who believe if they mimmick the left in giving minorities preferential treatment and carte blanche to break the law they will buy appreciation from this potential voting block.
The tent isn't big enuff for them.
|
|
| 573 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 12:06
|
Wow, no concern for constitutional issues at all?
Do you put Napolitano in the leftist-appeasement-for-votes tent or the globalist tent? I'm pretty sure there is ample evidence that he isn't anything like either of those things.
No chance he's just a guy who's grasp of civil rights is a galaxy better than yours?
|
|
| 574 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 13:47
|
Globalists who are as interested as the left in blowing this country up and handing it away.
that's the statement of someone who is woefully uninformed.
this has ZERO to do with any sort of globalist conspiracy, and everything to do with constitutionality, racial profiling, the power of enforcement, and the hows of enforcement.
Fuzzy thinkers who believe if they mimmick the left in giving minorities preferential treatment
again, so far off the mark, it's as if you're trying to throw a dart at the moon.
for someone who loves to evoke images of Nazism as often as possible, this is just one step away from yellow stars and pink triangles.
|
|
| 575 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 16:55
|
I don't know any legal function of the INS that resembles the concentration camp or the Berlin Wall or apartheid, anticipating your next hyperbolic flight of fancy.
Asking Mexicans to obey immigration laws far less strict than the policies of their own government just isn't scary boogeyman stuff.
|
|
| 576 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 17:03
|
I don't know any legal function of the INS
this isn't about the INS. or have you not been paying attention?
Asking Mexicans to obey immigration laws
this isn't about asking Mexicans to obey immigration laws, or have you not been paying attention.
this is about local police being told to potentially ask American citizens their immigration status, and enforce an immigration policy that likely encourages racial profiling. neither has to do with the INS or Mexicans.
it's of no surprise that one of the first to file suit against the law, is a police officer.
(15-year Tucson police veteran Martin) Escobar, an overnight patrol officer in a heavily Latino area of Tucson, argues there's no way for officers to confirm people's immigration status without impeding investigations, and that the new law violates numerous constitutional rights.
also filing suit is The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders.
they're seeking an injunction preventing authorities from enforcing the law. The group argues federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders, and that Arizona's law violates due process rights by letting police detain suspected illegal immigrants before they're convicted.
|
|
| |
| 578 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 17:52
|
Who did you think INS used to question wrt immigration laws, back when they did their job?
Now Arizona has to do their job. Someone check the INS computers. Maybe they have something in common with SEC workers.
|
|
| 579 | Razor
ID: 222262113 Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 21:42
|
Where is that thread where you claimed there were up to 100 million illegal immigrants in the US? Your credibility on this particular subject has been hampered by your earlier arguments.
|
|
| 580 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 23:27
|
How does that misquote take one iota away from post#578?
|
|
| 581 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 08:34
|
578 takes away from itself, because it's irrelevant. like most of what you've been saying about this issue, it really is a silly argument.
well, i mean, that bank teller wasn't getting me the money fast enough, so i leaped the counter and got the money myself.
it's a bad law Baldwin. but i'll ask you the same thing - how will YOU prove your immigration status if pulled over in arizona and asked for it.
|
|
| 582 | bibA
ID: 49359307 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 08:59
|
Why would he be pulled over? He isn't Hispanic, is he?
|
|
| 583 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 09:00
|
The INS is irrelevant in a thread about immigration?
|
|
| 584 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 09:35
|
Why would he be pulled over? He isn't Hispanic, is he?
:oD perhaps that's the crux of the issue, eh?
The INS is irrelevant in a thread about immigration?
the INS is irrelevant in why this is a bad law.
|
|
| 585 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 09:48
|
Legal challenges to Arizona immigration law multiply
and wise words here, from a woman who has sung many brilliant ones:
Also at Thursday’s press conference was singer Linda Ronstadt. “My family, of both German and Mexican heritage, has a long history in Arizona. It has been our diverse and shared history in this state that unites us and makes us stronger,” she said. “What Governor Brewer signed into law last week is a piece of legislation that threatens the very heart of this great state.”
Ms. Ronstadt added: “We must come together and stop [the new law] from pitting neighbor against neighbor to the detriment of all.”
|
|
| 586 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 09:57
|
how will YOU prove your immigration status if pulled over in arizona and asked for it.
drivers license well in Florida since they make you show birth certificate and/or social security number to get a new/renew your ID. But if you did not drive and never got a license it might be hard to show unless you happen to carry papers with you.
|
|
| 587 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 09:59
|
Senate Democrats to push new immigration reform plan
sounds like a reasonable solution to me:
The 26-page draft obtained by CNN attempts to woo GOP senators in part by calling for "concrete benchmarks" to secure the border before granting illegal immigrants the opportunity to gain legal status.
Those benchmarks include: increasing the number of border patrol officers and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, increasing the number of personnel available to inspect for drugs and contraband, and improving technology used to assist ICE agents.
At the same time, "high-tech ground sensors" would be installed across the Mexican border. Officers would be equipped with the "technological capability to respond to activation of the ground sensors in the area they are patrolling," according to the draft.
Fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant biometric Social Security cards would be issued to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants. Fines for knowingly hiring someone not eligible for employment would be increased by 300 percent. Repeat offenders would face time in prison.
The draft proposal includes a process to legalize an estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants in the United States. It states that all illegal immigrants living in the United States would be required to "come forward to register, be screened, and, if eligible, complete other requirements to earn legal status, including paying taxes."
Illegal immigrants cleared by federal authorities would be eligible to petition for permanent resident status eight years after current visa backlogs have cleared.
of course, the big question, as usual, will be cost. if the Dems put this into play, the Republicans will likely push back, using the "cost" excuse.
|
|
| 588 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 10:03
|
This all seems pretty reasonable, well except this part:
At the same time, "high-tech ground sensors" would be installed across the Mexican border. Officers would be equipped with the "technological capability to respond to activation of the ground sensors in the area they are patrolling," according to the draft.
I guess they can use ground sensors as counters for people entering the country illegally.
they also might want to think about increasing the fines by more that 300%.
|
|
| 589 | weykool Leader
ID: 41750315 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 10:11
|
well, i mean, that bank teller wasn't getting me the money fast enough, so i leaped the counter and got the money myself.
Wrong analogy Tree. The bank robber is holding a gun to the tellers face and threatening to kill them while a police officer in the next line looks on and does nothing. Kudos to the bank teller for drawing their own gun and shooting the bank robber.
I am curious....those who are opposing the Arizona law, other than talking about "securing our borders" what plan are they offering to match their rhetoric?
|
|
| 590 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 10:14
|
bank robber is holding a gun to the tellers face
That's exactly the image that pops into my head whenever I think of Mexican people.
|
|
| 591 | weykool Leader
ID: 41750315 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 10:50
|
Exactly....You have not heard of all the killings and kidnappings? Time to wake up to to a real and growing problem. You can deny the problem all you want but the safety and security of the American people is at risk here.
|
|
| 592 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 10:55
|
You have not heard of all the killings and kidnappings?
Show me that they commit violent crimes any more frequently.
|
|
| 593 | Biliruben movin
ID: 358252515 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 10:56
|
Dude. The safety and security of the American people is always and will always be at risk.
The question is the risk so great we should take a piss on the costitution that made this country great?
Live free or die, baby.
|
|
| 594 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 11:09
|
I am curious....those who are opposing the Arizona law, other than talking about "securing our borders" what plan are they offering to match their rhetoric?
Those Republicans listed above (among others) are solidly "pro-secure border" people. Tom Tancredo, for example, was a single-issue Republican Presidential candidate, whose single issue is---immigration!
|
|
| 595 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 11:11
|
The question is the risk so great we should take a piss on the costitution that made this country great?
Live free or die, baby.
but you feel it is ok to make me have to buy health insurance?
|
|
| 596 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 11:11
|
592: That question is actually irrelevant--I'd say show me that they all do it" is a much better question.
|
|
| 597 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 11:24
|
That question is actually irrelevant
By all means, elaborate. It seems quite plain on it's face to me that if they commit violent crimes no more frequently or less frequently than other people, then they actually have a neutral to positive impact on violnt crime rates overall. You only have a viable issue with increased rate of violent crime if they commit more violent crimes than other people. So I was asking you to support your argument with something other than subjectively presented anecdotal evidence (which is the type of thing that leads very ignorant people to conjure images of armed bank robbers when they think of Mexicans).
I'd say show me that they all do it"
Perhaps you or someone else can explain this statement to me. Who claims "they all do it?" Do what?
|
|
| 598 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 11:25
|
I am curious....those who are opposing the Arizona law, other than talking about "securing our borders" what plan are they offering
A new road lane just for illegals that leads to the motor voter queue.
|
|
| 599 | Biliruben movin
ID: 358252515 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 11:26
|
And you feel it's okay to derail the thread by changing the subject?
|
|
| 600 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 11:28
|
That is entirely what illegal immigration is about. At least from the political insider's POV.
|
|
| 601 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 11:29
|
those who are opposing the Arizona law, other than talking about "securing our borders" what plan are they offering
That's an awfully large cross-section of people from varied political backgrounds.
You could start with the entry from conservative blogger Connor Friedersdorf excerpted and linked in post 570.
|
|
| 602 | Biliruben movin
ID: 358252515 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 11:30
|
Sorry - I'm in lax and they charge for freaking wireless.
I was responding to boikin.
|
|
| 603 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 11:41
|
Just asking the question? clearly some days you want to trample on the constitution some days you want to revere it. How can i take you opinion serious if you can not make up your mind on what you stand for.
I did not intend to hijack the thread all i wanted was an answer, don't answer. It would have ended right there.
|
|
| 604 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 11:44
|
I think a case can be made that both are entirely rights-centric viewpoints. The right to life, and the right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion are both constitutionally-protected areas.
Nevertheless, the reason this law will be overturned is that the state is intruding upon federal law. The attempts, by some, to scare people into supporting the law simply doesn't get around that fact.
|
|
| 605 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 11:56
|
You are conflating people pay for health services they will recieve with a police state where people now have to carry around papers?
In short, yes. I support people paying for things they recieve, if able, and I'm decidedly anti-police state.
|
|
| 606 | Frick
ID: 45333011 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 12:03
|
Re: 604
I saw an article that quoted the author of the law (A Missouri Prof) who said he carefully crafted the bill so that it was concurrent enforcement of an existing federal law. What the AZ law does it make it a state crime in addition to the federal crime.
|
|
| 607 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 12:06
|
Right. But immigration is entirely within the purview of the federal government. AZ can't make a federal law violation a state one in order to expand police powers into this restricted law enforcement area.
|
|
| 608 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 12:29
|
A new road lane just for illegals that leads to the motor voter queue.
actually, to your town, so they can take away from you a job you would no doubt take.
I am curious....those who are opposing the Arizona law, other than talking about "securing our borders" what plan are they offering to match their rhetoric?
i posted a link. check it out.
Exactly....You have not heard of all the killings and kidnappings?
any proof that illegal immigrants are "killing and kidnapping" more than U.S. born citizens?
|
|
| 609 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 13:20
|
So the Arizona law is similar to the federal law.
One would think the federal government would be grateful to Arizona for helping them do their job. And for free. But, they are not grateful. In fact, they are trying to stop it. It makes no sense.
|
|
| 610 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 13:21
|
Mith-- I think you may have misunderstood my 596.
EVEN IF they commit the crimes in question more freqently, I don't consider that a terribly relevant issue. You'd still be lumping in the 99.x% that don't commit those crimes in on the basis of what the <1% do. That the value of x is slightly higher or lower doesn't really make any difference at all, does it?
The rest of it you seemed to be arguing with someone else about, so I won't address.
|
|
| 611 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 13:43
|
Thanks for clearing up, DWetzel.
|
|
| 612 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 13:45
|
I find it amazing how the side that insists it is the "pro-constitution side" couldn't care a whit about civil rights on this topic. Have any of you even acknowledged the constitutionality issue in this thread?
|
|
| 613 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 14:07
|
One would think the federal government would be grateful to Arizona for helping them do their job. And for free.
Actually, Arizona is asking the federal government to pay for the officers to be trained.
I don't know of any government level which is grateful for another to butt into theirs.
|
|
| 614 | Farn @ work Leader
ID: 451044109 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 14:11
|
Actually, Arizona is asking the federal government to pay for the officers to be trained.
What's great is that when the federal gov't won't fund training for this law Arizona will use its own money, which is comical considering the state of our economy and the massive budget cuts that are underway. And if Prop 100 doesn't pass those cuts are about to get worse.
|
|
| 615 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 14:26
|
Exactly what benefits do you imagine the constitutional intended to extend to citizens of other countries and where do you find it in there?
|
|
| 616 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 14:37
|
I'm not sure who you are asking that question. But the Bill of Rights applies to everyone physically in the United States, including non-citizens.
|
|
| 617 | Seattle Zen
ID: 1410391215 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 15:16
|
AZ can't make a federal law violation a state one in order to expand police powers into this restricted law enforcement area.
It's funny, but everyone thinks that someone who is in this country without authorization is committing a crime - Jose, over there, came across the border illegally, arrest him, his committing a crime.
Being the country without authorization is not a crime - the crime was ENTERING the country. He's not committing a crime standing in Home Depot's parking lot.
Wrap your mind around that and then extend it further - what crime are AZ police investigating when they ask for papers? They are not - they are trying to round up people so that they can be given an administrative hearing by DHS to determine if they are to be deported. These people are not given an attorney to represent them at these hearings because they are not being charged with a crime. Yet you can sit in jail for months.
|
|
| 618 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 15:49
|
It's administrative law rather than criminal law, as I understand it.
|
|
| 619 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 16:22
|
But the Bill of Rights applies to everyone physically in the United States, including non-citizens
Really?
Illegal aliens have the right to bear arms? Liberals aren't even willing to extend that to citizens.
Vote?
If they don't have a right to enter how do they have a right to assemble?
SZ, does not their being here present prima facia proof they have broken the law?
|
|
| 620 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 16:27
|
I'm sorry--but you've made a very ignorant post. I'm not saying you are ignorant, but this is pretty basic stuff.
You can, of course, read the actual Constitution and note that it makes a distinction between which rights apply to "all persons" and which ones apply to "all citizens." Or, you can do 5 minutes of Google searching on the point and find someone who did a short, punchy article on the distinction.
What you should not do is post on this point until you've boned up on it.
|
|
| 621 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 16:47
|
Um, if it applies to everybody I guess you are happy the Iraqis are no longer having their constitutional rights violated by Saddam.
|
|
| 622 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 16:59
|
#621: No one says it applies to everyone who is neither a US citizen nor inside the US.
|
|
| 623 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 17:01
|
And that's a very silly red herring in 621, even aside from the fact that your misunderstanding was pre-emptively covered by post 616.
|
|
| 624 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 17:06
|
The Internets is practically made for the kind of on-the-fly research begging to be done for that question.
Seriously--do a little digging on the point please.
Keep in mind that the Constitution does not convey rights (as a conservative this is an infallible point for membership). The Constitution determines the scope and limits to the Government's interactions with your Creator-given rights.
If you believe that the government gives people rights and those rights are spelled out in the Constitution, you need to turn in your conservative card. Now, please.
|
|
| 625 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 17:22
|
The 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
|
|
| 626 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 19:12
|
Really if you are going to redefine 'We the people' to mean anyone who we can sneak into the country illegally, then it's time conservatives comb the world for the Cuban diaspora, the hmong refugees [those we haven't ignominiously sent back to their deaths], Hungarians and Romanians and Polish who know why you don't want communist presidents.
But no, 'We the people' is coterminous with we citizens. And anyone who says otherwise is proving Orwell right that they'd be stripping the meanings from words so that opposition to the state would not even be able to communicate.
|
|
| 627 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 19:17
|
And you can show me where in the constitution it says that illegals can't be deported.
|
|
| 628 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 19:46
|
Who said this?
|
|
| 629 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 20:16
|
Really if you are going to redefine 'We the people' to mean anyone who we can sneak into the country illegally
You mean like we did in Texas and California in the 18th Century?
The history of this country is filled with citizens sneaking into Seminole land, Sioux land, Apache land, Comanche land, Cherokee Land, Nez Perce land, etc. illegally.
"We the People" meant "We the rich white male Northern European-descended land owners."
I wonder how you would feel if you were a Hispanic Arizonan whose family roots goes back several centuries suddenly being asked for your papers. I was hooked up with a Canadian gentleman on the golf course in Scottsdale last October, a Snowbird who owns a house on the course. You think this 60 year old white man will ever be asked for his papers?
So it looks like "We the People" still means "rich white male Northern European-descended land owners" even if they're not citizens.
|
|
| 630 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 20:21
|
And none of that is reason to give up on having borders.
Have fun finding anyone who is the original inhabitant of their land holdings. Among indian tribes find someone whose ancestors did not dispossess some other tribe.
|
|
| 631 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 20:27
|
And none of that is reason to give up on having borders.
who said this?
If you insist on responding to points no one is making, you'll find no one reading your posts.
I realize it is tougher to respond to the actual points being made. But try.
|
|
| 632 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 20:58
|
who said this?
No one. It's just so much easier to avoid questions and distort what people say into a soundbite. It's an Alinsky tactic.
|
|
| 633 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 22:06
|
Deport them. Problem solved. Why is there any other issue?
|
|
| 634 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 22:34
|
Deport them. Problem solved. Why is there any other issue?
well, for the more informed, there is another issue, and it's bigger than the immigrants that are here already - in fact, you've made a point of it yourself.
the problem isn't solved by deporting them.
the problem is helped by tightening our borders.
|
|
| 635 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Sat, May 01, 2010, 05:48
|
For any specific illegal alien, the solution is deportation.
No need to dither about social benefits.
No need to dither about motor voter.
No need to dither about right to bear arms [well they prolly don't enjoy that where they come from but they for sure don't need to be doing it here].
No need to dither about freedom of assembly [in this country, they can associate with whoever they like when they get home].
No need to dither about freedom of speech [in this country, they can say anything they like when they get home].
Anyone wanna argue they have a religious right to be given peyote while they await deportation?
Forget trial by jury for them, they can get all the jury trials they want when they get home, they can have their residency/citzenship case argued by their country's counselate if they actually had a case.
Deportation is not cruel and unusual punishment and they can just accept immediate deportation if they think they are being held too long awaiting a hearing. If they actually had a valid legal case for staying they can see the previous point about having that handled diplomatically.
In short there are zero constitutional problems with handling illegal immigrants the way they used to be handled when we had borders and a functional INS. Anyone who says otherwise is just hoping to find someone silly enuff or disingenuous enuff to agree with them.
|
|
| 636 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sat, May 01, 2010, 10:09
|
Anyone wanna argue they have a religious right to be given peyote while they await deportation?
no, but let's talk about more ignorance here:
currently, it's Native Americans who use peyote LEGALLY for religious purposes, particularly those from the Native American Church. There's no official Mexican churches or still active established religions who still use it.
Deportation is not cruel and unusual punishment...
it can be, as it may force families to split up. i presume you're a-ok with taking children from their parents in this case, despite your arguments otherwise in situations where the government separates children from parents.
For any specific illegal alien, the solution is deportation
out of curiousity, are you willing to see an increase in YOUR taxes to pay for the massive expense of deporting everyone here illegally?
|
|
| 637 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Sat, May 01, 2010, 10:23
|
re# 635 and all previous posts in this thread by same poster:
Nowhere have you addressed that this law allows for the detention of Hispanic Americans based solely on their skin color, and possibly accented English.
All your talk of tyranny, loss of freedoms and the like is rendered moot as you seemingly ignore the very real scenario that hundreds of thousands of Americans must now constantly look over their shoulders and carry papers that non-brown skinned Americans, like yourself, never even think about. It's mind boggling that you refuse to acknowledge the potential for abuse this law provides, where police can detain anyone they claim they suspect of being in this country illegally.
For someone with an inherent distrust of government, it now appears that you are willing to trust that law enforcement in Arizona, many who probably feel as you do[expand the voter roles with those seeking handouts] won't use this state sponsored targeting of Hispanics to supress the freedoms guaranteed citizens in this country.
You'll yell from the rooftops that Obama is committed to killing Granny and any other such paranoid nonsense that you obsess about, but given a situation where American freedoms are really at issue and the response is no problem.
|
|
| 638 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sat, May 01, 2010, 10:36
|
Padres' Heath Bell on Arizona law: "Mind-boggling''
Bell is San Diego's player representative to the Major League Baseball Players Association, which Friday issued a statement that if the bill continues as passed, the union would "consider additional steps necessary to protect the rights and interests of our members."
imagine if baseball begins to move all games out of Arizona, including, and especially Spring Training. that's a LOT of lost revenue for that state.
|
|
| 639 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, May 01, 2010, 10:53
|
The baseball players’ union said it opposed the law and raised concerns about how foreign-born players, who make up about a quarter of major league rosters, and their families would be affected.
Half of the league’s 30 teams have spring training facilities in Arizona, and the All-Star Game is scheduled to be played at the Arizona Diamondbacks’ stadium in Phoenix next year.
“We hope that the law is repealed or modified promptly,” Michael Weiner, head of the players’ union, said in a statement. “If the current law goes into effect, the M.L.B.P.A. will consider additional steps necessary to protect the rights and interests of our members.”
|
|
| 640 | Mötley Crüe Dude
ID: 439372011 Sat, May 01, 2010, 11:35
|
Arizona teachers can be removed from their classrooms if their accents are too strong.
Kids manage to pick up the accent of the environment they live in, despite the presence of strong accents that may differ from the local version. The policy Arizona is using to re-assign and potentially dismiss some of these teachers is shallow and doesn't appear to be based on any actual research evidence.
Starting to get the idea they like to shoot first and ask questions later in that state.
|
|
| 641 | biliruben
ID: 113582522 Sat, May 01, 2010, 11:46
|
Dang. Now I'm confused. I swear Baldwin told us that Racial discrimination was dead in America.
|
|
| 642 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sat, May 01, 2010, 18:36
|
Baseball alarmed by Arizona immigration law
undreds of teenage ballplayers arrive every year in the United States trying to make a better life. They come from the Dominican Republic and Venezuela and Mexico and elsewhere, all to play the most American of games. Most grew up in poverty. Few know English. The game welcomes them anyway.
In less than two months, the Arizona Rookie League begins its season. Nearly 140 young players born and raised in Spanish-speaking countries will congregate in Phoenix and its suburbs for their first taste of professional baseball. They may do so as the nation’s most controversial law – the one that says some people who look like them are most certainly not welcome – goes into effect in late July.
....
Take, for example, this scenario: An 18-year-old from Venezuela playing in the rookie league jumps in a friend’s car to head to the grocery store. The friend rolls through a stop sign. A police officer witnesses the infraction. The law, signed last week by Gov. Jan Brewer, requires that “where reasonable suspicion exists … a reasonable attempt shall be made … to determine the immigration status of the person.” The Venezuelan player, accordingly, is asked to furnish paperwork proving his legal residence, a new burden of proof under SB 1070. If he happens to have forgotten his passport and work visa at home, his friend would get a traffic ticket and the player would get significantly more.
“Under that scenario,” said Mike Philipsen, the communications advisor for the Arizona Senate Republicans, who drew up the bill, “he could be detained.”
In other words, hauled off to jail, even though he is in the United States legally.
and that, in a nutshell, is one of the biggest problems with this law.
i hope they move the league out of arizona until the law changes.
|
|
| 643 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, May 01, 2010, 19:37
|
AZ Governor: Arizona has been under terrorist attacks! [if you will, by illegal immigrants]
A textbook fear mongering technique.
|
|
| 644 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Sat, May 01, 2010, 20:03
|
You know what happens when a liberal gets mugged by reality.
|
|
| 645 | tree on the treo
ID: 287212811 Sat, May 01, 2010, 20:11
|
based on your posts, conservatives have no experience with reality, mugged or otherwise....
|
|
| 646 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, May 01, 2010, 20:19
|
They start posting here?
|
|
| |
| 648 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Sun, May 02, 2010, 07:29
|
This is a drug prohibition problem much more than an immigration problem.
The escalation in the violence has been a result of a number of factors. As I’ve written about previously, the strength of Mexico’s drug cartels was a result of our relative success in cracking down on Colombian cartels. In addition, the border crackdowns since 9/11 have forced those cartels to move more of their operations into the United States, especially by growing marijuana in public lands within America instead of trying to smuggle it across the border. Third, the nationwide efforts to restrict sales of over-the-counter cold medicines – making it much harder to cook up large quantities of methamphetamines – has shifted that trade from being small and local to being a more high-scale operation that makes its way from Mexico through the southwest.
All of these things have made Phoenix, which sits in an ideal location near the Mexican border, a major transit and operation point for Mexican-based drug distribution networks.
|
|
| 649 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Sun, May 02, 2010, 10:17
|
The Mexican drug cartels have greatly increased the overall crime stats that are assigned to illegals.
The problem is real, the problem is growing, and the problem will not be remedied by the new law, which targets the dishwasher at Denny's and the maid at Motel 6 instead of the mule from Guadalaraja crossing the frontier with several pounds of meth and an American made firearm.
In lots of cases, that dishwasher and maid have been working that job for a decade or more, and are instrumental in the success of the business. Sure, you can hire a white American kid to do that job, and they'll show up about half the time and quit after a few months. Denny's and Motel 6 don't hire illegals because they can pay them less. They hire them because they always show up for work and bust ass, because they're incredibly more dependable than their legal counterparts.
Admittedly, it's different in the construction trades, where contractors will double up with illegal workers making it virtually impossible for scrupulous contractors to play by the rules and still get contracts. In the construction trades, illegal workers are more transient, making communities less stable and more susceptible to criminal elements.
So it isn't as simple as saying "round them up and deport them all." The ones who will be the easiest to round up and deport are the ones who are the most visible: the 10 year Denney's dishwasher and the 10 year Motel 6 maid who have lived at the same address for a decade; the person who spends 8 hours a day cutting the heads off chickens so McDonald's and Wendy's can sell nuggets for a buck. Not only are they the most visible, they're the most economically productive.
It should be obvious that the Arizona law is going to create more problems than it solves, because it doesn't address the root problems. It enflames not only the legal Hispanic communities, but most anyone who understands that it's important to discriminate between stable hard-working employees and unstable transients and criminals.
|
|
| 650 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Sun, May 02, 2010, 14:32
|
Sure, you can hire a white American kid to do that job, and they'll show up about half the time and quit after a few months
What's the percentage of black unemployed these days? You do care about the poor, yes? And the minorities?
|
|
| 651 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Sun, May 02, 2010, 15:11
|
We both know the nanny state has all but destroyed the work ethic of many Americans, black, white and brown. I care about the poor and minorities willing to work and bust ass, not sit on them and collect government handouts or waste away on drugs and alcohol.
Besides, there's only 10 black people in Utah, they all play for the Utah Jazz and are millionaires ;)
|
|
| 652 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Sun, May 02, 2010, 15:28
|
Let's just stick to the immigration laws and save them the inevitable character decay.
|
|
| |
| 654 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Sun, May 02, 2010, 19:36
|
telling paragraph from that link, thanks Farn:
Cochise County's crime rate has been "flat" for at least 10 years, the sheriff added. Even in 2000, when record numbers of undocumented immigrants were detained in the area, just 4 percent of the area's violent crimes were committed by illegal aliens.
So, crime is flat despite an exploding population; which means the crime per 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 capita has gone down. With that per capita decrease, only 4% of the crime OF that declining number, can be attributed to illegals.
The truth, is SO hurtful of the rights latest "cause of the hour"; yet again.
|
|
| 655 | Frick
ID: 45333011 Sun, May 02, 2010, 21:32
|
And there has been no increase in the non-hispanic population? The crime could have dropped, but it is also possible it has increased, but been masked by an increase in non-hispanics.
|
|
| 656 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Mon, May 03, 2010, 07:10
|
Exodus 22:21 “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.”
|
|
| 657 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Mon, May 03, 2010, 07:25
|
What does your question Frick, have to do with anything relevant or meaningful? The pop increase could be entirely Frenchmen. The stats show flat crime. Thats a decline on a per capita basis.
Since the RW claims that crime is rising rampantly, and that the illegals are swarming across the border. The inference from the RW would be that the pop increase is in illegals and we should then see a DRAMATIC rise in crime.
Simple logic undermines the RWs position, so instead of self evaluate, you ask meaningless questions?
In the meantime, here's an idea the RW will prolly take to. Calling for expansion running E-W along the entire border:
All American Canal...deathtrap
|
|
| 658 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Mon, May 03, 2010, 07:52
|
#655 that's possible, but given what we've seen about crime rates among illegal aliens, that doesn't see likely.
|
|
| 659 | Frick
ID: 294438 Mon, May 03, 2010, 09:04
|
Re: 657
I was pointing out that you made some assumptions on the populations to support your claim. If the population explosion was non-illegal alliens, then an increase in crimes committed by them, would be buried in the data. That doesn't appear to be the case, but my question is valid and not meaningless.
The town where I grew up has a large processing plant, that now employs mostly immigrants due to the low pay, dangerous nature of the work. I applaud their ability to put up with the hostile attitude they face by a lot of people they live among. For the most part they are great people who are trying to make a better life for themselves, which is all I want for a neighbor. But, there are occasional exceptions. There have been several murders between various nationalities and supposedly some of it is gang based. I say supposedly because when two locals (and redneck is appropriate here) get into an fight and someone is killed it is news, but not sensationalized. When an immigrant is involved, gangs get brought into the picture and everyone accepts it.
Arizona is trying to put a band-aid onto a gaping wound. I can't say that I approve of their methodology, but hopefully it will lead to some reform on immigration. Part of that reform needs to be harsher punishments of companies that employ illegal immigrants. Another part is making it substantially easier to work in the country, even if it is not as a full citizen. Although that approach has some serious drawbacks as well, see France or Germany.
|
|
| 660 | Jag
ID: 4143139 Mon, May 03, 2010, 10:56
|
It is comforting that some things never change. Boldwin is still leading the good fight against the illogical Left.
ILLEGAL immigration is a problem for every country. Affluent people are not crossing the border, so they either need a job, which we have few, need financial assistance, which we are stretched out already or they will steal to survive. I talk to people around the world and illegal immigrants are a burden on every economy, even ones of the same skin color.
The problem with Mexico is the government has the same political thought as the Liberals on this forum, anti-business, get the rich and take no responsibility for your actions. What is really scary is when their children come to age to vote, our economy may mirror Mexico.
It must be nice to be a rich white Liberal, who is away from the crime, joblessness and poverty the ILLEGAL immigrates create, so they can stand on their soapbox and show how open minded they are.
|
|
| 661 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Mon, May 03, 2010, 11:19
|
Welcome back, Jag, you old son of a...!
Likely this is simply a drive-by trolling, in which case -insert audible sigh of relief here-.
Otherwise, go read the new policy on civility and respect before posting again.
Hopefully you have the ability to engage a conversation constructively.
|
|
| 662 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, May 03, 2010, 11:27
|
Uh, right. Newt Gingrich and Tom Tancredo are "rich white Liberals." Well, two out of three ain't bad.
The problem with the current right is, as has been pointed out elsewhere, their epistemelogicial closure. As if there cannot be any other response to this particular problem than this one and it must be defended at all costs, against everyone, in a way which makes clear that your teeth are clamped around this bone very tightly and your growling ain't a game.
Meanwhile, the quest toward self-martyrdom continues.
But in a problem this complex there are many possible solutions, some of which need to be made in conjunction with others. The belief that "Boldwin is still leading the good fight against the illogical Left." reveals that a common belief on the Right these days: That it is more important where ideas come from on the political spectrum than the context of those ideas or whether they actually work. Their purity must be maintained!
|
|
| 663 | Farn @ work Leader
ID: 451044109 Mon, May 03, 2010, 11:30
|
"rich, white liberals"
Well, I live in the heart of this immigration mess. And one of those 3 adjectives describes me. And yet I'd like to see the immigration process fixed. And I believe that this law is a violation of the basic human rights.
Always nice to see some solid stereotyping though.
|
|
| 664 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, May 03, 2010, 12:21
|
The belief that "Boldwin is still leading the good fight against the illogical Left." reveals that a common belief on the Right these days: That it is more important where ideas come from on the political spectrum than the context of those ideas or whether they actually work. Their purity must be maintained!
i think this is a big thing, and it's something we've more-or-less already established. there is a large number of the leadership on the Right who are not really "for" anything other than some basic ideals or abstract thoughts, but rather "against" anything suggested by anyone to the left of the right of center.
It must be nice to be a rich white Liberal, who is away from the crime, joblessness and poverty...
i've imagined that must be nice too. i'm white, and a liberal. i'm hardly rich - i was unemployed for over a year, and i certainly didn't have money before that.
i live in an "up-and-coming neighborhood", which means, a couple years ago, it was a scary place. that being said, i can still walk about 2 blocks and show you the local crack house that still exists.
|
|
| 665 | Jag
ID: 4143139 Mon, May 03, 2010, 13:31
|
I don't think this new law can hold up in court and has too many gray areas, but there HAS to be something done. Every time it is address, the Left pulls the racist card. I think very few have a bias against Hispanics and if a white race were coming over in mass numbers ILLEGALLY causing the same problems as the Mexican ILLEGAL aliens, even the Liberals would start helping to solve the situation.
Liberals have a scorched earth philosophy when it comes to immigration, they would rather see the country go to hell in a hand basket, than go against the far-left tenet.
Tree, you are correct when you say the Right is against anything proposed by the Left, because the Left does not try to solve problems, rather come up with ideas that sound politically correct. There is absolutely no substance to any Liberal thought. It is like men and women, the guy says tell me the problem and I will try to solve it, chicks just want you to bond emotionally and feel their suffering.
A good example of the illogical Left trying to politically correct a problem is immigration. Simple solution is build a wall and send the ones here back home. The Left solution is to attack the evil white businessmen that employ them and force the illegals onto the government dole, making generations of social program draining families.
|
|
| 666 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, May 03, 2010, 13:53
|
So long as you continue to paint this as an "us vs liberals" problem a solution will escape you. As will peace.
|
|
| 667 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, May 03, 2010, 14:13
|
Every time it is address, the Left pulls the racist card.
simply untrue. for example, go back and read post 587.
I think very few have a bias against Hispanics and if a white race were coming over in mass numbers ILLEGALLY causing the same problems as the Mexican ILLEGAL aliens, even the Liberals would start helping to solve the situation.
other than acknowledging the above as a silly statement, there's really no way to respond to its absurdity.
Tree, you are correct when you say the Right is against anything proposed by the Left, because the Left does not try to solve problems, rather come up with ideas that sound politically correct.
i realize simple people can only think in simple us vs. them terms.
reality is not that way.
|
|
| 668 | Jag
ID: 4143139 Mon, May 03, 2010, 14:25
|
What is absurd, there is little bias against Hispanics or the only reason the Left thwart all efforts against illegal immigration is because of the Hispanic minority?
It is not an us vs them, it is a right vs wrong. I wish the Left would bring logical thought to the process, but I can tell you their stance before they say it and basically it is the white rich male's fault. If I am wrong, please give me an example.
|
|
| 669 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Mon, May 03, 2010, 14:45
|
the Left thwart all efforts against illegal immigration
This is untrue. There has been support on the left for cracking down on the basic heart of the problem: businesses that employ illegals. It is the pro-business right that takes the lead in putting up roadblocks there. And either this year or next (increasingly looking like this year) you will see the Dems in Congress roll out ideas to deal with the issue. You think that will lead to anything other than the next round of GOP legislative obstruction?
And for the record the right's failures on the issue are every bit as glaring. Reagan's amnesty policy in the 80s, for example. And in the past decade, the GOP had the White House and the Congress and accomplished nothing.
|
|
| 670 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Mon, May 03, 2010, 14:49
|
Of course, there's been substantial disagreement (for example, even in this thread) as to exactly how to deal with the problem.
Which just illustrates that coming on here and trolling with "The left thinks xxx" is a lazy, unproductive way to try to argue about things, and obviously false too. Of course, if you don't really give a damn about the problem either and just want to insult "the left", it's a great way to accomplish that.
|
|
| 671 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, May 03, 2010, 14:55
|
What is absurd, there is little bias against Hispanics or the only reason the Left thwart all efforts against illegal immigration is because of the Hispanic minority?
your statement about white immigrants vs. hispanic immigrants. that's what is absurd.
It is not an us vs them, it is a right vs wrong. I wish the Left would bring logical thought to the process, but I can tell you their stance before they say it and basically it is the white rich male's fault. If I am wrong, please give me an example.
so, which is it? are the liberals the rich white male, or are they against the rich white male. you'd used that card in two different ways within a handful of posts.
|
|
| 672 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, May 03, 2010, 14:56
|
What is absurd, there is little bias against Hispanics
I think the best source for this is the Hispanics themselves, yes? And, by and large, they are up in arms against this. Hispanics have been strongly conservative for decades on a number of issues, and are being completely ignored on this.
The GOP is about to lose a strong constituency on this issue, mostly as a result of believing that "us vs them" is indistinguishable from "right vs wrong." In a few decades we'll get some stories about "Why don't Hispanics back the GOP?"
|
|
| 673 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Mon, May 03, 2010, 18:48
|
Tell it to Rubio.
|
|
| 674 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Mon, May 03, 2010, 18:55
|
No need to tell Rubio. He already knows. From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens.
|
|
| 675 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, May 03, 2010, 19:45
|
Tell it to Rubio.
well if that's not proof you don't read anyone else's posts...
i posted Rubio's thoughts on it nearly 150 posts ago.
regardless, now, what were you saying about Rubio?
|
|
| 676 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Mon, May 03, 2010, 19:46
|
Ambivalence wrt certain aspects does not translate to opposition to the law.
|
|
| 677 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Mon, May 03, 2010, 19:48
|
As I stated earlier, even I have qualms about the phrase 'show me your papers'. That does not make me opposed to this law.
|
|
| 678 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Mon, May 03, 2010, 19:54
|
I should also point out:
1) He has not called for elimination of this law without the federal government fixing the broken system first.
2) Far from paying a price for recognizing the illegal immigration problem for what it is, he is prospering, and certainly with the support of legal immigrants.
|
|
| 679 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Mon, May 03, 2010, 20:47
|
Arizona should just give free tickets to San Fran Sisco, Colorado, the upper west side, Manhattan to the 400K illegals in state. - Bernie Goldberg
|
|
| 680 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Mon, May 03, 2010, 20:59
|
Multiple studies, have shown that immigrants (even illegal ones), pose more benefit to a local economy than a drain.
A link above, shows that crime is down, not up, along the border between AZ and Mexico.
The truth, once again, undermines and disproves the position of the far right wingnuts; so they conveniently ignore it and resort instead to mischaracterizations, improper/incorrect generalizations, and soundbites.
And they somehow expect to be taken seriously.
|
|
| 681 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, May 03, 2010, 21:37
|
I do have concerns about this legislation
Can you say this, Baldwin?
He has the exact same concerns people on this board are having with this law. Yet we're the crazy liberals...
|
|
| 682 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Mon, May 03, 2010, 21:42
|
Four to six billion in annual increased costs for one state is not chicken feed.
That doesn't include the costs incurred to support the millions of Californians displaced from jobs by this unfair and illegal competition.
|
|
| 683 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Mon, May 03, 2010, 21:44
|
PD
I can say this, 'He isn't calling for the law to be repealed like the crazy liberals here are'. [to use your characterization]
|
|
| 684 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Mon, May 03, 2010, 22:07
|
link
link
link
link
The 2nd link indicates a net cost of 9 billion annually. The other two, make a different finding. Take them, for what you will.
|
|
| 685 | Mith
ID: 4435321 Mon, May 03, 2010, 22:35
|
Rubio has used the term "police state" to describe the impact of the law. Hes walking exactly the tightrope you deny the law forces republicans to navigate with their Hispanic constituants.
|
|
| 686 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, May 03, 2010, 23:13
|
#683: So I'll take that as a "no."
|
|
| |
| 688 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, May 04, 2010, 00:58
|
ozzie guillen and and Adrian Gonzalez may boycott All-Star game next year...
Gonzalez told the San Diego Union-Tribune that the Arizona law is “immoral” and a violation of human rights. “In a way, it goes against what this country was built on. This is discrimination. Are they going to pass out a picture saying ‘You should look like this and you’re fine, but if you don’t, do people have the right to question you?’ That’s profiling.” He went further in an interview with MLB Fanhouse, stating that he would go so far as to refuse playing in the All-Star Game next year if the law is in effect:
He told FanHouse that he will not attend next year’s All-Star Game in Phoenix if the law is in effect, and that he’d like for major league baseball to boycott spring training in Arizona. Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill into law on April 23.
“I’ll support the Players Association 100 percent,” said Gonzalez, who grew up in both Tijuana and a suburb south of San Diego. “If they leave it up to the players and the law is still there, I’ll probably not play in the All-Star Game. Because it’s a discriminating law.
“I know it can’t be done, but they should take spring training out of (Arizona) if it’s possible.”
and the list goes on: Calling the Arizona law “racist stuff,” San Diego Padres catcher Yorvit Torrealba said he he’s not anxious to play in Arizona: “Why do I want to go play in a place where every time I go to a restaurant and they don’t understand what I’m trying to order, they’re going to ask me for ID first? That’s bull.”
and of course, the bottom line is this:
The Nation’s Dave Zirin writes, “There are rare historical moments when protest can shape athletes and athletes can in turn shape the confidence, size, and scope of protest. This could very well be one of those moments.” It has been done before in Arizona. In 1990, Arizona voters’ rejection of an MLK holiday set off a cascade of cancellations of conventions and other events. “The NFL pulled the 1993 Super Bowl from the Phoenix suburb of Tempe. The NBA told the Phoenix Suns not to bother putting in a bid for the All-Star game.”
sports can have a direct effect on this godawful law, and here's hoping that sports can make a difference.
|
|
| 689 | Khahan
ID: 13126822 Tue, May 04, 2010, 08:27
|
Ok, so what is so horrible about this law that I'm missing? And don't just give me, "Its a violation of human rights," rhetoric. Why is it a violation of human rights?
This is what I take from the law: They are toughening down on illegal immigrants and now have a state power to enforce a federal law.
What am I missing?
|
|
| 690 | Frick
ID: 4143147 Tue, May 04, 2010, 08:31
|
The vast majority of the illegal immigrants are Hispanic and the law targetted at them. Does it also apply to non-hispanic immigrants, yes. But, the fear is that police would never ask a non-hispanic about their status.
|
|
| 691 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Tue, May 04, 2010, 08:33
|
Mith, the attack the rich is the one size fits all rule for all politically correct solutions. It lacks any thought, is non-productive and dangerous. It will just increase crime and the burden on social service. I can not be more dismissive on this subject. It is the equivalent of arguing on how to put out a fire and a Liberal suggesting we pour gasoline on it.
Arizona should back down from arbitrarily being able to ask for proof of citizenship, rather only when suspicion of a crime is present. There is enough BS laws, jaywalking, loitering, seat belt violations, that you can always find a way to question a suspected illegal immigrant.
|
|
| 692 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Tue, May 04, 2010, 08:42
|
Ok, so what is so horrible about this law that I'm missing?
See posts: 474 483 484 485 545 546 616 637 649
|
|
| 693 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Tue, May 04, 2010, 08:48
|
Who said "attack the rich"? Is this how you refer to the policy of cracking down on businesses which break the law by hiring illegals?
Thank you for exposing the absurdity of you claim that it is liberals who thwart all efforts against illegal immigration. Bonus points for the hilariously oblivious irony.
|
|
| 694 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Tue, May 04, 2010, 09:13
|
Arizona should back down from arbitrarily being able to ask for proof of citizenship, rather only when suspicion of a crime is present.
This is exactly the position most of those you deem "liberals" have taken on this issue( and a good many conservatives as well). Unfortunately, arbitrarily asking for proof of citizenship is the heart of the law. As I mentioned in previous posts, this law will allow more for the arrest and deportation of the 10 year Denney's dishwasher than the meth smuggler or the petty thief.
Really, who do you think Arizona law enforcement are more likely to arbitrarily target driving down the street - the meth smuggler driving a late model SUV looking like an erudite suburbanite or the dishwasher driving a mid-90s Chevy Impala with a cracked tail light?
|
|
| 695 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, May 04, 2010, 09:17
|
I think that many whites simply don't get that the hispanic community will bear the brunt of this law--having to continually prove that they are legal to police and others continually questioning their suitability for being here.
This psychological problem is completely missed by the mostly all-white Right, which is why legal Hispanics are up in arms over this law. The Right's response has been: "What's the big deal?" which shows that the law's effects really won't effect them.
|
|
| 696 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Tue, May 04, 2010, 09:41
|
you've again linked to a random blog post, without bothering to check the accuracy of some of the stats, for example.
You can follow my links to California government officials who have to deal with the problem. It's just ludicrous on it's face to suggest that millions and millions of poor people sucking on this country's socialized benefits somehow provide a net gain to the country.
|
|
| 697 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, May 04, 2010, 09:48
|
You can follow my links to California government officials who have to deal with the problem. It's just ludicrous on it's face to suggest that millions and millions of poor people sucking on this country's socialized benefits somehow provide a net gain to the country.
you linked to a blog post that used dubious information and questionable statistics to back up its thesis. period.
i was directly referring to the post in question, not anything else you've posted. if you don't want to stand by it, that's fine. just acknowledge as much.
|
|
| 698 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, May 04, 2010, 09:55
|
Cities, Businesses Boycott Arizona Over New Law
On a recent lunch hour at the Clarendon Hotel in Phoenix, owner Ben Bethel talked about the latest punch to the gut. Customers canceled 80 room reservations in just one day last week, Bethel says. That translates to about $8,000 — a big deal for a small boutique hotel, particularly one trying to emerge from a recession.
"We were so hopeful that things were recovering," he says, "but this is a situation where it's actually going to be very difficult to recover from this."
...
Arizona's economy is already at a breaking point. Its unemployment rate is near 10 percent; the housing sector is gasping for life.
Now cities like San Francisco and St. Paul have banned public employees from traveling to Arizona on business. Los Angeles, San Diego and Oakland have considered banning future contracts with Arizona businesses.
..............
"It's absolutely certain for us that we've never seen anything like this before," says Will Conroy, president of Tucson's historic Arizona Inn.
Conroy selected one of a stack of e-mails from customers who have canceled their reservations.
" 'We will not be visiting the Arizona Inn anytime soon because of the anti-immigration climate in Arizona,' " Conroy says, reading the note aloud. " 'The small role I can play is not to add my presence as if everything in Arizona is fine. I shall miss visiting the Sonoran Desert and the Arizona Inn.' "
"That one got me," Conroy says.
|
|
| 699 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Tue, May 04, 2010, 09:56
|
The 10-year employee of denny's who is here illegally is here illegally. If he gets a work visa or citizen or any other means to be here legally he doesn't have to worry about getting caught.
Now the otherside of the equation, the potential harrassment from law enforcement I can understand. The letter of the law I still don't see a problem with. But the implementation of the law will be problematic, is that the true issue?
|
|
| 700 | biliruben
ID: 113582522 Tue, May 04, 2010, 10:07
|
It can take 20 years with our current backlog for a Mexican immigrant of little means to immigrate to the US legally.
That is just not a reasonable expectation.
If you really want to preferentially deport the hard working undocumented workers who productively contribute to our society, pay taxes, and often don't receive the benefits, then our country is going to be the worse for it.
As for arbitrarily asking anyone who looks to be of hispanic descent for their papers, that's just despicable, and against everything I think of when I think proudly of America.
|
|
| 701 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Tue, May 04, 2010, 10:10
|
I am hopeful the Republican convention will be held in Arizona.
|
|
| 702 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Tue, May 04, 2010, 10:24
|
I think that's a big part of it. There's some very very fundamental civil rights issues that seem to be flouted by this bill, and certainly in practice if not in intent it's going to target one racial/ethnic group based solely on their appearance. (You know that the chance that a random Hispanic is going to be asked for papers is about 50 times greater than the chance a random white or Asian guy is going to be asked.) EVERYONE should have a problem with that.
|
|
| 703 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Tue, May 04, 2010, 10:31
|
It's just ludicrous on it's face to suggest that millions and millions of poor people sucking on this country's socialized benefits somehow provide a net gain to the country.
I would tend to agree with that sentiment, especially since there are organizations which actually teach illegal immigrants how to take advantage of the benefit system instead of encouraging an honest work ethic. It's not a stretch to say that there is a liberal contingency that promotes such unsustainable financial irresponsibility, as we see in California.
However, as long as Americans are addicted to dollar value meals, 5 dollar grand slams, 49 dollar motel rooms, 79 cent Big Gulps, cheap supermarket produce and 3 for 10 dollar T-shirts, there will be a contingency of working poor who live 5 to a one bedroom house, drive old uninsured vehicles, and use the emergency room as their primary health care facility.
That's why I think it's important to discriminate between between the illegals who have come to this country and established a track record as stable, honest and hard working, and those who come to either scam an already broken entitlement system, or enrich themselves through criminal enterprises.
Immigration reform should include some measure of "amnesty". Those who come here to be subsidized by the state should be told, "We can't afford it," and deported. As long as liberals support and encourage these subsidies, conservatives have every right to focus on their absurdities.
|
|
| 704 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, May 04, 2010, 10:32
|
I am hopeful the Republican convention will be held in Arizona.
me too. that will undoubtedly be a snub of their hispanic constituents, and i'd love to see them vote for Obama.
that's smart politicking on your part.
|
|
| 705 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Tue, May 04, 2010, 10:37
|
I'm hoping the Republican convention will be in Salt Lake, currently a frontrunner. Lots and lots of $$$$$ into state coffers.
|
|
| 706 | Farn Leader
ID: 451044109 Tue, May 04, 2010, 10:38
|
Good call Boldwin. The Democratic Party hopes that happens too. It would really galvanize the democractic voters here and probably move this state from a swing state to a blue state.
I am surprised Karl Rove never contacted you during the Bush years for those kind of strategies.
|
|
| 707 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Tue, May 04, 2010, 10:42
|
So you guys are in favor of allowing people to flout the law? And I'm not talking about the new law proposal. I'm talking about being an illegal immigrant. They've gotten away with for X amount of time so its ok for them to continue?
|
|
| 708 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, May 04, 2010, 10:47
|
I think they will avoid Arizona right now--otherwise, none of their tables will get set up in a timely manner. And who will clean up all that confetti?
Apparently the final three are SLC, Phoenix, and Tampa. The immigration law puts them in a tough spot in AZ, since not selecting them will make it seem like they did it as a result of the law, and selecting them would make it seem like they are doubling down on it.
But this is all 2 years out. That law won't be around by the time the convention is held. So the RNC merely has to hold out awhile so as not to become the story, then prepare a pathetic "we're victimized!" response to whatever happens.
I wouldn't put it past Michael Steele to step into this on his own. He's shown quite the tin ear for politics.
BTW, PV, I'm still planning on being out there in June.
|
|
| 709 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, May 04, 2010, 10:51
|
So you guys are in favor of allowing people to flout the law?
I'm in favor of the INS administering federal immigration laws, rather than state & local police. I'm in favor of more open immigration. "Tear down this wall!" kind of stuff. If it was good enough for East Germans it is good enough for Mexicans. (In addition, the wall prevents seasonable immigrants from returning to Mexico--we've actually made the problem worse by sealing them in in the off season).
I don't believe we should prevent qualified immigrants from coming to this country legally because we took in "too many" from their home country that year.
I believe the process needs to be streamlined so that people who want to do the right thing can actually do so. When the right thing takes literally years there is a strong disincentive to doing so.
|
|
| 710 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Tue, May 04, 2010, 10:57
|
I don't disagree with anything PD has in 709. But that is not the message many others in this thread are sending.
|
|
| 711 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Tue, May 04, 2010, 11:15
|
Re: 707. Short answer (already answered way upthread, but whatever): no.
Somewhat longer answer: No, but (again, see my answer way upthread) I understand why it happens (and PD kinda summed it up well in 709). Risk vs. benefits of coming illegally (even for otherwise completely honest hardworking people) are just way out of whack. I believe that if you made legal immigration much more plausible (and MBJ disagrees with my assertion that it's way out of whack, but I think we're talking about different groups of people), you'd see a large percentage of people trying to do the right thing.
Not coincidentally, you'd also see the people who have good reasons to work from the shadows (i.e. the gangs & criminal element) still being here illegally--which means that your INS enforcers are much more likely to root out actual dangers instead of chasing down the random Denny's cook whose only crime is and will ever be being here illegally.
And yes, it's still a crime, and I suppose we can and should go ahead and deport people who are here illegally. But if we don't recognize the real source of the problem, which is our really crappy set of immigration laws and procedures, we're going to have this same problem five, ten, twenty, fifty, and a hundred years from now, guaranteed.
Fundamental question: do we, as a country, want the Mexican guy who wants to come over and work as the dishwasher at Denny's and will never break any laws? Or do you want to keep those people out, legally or otherwise?
My position is that if those people want to come here and work, let 'em in, as many of them as want to come, as fast as we can get them in. Will there be a temporary burst of unemployment? Maybe. But Businesses will adjust. New businesses will take advantage of the new source of labor and produce things. Heck, some of the new people who come over working in the Denny's might end up owning a Denny's someday. Or may own Denny's, period.
|
|
| 712 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Tue, May 04, 2010, 11:22
|
Khahan, I don't really know what you mean when you say
So you guys are in favor of allowing people to flout the law
because I don't know who you guys are.
They've gotten away with for X amount of time so its ok for them to continue?
I've tried to specify my position here. I don't think you can characterize illegals as 'they." I reiterate what I said in #703:
it's important to discriminate between between the illegals who have come to this country and established a track record as stable, honest and hard working, and those who come to either scam an already broken entitlement system, or enrich themselves through criminal enterprises.
|
|
| 713 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, May 04, 2010, 11:34
|
I don't disagree with anything PD has in 709. But that is not the message many others in this thread are sending.
the message being sent in this thread is related to the law in Arizona, not the larger problem of illegal immigration.
Like health care, the entire immigration system is broken. it needs to be fixed. but it costs money.
i can just imagine a Democratic congress coming up with a strong solution. which will then result in taxpayer's money being spent. which will then result in the whackjobs at the tea party spinning it to say "we don't want our taxes spend on immigrants" and so on.
it's an ugly situation, and it needs fixing. but the law in Arizona isn't the solution.
|
|
| 714 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Tue, May 04, 2010, 11:47
|
We should acquire Mexico, would be my solution. Then if you want to build a fence, you can build it at the bottom of Mexico vs. the top. A much easier task.
|
|
| 715 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Tue, May 04, 2010, 11:49
|
Khahan
Since you've read through enough posts to get a feel for the message many others in this thread are sending, why not offer some of the specific posts you take issue with? By making us wonder exactly which messages you're talking about, it's difficult to guage whether you have a fair point.
|
|
| 716 | Farn @ work Leader
ID: 451044109 Tue, May 04, 2010, 12:02
|
Since you guys are pretty good at finding information quickly, 2 quick questions...
1. What's the projected revenue that the MLB All Star game would bring in to Phx? And the RNC?
2. What is the law regarding the education of illegal immigrants/kids? I believe we educate them here but what's the law on that? Just look for clarification after reading an article about the colleges in this state wondering how the law applies to them.
|
|
| 717 | Seattle Zen
ID: 1410391215 Tue, May 04, 2010, 12:25
|
We should acquire Mexico, would be my solution.
According to Baldwin, "we" already have.
Then if you want to build a fence, you can build it at the bottom of Mexico vs. the top. A much easier task.

Oh, really? Have you already forgotten about the civil strife in Chiapas? Mexico could not maintain control of their southern region much less the border. The Mexican/Guatemalan border runs through an extremely dense jungle, impossible to control without clearcutting a huge swath through it.
|
|
| 718 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Tue, May 04, 2010, 12:50
|
Re: 716 -- not sure exactly on the numbers, but here's one discussing past All-Star games. St. Louis was about $60 million, before that NY and SF were the hosts, and those were in the $150 million range. link I'd guess Arizona would be somewhere in the middle, probably $100M- $125M.
RNC economic impact in Minneapolis 2008: +/- $170 million. link (with more detailed links I couldn't be bothered to read).
The far greater danger if this got really ugly would be pulling spring training sites somehow, instead of just an all-star game.
|
|
| 719 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Tue, May 04, 2010, 12:52
|
Meh, correction: found another link that says SF was more like $65M. So, I'd probably ballpark Arizona in that range also. NY was (unsurprisingly) a big outlier at $148M.
|
|
| 720 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Tue, May 04, 2010, 14:14
|
for those asking me to cite specific examples, right from Pancho Villa:
it's important to discriminate between between the illegals who have come to this country and established a track record as stable, honest and hard working, and those who come to either scam an already broken entitlement system, or enrich themselves through criminal enterprises.
Why is it important to discriminate between the 2? If they are illegal then they are illegal. There is no difference with respect to the law they are breaking. You can throw as much other information out there was you want but it doesnt change the fact the person is here illegally. Just because he's done it for 10 years and not broken any other laws doesn't change the fact that he broke the immigration law.
To me there are two distinct things at play here. On a gross level, there is a failure of the administrative system to handle the volume of people wanting to enter the country legally and do things the right way. That needs to be fixed.
But there is also a problem on the individual level. Each individual who choses to break the law for his own reasons is still individually choosing to break the law. You cannot get around that in any way shape or form. There is not a single argument given in this thread that changes that fact that the individual person who does not go thru the process properly and does things the right way is in violation of our country's immigration laws.
To me, if they are here illegally they are breaking the law and need to go as they are found. I don't even think the law itself needs to be reformed. But the implementation of the law is very flawed and that is where congress has its work cut out for it.
|
|
| 721 | Farn @ work Leader
ID: 451044109 Tue, May 04, 2010, 14:20
|
I definitely agree with having teachers teaching the languages correctly and speaking fluently. Let's just hope this law doesn't allow them to move teachers who have an accent. It looks ok on the surface; let's hope it stays that way.
Heavy Accents for Teachers in Arizona?
|
|
| |
| 723 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Tue, May 04, 2010, 16:00
|
re 720: On the surface, your contention seems sound. However, how many fled Mexico because of abject violence in their villages? Rape gangs? etc etc etc
We can easily enough read on at LEAST a weekly basis, about the drug cartels/lords killing undercover DEA, local law enforcement, judges etc etc.
When we live, in relative calm, quiet and serene surroundings, I fear it becomes all too easy to call out others whose lives are at risk, for 'breaking the law".
The law they broke by immigrating illegally, did it hurt you? Do you suffer physical/emotional pain/trauma with each illegal who crosses the border?
The law they broke, is an administrative one. One, where the administration OF the law, is in uncontested need of repair.
|
|
| 727 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, May 04, 2010, 16:41
|
However, how many fled Mexico because of abject violence in their villages? Rape gangs? etc etc etc
Mexico is big country they could have just moved to a different part on the country.
The law they broke by immigrating illegally, did it hurt you? Do you suffer physical/emotional pain/trauma with each illegal who crosses the border?
by that logic most crimes should not be a crime.
|
|
| 728 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Tue, May 04, 2010, 17:00
|
Sarge has already argued vociferously on behalf of a world dictatorship. He cannot insist we acknowledge this fact only when it's convenient to him.
|
|
| 729 | Seattle Zen
ID: 1410391215 Tue, May 04, 2010, 17:11
|
I find this thread filled with inane comments such as - fix the system.
Right now, it's really easy for someone to travel into the US legally... from certain countries - Canada, UK, France, Germany... It's really difficult to do that from others. The laws that govern ability to work here in the US is a cluster of pointlessly complicated, racist, and ineffective crap.
Unless the rules change that allow anyone without a violent felony on their record to walk, drive float or fly into this country and immediately work for six months while simultaneously applying for permanent residence status with a max waiting time of six months, your changes are not going to accomplish a thing. My changes negate the need for a wall and people won't drown in the All American canal.
And before you can scream, "we will be inundated!" well, just about everyone who wants to work here comes in already, and America is much better for it.
|
|
| 730 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, May 04, 2010, 17:21
|
Sarge has already argued vociferously on behalf of a world dictatorship. He cannot insist we acknowledge this fact only when it's convenient to him.
please provide links to back this up.
|
|
| 731 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Tue, May 04, 2010, 17:25
|
SZ--Great, I don't have a problem with changing the rules a lot. I think the quota system's stupid and goes against the first few hundred years of our nation's history. There still needs to be SOME system in place to ensure that the people that need to be kept out, are kept out.
(You suggest violent felonies; I'd probably draw the line a little safer than that, but that's a quibble; the important point is that we agree that there is a line to be drawn somewhere. I don't see anyone arguing that we happily wave a mass murdered through the front door.)
And that fact means that there has to be a system to check said people to make sure they're on the proper side of whatever line's drawn. It also means there has to be an enforcement system in place to remove the people that are on the wrong side of that line. It stands to logical reason that we would want to check them before they enter the country, and not after.
In other words, yes--we have to fix the system (by streamlining it, a lot), but not abolish it entirely.
|
|
| 732 | Myboyjack
ID: 447112610 Tue, May 04, 2010, 17:28
|
SZ 729: agreed.
|
|
| 733 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Tue, May 04, 2010, 17:44
|
well, just about everyone who wants to work here comes in already
Not true, but you're right about everything else.
|
|
| 734 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Tue, May 04, 2010, 18:19
|
You guys are assuming everyone crossing the border is looking for a job. What about the criminal element looking to escape Mexican law. Mexican immigrants now have the highest single parent home rate, which is a leading indicator for crime. Gang violence, lost of American jobs, burden on our social programs and crime are a few of the problems associated with illegal immigrants, yet many here want to ignore the problem or come up with a intellectually lazy politically correct answer. The solution is simple... Build walls- Private property owners that are willing to assist in the cost get first priority. I bet many Americans would donate for the cause. Hell, we can have a marathon. No access to social programs, except emergency care. Enforcement of the immigration laws-Sooner or later everyone breaks a law, they should immediately be deported or held in a prison farm funded by their labor, until they can be processed. If this sounds too rough, then stay in Mexico.
|
|
| 735 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, May 04, 2010, 18:29
|
You guys are assuming everyone crossing the border is looking for a job. What about the criminal element looking to escape Mexican law.
are you actually reading any other posts besides your own and Baldwins? because this has been covered, and no, no one is assuming what you're claiming here.
Mexican immigrants now have the highest single parent home rate
i'd like to see some stats to back that up, as all the demographics i'm seeing have African-Americans and Native Americans both with significantly higher rates of single parent homes in the U.S.
|
|
| 736 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Tue, May 04, 2010, 18:38
|
Sarge #341 "Compassion" Fascists'
#1374 in 'The Direction of the GOP II or campaign 2008' My point Boldwin, is that in my belief; gradual movement toward a singular governing body is inevitable. I take exception, to YOUR apparent position, that said movement is inevitably evil.
...and the discussion which followed.
Sarge #120 in 'Where Is A Good Ann Coulter Thread?'
...and the discussion which followed.
Henry Kissenger #57 'Welcome To UCanaMex'
If he's such a consistantly passionate supporter of a borderless world let's not see any pretense of wishing the immigration laws were fixed. He wants them eliminated pure and simple.
|
|
| 737 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, May 04, 2010, 19:46
|
i'll let Sarge speak for himself, but you're going to have to try harder than 2 posts where he says it's inevitable, a third where he ARGUED AGAINST A WORLD DICTATORSHIP, and a fourth where you quoted Henry Kissinger (and that related to Sarge, how?)...
in none of those posts did Sarge come out in favor of what you claim he did. he may have done so elsewhere, and he may do so, but your links are absolute crap and don't back up your claim at all.
|
|
| 738 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Tue, May 04, 2010, 20:21
|
He only argued for a one world government. Which is the same thing as a dictatorship since it would be by definition in control of everything. So let's not hear him claim he is for functional immigration laws.
|
|
| 739 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, May 04, 2010, 20:25
|
That's like arguing for one government in the country is the same as calling for a dictatorship.
You merely assume that his one world government would become a dictatorship.
He, in no way, is calling for a dictatorship. Never did.
|
|
| 740 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Tue, May 04, 2010, 20:34
|
re 736.....
Boldy, I have PREDICTED that humanity will inevitably move toward a singular, unified, global government. Said prediction, comes from logical deduction from past civilizations and human nature.
It also comes, from the simple fact that i do NOT for one minute believe, that ours is the only planet with "intelligent" life. IOW, at some point in time, a "close encounter" is inevitable. As the number of these increase, so too does the likelihood of an antagonistic encounter. If/when that happens, either our globe will pull together; or our race will be eliminated from the cosmos. Plain and simple.
Show me where, show me when; I have CALLED for, the elimination of national borders and espoused such as something I think should happen immediately.
Come on, find it, link it, SHOW it. Else, QUIT PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH, and no B, I am NOT a Mason.
|
|
| 741 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Tue, May 04, 2010, 20:35
|
re 728...I have not argued in favor of a global DICTATORSHIP. I have in fact, taken pains every time this comes up with you; that it is YOUR ERROR to assume that such a government MUST be a dictatorship.
|
|
| 742 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Tue, May 04, 2010, 20:46
|
Which is the same thing as a dictatorship since it would be by definition in control of everything.
Do you believe your God is all powerful and in control of everything? (IOW, "Gods Will" defines the whys of death, famine, disease, etc etc etc)
If so, then by your words, your God is a dictator. If you deny that conclusion, then your beliefs are false. Either as you have stated them, or as you claim to hold them. One or the other.
Take your pick.
|
|
| 743 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Tue, May 04, 2010, 21:37
|
Jag:
I would have much preferred your re-entry into this forum began with #734(minus the "you guys" and the" many here want to ignore the problem or come up with a intellectually lazy politically correct answer") instead of the generic liberals this, liberals that, scorched earth policy, destroy the country diatribe.
Most of #734 allows room for discussion on various ways to approach this issue without insulting someone's political leanings.
Why is it important to discriminate between the 2? If they are illegal then they are illegal. There is no difference with respect to the law they are breaking
Generally speaking, in our system of justice we discriminate greatly as to how punishment is applied, even for the exact same crime. You can kill someone, and be charged with murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. You can be pulled over for speeding, get double the fine for speeding in a work zone all the way to being sent on your way with a warning. Let's try and establish a bit of reality.
There's no way we could possibly locate, capture and deport the estimated 12 million illegals in this country. Well, there may be ways to locate most of them, but the economic and social ramifications of capturing and deporting them would be astronomical. Figure at least a million of them won't go quietly, and as we all know, getting armed in this country isn't a problem. They'll probably be joined by several million legal Hispanics either sympathetic to the cause or finding a golden opportunity to steal and loot in the ensuing chaos. That's before you even start talking about the devastation of entire industries and communities that are supported by illegal labor and their wages.
So what's practical? Building walls? How does that deal with the 12 million illegals already here?
|
|
| 744 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Tue, May 04, 2010, 22:29
|
No, but it is a start. Let us focus on that point. I be willing to bet you could finance a large part of the wall through land owners and donations., making it easier to patrol the other areas.
|
|
| 745 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Tue, May 04, 2010, 22:36
|
Landowners in TX vehemently oppose the wall notion. It cuts off the Rio from their cattle.
|
|
| 746 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, May 04, 2010, 23:43
|
jag - no links to back up 734?
|
|
| 747 | astade Sustainer
ID: 214361313 Tue, May 04, 2010, 23:50
|
Both of my parents have recently become US citizens. Dumb question, but if we expedite the process to 'legalize' (while maintaining proper checks) wouldn't that help keep illegals from getting a free ride? They would pay taxes, become easier to trace in our country and hopefully engage them as citizens? Seems to me that we have plenty of space and opportunity in our great country so let's get the decent folks that want to be here into the fold. I guess it's not a popular opinion ... but just food for thought. Also, before people think I have no understanding of the society/politics around a border area; I live 15 miles from Tijuana :)
|
|
| 748 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Wed, May 05, 2010, 00:19
|
Seems to me that we have plenty of space and opportunity in our great country so let's get the decent folks that want to be here into the fold.
Indeed, Astade. Indeed.
|
|
| 749 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, May 05, 2010, 00:56
|
I guess it's not a popular opinion ... but just food for thought.
i think it's a popular opinion among those with compassion for their fellow humans, and those with an understanding that "let's just build a wall to keep them out" not only is inhumane, but simply won't work.
|
|
| 750 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Wed, May 05, 2010, 01:07
|
At least the conservatives around here haven't vocalized my Dad's idea:
Set up motion-sensor activated machine guns all along the border.
Compassion ain't his strong suit.
|
|
| 751 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Wed, May 05, 2010, 02:40
|
Tree, Blacks are still #1 at 57 percent and Hispanics are around 33, but the article I saw was strictly on Illegal immigrants. I should have noted Illegal instead of Mexican. I can not find the article as it has been a few months back, although with the inability to obtain a marriage licenses it seems reasonable.
Again everyone makes it a compassion issue, when the problems created by illegals affects many...here are a few I noted from an internet article... * Anchor Babies: Birthright Citizenship Exploited * Anti-American Attitudes * Attacks on Border Patrol and Law Enforcement agents * Child Endangerment * Closed and Overcrowded Hospitals and Emergency Rooms * Cost of Translators * Day Laborers loitering and creating public hazards * Depreciated Wages for Americans and Legal Immigrants * Drunk driving injuries and deaths: Hit and Runs * Foreign Influence on US Politics, I have always maintained the it is the politics that created the poverty of Mexico and the same will happen here. * Gangs, Graffiti, Drugs, Cartels, Smugglers, and Violence * Gang Rape and unreported rapes * High Birth Rates and Overpopulation * Identity Theft * Increased Crime * Increased Taxes for Americans * Increased pressures on infrastructure (roads, traffic, water, sewer) * Infectious Diseases * Lost American Jobs * Not Speaking English, loss of common language, Press 1 for English * Overcrowded Schools and Negative Impact on American Education * Overcrowded single family homes * Overcrowded Jails and Prisons * Public sanitation * Remittances: Billions of dollars sent out of the US Economy * Stolen American Taxpayer Resources: Tuition, Welfare, Licenses * Taking limited seats in colleges at taxpayer expense * Tax payer funds going to special interest groups (example) "LaRaza" * Terrorism Threats and Loss of national security * Trash and Negative Impact on Environment at border * Unfair to Legal Immigrants * Unfair Business Competition for law abiding companies * Unlicensed and Uninsured Motorists * Untaxed Wages * Voter Fraud Please spare me the I am more compassionate than you speech. I was going to try and take Pancho's advice and tone down the anti-liberal rhetoric, but when I read someone says they are more compassionate because I disagree with their illogical beliefs it deserves a response. You are not more compassionate, taking a philosophy that is nonsensical as to make you feel better about yourself, instead of what is best for the country is arrogant at best and despicable at worse. I would use the terms illogical and pompous over compassionate.
|
|
| 752 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, May 05, 2010, 04:09
|
Voter fraud? Really? You think Mexicans are creeping over the border to vote?
If there is one thing illegal immigrants do, it is hide. They aren't going to register to vote.
Remittances: Billions of dollars sent out of the US Economy You mean, the money they earned they should send overseas? Why not, exactly?
With all due respect, what a stupid list. There is absolutely nothing to back up any of it, and some of it goes against simple common sense.
|
|
| 753 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Wed, May 05, 2010, 04:39
|
Power lust over their potential votes is the whole reason liberals are pretending not to see obvious common sense points Jag made. Licences for illegals and motor voter are ALL about letting them into the voting booth thru the back door. In some places the voting officials aren't even required to prove citizenship.
|
|
| 754 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Wed, May 05, 2010, 04:42
|
I love your dad, bili. This just cements it.
|
|
| 755 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, May 05, 2010, 08:36
|
Licences for illegals and motor voter are ALL about letting them into the voting booth thru the back door.
Malkin's article was proved as a lie more than a half-decade ago, shortly after it came out. while the article she references does say Abdi was registered to vote, it never said anything about ACORN or anyone else registering him.
the fact is we have no idea how he got registered, but to blame it on ACORN is a lie.
I was going to try and take Pancho's advice and tone down the anti-liberal rhetoric, but when I read someone says they are more compassionate because I disagree with their illogical beliefs it deserves a response.
Jag - while i think the list contained in your post is a little silly, i appreciate the effort. (note - that is NOT sarcasm).
more importantly, i welcome your attempts to to tone down the anti-liberal rhetoric. while we'll never see eye-to-eye on politics, i look forward to discussion and spirited debate with someone on the Right who doesn't sound like a crazy person and who doesn't resort to lies, mis-truths, and fear-mongering to get their point across.
the prospect of sensible debate is exciting.
|
|
| 756 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Wed, May 05, 2010, 08:58
|
That's an impressive list, Jag. It's probably similar to ones that influenced the Mexican Repatriation.
The Mexican Repatriation refers to a forced migration that took place between 1929 and 1939, when as many as one million people of Mexican descent were forced or pressured to leave the US. (The term "Repatriation," though commonly used, is inaccurate, since approximately 60% of those driven out were U.S. citizens.) The event, carried out by American authorities, took place without due process.[2] The Immigration and Naturalization Service targeted Mexicans because of "the proximity of the Mexican border, the physical distinctiveness of mestizos, and easily identifiable barrios." [3]
These actions were authorized by President Herbert Hoover and targeted areas with large Hispanic populations, mostly in California, Texas, Colorado, Illinois and Michigan.
Let's identify real problems and look for real solutions. For the record,
Anti-American Attitudes
qualifies as an item for Baldwin's thot police, and not a serious issue pertaining to the problem of illegals in this country. Including it on your list is meant only to enflame public opinion. There are many who would suggest that your list is promotes Anti- American Attitudes since it is a blanket indictment and most of the items on that list do not apply to millions of the illegals who are in this country.
liberals are pretending not to see obvious common sense points Jag made.
Applying Anti-American Attitudes to 12 million people isn't common sense. It's propoganda. Your continued use of the word "pretending" when it doesn't apply further erodes what little credibility you have left
|
|
| 758 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Wed, May 05, 2010, 10:04
|
So, how many things on that list are caused exclusively by illegal immigrants? Anyone??
By a generous count, I'll go with three.
The rest of it is crap.
|
|
| 759 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Wed, May 05, 2010, 10:59
|
Yes, the list is essentially a propaganda tool designed to inject as much discrimination and distortion into the debate as possible.
That doesn't mean that there aren't items on the list that shouldn't be addressed and are serious problems related to illegals in this country. What we should be doing is paring the list to the fundamental issues that can be dealt with sans the hysteria.
One of the issues I feel needs to be addressed is the cost to have every single item, be it government or private enterprise, translated into Spanish. This discourages our Spanish-speaking citizens from assimilating into society by learning English. We've created barrios where it's unecessary to learn English, because Spanish is the dominant language. Some don't see this as a problem, but obviously communication among our citizens is a basic tenet of an organized and productive society.
I suppose private enterprise can do whatever they want. But when you call the cable company and you're asked to press 1 for English or 2 for Spanish, I think a lot of Americans are put off that we seem so eager to accomodate those who don't seem willing to learn English, not to mention the added expense involved.
I don't think it's prejudicial to ask,
"Do you want to come to America to live as Americans, or do you want to come to America to live as Mexicans and take advantage our society?"
|
|
| 760 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Wed, May 05, 2010, 11:11
|
Companies expand their client base by accomodating as many people as possible. The cable company wouldn't offer it's over-the-telephone services in other languages if it wasn't a net gain.
|
|
| 761 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Wed, May 05, 2010, 11:26
|
I'll wholeheartedly agree with 760.
I suppose as to the translation question in government services, there'd be all sorts of useful comparative data from Canada, wouldn't there?
I also have a strong suspicion that many (not you, PV) of the people who object to Spanish government services are doing so for motivations other than "because it costs some money".
|
|
| 762 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, May 05, 2010, 11:28
|
But it does cost money. We might object to the government spending money on something which with we disagree, but if it is a waste our other reasons are moot.
Besides, there is absolutely no problem with people having biases in this way. Doesn't mean they are right (or wrong).
|
|
| 763 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Wed, May 05, 2010, 12:16
|
re 760...I have no qualms with business offering advice/service in any number of languages. That said, this is America. English should be the default language and not require I press anything to get it.
|
|
| 764 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Wed, May 05, 2010, 12:31
|
Great news! If you don't push anything and just hold on the line for an operator for about three hours, chances are excellent they'll be speaking English.
|
|
| 765 | Seattle Zen
ID: 1410391215 Wed, May 05, 2010, 12:58
|
Perhaps Jag was gang raped by illegal immigrants - or at least they wouldn't show him their papers - and he didn't report it. That may have led to that item on the list. Otherwise, I can't imagine such a ridiculous claim, seriously!
I'm disappointed that there was no item that started with M or W. Come on!

I'm waiting for this guy to pipe up about the stinkin' Irish.
|
|
| 766 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, May 05, 2010, 13:40
|
Oh, and I have to say I'm a huge fan of "closed and overcrowded hospitals and emergency rooms". Who wrote the list, Yogi Berra?
|
|
| |
| 768 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Wed, May 05, 2010, 13:53
|
OK, perhaps I am simply overlooking the obvious here:
The new state law requires local and state law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they're in the country illegally. (from the link above by Tree but stated numerous times elsewhere re this whole debate)
So, just WHAT constitutes "reason to suspect they're in the country illegally"?
Is it skin color? (ie Latino) That's a clear violation of the Civil Rights laws and our constitution.
Is it their native language? Then LE in AZ is going to have to question every tourist, from every country and find out how many languages they do speak and just what IS the native language?
If asked by LE this afternoon, to show documentation that *I* am an American citizen; I couldnt do it. Could you?
|
|
| 769 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Wed, May 05, 2010, 14:46
|
I keep reading about the millions that aren't on social programs and aren't committing crime, but what about the million that are? What is an acceptable amount of crime and drain on our social services from illegal immigrants? By reading your posts as long as some are hard working, you can overlook all the rest. If someone crosses the border at this time, they will either take a job from an American that needs it or will commit crimes to survive. There is no benefit in this economy for immigration of any form. I also notice there is no sympathy for the American that loses his job to illegal immigrants, the American that can't get the extra help from social services because of the drain of illegal immigrants or the Americans who suffer because of crime from illegal immigrants or the extra taxes put upon Americans by illegal immigrants. It seems just because illegal immigrants are minorities many are supporting their illegal activities with no thought for the American citizen. You may not like this thought, but many are turning their backs on America and aiding and abetting criminals.
|
|
| 770 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, May 05, 2010, 15:05
|
JAG - here are some FACTS for you, as opposed to to the claims you're making without any sort of data to back them up.
this comes from a factcheck of a chain email about the cost of illegal immigrants, and gives some hard facts and actual data.
|
|
| 771 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Wed, May 05, 2010, 15:18
|
True Jag, illegals are breaking a law, and in point of fact are 'criminals' by their being here. The VAST majorty though, are not here to rape, pillage, burn etc etc. They are here, to try and have for their families, what we Americans are so quick to take for ranted. A job that pays more than $13/m. Food in the pantry. A house, where a/c doesnt mean opening the windows and praying for the wind to blow.
The majority, are here to try and MAKE something of their lives.
You ask what of the millions committing crime.
1) Show me hard data, that states factually, that 1,000,000 illegal Mexican immigrants are hard core criminals.
2) I'll ask you, what of the millions of whites who commit crimes?
With LE resources stretched all too thin, all too often; I'd MUCH prefer they spend their time chasing down rapists, arsonists, counterfeiters, swindlers etc etc; vs some schmuck trying to feed his family and keep them alive.
|
|
| 772 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Wed, May 05, 2010, 15:36
|
Jag--you whine about the immigrants coming to "take jobs from Americans". I'm pretty sure that the businesses have to have a pretty active part in that as well. Make the businesses stop hiring and presto, problem solved.
Of course, then I guess I'm another anti-business lib'rul.
|
|
| 773 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Wed, May 05, 2010, 16:44
|
I said committing crime or on a social program.
There are few jobs right now, so to survive, an illegal is either taking a job from an American stealing or on a social program. If I am missing an option please tell me. I hope I don't need to post a link for this simple bit of common sense.
Tree, your link is a left-wing propaganda site. It condemns information from coming from Lou Dobbs with no stats to challenge it. They do make it sound legit with a nice name for their site, but socialists are masters of propaganda, they have to be to gain support.
|
|
| 774 | Farn @ work Leader
ID: 451044109 Wed, May 05, 2010, 16:55
|
Which of Tree's link was from a left wing site? Yahoo?
If so I can gladly post a link to all the local newspapers here posting the same story.
|
|
| 775 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Wed, May 05, 2010, 17:13
|
His hard facts and actual data link. This is an old trick used by many in the past.
|
|
| 776 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, May 05, 2010, 17:18
|
Tree, your link is a left-wing propaganda site.
sorry, that's a bull$hit talking point from the Right. ANY site that disputes anything said by a Conservative, and backs it up with solid undeniable facts, is viewed as a left wing propaganda site by some people, despite evidence to the contrary.
factcheck.org is bipartisan, and has disputed many things plenty of liberals, including Obama, have said.
like here...
or here...
that's just for starters. the site reports on BOTH sides of the aisle. i urge you to use it as a tool as you try to improve yourself as a knowledgeable and more informed poster.
|
|
| 777 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Wed, May 05, 2010, 17:26
|
There is not an iota of bipartisanship or loyalty to the truth in the George Soros' creation known as factcheck.
|
|
| 778 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Wed, May 05, 2010, 17:41
|
Haven't we already debunked this garbage like twenty times?
Ah well, trolls gonna troll, I guess.
|
|
| 779 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Wed, May 05, 2010, 17:49
|
Boldwin, remember when they claimed Media Matters was not bias also, then it was discovered Hilary helped start the site. There were more links connecting to that site than deaths around Bill Clinton.
|
|
| 780 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, May 05, 2010, 18:12
|
Jag - did you follow the links i sent, where factcheck refuted things Obama claimed? i urge you to think for yourself, do your own research, and ignore looking to Baldwin for praise.
|
|
| 781 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Wed, May 05, 2010, 18:27
|
You had to go back to 2009 to come up with one of them and 2008 for the other! The fact you are defending this site, reminds me of my Liberal friend, who swears MPR is neutral. Wonder what it takes to be consider left wing?
|
|
| 782 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Wed, May 05, 2010, 19:25
|
You guys gonna challenge the content of the links or do we just dismiss sources based on their reputation with your side of the aisle?
|
|
| 783 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Wed, May 05, 2010, 19:25
|
Actually it was Media Matters that is Soros' baby. Factcheck was started with the same pile of mobbed up money that financed Obama's rise to riches and power, as well as Bill Ayer's. It is headed by a woman who wrote a glowing book about the successful Obama campaign [insider's view indeed], and another book hypercritical of Rush Limbaugh. It acted as the cutout preventing the public from ever seeing Obama's longform birth certificate and may have passed off a forgery as his short form.
|
|
| 784 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, May 05, 2010, 19:57
|
Re: 782--if you don't know the answer to that question by now, you obviously haven't been paying attention for the last few years.
|
|
| 785 | tree on the treo
ID: 287212811 Wed, May 05, 2010, 19:57
|
actually jag, I did a search on "obama" and those came up on the first page. there was very little research necessary.
the fact of the matter is that if you do your own research, you'll see fact checking for both sides of the aisle.
|
|
| 786 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Wed, May 05, 2010, 20:12
|
I went through every point of your link and it is hilariously bias. I will comment on the propaganda at some later time, it is too time consuming at the moment. If it had an ounce of integrity, it would show some of the problems with illegal immigration instead of defending it solely. I am glad you showed me this link, so I can bookmark it and use it to illustrate how propaganda works.
|
|
| 787 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Wed, May 05, 2010, 20:35
|
I went through every point of your link and it is hilariously bias.
Translation: It says I am wrong with such galling frequency, that it MUST be in error.
|
|
| 788 | Farn Leader
ID: 451044109 Wed, May 05, 2010, 21:00
|
I will comment on the propaganda at some later time
And we all know that will never happen but its certainly a good way to dodge the bullet for now.
|
|
| 791 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Thu, May 06, 2010, 07:10
|
Really B? Yet you misquote, misinterpret and misapplied how many of my posts recently, in a failed attempt to claim that I said something I never said?
|
|
| 792 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Thu, May 06, 2010, 08:01
|
Just because you are deluded enuff to believe a one world government would be benevolent, you still have promoted one world government as I have proven abundantly, and then you pretend in this thread that your only complaint with the immigration laws is that they aren't tweeked just right.The law they broke, is an administrative one. One, where the administration OF the law, is in uncontested need of repair. - Sarge Just admit you have an ulterior motive for promoting illegal immigration. No you don't want the INS repaired at all. You want the border down permanently.
|
|
| 793 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, May 06, 2010, 10:06
|
Jag - all i'm saying is think for yourself, and do your own research.
you've shown signs of being able to do that. there's an opportunity here for you to be the conservative vote of reason, that's all.
i'd love to see that, since the current loudest conservative voice here seems to be, well, a tad loony.
do your own searching on factcheck.org. you'll see plenty of criticism on both sides of the aisle.
|
|
| 794 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Thu, May 06, 2010, 10:23
|
I did a lengthy post addressing the obvious bias on a few of FactChecks points. Did it get censored?
|
|
| 795 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, May 06, 2010, 10:26
|
Just admit you have an ulterior motive for promoting illegal immigration.
you're right. he does. he wants them to take jobs away from you.
you read too much into EVERYTHING.
only the truly paranoid think there is an ulterior motive for everything. in many cases, people actually believe something simply because they do, without any sort of secret motivation.
|
|
| 796 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Thu, May 06, 2010, 10:26
|
. "30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens."
Both of these claims can be traced back to that same April 1, 2006, episode of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on CNN, in the same segment, with the same correspondent, Christine Romans. But the e-mail misrepresents what Romans said. She gave figures for people who are "not U.S. citizens," a category that would include legal residents as well as "illegal aliens."
Romans said that "according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 30 percent of federal prisoners are not U.S. citizens," adding that "most are thought to be illegal aliens." Actually, the Federal Bureau of Prisons does not keep figures on illegal immigrants. What solid numbers we can find point to a much smaller figure. A Department of Justice report from 2003 found that only 1.6 percent of the state and federal prison populations was under Immigration and Customs Enforcement jurisdiction, and thus known to be illegal immigrants. Half of these prisoners were detained only because they were here illegally, not for other crimes.
Here is why this part is a joke. The article said non-U.S. citizens, which is mostly Hispanics immigrants, I don't think there are many French gangs in prison They try to give the impression that only 1.6 of prisons are known Illegals, but that is only the amount under Immigration and Customs jurisdiction and not the ones sent up by the state and other Federal agency. I am not sure how Dobbs came up with his number but I would bet anything his are more accurate than FactCheck. What FactCheck wrote may be accurate, but their goal was to try and make it look like a far fewer number of Illegals are in prison. They didn't challenge Dobbs on his 30 percent non-U.S. number so for argument sake let's assume it is correct, what percentage can be non-hispanics? Even you went around 20 percent, which is way too high, you still have 24 percent of prisons inmates being Illegals. Trying to minimize the crimes committed Illegal aliens to further their own agenda is not only despicable, but treasonous. It is no wonder hard core criminals cross the border with regularity, they will immediately be catered to by the Left and put in the class of just hard working people trying to make things better for their family, because they are a minority. It infuriates me, that so many will not only turn a blind eye to crime being committed by Illegals, but become enablers of it.
|
|
| 797 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Thu, May 06, 2010, 10:36
|
Let me help you sort this out, Jag. Read this again:
Romans said that "according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 30 percent of federal prisoners are not U.S. citizens," adding that "most are thought to be illegal aliens." Actually, the Federal Bureau of Prisons does not keep figures on illegal immigrants. What solid numbers we can find point to a much smaller figure. A Department of Justice report from 2003 found that only 1.6 percent of the state and federal prison populations was under Immigration and Customs Enforcement jurisdiction, and thus known to be illegal immigrants.
Pretty clear that the only figure pertaining to the number of illegal immigrants in prison is 1.6%, but that's because no one is actively keeping track of that sort of thing. Thus, it can be logically inferred that the percentage is likely to be greater than 1.6%. What cannot be inferred it is that it is 5%, 30% or any other percentage, at least with not some supporting data. At least let the data drive your prejudice.
|
|
| 798 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Thu, May 06, 2010, 10:54
|
Boldwin, as with most conclusions to a question, there is more than one answer. The one world government may be one aspect to why many like to defend illegal immigration so irrationally, but that is small part. I believe the greatest reason is just the inherent problem of the Left backing minorities at all costs. You also have elitism, the common sense thought of the majority is illegal immigration is a huge problem, so to separate themselves, the socialist elite take the opposite view. Also, once the bias media determines their stance, the propaganda machine starts and those that gain information from NPR, MSNBC, etc... become indoctrinated to these nation destroying beliefs. I know many here want to debate if illegal immigration is good or bad, but the debate should be why there are so many defending an obvious cancer to our country.
|
|
| 799 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Thu, May 06, 2010, 11:03
|
It also says 30 percent are non-U.S. citizens, which is data they do record. I guess it is those damn Canadians that are filling up our prisons, hell, maybe it is the Belgium, they speak French, so I have never trusted them, since it is not a stat recorded, I guess we will never know, who are all these non-U.S. citizens.
|
|
| 800 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Thu, May 06, 2010, 11:07
|
So, even though there have been specific examples of "the left" having about five different opinions from five different people in this thread, you can't (or won't) even bother to try to process those differences and instead go with "The Left" and then pick and choose what you believe The Left" to believe.
I suppose that the counterpart to this would be to ask why you hate brown people, because clearly some people who are so vehemently against immigration (both legal and illegal) do it because they're racists. So you must be too. I don't actually believe you believe that, I think you are just lazy and don't want the competition from people who are going to work harder than you (and neither do the people who run Fox News, who have you fully brainwashed).
Golly, this overgeneralizing and basically calling half the population of the United States brainwashed morons is easy and fun. I see why you do it instead of trying to think logically about issues.
|
|
| 801 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, May 06, 2010, 11:10
|
Used to be that the Right was all about hard work. I'm not getting a feeling that those who feel they represent the Right in this thread are willing to do much heavy lifting on this issue.
|
|
| 802 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Thu, May 06, 2010, 11:20
|
It infuriates me, that so many will not only turn a blind eye to crime being committed by Illegals, but become enablers of it.
It doesn't infuriate you in the least, however, that so many exaggerate the problems to make them seem much worse than they are.
No matter how much the 30% might be inflated, did it occur to you to wonder why anyone would bother to specifically cite federal prison numbers, rather than all people who commit crimes? We have something like 7.5 million people in the American crimminal justice system, between people on probation, in local jails, in state and federal prisons and on parole. Of them, something like 200,000 are federal prisoners.
MBJ or anyone else more knowledgable than me can confirm or reject but it seems obvious enough to me that people who get in legal trouble with questionable immigration status have an inevitable tendency (compared with citizens, anyway) to wind up in the federal system. The factcheck article also states that over 10 percent of federal prisoners are there with immigration crimes.
So guessing at numbers in the system that these people get funnelled into is a sure-fire way to get an inflated measurement for how frequently undocumented residents commit crimes.
|
|
| 803 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Thu, May 06, 2010, 11:54
|
From Sarge's post 768: The new state law requires local and state law enforcement officers to question people
This is where I have a major issue. It may be nitpicky but I think its rather important to the law itself. Depending on where you look the law either 'requires' the officer or the law 'allows' the officer. I think this can lead to a HUGE difference in implementation of the law.
Requiring the officer goes a little overboard. It forces to officer to push the limits of 'reasonable and customary' to the point where there could be true infringement on rights just so he can do his job the way the law requires.
Allowing him the opportunity gives the officer much more discretion. If he pulls somebody over and they cannot produce a valid drivers license and the registration doesn't match, go ahead and ask for other proof. Use your head and dig deeper in that case. If the person truly is a citizen they should understand that they have put themselves in a sticky situation by going out without a license, registration or any other proof of ownership. A reasonable course of action by the officer is to investigate if the car is stolen or find some way to determine if the person is who they say they are. In that region I also don't think its unreasonable to look for proof of citizenship. In say, Nebraska, this would be silly. In northern California this would be silly. In northern Montana, not so silly as there is a border there as well. Based on the situation what is a reasonable and customary course of action?
But requiring is a whole different scenario. If somebody is pulled over and doesn't have their license but can produce registration with a different name on it, a reasonable person is going to think they are borrowing the car and some standard investigation by the officer that has nothing to do with citizenhip status will reveal if this is the case. However, if the officer is required to, he must now ask that person for proof of citizenship. Thats a bit ridiculous. Requiring further investigation steps over the bounds of reasonable and customary.*
Maybe clarification on the how the law is written can help clarify its enforcement and true potential impact.
*and before anybody jumps down my throat about 'whats reasonable and customary for me may not be for you,' keep in mind that 'reasonable and customary' is a legal term used to measure how ones actions stands up to the population at large. Its an accepted method of measurement.
|
|
| 804 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Thu, May 06, 2010, 14:07
|
Here are some links that may help with the actual percentages for Arizona.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=brewer/100505
Today, Arizona has approximately 6,000 prison inmates who are foreign nationals, representing a cost to our state of roughly $150 million per year. Arizona taxpayers are paying for a vast majority of these incarceration expenses because the federal government refuses to pay what it owes. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, as governor of Arizona, sent numerous requests to the federal government to pay for these prisoners -- only to be given the same answer she and President Barack Obama are now giving Arizona: They will not pay the bill.
The total amount of inmates in Arizona is 40,000 as of april 2009.
http://realcostofprisons.org/blog/archives/2010/04/report_details.html
That is 15%
Illegal aliens make up 4.7% of the total population
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_est_num_of_ill_imm_percap-number-illegal-immigrants-per-capita
So an illegal immigrant is over 3xs more likely to commit a crime and be sent to prison than an American citizen.
The link button doesn't seem to be working for me and I forgot the HTML needed to insert a link.
|
|
| 805 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Thu, May 06, 2010, 15:20
|
So an illegal immigrant is over 3xs more likely to commit a crime and be sent to prison than an American citizen
This is very faulty logic. The only thing we can tell for sure from the statistics you gave us is that illegal aliens make up 4.7% of the total prison population in that state and calculate how much their actual cost is.
Trying to use this data to 'prove' how much more criminal an illegal alien is vs a citizen is just twisting the information beyond its scope.
We CAN see how much of a negative impact illegal aliens who have been incarcerated have had on the taxpayers and we can state that if those people had been deported that affect would not have been there. But trying to claim they are 3x more criminal than an American citizen is ridiculous.
One thing we can state for sure without having to cite any source is this: 100% of illegal aliens have committed a crime - they have broken an immigration law, otherwise they would not be illegal. People can sugar-coat this all they want by claiming deficincies in the system but it does not change the fact that an illegal alien is by definition a criminal.
If those people want to make changes, then start pushing for reform. But realize that the law is the law and those who choose to go around it for any reason should face the punishments laid out.
And if the State of Arizona is going to assist the federal government in enforcing the law, then I'm all for it and don't see what the big deal is. This should go for every boarder state, even those in the north. It has nothing to do with a specific culture, race or ethnic group.
When THIS happens in our country, its time to really re-evaluate just what we're doing.
|
|
| 806 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Thu, May 06, 2010, 15:44
|
Khahan the 4.7 is the amount of Illegal Immigrants per capita. 6000 is the number of is the number of foreign nationals in prison, according to the Governor and 40,000 is the estimate total prison population. If the Governor numbers are correct that would make 15% of the inmates foreign nationals.
|
|
| 807 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Thu, May 06, 2010, 15:50
|
Ok Jag, I misread it. That means in my post 805 just replace 4.7 with 15%.
|
|
| 808 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, May 06, 2010, 16:11
|
Actually we don't know anything about those numbers, Jag. The report indicates about 5800 Mexican nationals in the AZ prison system (most of them drug dealers and other violent criminals) but says nothing about whether they are in the country legally or not.
While I don't doubt that there are lots of illegal immigrants in jail, you are mixing up two different reports.
Original report (pdf) is here, btw, which points out just how unusual Arizona's prison population is. For one thing, their incarceration rate is the highest of any western state, and is among the highest in the nation. And continues to grow:
"This level of growth was due to two factors, a 150% increase in the state general population (Figure 2), from 2.6 million to 6.6 million, and a 364% (nearly 5-fold) increase in the state’s incarceration rate (measured as total inmates per 100,00 population—see Figure 3). In 1979, one in every 752 Arizona residents was in prison. By 2009, that ratio had grown to one in every 162. Clearly, prison population was growing at a much faster pace than the general population.
|
|
| 809 | Jag
ID: 1241047 Thu, May 06, 2010, 16:17
|
I was going by the Governor's comment of 6000 foreign nationals, I am not sure how she came up with that figure.
|
|
| 810 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, May 06, 2010, 16:24
|
Fair enough. I think she pulled it from the report. But the report doesn't call them illegal (though no doubt many of them are).
|
|
| 811 | Boldwin
ID: 183112613 Fri, May 07, 2010, 17:00
|
No apologies! Proud of you.
|
|
| 812 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, May 07, 2010, 17:05
|
i think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone on this board who would have a problem with kids wearing American flags to school, other than the fact it's a lousy fashion statement.
i'm wondering how you feel about Larry Flynt wearing an American flag into a courtroom.
|
|
| 813 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, May 07, 2010, 17:13
|
Summary of that whole flag/school incident:
1. The kids deciding to wear it on that day were (almost certainly) doing it to provoke.
2. They really ought to have a right to wear the shirts anyway.
3. Schools have long been held to be areas where free speech doesn't apply. (About 99/9% wrongly, in my opinion, but I don't make the rules.) So the school has the technical "right" to do what they did.
4. The school administrator probably thought they were trying to prevent some violent incident. Which, to be clear, would not have been the fault of the kids wearing the shirts, but try explaining that to some random parent whose kid got caught in the crossfire.
5. Everyone overreacted about as much as you can overreact. The smart thing to do is to try to use the whole thing as a useful teaching tool, instead of, well... what actually happened. Of course, it's difficult to have a good discussion about free expression rights and how to react, when you're in an environment where free expression rights don't apply.
Probably semi-deserves its own thread, but whataver.
|
|
| 814 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Fri, May 07, 2010, 17:19
|
6. According to several reports the ACLU also supports the students.
|
|
| 815 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, May 07, 2010, 17:26
|
As they should. The ACLU has never held that students given up their civil rights as a condition of taking up the government's offer of providing compulsory education.
|
|
| 816 | Myboyjack
ID: 447112610 Fri, May 07, 2010, 17:47
|
Students do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they go to school. DWetz you are ovestating the law in that regard. Schools are afforded more latitude in limiting speech, but schools are not free speecless zones by any means.
But the real point of this parable is that anyone would be " provoked" by an American wearing innoculous red, white and blue in America. The notion is ridiculous.
|
|
| 817 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Fri, May 07, 2010, 18:03
|
If you would prefer that "free speech rights are heavily abridgedfor students in schools", I can go with that. If they have more latitude (I'd say "a lot more latitude"), then it's not exactly "free" speech, is it?
As for the notion being ridiculous that anyone could ever be offended or provoked by it, we're just going to have to clearly disagree about that.
Note, again, that the fact that someone's liable to be offended or provoked by it does NOT mean that the speech/expression should be stifled. I want to make that very clear. I think those kids should absolutely have the right to wear those shirts, even if I do believe that they were doing it to piss off the Hispanic kids on Cinco do Mayo.
But to say that there's no way they were doing it with an intent to provoke, or that anyone could ever be provoked by it, is ridiculous.
|
|
| 818 | biliruben
ID: 113582522 Fri, May 07, 2010, 18:13
|
To add a bit of irony:
The Mexican owner of a New York style pizza place (I know) I often frequent told me Wednesday she and her family don't celebrate Cinco do Mayo.
It's a purely American holiday.
|
|
| 819 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, May 07, 2010, 18:21
|
The Mexican owner of a New York style pizza place (I know) I often frequent told me Wednesday she and her family don't celebrate Cinco do Mayo.
It's a purely American holiday.
hate to burst your bubble, but that's not exactly true.
it's actually a Puebla holiday, that was later co-opted and bastardized by the Americans.
it celebrates the Mexican army's unlikely victory over the French at the Battle of Puebla in the 1860s.
so, while it's celebrated more in the U.S. than anywhere else, it's not "purely" an American holiday. it's roots are in Mexico, and at least some parts of Mexico celebrate it.
|
|
| 820 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Fri, May 07, 2010, 21:44
|
That may well be Tree, but this isnt Mexico. We dont celebrate "Box Day", a Canadian holiday. We dont celebrate most British or German, or French or Dutch or anyone elses holidays.
That Latino girl quoted in the article who said "I'm Mexican and I demand an apology....", needs to be reminded she is NOT Mexican. She is an American. She may be of Mexican heritage......but she *IS* an American.
Anyone who disputes that those students had every right to wear those Tee-shirts, is simply being coddling of a mindset which propagates seperatist ideals. A refusal if you will, to assimilate into the local societal construct.
How many of us, were we to move to say Finland, would demand that American holidays be recognized and celebrated, and then take offense at a Fin who wore a T with their flag on it that day? I'd like to think the answer to that would be n-o-n-e.
|
|
| 821 | bibA
ID: 35437721 Fri, May 07, 2010, 22:38
|
In my neck of the woods, Cinco de Mayo is celebrated far and wide, in a similar manner of St. Pattys Day, tho not quite as much boozin, to put it mildly.
|
|
| 822 | Canadian Hack
ID: 35458723 Sat, May 08, 2010, 00:58
|
We dont celebrate "Box Day", a Canadian holiday.
The holiday is called Boxing Day. It is a British holiday celebrated on December 26th - the day after Christmas. It is observed in many former British colonies including Canada, Australia and New Zealand and has been adopted by not British countries including Switzerland and Germany.
Originally it was a day to box up and put away your Christmas stuff and give Christmas leftovers to the needy. In practise it is one more day to spend with your family at Christmas time. There are Boxing Day (post-Christmas sales) which often have the lowest prices of the year. USA does follow that form of `celebration` - though the day after Thanksgiving is a bigger shopping day.
As a Canadian, I can tell you that I didn`t do anything special on Boxing Day other than spend another day with family - which is likely the same as most Americans did on December 26th.
|
|
| 823 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, May 08, 2010, 01:50
|
Who is "demanding" that others celebrate anything, sarge?
|
|
| 824 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Sat, May 08, 2010, 08:30
|
Well, I'll forgive you ruining my pat irony with needless nuance, Tree, as I got to read about the Flower Wars.
|
|
| 825 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sat, May 08, 2010, 10:07
|
as I got to read about the Flower Wars.
as long as i'm teaching someone something new every day... lol
|
|
| 826 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Sat, May 08, 2010, 10:14
|
During the 1960s, war protesters who wore clothes with the American flag design were beaten by "patriots" who believed the "hippies" were abusing a sacred image
link
|
|
| 827 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, May 08, 2010, 11:44
|
Registered Latino voters in AZ overwhelmingly oppose SB 1070
 What’s more, the survey finds opposition and concerns remains strong across immigrant generation. Contrary to some claims that only Latino immigrants would be concerned over the new Arizona law, the data clearly show that second, third and fourth generation U.S. born Latinos firmly oppose the law. Among foreign-born voters, 90% oppose the law, while 82% oppose in the second generation (who have foreign-born parents), 79% oppose in the third generation (who have foreign-born grandparents), and 67% oppose into the fourth generation. When asked about concerns over profiling, the results are even more consistent across generation:
|
|
| 828 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, May 10, 2010, 11:35
|
while i still agree that the reaction to the students wearing the American flag t-shirts was heavy-handed, Roger Ebert makes some solid points as to why he takes issue with the t-shirt wearing.
|
|
| 829 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Mon, May 10, 2010, 15:24
|
tree - I don't see any solid points by Ebert unless you believe his "America is to Mexican-Americans as the Rape of Nanking is to Chinese-Americans" analogy is anthing but silly.
The propert anaology would be to people wearing red, white, and blue at a St Paddy's Parade or a Chinese New Years Parade. (Which, of course, is done all the time)
I don't get people that think that Americans wearing red, white and blue in America are particularly provocative. Those provoked are the only ones who need to be corrected.
|
|
| 830 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, May 10, 2010, 15:34
|
I don't get people that think that Americans wearing red, white and blue in America are particularly provocative.
i think it depends on the environment. a few years ago, i wouldn't have thought twice about it. but with the anti-immigrant sentiment currently on the forefront of many people's mindsets, i believe it plays a role.
|
|
| 831 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Mon, May 10, 2010, 19:23
|
re 823, in the article I read either on msnbc or cnn, they quoted a female hispanic student who demanded an apology and went on and on about how this is a MEXICAN holiday and she is Mexican and she found it insulting, etc etc etc.
Hence my statement that she is NOT Mexican, she is A\merican, Her heritage, is Mexican.
|
|
| 832 | Khahan
ID: 13126822 Mon, May 10, 2010, 19:42
|
i think it depends on the environment.
You are right, it does depend on environment. However, the environment in which this incident occurred was "America."
So environment did play a role. Its a perfectly reasonable environment in which to wear red, white and blue.
|
|
| 833 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, May 10, 2010, 20:15
|
They did it in order to cause a reaction. This isn't a vacuum in which we can all say "rah rah--go America!"
One can't strip out the context. Otherwise, this becomes a "Yay--he's waving a flag! What a patriot!":
|
|
| 834 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, May 10, 2010, 20:28
|
or Larry Flynt and his American flag diaper...
|
|
| 835 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Mon, May 10, 2010, 20:32
|
PD - Sure they did it to evoke a reaction. But having a negative reaction to American kids wearing American colors in America is whose problem exactly? Nothing they wore should have been offensice to anyone not a ridiculous or, at least, in serious need of a civics lesson.
It's being made out to be like waering the stars and bars on MLK day or something. This is not the same thing. There is no inappropriate day to not be proud of America citizenship.
If the kids were doing something to denigrate Mexicans or something in addition to wearing those clothes it would be different. But the fact is a couple of the kids punished were of Mexican or Hispanic hereitage.
|
|
| 836 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, May 10, 2010, 20:36
|
But having a negative reaction to American kids wearing American colors in America is whose problem exactly? Nothing they wore should have been offensice to anyone not a ridiculous or, at least, in serious need of a civics lesson.
intent plays a role.
again, i'll defend their right to wear those flags until the end, but the intent was to cause a reaction.
|
|
| 837 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Mon, May 10, 2010, 20:54
|
I understand that was there intent, tree. But the reaction would only be from numbnutz. Do we care that those people are upset about something they shouldn't be upset about? Are they right to be upset?
If not, then the "intent" is irrelevant. That's why this different than the people wearing swastikas and Conferderate flags or Stalin tshirts or what have you. They intent to provoke people who may have a very real reason to be offended by those symbols. In this case the symbol of the American flag is not inherently offensive to a rational person - even on Cinco de Mayo.
|
|
| 838 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, May 10, 2010, 22:40
|
They aren't reacting to the clothes, MBJ. They are reacting to the dickish intentions.
I understand the point you are making about provocative clothing vs American flag clothing. But since this isn't about the clothes this isn't about whether "patriotic" clothing should have a "meh" reaction at best from others. This is about kids who themselves should have a "meh" attitude about the day but instead deciding to intentionally provoke others.
|
|
| 839 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Mon, May 10, 2010, 23:00
|
"I understand that was there intent, tree. But the reaction would only be from numbnutz. Do we care that those people are upset about something they shouldn't be upset about? Are they right to be upset?"
Is one "right" to be upset at someone that's deliberately trying to upset you (even if they're doing it poorly)?
Yes, the better part of valor would be to hand 'em a Corona and call it a day. But these are teenage kids we're talking about. That they'd be upset with someone trying to ruin (and yes, "ruin" is overblown, but you get the idea) their day is completely understandable.
|
|
| 840 | Razor
ID: 222262113 Mon, May 10, 2010, 23:51
|
I don't think the argument was whether the kids were trying to be a bit provocative by wearing American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo; it's whether or not they should have been sent home over it. I'm with mbj - this act was either barely objectionable or not at all. I wore this shirt to school without impunity, which was far more inflammatory considering where I grew up.
|
|
| 841 | J-Bar
ID: 514281022 Mon, May 10, 2010, 23:56
|
but Razor you know Christians don't have the right to be offended.
|
|
| 842 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Tue, May 11, 2010, 00:15
|
Christians don't have the right to be offended.
Almost all Mexicans/Mexican Americans are Christians(Catholics).
Perhaps you meant white, anglo-saxon protestant Christians?
|
|
| 843 | J-Bar
ID: 514281022 Tue, May 11, 2010, 00:19
|
It was in reference to his shirt or did you not click on the link before spewing
|
|
| 844 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Tue, May 11, 2010, 00:39
|
Spewing, you say? Is that a Christian ritual?
|
|
| 845 | J-Bar
ID: 514281022 Tue, May 11, 2010, 01:04
|
Wouldn't know about a ritual Christian or otherwise. Just goes to show you didn't look at the link before you typed your post lmao
|
|
| 846 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Tue, May 11, 2010, 09:56
|
"I don't think the argument was whether the kids were trying to be a bit provocative by wearing American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo; it's whether or not they should have been sent home over it."
I disagree. Or rather, I think there's two separate arguments being made:
1. Do they have the right to wear the shirts? I think everyone in this thread agrees that they have the right to wear the shirts and should not have been sent home for it. There really hasn't been any argument on this point.
2. Were they trying to provoke? Is it even conceivably possible that the American flag shirts could ever provoke anyone in America for any reason? This is where most of the disagreement has been.
|
|
| 847 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Tue, May 11, 2010, 19:06
|
FWIW, whether they were trying to provoke a response or not, is irrelevant. This is not a criminal matter and intent has no bearing.
DO students have the right, to wear apparel which depicts the American flag?
IF the answer is yes, then it is yes. IF the answer is no, then it is no.
I think it wrong to try and qualify it with something like:
Well yes, but not on the 3rd Thurs of any month beginning with a vowel. Or some such thing.
As it pertains to Cinco De Mayo....get over it. This is AMERICA and we celebrate American holidays. NOT Mexican, Brazilian, Japanese, etc etc etc. May 5th to me, and I think to most Americans, is just another day. If you want to have a parade, great! Have one. But dont get bent because I dont celebrate it with you.
|
|
| 848 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, May 11, 2010, 21:46
|
Well yes, but not on the 3rd Thurs of any month beginning with a vowel. Or some such thing.
Ugh, no one is making that argument, or even a similar one.
The dickish students felt that reflective flag-protectors (like yourself) would allow them to cover their bad behavior with the flag and thereby absolve them completely.
This isn't a matter of whether someone "has the right." If you think that is what is going on here, you are asking the wrong question. A better question is: Are students allowed to be intentionally politically provocative with their clothing choices?
|
|
| 849 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, May 11, 2010, 21:47
|
Just so it is clear: No, I don't believe the "right" to wear the American flag is absolute. Mostly, because I believe there are few rights which are absolute.
|
|
| 850 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Tue, May 11, 2010, 22:18
|
Just because you have the technical right to do something, doesn't mean you should.
|
|
| 851 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Wed, May 12, 2010, 07:58
|
The point I am trying to make; is that America celebrates American holidays; NOT those of foreign countries. Immigrants, need to assimilate into the culture of their new found home, not change that culture to match the one they left behind.
If it is alright to wear a T with the flag on it on Nov 15, then it is OK to wear it on May 5, or any other date you care to pick.
If the Latino population wants to celebrate Cinco De Mayo with parades, remembrances or whatever...thats great. They have that right, ability, option. What they do NOT have is the right to take offense if others dont join in that celebration.
|
|
| 852 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Wed, May 12, 2010, 08:11
|
They have every right to take offense to whatever they find offensive. I think you mean to say that their emotional reactions shouldn't dictate our legal policies, which I mostly agree with.
FTR there's a point at which school administrators should step into a conflict to prevent further escalation. But seeing students arrive dressed in patriotic-themed clothing, even in hope to provoke an angry reaction, isn't that point.
|
|
| 853 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Wed, May 12, 2010, 10:26
|
To the extent MITH, that nobody should absolutely define what is/isnt offensive in a universal or blanket sense; I agree. However, people today seem to delight in taking offense at something, regardless how honestly offensive that something is. If ALL of us, grew a little thicker skin, it would I think go a very LONG ways, toward easing a lot of societal strains.
|
|
| 854 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, May 12, 2010, 10:40
|
I have an easy solution uniforms, then everyone can be equally upset.
|
|
| 855 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Wed, May 12, 2010, 10:52
|
Depends on the uniform.
These would be awesome!

Whereas I am fairly confident these would be unequally upsetting:

And these would be more popular for some...
|
|
| 856 | Boldwin
ID: 8423823 Wed, May 12, 2010, 15:41
|
The more Americans learn about the specifics of this law the more they like it. [inacurate scare tactics no longer working]Democrats, a large majority of whom originally opposed the law, are now.... ... evenly split 45-46% approve-disapprove...
Republicans overwhelmingly approve the law (85%)...
A solid majority of independents (64%) also support the controversial measure...
Even among young people, where support for the law is weakest, a majority support requiring people to produce immigration documents upon request by police.
Fifty-four percent of Americans in the new Pew Poll disapprove of Obama's job performance on immigration while those who approve have waned from 31% last November to 29% last month to 25% today.
Again, Obama's Democratic party is now split (38% disapprove, 37% approve). Predictably, 75% of Republicans disapprove of his job in that area. But of potential future concern for the White House is that, among independents, a crucial leg of his national support in 2008, more than twice as many disapprove of his immigration handling (57%) as approve (25%). BTW immigration was also hugely important in Britain where conservatives would have won outright had it not been for surging anti-immigration parties [protesting muslims flouting immigration laws, they just never leave after temporary visas] drawing off an unexpected 5% of the vote.
|
|
| 857 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, May 12, 2010, 16:17
|
definitely sad. at this rate, it's probably only a matter of time before we start tossing dark-skinned people in internment camps.
i fear we're entering another dark time in this nation's history, and one we'll look back at in shame.
|
|
| 858 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Wed, May 12, 2010, 17:44
|
popularity with the masses, does not make it pass constitutional muster. Cities in AZ are looking at filing suit, as is the Fed Govt. The law wont stand. Between economic pressure from the boycotts and legal challenges, it will go away.
|
|
| 859 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138 Wed, May 12, 2010, 18:04
|
I fear we're entering another dark time in this nation's history, and one we'll look back at in shame.
Glad to see your finally starting to come around.
|
|
| 860 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Wed, May 12, 2010, 18:09
|
Fascism to the right of me, Marxism to the left, and here I am stuck in the middle with Obama.
|
|
| 861 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Fri, May 14, 2010, 08:12
|
Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon on the AZ boycott: "It's a near economic crisis" Phoenix city and tourism officials have compiled a "watch list" of about 20 events, said David Krietor, a deputy city manager tracking the issue.
The list consists of four organizations that have canceled events and more than a dozen others that have booked events but have expressed concerns about the new law.
Those watch-list events would affect city-run venues, such as the Phoenix Convention Center and the Sheraton Phoenix Downtown Hotel, as well as hotels and resorts around the Valley.
"We have an image and public-relations problem of what might be unprecedented proportions," Krietor said.
The $90 million figure represents the estimated amount that those groups' members would spend in the region. Some events are scheduled this year. Others are booked as far out as 2015.
People who attend Phoenix Convention Center events alone spend about $350 million each year, officials have said.
Recent cancellations include the oldest African-American Greek-lettered fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc., which was supposed to hold a July meeting at the Sheraton. The fraternity's annual convention was expected to draw about 5,000 attendees and as many as 10,000 visitors, a fraternity spokesman said.
Organizers will now hold that event in Las Vegas.
Other cancellations, all for 2012, are the National Association of Black Accountants , the International Communications Association and the National Urban League.
The city did not have attendance estimates for all of the groups, but they represent about 16,000 room nights in local hotels, Krietor said.
At today's meeting, the city is likely to discuss strategies to help retain tourism, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said.
But he worries that the impact of the immigration debate is already creating a ripple effect.
Some conventions that have decided to stay in Phoenix don't want to publicize that fact because they fear being boycotted themselves, Gordon said.
He also has heard that conventions that have decided to stay in Phoenix are getting fewer attendees and fewer sponsors.
|
|
| |
| 863 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, May 14, 2010, 11:48
|
Good article from Wharton on the Arizona immigration law...
here's an interesting stat from that article: An analysis published by Americans for Immigration Reform finds that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity and approximately 140,324 jobs.
|
|
| 864 | Frick
ID: 484491410 Fri, May 14, 2010, 11:49
|
The report says that wages are forced down for some. I would expect that those are the people who are already making the least, but is the effect countered by the minimum wage law. To go further, if they are being payed less than minimum wage, if or when they become documented workers, costs for items is going to go up, putting a further squeeze on those least able to afford it. On a macro level, they probably do help grow the economy, on a micro level, they might make things worse for themselves and others.
That being said, if all of the undocumented works left the country tomorrow, our economy would take a massive hit.
|
|
| 865 | Boldwin
ID: 8423823 Fri, May 14, 2010, 14:03
|
That is mighty cold blooded fiction. I can tell you as someone whose son's former industry is now almost entirely employing Mexican's and whose granite countertops are now owned by others.
I can tell you that one gargantuan lie that props up many of these phony 'they are a net gain' studies, is that they stipulate that these workers will never claim social security benefits that they are paying for. When in fact these will almost all be amnestied in and they will receive SS benefits based on their last ten years working.
That is the size of the lies baked into these sorts of sophistry.
You can be sure the public in europe is hearing the same patently absurd garbage about how importing so many muslims that the main cities are now majority muslim was the salvation of europe.
|
|
| 866 | Boldwin
ID: 8423823 Fri, May 14, 2010, 14:10
|
Same experts that told us shipping all our manufacturing to Mexico and China would be great for the economy. With a completely straight face. Not a twitch.
|
|
| 867 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, May 14, 2010, 14:31
|
Which experts said this?
|
|
| 868 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, May 14, 2010, 15:15
|
I can tell you that one gargantuan lie that props up many of these phony 'they are a net gain' studies, is that they stipulate that these workers will never claim social security benefits that they are paying for. When in fact these will almost all be amnestied in and they will receive SS benefits based on their last ten years working.
and i can tell you that my girlfriend's dog poops gold bricks. doesn't mean it's so.
please provide some sort of back up for your claims?
|
|
| 869 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, May 14, 2010, 15:24
|
When in fact these will almost all be amnestied in and they will receive SS benefits based on their last ten years working.
There is no such proposal in the works. I think you are confusing the 2005 McCain bill with, well, the future.
In any case, you need not guess at what those studies say--you can actually read them. Too difficult, you say? It might make you change your mind? Tough. Don't comment on them, then.
|
|
| 870 | Boldwin
ID: 8423823 Fri, May 14, 2010, 16:55
|
Your SS payout is based on last ten years paid into the system.
Every congressman trying to obfuscate the fact that he has no intention of enforcing the borders, claims what Americans are really upset about is that immigration reform hasn't been implimented, which always translates to amnesty in practice.
Thus those 'paying in, but not withdrawing benefits' will after all withdraw those benefits.
|
|
| 871 | Boldwin
ID: 8423823 Fri, May 14, 2010, 16:58
|
...and largely without paying into the system.
It has also been shown that they will receive Obamacare without being insured. Not to mention education for their kids, the whole panopoly of social services for the poor.
|
|
| 872 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Fri, May 14, 2010, 17:07
|
Links please. You keep saying "experts say" or "it has been shown", without any ability for us to judge which experts, or who has shown it.
|
|
| 873 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, May 14, 2010, 17:14
|
It has also been shown that they will receive Obamacare without being insured. Not to mention education for their kids, the whole panopoly of social services for the poor.
how very Christian of you to believe in the denial of health care and education for children.
Your SS payout is based on last ten years paid into the system.
Every congressman trying to obfuscate the fact that he has no intention of enforcing the borders, claims what Americans are really upset about is that immigration reform hasn't been implimented, which always translates to amnesty in practice.
it's good to know that you not only speak for every Conservative, but now you also speak for every congressman.
|
|
| 874 | weykool
ID: 351422416 Fri, May 14, 2010, 17:27
|
There is no such proposal in the works. I think you are confusing the 2005 McCain bill with, well, the future.
From post 587: The draft proposal includes a process to legalize an estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants in the United States.
Perhaps you are the one confused?
|
|
| 875 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, May 14, 2010, 17:50
|
There is no such proposal in the works. I think you are confusing the 2005 McCain bill with, well, the future.
From post 587: The draft proposal includes a process to legalize an estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants in the United States.
Perhaps you are the one confused?
nope.
that's not the same thing as 865's these will almost all be amnestied in and they will receive SS benefits based on their last ten years working.
|
|
| 876 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, May 14, 2010, 18:02
|
Not at all, wey. Perhaps you didn't compare what Baldwin is predicting against what the Dems have actually proposed (which, is similar to the McCain proposal. Of course, now McCain's against it because the Democrats like it.).
That particular plan would pave the way for some workers to become legal (by paying a fine, by not being on public assistance for a period, passing a background check, etc). Like other legal workers (citizens or not), they would get SS benefits based upon what they pay into the system. Current law already allows for people who became legal immigrants to be credited with what they paid into the system previously. This is already the law.
Baldwin's confusion is two-fold: That the Democratic proposal would change the law in some way in this regard (which is doesn't) and that the calculation of illegal workers in this country is significantly altered by this crediting to people what they pay into the SSA (it isn't--very few illegals pay Social Security tax).
Your confusion is one-fold: You assumed that Baldwin was presenting his point in a factually-based way.
Your SS payout is based on last ten years paid into the system.
That's not true. Per the SSA: "Social Security benefits are based on earnings averaged over most of a worker's lifetime."
|
|
| 877 | Boldwin
ID: 8423823 Fri, May 14, 2010, 18:42
|
How 'last ten years' effects immigrants:In the U.S., it only takes 10 years worth of work to fully vest in the Social Security program, and partial benefits may be granted to those who have worked here as little as 18 months. Thus claims illegals are paying in but not going to withdraw is false. The amnesty pushers will make sure they withdraw plenty. And thus these flaky and patently absurd-on-their-face claims they are a net gain to the economy are false.
|
|
| 878 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, May 14, 2010, 19:00
|
A tip: I would urge you to read the studies themselves before you inject your partisan talking points. That gives you the sheen of respectability which you lack when you talk about the studies without actually reading any of them.
Illegal workers and their families consume all sorts of things, which costs them money that they pump into the economy. If you are under the belief that a small percentage of them might get credit for the percentage of their money they paid into SS and that overcomes all the other money spent then you are under a serious misunderstanding of economics.
Illegal workers contribute to the economy because they are, by and large, on the lower economic class and so virtually all their income is spent here, aiding local businesses and so on down the line. To say nothing of how many agricultural businesses depend upon these workers (without them, your food would be more expensive).
|
|
| 879 | Boldwin
ID: 8423823 Fri, May 14, 2010, 19:06
|
Illegal workers and their families consume all sorts of things, which costs them money that they pump into the economy.
Yeah, well so would the poor americans if they weren't displaced from jobs when this happens. Who then are forced onto the public dole. How this strikes anyone as a good deal for America for even one second...
|
|
| 880 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Fri, May 14, 2010, 20:00
|
So, can we agree that draconian penalties for the American employers that are displacing the American workers is a good place to start then?
|
|
| 881 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, May 14, 2010, 20:20
|
I really think you need to read at least some of the studies before commenting on the conclusions. Fact are there, for your viewing.
|
|
| 882 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sat, May 15, 2010, 01:03
|
Fact are there, for your viewing.
and that matters, how?
|
|
| 883 | Frick
ID: 484491410 Sat, May 15, 2010, 17:21
|
An interesting article on how far California or Arizona is really willing to go with the boycotts.
Gateway Pundit
|
|
| 884 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, May 17, 2010, 15:16
|
all things considered, it's pretty interesting that a Muslim immigrant who is a former champion pole dancer just won Miss America.
|
|
| 885 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, May 17, 2010, 15:24
|
Clearly she was taking a job away from a perfectly good American pole dancer:
|
|
| 886 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Tue, May 18, 2010, 14:16
|
Tree, 884: I'm not even sure what that has to do with the recent content of this thread. She's not illegal so she's not being discussed directly or indirectly in past few hundred posts.
I've got no problem with immigrants in this country. But I have a major problem with illegal immigrants.
|
|
| 887 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, May 18, 2010, 16:02
|
I'm not even sure what that has to do with the recent content of this thread. She's not illegal so she's not being discussed directly or indirectly in past few hundred posts.
it's stirring an uproar on the right, for a number of reasons.
Meanwhile, the right is also struggling to square her prancing about in bikinis and her liberal views (she said Sunday that insurance should pay for birth control) with those pesky Muslim stereotypes: all women wear burkas and hate sex.
Plus, she’s an immigrant!
And on that immigration front, “looks like the Miss USA pageant didn’t want to risk the wrath of the open borders mob,” writes conservative Michelle Malkin. Why? Because Miss USA first runner-up Morgan Woolard, Miss Oklahoma, said Sunday she favors Arizona’s new law about police stopping possible illegals. Said the gorgeous but boilerplate blonde, “It’s perfectly fine for Arizona to create that law.”
i think it's relevant, because i think it's showing a kink the Right's armor, and that kink is that for some, it's not about illegal immigration, but rather, about immigrants.
|
|
| 888 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Tue, May 18, 2010, 16:13
|
The people trying to tie her legal immigration status to anything to do with illegal immigration are simply idiots.
|
|
| 889 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, May 18, 2010, 16:39
|
The people trying to tie her legal immigration status to anything to do with illegal immigration are simply idiots.
i agree. and i believe some on the right have an issue with immigrants, regardless of their legal status.
|
|
| 890 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, May 19, 2010, 14:48
|
Arizona responds to Los Angeles boycott link
An Arizona utility commissioner said he's willing to pull the plug on Los Angeles if the city goes through with a boycott of his state.
In a letter to the city of LA, a member of Arizona's power commission said he would ask Arizona utility companies to cut off the power supply to Los Angeles. LA gets about 25 percent of its power from Arizona.
Here's part Arizona Corporation Commission member Gary Pierce's letter to the mayor:
If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation.
I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy. .........................
This is starting to get interesting.
|
|
| 891 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, May 19, 2010, 14:56
|
i agree. Let L.A. go elsewhere, and take more money out of Arizona's coffers.
|
|
| 892 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, May 19, 2010, 15:38
|
I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation.
This is a pretty empty threat. They are locked into contracts, and the threat of "renegotiating" them is just a bluster.
|
|
| 893 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, May 19, 2010, 15:48
|
So, L.A. can weasel out of their Arizona contracts, but not vice versa.
|
|
| 894 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, May 19, 2010, 15:57
|
an article that touches on some of the contractual mucky-muck.
But Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who co-authored the resolution, said it would be impractical to cancel most of those deals and only about $7 million to $8 million in city contracts probably would be affected.
"US Airways is based in Arizona and they certainly fly in and out (of Los Angeles)" and it would hardly be feasible to end those flights, Hahn said before the council vote.
Hahn said the Los Angeles boycott also won't affect the city's Department of Water and Power, which has wind farm and nuclear energy contracts in Arizona. Among the contracts with Arizona companies that conceivably could be terminated include those for helicopter services, Taser guns, waste management, engineering and surveillance equipment.
L.A.'s mayor responds
Neither the Los Angeles mayor nor any city council members who KGUN9 News attempted to contact on Tuesday returned calls. But the KNBC article quoted a statement from the mayor's office saying that Villaraigosa "will not respond to threats from the state that has isolated itself from an America that values freedom, liberty and basic civil rights."
But that wasn't all KNBC had to say about Pierce's letter. KNBC's website has a regular feature allowing users to register their reactions to stories, which it then reports as a rotating feature on the website's masthead. On Wednesday morning one of those masthead messages read, "Locals thrilled about the Arizona power play."
and another California city boycotts Arizona...
man, what took Berkeley so long?!!? :oD
|
|
| 895 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, May 19, 2010, 16:25
|
#893: My understanding is that LA is not required to buy its power from AZ, but AZ is contractually bound to provide the service should LA ask for it.
|
|
| |
| 897 | Boldwin
ID: 404412616 Wed, May 26, 2010, 17:50
|
Someone has to refill the emergency watering stations.
|
|
| 898 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, May 26, 2010, 18:06
|
Someone has to refill the emergency watering stations.
obviously, since people like you want to deport the only people willing to do it for extremely low pay.
not to mention splitting up families and/or deporting and/or imprisoning American citizens.
|
|
| |
| |
| 901 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Jun 03, 2010, 10:00
|
went searching for the data source for that story but could not find it but I did find this link kind of interesting: take crime rankings with a grain of salt
|
|
| |
| 903 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Mon, Jun 07, 2010, 10:48
|
902 - just proves there are not only idiots in the world, but some are in power. Dumb councilman.
|
|
| |
| 905 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 14:38
|
Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law
Arizona's tough new immigration enforcement law is fueling an exodus of Hispanics from the state seven weeks before it goes into effect, according to officials and residents in the state. Though no one has precise figures, reports from school officials, businesses and individuals indicate worried Hispanics — both legal and illegal — are leaving the state in anticipation of the law, which will go into effect July 29.
Schools in Hispanic areas report unusual drops in enrollment. The Balsz Elementary School District is 75% Hispanic, and within a month of the law's passage, the parents of 70 students pulled them out of school, said District Superintendent Jeffrey Smith. The district lost seven students over the same one-month period last year, and parents tell Smith the Arizona law is the reason for leaving.
"They're leaving to another state where they feel more welcome," he said.
|
|
| 906 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 15:02
|
Interesting. I'm sure some of those in AZ who support the law would feel a vindication of sorts about that news.
I came across this piece by Conor about the law enforcement side of it. Interesting piece that I still need to absorb a little bit. The costs associated with the enforcement (including opportunity costs of policy chasing down people based upon the law and not doing other, current, enforcement) is not unsubstantial, it seems.
|
|
| 907 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 15:58
|
the fact that people who live in this country legally have to flee the state in which they reside because of a law about their ethnicity that is about to go into effect is absolutely disgusting and a completely tragedy.
this law is against everything America has ever stood for.
|
|
| 908 | Khahan
ID: 13126822 Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 19:28
|
Tree, they don't have to. Absolutely nothing I have read about this law says they have any reason to.
This law is absolutely about making sure people do things the right way. Whether or not that way needs fixed is a whole other argument. But this law is about stopping illegal activity. Plain and simple.
|
|
| 909 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 19:31
|
No one is really criticizing the aim of the law. But the only way it could be enforced is by putting those who appear to be illegal into proving that they are allowed to be here. And that means that thousands of people who are citizens (or naturalized Americans) are now subject to having to prove, at any time, that they are allowed to be in the country because they are Hispanic or Hispanic-looking.
|
|
| 910 | Seattle Zen
ID: 1410391215 Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 19:42
|
But this law is about stopping illegal activity. Plain and simple.
The number of times you have misstated the law in this and numerous other threads is staggering. You simply do not know the laws of which you speak, you have read a few things, but have been misled.
No one is breaking the law by overstaying their visa. Nor is anyone breaking the law by walking down the street in the US after they swam across the Rio Grande. They may be deported, but that is a civil process, not a criminal one.
Imagine a state has ordered its various police departments to investigate all sorts of federal tax code violations they may have suspected you committed. Imagine that these same police officers have been ordered to stop people who they reasonably believe have violated some handgun registration requirements and their training has told them that the single most telling clue of these perps is that they are white, "as white people own the majority of guns". I think you would be rather outraged.
|
|
| 911 | Khahan
ID: 13126822 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 00:34
|
SZ, the law is plain and simple. It is a tool like any others and does NOT do anything but sit there and give officers a way to stop illegal activity. Yes, illegal immigrants are ILLEGAL. It doesn't matter how you justify them or describe them. If they are here illegally the law allows the officers a way to find that out. If they are not here illegally they have nothing to worry about. Please show me otherwise in the law.
The law should not be blamed for how it may be abused. The people applying it are to blame for that.
It is a law that if used correctly can do some good things.
And for the record I have absolutely no problem with profiling. If you are in New Mexico or Arizona looking for illegal immigrants, you focus the bulk of your time, energy and money on the biggest known group down there, hispanics.
If you are trying to catch terrorists groups in airports, you focus the bulk of your time, energy and money on Middle Easterners.
And if you are trying to find a mass murderer or serial killer with little info on who the person is, you look at white, middle aged males with most of your resources.
To me, its just a matter of efficiency.
|
|
| 912 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 01:39
|
The law should not be blamed for how it may be abused. The people applying it are to blame for that.
What???
There is no way to enforce the law except by stopping citizens and have them prove they are not here illegally. At any time. This is not the fault of the people "applying it." This is the only way the new law will work.
This is exactly why people are blaming the new law rather than the police who have to enforce it.
|
|
| 913 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 02:25
|
and yet, no one who is in favor of this law can tell me how THEY would prove their immigration status if asked....
If you are trying to catch terrorists groups in airports, you focus the bulk of your time, energy and money on Middle Easterners.
And if you are trying to find a mass murderer or serial killer with little info on who the person is, you look at white, middle aged males with most of your resources.
so, you're advocating throwing Middle Easterners in jail if they can't prove they're not terrorists, or white middle aged males in jail if they can't prove they're not serial killers?
|
|
| 914 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 07:45
|
and yet, no one who is in favor of this law can tell me how THEY would prove their immigration status if asked....
I would make a paper copy of my passport and carry it around in my moneyclip, if I were going to Arizona.
|
|
| 915 | Khahan
ID: 13126822 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 08:37
|
There is no way to enforce the law except by stopping citizens and have them prove they are not here illegally
This is not the way the law works. The law does not allow an officer to randomly stop people and ask for proof of citizenship. Rather when an officer is stopping a person for another issue, if the officer has a reasonable and customary belief that the person he stopped is an illegal then the officer has the right to dig deeper.
Produce a drivers license and you're fine. Your SS card and your fine. I carry both of these on me at all times.
These issues of 'it lets a cop walk up to me and just demand proof of citizenship,' that I keep reading about here are exactly the kind of issues that are to be blamed on the individual misapplying the law.
As a matter of fact, Arizona's immigration law does not allow anything new. What it allows Arizona officers to do is exactly what federal law allows border patrol to do. What it requires of immigrants is exactly what the federal law requires. The people not in conformity with the federal law that has been around for decades now have another person to look over their shoulders for. If you are not in compliance with federal law (in otherwords you are breaking the law) Arizona officers can now arrest you.
I also want to hilight sections G and H: G. Any person who is a resident of this state has standing in any 6 court of record to bring suit against any agent or agency of this state or 7 its political subdivisions to remedy any violation of any provision of this 8 section, including an action for mandamus. Courts shall give preference to 9 actions brought under this section over other civil actions or proceedings 10 pending in the court. 11 H. THE COURT MAY AWARD COURT COSTS AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES TO ANY 12 PERSON OR ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR 13 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT PREVAILS BY AN ADJUDICATION ON 14 THE MERITS IN A PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION
And now just so there is absolutely no more confusion over what this law really does, here it is, Arizona House Bill 2162
|
|
| 916 | Mith
ID: 37540118 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 09:40
|
Khahan
I'm sorry, but when it comes down to it, cops aren't going to find it necessary to check the immigration status of people who look and sound a certain way. It still incentivises racial profiling.
And it opens the door for all kinds of other questionable police behavior as well. A cop on his beat might normally let all 2000 jaywalkers he sees in a given day pass without a second thought. But now that he knows he can use jaywalking to hunt for illegal immigrants he just might decide to start enforcing jaywalking laws.
No cop anywhere is going to hand out 2000 jaywalking tickets a day, so how would that cop decide who to target? How many anglo-looking people do you think that cop will stop for jaywalking? And when it comes down to it, why bother targeting actual jaywalkers at all? Who could possibly prove that a perp wasn't actually jaywalking?
And I'm not sure why I shoud be comforted by a provision in the law that says if your civil rights are violated you have the right to sue.
|
|
| 917 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 09:49
|
"The law does not allow an officer to randomly stop people and ask for proof of citizenship. Rather when an officer is stopping a person for another issue, if the officer has a reasonable and customary belief that the person he stopped is an illegal then the officer has the right to dig deeper.
Produce a drivers license and you're fine. Your SS card and your fine. I carry both of these on me at all times."
1. How does one establish a "reasonable and customary belief that the person he stopped is an illegal"?
2. It's easy enough to get a driver's license, even as an illegal immigrant, so having one is no proof of citizenship.
3. You are specifically advised NOT carry your SS card with you. Who says so? The Social Security Administration.
|
|
| 918 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 09:55
|
2. It's easy enough to get a driver's license, even as an illegal immigrant, so having one is no proof of citizenship.
do you know what the regulations are to get a drivers license in Arizona? Some states require proof of citizenship to get one, otherwise you get a visitor license.
|
|
| 919 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 10:09
|
Scroll down to #9
Don't see anything requiring presenting citizenship proof in order to get a license.
|
|
| 920 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 10:42
|
It may or may not be correct but i checked my state and the info on the site is not correct, because you have to supply a birth certificate and other info and that is not listed.
|
|
| 921 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 10:44
|
Produce a drivers license and you're fine. Your SS card and your fine. I carry both of these on me at all times.
a driver's license isn't proof of citizenship.
i haven't carried my SS card on me, EVER. maybe when i was 15, because i thought it was cool. i also carried a condom in my wallet then too because i thought it was cool.
and to take DWetz's point one step further, not only are you not supposed to carry your card with you, you're supposed to avoid carrying any documentation that contains your SS# whenever possible.
it's also extremely ignorant and naive to think that a white person's citizenship status will be checked as often as a hispanic's.
|
|
| 922 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 10:58
|
This was covered previously, but drivers licenses are not proof of citizenship. States require some paperwork which prove you are who you are when you get a license (such as a birth certificate, and other paperwork). But state agencies are only checking identity, not citizenship.
In Florida, for example, you can provide a copy of your foreign birth certificate (along with other documentation) to prove your identity for a drivers license.
|
|
| 923 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 12:04
|
You guys apparently have not actually read the act. The act specifically states that a valid drivers license is all the proof you need. An SS card actually is not listed, sorry about that.
A DL may not be proof of citizenship, but it will satisfy the qualifications of the law.
Again, people are falling back on the same old arguments they have been using against this law, but that doesn't change the fact that this law puts NOTHING NEW on immigrants. This law does not require them to do anything that federal law doesn't already require.
That is one hurdle I have yet to see opponents of the AZ law even attempt to tackle. Because you can't. If immigration laws on a federal level change then this law could potentially put extra duty on citizens that are here legally or immigrants that are here legally. But until then this law changes nothing for the citizens. It effectively states: our state and local officers now have the authority to enforce stuff that federal agents can enforce.
|
|
| 924 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 12:23
|
Here is a copy/paste directly from the bill that deals with the issue at hand:
B. For any lawful STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST made by a law 43 enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law 44 enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or 45 other political subdivision of this state IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW H.B. 2162 - 4 - 1 OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE where reasonable 2 suspicion exists that the person is an alien who AND is unlawfully present in 3 the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to 4 determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination 5 may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall 6 have the person's immigration status determined before the person is 7 released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal 8 government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law 9 enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other 10 political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or 11 national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to 12 the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person 13 is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States 14 if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the 15 following: 16 1. A valid Arizona driver license. 17 2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. 18 3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal 19 identification. 20 4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States 21 before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government 22 issued identification.
If you look at the actual law, the original wording was for any contact. That was changed and probably rightly so. Any concerns that an officer can just walk up to a random person and demand proof (as has been put forth in this very thread) were written out of the law.
|
|
| 925 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 13:07
|
So, in short, they are codifying into law that in order to prove citizenship, it is OK to provide an identification which does not require citizenship.
Brilliant!
|
|
| 926 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 13:31
|
And if you don't have an Arizona driver's license, be prepared for a stay in the pokey.
|
|
| 927 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 13:52
|
The essentially make any non-resident of Arizona at risk of jail time. Go check out the grand canyon while visiting vergas, have dark skin, end up in jail.
I say we just go back to 49 states. Screw AZ. Any non- racists should get out now.
|
|
| 928 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 14:24
|
In Florida, for example, you can provide a copy of your foreign birth certificate (along with other documentation) to prove your identity for a drivers license.
correct but it is a visitors licenses and has to be renewed yearly.
|
|
| 929 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 14:27
|
sure. The point isn't how long the license is valid, but whether it is proof of citizenship. It isn't--it is proof of identity.
|
|
| 930 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 14:36
|
what part of "vistors license" do you not understand?
|
|
| 931 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 14:39
|
I guess the part where this is falsely claimed as evidence of citizenship.
|
|
| 932 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 15:24
|
The essentially make any non-resident of Arizona at risk of jail time.
Take your passport, if you're going to Arizona. And you won't have this problem.
|
|
| 933 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 15:36
|
I'll just skip az and visit Canada instead, thanks. It's easier and they are more friendly. And vastly nicer place.
|
|
| 934 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 16:02
|
Post 931, I'm not sure what the issue is. If you can present a valid drivers license then you can present enough evidence so that there is not a reasonable & customary reason to suspect you are an illegal immigrant.
Its pretty straight forward. Wanting the drivers license to not work won't change anything. The bill states it is sufficient evidence, end of story.
If anybody is pulled over for a traffic stop and can produce their valid drivers license, then the officer performing the stop has no authority under this bill to question them further about citizenship or detain them. The 'reasonable and customary' suspicion can be overcome w/ a valid license.
|
|
| 935 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 16:10
|
Your own cut and paste notes that only an AZ license is acceptable. Maybe you overlooked that?
[That's not a snark, btw]
In fact, if you move to AZ from Illinois, Washington, Utah, and New Mexico, you cannot use your current license as a primary document to prove your identity when you apply for an AZ license.
|
|
| 936 | Frick
ID: 135451115 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 16:45
|
Does your current license not serve as a primary document from just Illinois, Washington, Utah and New Mexico, or all states?
|
|
| |
| 938 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 17:37
|
Your own cut and paste notes that only an AZ license is acceptable. Maybe you overlooked that?
Actually I did consider that, PD and I think this is where the 'reasonable and customary (R&C)' comes into play.
R&C is a burden of proof which basically means, "what would the average person reasonably be expected to do/think in a given situation."
If a person is pulled over in any state where they do not reside, its both reasonable and customary to expect your US drivers license to be accepted as valid. I really doubt anybody on this board would question that.
So why wouldn't I expect my license to perform in the same capacity for this? I think it would unreasonable for an AZ cop to say, "Sorry, your Texas license is valid proof you can drive just like our AZ license is, but its not valid enough to make me demand further proof from you that ain't no illegal immigrant!"
In any other circumstance my PA license is as valid as an AZ license so its unreasonable not treat it the same in this case.
Of course that belief will probably have to challenged and put to the legal test in court to be proven true to the people who want to doubt. But until then I'd bet you that you would be safe w/ your out-of-state license.
|
|
| 939 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 17:40
|
I would, certainly. I'm like a male Snow White.
:)
|
|
| 940 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 17:42
|
PD's 937 - no argument from me on that. They are now overstepping our federal law and constitutional rights. That is an idiotic move. The guy who introduced it even admits he's aware it goes against what is written in the Constitution.
|
|
| 941 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 17:45
|
BTW, the link I put in #906 is a piece I'm still stewing over, but does talk about some real-world experience in the kinds of hypotheticals we're tossing around here.
|
|
| 942 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 19:34
|
Take your passport, if you're going to Arizona. And you won't have this problem.
i should be made to feel like a visitor from another country in the country of my birth?!?!
F that.
|
|
| |
| 944 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 20:06
|
Summarizing: Having to make acopy of your passport and put it in your wallet if you ever go to Arizona..........F that.
Ordering all citizens to purchase a $10,000 health insurance policy.........Love that.
|
|
| 945 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 20:15
|
Ordering all citizens to purchase a $10,000 health insurance policy.........Love that.
You are aware that I oppose that, yes?
|
|
| 946 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 21:02
|
post 944 - and how are these two things related?
oh, right. they're not.
|
|
| 947 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 21:48
|
You are aware that I oppose that, yes?
Not really, but I was talking to Tree.
and how are these two things related?
Both statements are Tree's views on two recently passed laws.
|
|
| 948 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 21:57
|
What kind of conservative notion is that? Pay some more money to to government to prove to them, when they stop you anytime they want, that you are allowed to be in this country?
Since when are "conservatives" for the expansion of governmental police powers which restrict the ability of citizens to freely move about without additional safeguards by the citizens to prevent (not being stopped at all) but arrests should they be stopped and not have their papers on them?
|
|
| 949 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 22:11
|
Here is the solution if you don't want to have to buy a passport to go to Arizona..................Don't go to Arizona.
Here is the solution if you are going to Arizona and you have a passport ,but don't want to have to pack it, or don't want to have to show it to someone if you are in Arizona..........Don't go to Arizona.
These are my ideas. Quit trying to extrapolate them to all Liberterians or all conservatives.
|
|
| 950 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 22:11
|
When the citizens are brown or black.
What do I win?
|
|
| 951 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 22:27
|
Oh, don't worry: I'm not going to Arizona. But your plan neglects to talk about those people actually there. I guess they are just screwed, eh?
|
|
| 952 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 22:38
|
Correct, you're not going there. But, that does not prevent you from whining about it even though it's never going to effect you.
The people there can use their Arizona drivers license. The voters and lawmakers of Arizona have spoken. I don't know why you faraway people think you know better as to what's best for Arizonans.
|
|
| 953 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 22:56
|
So you do live there, right? Just for future reference.
|
|
| 954 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 23:18
|
I do not live in Arizona.
|
|
| 955 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 23:19
|
Of course it affects me, B7. This isn't a tourism problem. Any state which unilaterally takes over federal functions is problematic for the Union.
This isn't a democracy. This is a constitutional republic. Anyone who thinks that once the voters of an area decide to do something then it is settled doesn't have a firm grasp of the kind of government we are under. Or of history.
|
|
| 956 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 23:35
|
If it directly effects you in Penn., it's extremely marginal. As opposed to the $10,000 health insurance mandate being shoved down every citizen's throat which you are in favor of.
You liberals fail to realize how pathetic post #944 makes you look.
|
|
| 957 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 23:40
|
If a state is allowed to flout established federal law and employ local police to persue federal civil violations on it's own authority then it absolutly affects me and every other American through the establishment of precedent - even those of us who will never step foot in AZ for the rest of our lives.
|
|
| 958 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 23:43
|
how pathetic post #944 makes you look
B7 gets his libertarian card and plastic decoder ring revoked.
|
|
| 959 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Fri, Jun 11, 2010, 23:51
|
For the record, should I find myself in AZ while this law is in effect, I will not bother to carry my passport with me. I have no reason to. I look and sound like (and happen to be) a non-hispanic white American person. No one in AZ is going to arrest me for failing to prove that I am a citizen.
The fact that many other American citizens cannot travel through that state with the same ease - specifically because of their ethnicity - is beyond repulsive.
|
|
| 960 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sat, Jun 12, 2010, 01:37
|
You liberals fail to realize how pathetic post #944 makes you look.
actually, i was thinking it made conservatives look dim - or at lease clueless, in an attempt to link to unrelated things.
here are some other beliefs of mine. i am anti death penalty. i am pro choice. i am anti abortion.
feel free to work those into your theory on unrelated issues.
|
|
| 961 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Sat, Jun 12, 2010, 08:59
|
Both laws are examples of the government intruding into peoples lives. It's difficult to take you seriously when you support the law that will cost citizens $10,000 per year and are against the law that will cost them maybe $10 per year for a passport. Why should people listen to you when you complain about government intrusion into people's lives, after your support for that health care monstrosity.
|
|
| 962 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Jun 12, 2010, 09:44
|
All laws (yup, every one) is government intruding. I'm sorry if I don't take seriously the position that some citizens have to constantly prove they are allowed to be in their own country because there are other people trying to get jobs.
You want to know the easiest way to make sure that workers from Mexico can go back? Tear down the wall. Sealing seasonal workers into the US year round is stupid and reveals a lack of long-term thinking.
The point isn't that people should purchase and always carry passports. It is that they should have to at all. The big hassle isn't getting one (and always carrying it--that is just a constant small hassle). It is having to be at the risk of being stopped all the time, simply because Arizona has decided it needs to start doing the federal government's job and has decided the best way to do it is by giving more power to the police. Who we know would never abuse the power. Certainly not in cases exacly like the ones we're discussing.
You are quick to accuse "liberals" of being hypocritical because of some perceived support for a health care mandate, while neglecting to note your own support for a widespread expansion of police powers and state powers while remaining nominally "libertarian."
|
|
| 963 | Khahan
ID: 13126822 Sat, Jun 12, 2010, 10:48
|
There is no need for a passport. I'm willing to bet an out of state drivers license will be more than sufficient, as is my sister (who is half puerto rican) and he her fiance who is full puerto rican.
There are some on this board who are just so absolutely deadset against this law that they have blinded themselves to what the law actually is. There are still people making the argument that the AZ police can "when they stop you anytime they want" demand proof. They can't. There must be some reason for the officer to believe that the person is an illegal. A reason that any regular ordnary citizen would have to be suspicious. And the law states that race alone is not sufficient cause and gives a course of compensation if this is violated.
Now, do you really think an individual officer out on a stop is going to risk his career overstepping this law? It'll happen yes. It happens now in every state. It'll happen in Arizona whether this law was made or not. But this law won't make it happen any more or less.
Also, many Arizona officers are already trained as border patrol agents. I came across that bit of information in some searches yesterday. I have to head out now, but when I get back I'll find it again and link it.
So effectively this law says, "What the federal government wants, we want. What the feds do, we do. The feds are already giving us the authority in training many of our police as border patrol, this law just codifies and makes it official."
If you have an issue with the the way this law is then you have an issue with the federal law. If you don't have an issue with the federal law (and nobody did before this) then there should be no issue with this law.
|
|
| 964 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sat, Jun 12, 2010, 10:52
|
It's difficult to take you seriously when you support the law that will cost citizens $10,000 per year and are against the law that will cost them maybe $10 per year for a passport. Why should people listen to you when you complain about government intrusion into people's lives, after your support for that health care monstrosity.
B7 - if i'm not mistaken, doesn't the government - i.e. the Taxpayers - pay your salary?
i mean, how can we take your criticism of what things cost citizens when your salary is likely more than the $10,000 you're complaining about.
i mean, i know they're totally unrelated, but what the hell - since when does relatively matter, apparently.
|
|
| 965 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Jun 12, 2010, 10:55
|
If you have an issue with the the way this law is then you have an issue with the federal law
Uh, no.
The issue is that AZ is encroaching on clear federal law. Arizona believing that the federal government is allowing the state to take over an area of law which is not theirs to administer doesn't actually make it so.
Just because we all have an interest in the goals of the federal law doesn't make it a state law. Or that the state can jump in when they believe they can, at their sole discretion.
|
|
| 966 | Frick
ID: 135451115 Sat, Jun 12, 2010, 22:39
|
But haven't states enforced other Federal laws previously?
|
|
| 967 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Jun 12, 2010, 23:21
|
States do not administer federal laws. Sometimes they will cooperate with federal agencies (for instance, when a suspect might have broken both federal and state laws). And states will sometimes hold federal prisoners in state prisons temporarily (just as they would when a suspect is wanted in another state for breaking a law there).
MBJ obviously has a lot more experience in this area than most all of us combined. But my understanding is that the help is limited to cooperation. No state can statutorily, and unilaterally, take over an area of law reserved to the federal government.
|
|
| 968 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Sun, Jun 13, 2010, 00:16
|
from post 959:
"...I look and sound like (and happen to be) a non-hispanic white American person. No one in AZ is going to arrest me for failing to prove that I am a citizen.
The fact that many other American citizens cannot travel through that state with the same ease - specifically because of their ethnicity - is beyond repulsive."
EXACTLY!
|
|
| 969 | Boldwin
ID: 185231318 Sun, Jun 13, 2010, 19:23
|
No state can statutorily, and unilaterally, take over an area of law reserved to the federal government.
That statement is so backwards, at least constitutionally speaking, if not as practiced.
The drug warriors and the BATF are sure wrestling with the states over this.
|
|
| 970 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sun, Jun 13, 2010, 19:35
|
Please.
#1 - No state unilaterally takes over enforcement of strctly federal anti-drug statutes or the jurisdiction of the ATF.
#2 - We're talking about an area of civil law reserved for federal government.
|
|
| 971 | Boldwin
ID: 185231318 Sun, Jun 13, 2010, 19:42
|
1) States and their medical MJ laws do just that.
2) The constitution radically limits the scope of federal powers and if it wasn't for deliberately expanding the commerce clause beyond all reason, they would be kicked out of most areas they are sticking their noses into.
3) The analogy is very useful to your future btw, in that world federalism is going to be promising the same limited role vis-a-vis the separate states that the USA federalists had to concede in order to achieve their consolidation of power. Once they get installed in central power it's a never-ending central government powergrab.
|
|
| 972 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sun, Jun 13, 2010, 20:05
|
1) States and their medical MJ laws do just that.
Unilaterally takes over enforcement? That's three terms you define differently from me.
2) Until it is challenged, the way the commerce clause is interpreted is established law.
3) I can't be bothered with your totalitarian-future fantasies.
|
|
| 973 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Mon, Jun 14, 2010, 15:40
|
PD, 967, I'm curious given the information I've provided how you feel about the law itself now. Taking the infringement of the state on federal law out of the equation (in other words for hypothetical sakes just pretend its ok) then how do you feel about the immigration law in arizona?
Not trying to nitpick or trap/corner you or anything. Just trying to get a feel for exactly where people stand on it.
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| 977 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jul 07, 2010, 10:56
|
Immigration deportations have been up under Obama--higher than Bush's ever were:
HT: Andrew Sullivan
|
|
| 978 | Boldwin
ID: 4265071 Wed, Jul 07, 2010, 16:07
|
Without a baseline of the number of illegal immigrations per year that go along with those figures, it's impossible to get anything meaningful from that.
|
|
| 979 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Wed, Jul 07, 2010, 16:30
|
Do you have any reason to believe illegal immigration has increased since Obama took office?
|
|
| 980 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, Jul 07, 2010, 16:39
|
So they deported 400,000 out of 10,000,000. That is 4%. If you are in this country illegaly, there is a 1 in 25 chance of being deported. And if you are not otherwise a criminal, the odds are even less. No wonder they keep trying.
|
|
| 981 | Boldwin
ID: 4265071 Wed, Jul 07, 2010, 17:15
|
Do you have any reason to believe illegal immigration has increased since Obama took office?
Who else would vote for a democrat? [not that they all would] There's an election that doesn't look good for Obama right around the corner.
You do the math.
|
|
| 982 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Wed, Jul 07, 2010, 17:19
|
So people immigrate to vote for a Democrat? Illegal immigrants can vote?
|
|
| 983 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Wed, Jul 07, 2010, 17:25
|
Th-th-th-that's all folks!
Loonie tunes assessments aside, there is actually good reason to think that illegal immigration has declined these last couple of years.
One, it is both much more expensive and much more dangerous to cross.
And two, the reward for crossing, a relatively decent job with a decent wage (construction) no longer exists.
|
|
| 984 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Jul 07, 2010, 18:21
|
Who else would vote for a democrat?
are there actual, rational people who think this way? really?
oy.
|
|
| 985 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Jul 07, 2010, 18:52
|
are there actual, rational people who think this way? really?
No.
|
|
| 986 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jul 07, 2010, 19:46
|
So Obama is deporting more because more illegal immigrants are coming across the border to vote for him. Do I have that right?
'Cause it seems crazy. Seriously deluded. I wouldn't want someone to think I just made it up.
|
|
| 987 | Boldwin
ID: 9621719 Wed, Jul 07, 2010, 20:21
|
Do you have any reason to believe illegal immigration has increased since Obama took office?
When the party that supports La Raza and illegal immigration comes to power, expect La Raza to feel invited.
If the trickle has become a flood, expect the old and oh so leaky net to catch more.
|
|
| 988 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Jul 07, 2010, 22:19
|
When the party that supports La Raza and illegal immigration...
because, of course, that's what is going on.
do you really believe all this silly stuff you spout?
|
|
| 989 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Jul 07, 2010, 22:20
|
Only when the medications wear off.
|
|
| 990 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 09:21
|
And two, the reward for crossing, a relatively decent job with a decent wage (construction) no longer exists.
Bingo.
|
|
| 991 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Jul 28, 2010, 13:44
|
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.
The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.
|
|
| |
| |
| 994 | Farn Leader
ID: 451044109 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 00:08
|
Tree, here would be my argument to revisit it...
An illegal immigrant mother sneaks in to the country and gives birth. If my understanding is right the child is automatically an American citizen even though the mother had no business being in this country. If my understanding is right that seems wrong.
But I'd be curious to hear arguments against that logic.
|
|
| 995 | biliruben
ID: 34435239 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 00:42
|
It would turn our country into a stagnant, jingoistic back-water. It flies in the face of everything that is historically made our country great.
|
|
| 996 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 00:55
|
Well, she isn't an illegal immigrant mother until she sneaks in. Previous to that she was just doing a Sarah Palin impersonation. So your timeline is a little off. but yes: Constitutionally, the child is now an American citizen. I hope you sent your new neighbor/citizen a fruit basket.
Otherwise, I agree with bili: Our country gets worse whenever the nativists have gotten their way, and better when we open the doors of opportunity wider.
|
|
| 997 | Frick
ID: 25746321 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 08:37
|
Re: 995
Do you consider Switzerland to be a stagnant, jingoistic back-water?
|
|
| 998 | Mith
ID: 2672547 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 08:54
|
Wow, if the right is suddenly willing to look at the outcome of European policies as evidence of what would happen if similar programs were enacted here, there are a whole bunch of topics we all really need to revisit...
|
|
| 999 | Frick
ID: 25746321 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 09:02
|
That wasn't my question, other countries have more rigid and enforced immigration policies, are they stagnant jingoistic backwaters?
And I can't say that I'm speaking for the right, I was just asking a question. But, aren't there a number of posters here who are pretty far left who support at least a few of the European policies, namely universal health care?
|
|
| 1000 | Mith
ID: 2672547 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 09:24
|
I think the obvious answer is that other countries weren't structured on generational layers of immigration. Their economies aren't large or flexible enough to find ways to benefit from the incoming supply of labor and they don't share our ardent commitment to human rights.
|
|
| 1001 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 09:42
|
The Constitution is fine as it is. This is just more hot air from the GOP.
|
|
| |
| 1003 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 10:01
|
I have no problem with them revisting this. The 14th amendment was put into place after the Civil War. It changed the constitution then to deal with new social and economic issues that did not exist prior.
I think McCain is 100% spot on here. Revisit the amendment. Not necessarily change it yet. But revisit it and discuss it. Could a change come from that? Absolutely yes. Could nothing come from it? Absolutely (and probably) yes.
Our Constitution is changeable. There are 27 precedents for amending our Constitution. Its not unheard of. McCain is right. The social and economic times have changed drastically with direct impact on this amendment. Revisit it and make sure it is still doing what is intended.
If it is not doing what was intended you have a few choices:
1) Do nothing. Not working as intended, but not broken
2) Completely repeal it.
3) Completely repeal it and replace it with something entirely different
4) Amend the amendment.
|
|
| 1004 | biliruben
ID: 34435239 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 10:18
|
997. Damn straight.
|
|
| 1005 | Boldwin
ID: 1173849 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 10:44
|
It would turn our country into a stagnant, jingoistic back-water. It flies in the face of everything that is historically made our country great. - bili
Ridiculous hogwash. Legal immigration isn't in any danger of slowing down and it is the same thing that has all along brought to America the brightest, most ambitious of the rest of the world's population.
We don't have any shortage of criminals tho. Let's stop allowing them to cross the border.
|
|
| 1006 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 10:53
|
We don't have any shortage of criminals tho. Let's stop allowing them to cross the border.
Do you have anything to support your claim that criminals are allowed to cross the border?
|
|
| 1007 | Boldwin
ID: 1173849 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 10:56
|
Do I have anything to support the idea that illegal immigrants break laws? Is fire hot? Is water wet? Hello. Illegal immigrants.
|
|
| 1008 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 10:57
|
They aren't illegal because they are breaking laws. They are called illegal immigrants because they are in the US without approval.
|
|
| 1009 | Boldwin
ID: 1173849 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 10:58
|
And obviously they are allowed or there would be a physical wall all across the border by now and actual enforcement.
|
|
| 1010 | Boldwin
ID: 1173849 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 11:00
|
They are called illegal because they broke the law coming here.
|
|
| 1011 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 11:01
|
Yup. That isn't an indication that they have broken other laws, however, as much as you might think of them as being sub-human.
|
|
| 1012 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 11:01
|
You aren't going to pull a McCain on us and claim that they are "intentionally causing traffic accidents" are you?
|
|
| 1013 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 11:02
|
You think a physical wall would prevent immigration? And how much money exactly would it cost to build a wall and monitor it for a 2,000 mile stretch?
Honestly, illegal immigration does not bother me. They come here and work hard, for the most part. The only ones we need be worried about are the ones who came to the US with a criminal record.
|
|
| 1014 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 11:04
|
What a physical wall actually does is keep illegal immigrants in the United States. Used to be that most illegal immigrants would come across to do work, then move back after picking season. Now they are stuck here without work, for the most part.
Short sighted thinking on the part of the GOP? You betcha.
|
|
| 1015 | Boldwin
ID: 1173849 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 11:04
|
I haven't suggested they are sub-human. I do mean to say that we know right off the bat that they are willing to pick and chose which laws they are willing to obey.
Kinda like a bride who sleeps around with other men on her wedding night. It's prolly gonna end in tears.
|
|
| 1016 | Frick
ID: 25746321 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 11:07
|
I don't have a problem with our current immigrants, legal or otherwise. But, there are a large number of them here illegally. Did they break a law, yes they did. Is the answer to this for the federal government to fix immigration, yes it is. Does the Arizona law do anything besides put pressure on the federal government to fix their broken law, not in my opinion. But, it is easier to fight in the courts about an ancillary issue rather than try to fix the real problem.
|
|
| 1017 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 11:10
|
I do mean to say that we know right off the bat that they are willing to pick and chose which laws they are willing to obey.
So they aren't sub-human, but have loose morals? That's so much better.
Does the Arizona law do anything besides put pressure...
Sure it does. It is intended to take over immigration enforcement by the state.
|
|
| 1018 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 11:50
|
Sure it does. It is intended to take over immigration enforcement by the state.
And if the federal government wont do anything, why shouldn't the state government of the state most directly affected?
|
|
| 1019 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 11:54
|
Because it is against the law for them to do so.
(Which, according to Baldwin, means that Arizona has loose morals. Who knew?).
Actually, the federal government is doing a lot--this isn't a back burner issue and hasn't been for some time. Arizona's problem (besides being ginned up by politicians eager to prove how tough they are) is that they disagree with what the federal government is doing.
A policy disagreement and fake statistics isn't enough to try to overturn federal law and do things yourself.
|
|
| 1020 | Frick
ID: 25746321 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 12:02
|
Didn't we have this discussion earlier about the legality of state and enforcement of federal laws? The Arizona law does not circumvent the federal law, it only tries to assist the federal law.
This seems to be very similar to the California marijuana law only in the opposite direction.
|
|
| 1021 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 12:24
|
Yes--we did have this discussion. And the court has ruled (so far) that much of the AZ law is unconstitutional.
|
|
| 1022 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 13:57
|
Regarding a wall on the border, I was recently persuaded to more seriously consider the idea (particularly as a legislative concession from the Democrats) but ran into two notable points I hadn't considered before, leading me to the opinion that the whole argument seems pretty pointless:
1. There is already a wall stretching across most of the border.
2. For over a month or longer, whenever FNC moved to the topic of illegal immigration, they ran thesame video all the time, people easily scaling and hoping over a very high (13'?) stockade fence topped with barbed wire.
I tend to think that once you've endured an unforgving desert route to the US border, a wall of any height won't be a terrible impedement to finishing the journey.
|
|
| 1023 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 14:04
|
The Arizona law does not circumvent the federal law, it only tries to assist the federal law.
Federal law says that immigration enforcement in the jurisdiction of the federal government. Improperly or falsely assuming jurisdiction is most certainly circumventing federal law.
|
|
| 1024 | Frick
ID: 25746321 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 15:03
|
From my understanding the Arizona law stops at finding an illegal immigrant and notifying the federal authorities.
I'll admit that is a stretch, but by the rationale you stated in 1023, if a state trooper in any state pulled over a federally wanted fugitive, who had not committed any offenses in the state where he was, the trooper should not be allowed to question or detain the fugitive? By doing so he would be improperly or falsely assuming jurisdiction of a federal law?
|
|
| 1025 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 15:19
|
No. There are arrangements between federal, state and local law enforcements for that. There are also arrangements between fed and local immigration enforcement from time to time as well - when so directed by the Feds.
|
|
| 1026 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 15:47
|
I haven't suggested they are sub-human. I do mean to say that we know right off the bat that they are willing to pick and chose which laws they are willing to obey.
who DOESN'T do that? do you drive below the speed limit every time you're in your car? do you sometimes roll through stop signs? do you not condone fraud if you feel the end justifies the means?
and so on.
|
|
| 1027 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 16:34
|
Please tree, I'm not saying I agree with Boldwin's line of thinking or blanket statement about the illegals. But equating illegal immigration to a traffic violation? Come on. Surely you can do better to make your point than resorting to extreme hyperbole.
|
|
| 1028 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 16:40
|
I agree that a willingness to commit traffic violations is a silly comparison. But for the record, as SZ has pointed out numerous times, it is not a crime to be in this country without documents. Their simple presence here does not make them criminals.
|
|
| 1029 | Frick
ID: 25746321 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 17:00
|
So what is illegal Mith? Why is anyone deported then?
|
|
| 1030 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 17:21
|
See post #617. They are deported because they arent American citizens and have no documents. They aren't tried and sent to prison.
|
|
| 1031 | Boldwin
ID: 26750418 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 19:59
|
Keep it up, MITH. I could listen to you parse 'violating immigration laws' to not mean law breaking all day. You should be in movies.
|
|
| 1032 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 21:06
|
I'm happy to corrected by anyone better qualified to comment or elaborate on the matter.
|
|
| 1033 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 22:51
|
Walls don't work. Even walls lined with anti-personnel mines and topped by machine guns; don't work. Witness the Berlin Wall and the fence that ran the length of the old East/West German borders.
|
|
| 1034 | Boldwin
ID: 4071153 Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 04:14
|
1) Conditions are hardly as unbearable in Mexico as they were in East Germany. The temptation to cross isn't that extreme.
2) If our illegal immigration numbers were as low as the few souls who managed to cross the Berlin wall we'd consider immigration control, a success.
3) Technology is so much advanced we could keep out every warm blooded moving thing if we really wanted to.
4) When you liberals manage to turn this country completely marxist tell me what wall I can crawl over to escape? There won't be anywhere to escape to.
|
|
| 1035 | Frick
ID: 4773157 Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 08:39
|
Re: 1030
So by the reasoning in #617, I can't be given a speeding ticket because by the time I'm pulled over by the officer, I'm no longer speeding. Would that be an apt analogy?
As I've said a number of times, the Arizona law is not the base problem, it is the federal immigration and entrance laws. The federal government would rather spend time, effort and money to defend broken and outdated laws rather than correct the basic problem. Our economy would have significant issues if all illegal immigrants were suddenly removed. But we have an even larger issue looming unless the fundamental issue is resolved.
|
|
| 1036 | Mith
ID: 2672547 Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 09:15
|
I don't understand your analogy. If you're pulled over for speeding (or receive a speeding ticket in the mail) it's because you've been caught speeding (or at least because the law believes so).
I'm not saying there are no legal grounds to deport people who entered without documents.
Also, I'd like to hear more about which laws you feel are are broken and outdated, and who you think is defending them.
|
|
| 1037 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 09:28
|
As I've said a number of times, the Arizona law is not the base problem, it is the federal immigration and entrance laws. The federal government would rather spend time, effort and money to defend broken and outdated laws rather than correct the basic problem. Our economy would have significant issues if all illegal immigrants were suddenly removed. But we have an even larger issue looming unless the fundamental issue is resolved
I think pretty much nails it.
|
|
| 1038 | Boldwin
ID: 2974958 Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 09:50
|
Ann Coulter destroys the legal basis for anchor babies and their government subsidies.The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians – because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.
For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898).
And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to 14th Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
Brennan's authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve (yes, the Clement L. Bouve – the one you've heard so much about over the years). Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge – just some guy who wrote a book.
So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author's intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement – who, I'm guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.
Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such "plausible distinction(s)" before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases and have some qualification to be here other than "lives within walking distance."
But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.
Combine Justice Brennan's footnote with America's ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.
Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:
"Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa ... gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa's 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. ... The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies."
In the Silverios' munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.
It's bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists. In the case of "anchor babies," America is being governed by Brennan's 1982 footnote.
|
|
| 1039 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 09:54
|
The Ann Coulter, ironically, has even less credibility on the issue as Clement Bouve.
|
|
| 1040 | Boldwin
ID: 2974958 Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 09:57
|
AC is that rarest of things, proof that not all lawyers are irredeemably bad, shakespeare not withstanding.
|
|
| 1041 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 10:49
|
This is one of the few times where Coulter and I are somewhat in agreement. You'll also notice she sticks to the subject matter and forgoes the snarky attempts at humor that dominate most of her columns.
So, when Kahan asks in #1003
If it is not doing what was intended you have a few choices:
1) Do nothing. Not working as intended, but not broken
2) Completely repeal it.
3) Completely repeal it and replace it with something entirely different
4) Amend the amendment.
I would support either 3 or 4. Curiously, a few months ago, when I suggested we needed to make allowances for those illegals who have a long and stable work record in this country and those who blatantly take advantage of social services and welfare or are simply criminals, his position was that all illegals must be viewed at the same level.
My position is that illegals who have a proven track record of stable employment; who have displayed themselves to be law-abiding and productive members of their communities, should be given the opportunity for a pathway to citizenship. But any call for 'amnesty" is met with howls of disapproval from many.
It makes no sense to me to continue a policy that is economically unsustainable by making huge families of illegals wards of the state, usually on a permanent basis.
|
|
| 1042 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 11:06
|
If people want to go ahead and amend the Constitution (or amend the amendment--same thing), fine with me. That's how things work.
If people want to say it doesn't really say what it says (when they use the exact opposite argument for other cases--"judicial activism", anyone?), those people should ram a hot poker into their eye until the hypocrisy burns out of them.
|
|
| 1043 | Mith
ID: 2672547 Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 15:09
|
Awfully rash in my opinion. I haven't seen anything yet on how monkeying with the Equal Protection Clause might impact the way we interpret the 2nd Amendment, for example. And of course the Citizenship Clause is what overturned Dred Scott.
Regarding Coulter, a transcript of the debate is available on line (the Library of Congress site is awesome).
Sen Edgar Cowan (R-PA) agreed with Howard's preference to deny citizenship to the children of foreigners, but opposed the clause, as he thought it in fact granted them citizenship. Here's part of his argument, a nice sample of the ideology that that led to the anti-...I mean the Gypsies. They wander in gangs in my state. They follow no ostensible pursuit for a livlihood. They trade horses, tell fortunes and things disappear mysteriously. Where they came from nobody knows. Their very origin is lost in mystery. No man today can tell from whence the Zingara come or whither they go, but it is understood that they are a distinct people. They never intermingle with any other. I believe there is no instance on record where a Zingara woman has mated with a man of any other race, although it is true that sometimes the males of that race may mate with the females of others; but I think there is no case in history where it can be found that a woman of that race, so exclusive are they, and so strong are their sectional antipathies, has been known to mate with a man of another race. These people live in the country and are born in the country. They infest society [except for the women, who could maybe infest us a little more]. They impose upon the simple and the weak everywhere. Are those people, by a constitutional amendment, to be put out of the reach of the State in which they live? I mean as a class? If the merefact of being born in this country confers that right, then they will have it; and I thinkit will be mischevious.
I think the honorable Senator from Michigan would not admit the right that the Indians of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in the midst of that society and obtain the political power of the State, and weild it, perhaps, to his exclusion. I do not know that anybody would agree to that. It's true that our race are subjected to dangers from that quarter, because we are the strongest, perhaps; but there is a race in contact with this country which, in all characteristics except that of simply making fierce war, is not only our equal, but perhaps our superior. I mean the yellow race; the Mongol race. They outnumber us largely. Of their industry, their skill, and their pertinacity in all worldly affairs, nobody can doubt. They are our neighbors. recent improvemnet, the age of fire, has brought their coasts almost in immediate contact with our own. Distance is almost annihilated. They may pour in their millions upon our Pacific coast in a very short time. Are the states to lose control over this immigration? Is the United States to determine that they are to be citizens?
Therefore I think, before we assertbroadly that everybody who shall be born in the United States shall be taken to be a citizen of the United States, we ought to exclude others besides Indians not taxed, because I look upon Indians not taxed as being much less dangerous and much less pestiferous to society than I look upon Gypsies. I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon the Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow-citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that within propoer restraints [I suggest shackles] allowing that State and other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them in their wisdom they see fit. The "friend from California was John Conness (UR-CA), who disagreed with Howard and Cowan, believing that children of foreigners born here should be granted citizenship. But Conness supported the amendment:Mr. President, I have failed to learn, from what the Senator has said, what relation what he has said has to the first section of the constitutional amendment before us; but that part of the question I propose leaving to the honorable gentleman who has charge of this resolution. Conness went on to run down Cowan's assessment of the Chinese and their presence in CA, which started off kind of funny which I won't bother to transcribe. He went on:The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. president, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is pproposed to decllare that they shall be citizns. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the Uited States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. So I'm not exactly sure of Coulter's point. I see no evidence of any anti-anchor baby consensus regarding Citizenship Clause. The only time a case did make it to SCOTUS, still in the 19th century, they deemed the person a citizen.
|
|
| 1044 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 15:28
|
Coulter seems to think that a SCOTUS opinion on Native Americans (which legally have been treated as a separate countries within the US) plus debate language in Congress should trump the clear language in the Constitution as well as the clear SCOTUS ruling on the matter.
Sad how relativistic the Right gets even on the Constitution when it doesn't read the way they want it to be.
|
|
| 1045 | Mith
ID: 2672547 Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 15:37
|
And for the record, Clement L. Bouve was not cited as Justice Brennan's "authority" for his statement. His authority was justice Horace Gray's opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark[ Footnote 10 ] Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was "impossible to construe the words `subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words `within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons `within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not `subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'" Id., at 687.
Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id., at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).
|
|
| 1046 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 17:04
|
Mith - Justice Gray's opinion was Bouve.
|
|
| 1047 | Mith
ID: 2672547 Thu, Aug 05, 2010, 17:19
|
That would be a nifty trick Khahan, since Gray's opinion was written 14 years before Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States was published.
But I should amend what I wrote, I got aught up in Coulter's careful language. She says that Brennan asserted an opinion that, "no plausible distinction with respect to 14th Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." In actuality, Brennan was quoting Bouve there. But that quote wasn't the authoritative statement of the footnote, it was simply a reference to a supporting phrase from the time thatt the debate occurred. Or maybe he appreciated the contemporary phrasing of Bouve's work.
Whatever his reason for the reference, he certainly did not cite Bouve as his authority. He cited precedent: "Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause."
That Ann Coulter is a real pip.
|
|
| 1048 | Khahan
ID: 13126822 Fri, Aug 06, 2010, 00:34
|
MITH,I must have misread the last sentence of 1046 then.
|
|
| 1049 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Fri, Aug 06, 2010, 06:36
|
That was Brennan writing that sentence. The Justice Gray quote he cites ends before Brennan mentions what "one early commentator noted."
|
|
| |
| 1051 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 10:00
|
So the government is being sued because they used fingerprint records of local police to find and deport illegals.
The attorney who brought this suit should be disbarred and the people backing it should have their 'services' shut down. The government woke up and started doing its job. They moved 49,000 illegals out of the country. It doesn't matter how they were found. There was no 'bait and switch' like these crybabies are whining about and even if there was, I'd support this. Good job. Keep doing it.
|
|
| 1052 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 10:20
|
Agreed. I don't see any problem with sharing fingerprint records. It should be assumed that when you give your fingerprints that it can be used by anyone in law enforcement.
In fact, this is often how big criminals are caught: By other jurisdictions stopping the person for something completely unrelated.
|
|
| 1053 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 10:24
|
while i don't have a problem with this, i do have a problem with the black and white nature of the system.
i need to do some research to find the case in particular that i saw on the news last night, but it was the story of an 18-year-old high school senior who was just accepted to the University of Texas.
he came to this country from the Philippines when he was 3 years old, with his parents, illegally. turned out they never became citizens - he just presumed they were.
so, of course, he's not a citizen, and despite having lived in the US for 15 of his 18 years, he was just deported back to a country he doesn't know.
to me, this is EXACTLY the kind of person who should be in this country - working hard, going for a college degree, etc.
and he's deported to a country he doesn't know because of something he had no involvement with. IMHO, this kid is as American as apple pie.
|
|
| 1054 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 13:31
|
so, of course, he's not a citizen, and despite having lived in the US for 15 of his 18 years, he was just deported back to a country he doesn't know.
to me, this is EXACTLY the kind of person who should be in this country - working hard, going for a college degree, etc.
So all else being equal if this guy was a mental midget with a high school diploma we should deport him? No I'm not talking about Barney Frank or Harry Reid. HA HA HA!
I'm interested in this job application approach to citizenship. Say more.
|
|
| 1055 | Frick
ID: 1076109 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 13:57
|
And who does the fault belong to that he was deported? The Federal government for not changing the immigration laws or his parents for never becoming citizens or even telling their son they were not citizens and neither was he.
I'm curious, how did his parents support themselves and their family for the last 15 years? I'm assuming they are hard working tax paying citizens?
|
|
| 1056 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 14:28
|
So all else being equal if this guy was a mental midget with a high school diploma we should deport him?
my point is that some of the people being deported are better citizens than people who were born here.
And who does the fault belong to that he was deported? The Federal government for not changing the immigration laws or his parents for never becoming citizens or even telling their son they were not citizens and neither was he.
i wasn't laying blame, but if i were, it would be the system that rules in black and white.
I'm assuming they are hard working tax paying citizens?
many many many illegal immigrants pay taxes. it's probably difficult to know if his family did, but the odds are good that they paid their taxes.
|
|
| 1057 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 14:36
|
If you are calling for more flexibility in the immigration laws I'd certainly agree with you. We need to do away with quotas, for one thing. And process people quicker--why should a young couple trying to move here have to wait, literally, years before knowing anything?
Our country was built on the energy from constant new immigration. Shutting off the tap now is incredibly dense.
|
|
| 1058 | Boldwin
ID: 267391022 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 23:39
|
The union that represents rank-and-file field agents at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has unanimously passed a "vote of no confidence" for the agency's leadership, saying ICE has "abandoned" its core mission of protecting the public to support a political agenda favoring amnesty.
The National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 7,000 ICE agents and employees, voted 259-0 for a resolution saying there was "growing dissatisfaction and concern" over the leadership of Assistant Secretary John Morton, who heads ICE, and Phyllis Coven, assistant director for the agency's office of detention policy and planning.
The resolution said ICE leadership had "abandoned the agency's core mission of enforcing U.S. immigration laws and providing for public safety," instead directing its attention "to campaigning for programs and policies related to amnesty and the creation of a special detention system for foreign nationals that exceeds the care and services provided to most U.S. citizens similarly incarcerated.
"It is the desire of our union … to publicly separate ourselves from the actions of Director Morton and Assistant Director Coven and publicly state that ICE officers and employees do not support Morton or Coven or their misguided and reckless initiatives, which could ultimately put many in America at risk," the union said.
In a strongly worded statement, the union and its affiliated local councils said the integrity of the agency "as well as the public safety" would be "better provided for in the absence of Director Morton and Assistant Director Coven."
The statement also noted that:
• The majority of ICE's enforcement and removal officers are prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing U.S. immigration laws outside of the jail setting.
• Hundreds of ICE officers nationwide perform no law enforcement duties whatsoever because of resource mismanagement within the agency.
• ICE detention reforms have transformed into a detention system aimed at providing resortlike living conditions to criminal aliens based on recommendations not from ICE officers and field managers, but from "special-interest groups."
• The lack of technical expertise and field experience has resulted in a priority of providing bingo nights, dance lessons and hanging plants to criminals, instead of addressing safe and responsible detention reforms for noncriminal individuals and families.
• Unlike any other agency in the nation, ICE officers will be prevented from searching detainees housed in ICE facilities, allowing weapons, drugs and other contraband into detention centers — putting detainees, ICE officers and contract guards at risk.
ICE documents show that during the first nine months of fiscal 2010, a total of 279,035 noncitizens were removed from the U.S. as a result of ICE enforcement — a 10 percent increase over the total in fiscal 2008, the last fiscal year of the Bush administration.
But according to the union, illegal immigrants now being held in state and local jails seek out ICE agents for deportation to avoid prosecution, conviction and prison terms. It said criminal aliens "openly brag" that they are taking advantage of a broken immigration system and will be back in the United States within days to commit crimes — while U.S. citizens arrested for the same offenses serve prison sentences. - Washington Times
|
|
| 1059 | Mith
ID: 2672547 Wed, Aug 11, 2010, 18:43
|
From the Times article:The no-confidence vote, taken in June and made public last week in a letter by the union, said the agency's senior leadership dedicated "more time to campaigning for immigration reforms aimed at large-scale amnesty legislation than advising the American public and federal lawmakers on the severity of the illegal-immigration problems."
The vote, first reported by the Washington Examiner, said Mr. Morton and Ms. Coven also ignored the need for more manpower and resources within the agency. For the record, The Examiner first reported the no confidence vote on Aug. 5th.
WaPo ran it on July 19th.
|
|
| 1060 | Boldwin
ID: 477201118 Wed, Aug 11, 2010, 19:29
|
Yeah, that's the important issue.
|
|
| 1061 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Wed, Aug 11, 2010, 19:33
|
Just heading off the "another story the liberal media won't touch" charge.
|
|
| 1062 | Boldwin
ID: 477201118 Wed, Aug 11, 2010, 19:42
|
Neither the MSM, the R or the D leadership have been of any use stemming the tide. This is a globalist disaster perpetrated by elitists whose interests largely lie beyond traditional partisan lines.
|
|
| 1063 | Boldwin
ID: 477201118 Wed, Aug 11, 2010, 21:35
|
Marco Rubio gets it. Why can't our liberals?
|
|
| 1064 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Aug 11, 2010, 22:24
|
1. Dumb comment by Reid.
2. Don't really have an issue with anything Rubio said--of course (to borrow the phrase) "it's about the economy, stupid"!
Of course, the problem for people like Rubio is that
1. The Republicans don't really have a plan for the economy that hasn't been epically failed by the test tube known as reality, and
2. There's an awful lot of Republicans who continue to try to make the campaign about some of those other pesky issues such as the one that headlines this thread.
|
|
| 1065 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Wed, Aug 11, 2010, 22:30
|
This is a globalist disaster perpetrated by elitists whose interests largely lie beyond traditional partisan lines.
Your drama queen rhetoric aside, it's not hard to understand why ICE agents are frustrated at not being able to properly perform their duties. Much of the reason has nothing to do with globalists, elitists or any other group of fantasy villians you conjure. It has to do with free market economics. I can guarantee you that the average drywall contractor; the average painting contractor; the average landscaping company; the Motel 6, Super 8 and other hospitality chains; the corporation that processes millions of chickens a year; the fast food franchise owner, etc., etc., are not globalists or elitists. They abusiness men and women who have found that the immigrant worker, legal and non, are hungry to work, could usually care less about a union and rarely miss a day because of a great concert, and musn't miss party, or a severe hangover. These aren't public sector goverment employees, these people work for private entities, many of them owned by hard core conservatives.
Maybe it depends on what part of the country you're talking about, but I'd venture to say that if a young person wants to flip burgers; make beds and clean toilets; cut the heads off a couple hundred chickens every day; load rocks into wheelbarrow 8 hours a day or stand at a sink washing dishes for 8 hours, that person can get a job as long as they're committed to missing a day's work only a couple times a year and not making demands for better pay, health insurance or matching retirement committments.
It probably makes sense for ICE executives to talk about roads to amnesty, since millions of this country's illegals are integral to the nation's economic engine.
The sooner we can discriminate between those who have a proven track record of hard work and accomplishment and those whose goal is to be wards of the state, the sooner we can make some progress in resolving the issue.
|
|
| 1066 | Boldwin
ID: 587221121 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 04:30
|
I see, Americans deserve to lose their jobs to illegal immigration. When you aren't trying to create a victim class to draw off as voters you are busy blaming the victim.
But you are of no use to actual victims.
|
|
| 1067 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 09:07
|
People who are willing to work hard deserve work. That's what America is about.
|
|
| |
| |
| 1070 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 10:20
|
I see, Americans deserve to lose their jobs to illegal immigration.
That's what you took away from my post? And that I'm busy blaming the victim?
I'm not blaming anyone.
I'm trying to explain to you the reality of the situation, which you steadfastly and stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge. Business owners want the most dependable, cost-effective employers they can find. You seem to be implying that the Motel 6 operator would fire an American maid in order to hire an illegal. Why would the motel operator risk the penalties associated with having an illegal employee? They wouldn't. The only reason that operator would replace the American maid is if she missed a lot of work, took a smoke break every 15 minutes, and chatted on her cell phone when she should be cleaning toilets. You seem to be saying that American businesses deserve to lose their businesses by retaining employees regardless of their performance. Who knew you were a union man?
|
|
| 1071 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 11:04
|
"Why would the motel operator risk the penalties associated with having an illegal employee?"
Actually, they do frequently take that risk now, because they adjudge that:
1. The benefits of paying less money are relatively high;
2. The chances of getting caught are very low; and
3. The penalties for getting caught when it happens are not very high.
It's a simple economic decision. The easier solution to it is to increase the risks (see sections 2 and 3), rather than to try to cut off the source of the cheap labor, because the cheap labor ALSO benefits from the transaction and has very low risks (worst case scenario: they get caught and sent home and are right back to square one).
We could, if we chose to be monstrously inhuman, greatly increase the risk by putting all illegal immigrants to death (note: I'm not suggesting this, just illustrating). That would surely reduce the flow of illegal immigrants--of course, it's a really dumb solution.
Businesses who actually hire illegal immigrants are of course breaking the law just as much as the illegal immigrants are, and on balance are probably doing MORE harm to society than the illegals, but you rarely see the "conservative" movement decrying that end of the transaction. I wonder why that is.
|
|
| 1072 | Khahan
ID: 13126822 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 11:29
|
I'm trying to explain to you the reality of the situation, which you steadfastly and stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge.
Well simply put the reality of the situation needs to change. Yes, immigration reform is needed. That needs to change.
But the reality is the situation is self-perpetuating as long as people say, "thats the way it is." It SHOULDN'T be that way. Especially in todays economy and with todays jobless rates we should be pushing to make sure jobs are available for our citizens. Not the citizens of other countries.
But just accepting the problem because its there is ridiculous.
You paint a really pretty picture, Dwetzel, of the reality. Of the kinds of jobs that illegal immigrants are taking. And you make it clear that this situation is the way it is because no American would put in the work ethic of an illegal immigrant. I say bullsh!t to that. I was out of work 3 years ago for a short time. While I was looking for a full time job in my career field, I applied to landscaping companies, I applied to retail stores at the mall I even app'd to Longhorns steakhouse as a waiter. I was 33 yrs old, married and with 3 kids. Its what I needed to do to keep incoming flowing in for my family.
So please stop all this BS rhetoric about how bad the American worker is and how great it is that these businesses have such a great source of employees to fill a job that Americans just don't have the work ethic to do. Its a load of crap.
Keep American jobs with Americans.
|
|
| 1073 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 11:33
|
I'll make any liberal a deal right now. Deport all illegals. Increase by a factor of ten the penalties on any business that knowingly hires them. Deal?
|
|
| 1074 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 11:34
|
And watch our food prices skyrocket? No thanks.
|
|
| 1075 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 11:37
|
And watch our food prices skyrocket? No thanks.
And watch unemployment evaporate. Yes please. I'll pay more for oranges if my neighbor has a job.
I was out of work 3 years ago for a short time. While I was looking for a full time job in my career field, I applied to landscaping companies, I applied to retail stores at the mall I even app'd to Longhorns steakhouse as a waiter. I was 33 yrs old, married and with 3 kids. Its what I needed to do to keep incoming flowing in for my family.
You're awesome. I was in a nearly identical situation earlier this year, except I have one kid and my wife works, but I'd never been unemployed before and it was terrifying. Thank God I was only out 5 weeks.
|
|
| 1076 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 11:39
|
"I'll make any liberal a deal right now. Deport all illegals. Increase by a factor of ten the penalties on any business that knowingly hires them. Deal?"
Ten? That would still be laughably low. (That's how laughable the penalties are now.)
Tell you what, I'll offer you a counter deal. Figure out a sensible way to allow people who want in to the country to become a part of our society to legally do so in a reasonable amount of time. Don't put quotas in or per-country limits or anything like that--you want it, you're not a criminal from another country, you're in in under 30 days and for under $1000.
Then, we deport anyone who can't follow those rules, and we also deport anyone who hires people who can't follow those rules.
|
|
| 1077 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 11:42
|
When whites start applying for such jobs, then I'll take the analogy more seriously. But they aren't, and never have been.
The evidence has never been clearer that the more unemployment there is, the less of a problem immigration is (because by and large immigrants don't migrate to places of high-unemployment).
They are, however, useful scapegoats.
|
|
| 1078 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 11:43
|
Khakan, you must have read something into my post that wasn't there, or gotten it confused with Pancho's post.
|
|
| 1079 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 12:53
|
When whites start applying for such jobs
They will if they aren't undercut by 50% on the hour.
Again, I'll pay more for produce or whatever if my neighbor has a job. I'm better off financially and morally that way.
|
|
| 1080 | Boldwin
ID: 377491211 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 12:56
|
What legitimate reason is there for eliminating quotas? Are you against all qualifications besides their not being criminals?
You guys just imagine it's an unlimited supply of Dem votes. You're digging thru the prison system for votes too.
Why not back policies that benefit law abiding americans and that can win their votes instead?
|
|
| 1081 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 13:02
|
Dwetzel, you're right. I was responding to pancho's post #1070.
|
|
| 1082 | Boldwin
ID: 377491211 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 13:04
|
Oh, I know, because self-loathing anti-americans can't do that.
|
|
| 1083 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 13:12
|
Eliminating quotas is not the same as eliminating qualifications.
|
|
| 1084 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 13:22
|
When whites start applying for such jobs, then I'll take the analogy more seriously. But they aren't, and never have been.
PD, you live in PA, Now given this is probably a bit of a drive for you, but head on down to Kennett Square and ask around about illegal immigrants vs legal immigrants/migrant workers vs the Kennett Square legal residents. Ask about the Mexican job applicants vs the white job applicants. You'll be surprised to hear what the ratios are.
I've handled insurance claims (liability, homeowners, personal auto, commercial auto, workers comp, you name it) for multiple mushroom farms in Kennett Square. Right there is a community who's legal residents are directly and negatively impacted by illegal aliens. Right in your own state. And we're nowhere near the border.
|
|
| 1085 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 13:28
|
You gotta clarify 1083. Eliminating qualifications? Like what? Picking oranges. Gee what four year degree do I have to get to learn that skill? I'd have picked oranges for the five weeks I was unemployed this year. Sounds like Khahan would have too. You do what you gotta do to feed the family. I'll take a stab that some people would do it. At my job now I have a friend in the recruitment department and she tells me that we get all kinds of apps from people for basic $15 per hour jobs who used to be lawyers or whatever. I bet you those guys would pick oranges for that much if it meant keeping their house.
|
|
| 1086 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 13:38
|
This is way off topic, but it just seems appropriate to the direction the discussion is going. I saw a bumper sticker the other day while I was stuck in traffic:
"Don't spread my wealth. Spread my work ethic."
|
|
| 1087 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 13:55
|
I'll see your OT and raise you Highly Inappropriate.
On Rush's car:
"spread my wealth, spread your legs".
|
|
| 1088 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 13:55
|
They will if they aren't undercut by 50% on the hour.
and who's PAYING that scale? business owners that largely vote Republican.
"Don't spread my wealth. Spread my work ethic."
which goes right back to PD's 1067.
|
|
| 1089 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 14:02
|
"What legitimate reason is there for eliminating quotas? Are you against all qualifications besides their not being criminals?"
Very short answer? Basically, yes.
Fundamentally, I think that people who are willing to try to behave lawfully, seek a better life for themselves, and contribute to a society ought to be able to do so. It's kinda how we got to where we are as a country in the first place, no?
In another thread, you complained about the large barriers to entry imposed by government on starting a new business. Here, you seem to want to use government regulations (in the form of quotas) to reduce your competition and create insurmountable barriers to entry for other people based solely on which side of an arbitrary line they were born upon. That strikes me as... odd.
|
|
| 1090 | Boldwin
ID: 377491211 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 14:04
|
bili
Lie down with trolls, wake up with posts like that.
|
|
| 1091 | Mith
ID: 2672547 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 14:17
|
You don't get no $15 an hour for picking oranges! As far as I know migrant workers still get less than minimum wage.
|
|
| 1092 | Boldwin
ID: 377491211 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 14:19
|
You get $21-$48 dollars an hour for a great drywaller. Until the immigrants take you job.
|
|
| 1093 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 14:22
|
If I lie down with a troll, I'll be sure to get a prenup.
|
|
| 1094 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 14:23
|
Not a lot of need for drywallers these days, regardless of family heritage.
|
|
| 1095 | Mith
ID: 2672547 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 14:27
|
But the out of work claims adjuster isn't getting that job anyway (even at day laborer rates) unless it happens to be his brother-in-law's business.
|
|
| 1096 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 14:29
|
"Don't spread my wealth. Spread my work ethic."
which goes right back to PD's 1067.
Which still goes back to my reply, "Americans are willing to work hard." But there is so much more to the situation than that.
You get an illegal alien who you pay under the table you do not have to pay in to workers comp. With a legally paid American worker you do. Those funds for under-the-table payments are allowed for in the tax code as a write off (no, not specifically as 'here are funds you can write off to pay illegals' but there are general use funds and general labor funds small businesses have that they do not have to pay taxes on that many businesses dip into to pay these wages). Insurance premiums related to businesses are often based on # of employees, amount of sales, size of lot etc. Lower due to less employees. Other tax breaks for small businesses who do not breach a threshold for employees. Overhead for most anything employee related. One measure of a 'small business' is the number of employees and there are tax breaks for small businesses. Under the table payments allow for this (given this problem is not unique to illegals but much more common with them).
Its a little unfair to simply say, "its a work ethic issue." There are so many reasons small business (and even large businesses) have that makes illegal workers much more attractive than. Enforce the immigration laws we have and put significantly tougher penalties in place and make it a true competitive market. In some areas there no reason to take on more legal American workers than absolutely necessary to maintain appearances.
|
|
| 1107 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 18:58
|
I have no problem with coming down on businesses which make practice of hiring undocumented workers. But I do wish there was a comprehensive study conducted to establish exactly what the tipping point is. Why can't that be done?
For whatever it's worth, I don't know a single adult who is looking and unable to find a full time low wage job. Do any of you?
|
|
| 1108 | Khahan
ID: 13126822 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 19:50
|
I know quite a few MITH. Im an insurance agent with over 4000 households on the books. We have people on a weekly basis looking to cut their premiums or cut costs or extend a payment due because they are out of work. This is up from a year and a half ago when it was probably monthly. Though admittedly during the summer, it seems down from the winter months. A lot of them are turning to manual labor.
And its all walks of life. One of our customers ran a recruiting firm. He was raking in 6 figures. As the economy worsened he put his own money into trying to stay afloat. But as less and less jobs were available for him to fill, he finally went under. He is a waiter right now while he looks for more work.
I have tons of anecdotal evidence, but I realize that anecdotal evidence is not a comprehensive study. Its just difficult to see individuals going thru some of these tough times.
|
|
| 1109 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 19:56
|
I guess it depends on where you live. Long Island/NYC is surely not the best place to guage the nation overall from.
|
|
| |
| 1111 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Aug 12, 2010, 22:19
|
Tomorrow's conservative talking point: "He's only doing it because of us. He's just pretending to enforce the law..."
|
|
| 1112 | Boldwin
ID: 4070134 Fri, Aug 13, 2010, 05:00
|
Are you going to try and tell us with a straight face that he is doing a better job or a remotely honest effort at doing it?
|
|
| 1113 | Boldwin
ID: 4070134 Fri, Aug 13, 2010, 05:04
|
BTW you'll prolly buy the package they passed at the tail end of the session. More agents that aren't allowed to do their job and two drones with streamers behind them reading "welcome to Aztlan".
You can be sure incumbants will be waving that around proudly.
|
|
| 1114 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Fri, Aug 13, 2010, 08:52
|
Every measure of illegal aliens in the US that Ive seen shows both the number of deportations and their total population estimates trending down from 2007 to late 2008/early 2009. Then Obama came in and (be it nominally or significantly) increased both border enforcement and the number deportations, with a new greater focus on illegal immigrants who are also considered violent criminals.
|
|
| 1115 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Fri, Aug 13, 2010, 08:55
|
If that were the record of a Mccain/Palin administration, they'd at least be acknowledged by the anti-illigal immigration right as moving (even if too slowly) in the right direction.
|
|
| 1116 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Aug 13, 2010, 09:59
|
"Are you going to try and tell us with a straight face that he is doing a better job or a remotely honest effort at doing it?"
Are you saying the numbers are made up?
|
|
| 1117 | Boldwin
ID: 4070134 Fri, Aug 13, 2010, 10:01
|
I am sure the output stats on the Titanic bilge pumps never looked so good as at the end.
|
|
| 1118 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Aug 13, 2010, 10:21
|
#1112: The numbers don't lie. Conservatives attacking the President, however...
#1117: Now immigrants are bilge? Nice. How would Jesus insult?
|
|
| 1119 | Frick
ID: 50730138 Fri, Aug 13, 2010, 10:24
|
I applaud the effort to target violent criminals.
I question if the rise is due to people wanting to be caught for a free ride home. I highly doubt it, but I'm skeptical of all statistics without being able to see actual numbers.
|
|
| 1120 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Sun, Aug 15, 2010, 10:01
|
You paint a really pretty picture, Dwetzel, of the reality. Of the kinds of jobs that illegal immigrants are taking. And you make it clear that this situation is the way it is because no American would put in the work ethic of an illegal immigrant. I say bullsh!t to that. I was out of work 3 years ago for a short time. While I was looking for a full time job in my career field, I applied to landscaping companies, I applied to retail stores at the mall I even app'd to Longhorns steakhouse as a waiter. I was 33 yrs old, married and with 3 kids. Its what I needed to do to keep incoming flowing in for my family.
Do you realize the contradiction in that passage?
I was out of work 3 years ago for a short time. While I was looking for a full time job in my career field, I applied....
So you had no plans to make a career out of landscaping...or retail clerk...or waiter. Do you expect the business to hire the person wanting(or even needing) a temporary position, or the person that will fill that position on a permanent basis?
Not too many American kids are raised aspiring to be a career maid, dishwasher, chicken processor or orange picker.
It may not be a pretty picture, but it is a reality that businesses have a hard time retaining workers for menial tasks at minimal money in this country. So when a business finds a reliable, long-term worker for these positions, be they legal or illegal, they're all too willing to bend the rules.
That's not to say that Americans don't have a good work ethic, but we're generally driven to achieve the American Dream of climbing the ladder to success through education, saavy, business and people skills. Stories of the burger flipper working his or her way up to owning a McDonald's franchise are becoming lore of yesteryear because we've become a culture of instant gratification.
FTR, I spent the past week busting my butt on a huge HUD-financed project. HUD requires certified payroll and stipulates the hourly rate that must be paid. I can say with a high degree of certainty that most of the subcontractors are cheating. There's no way the drywall and painting crews are being paid a minimum of $16 an hour, or $12 an hour with benefits. Besides being subjected to the annoyingly frantic accordion featured on Mexican boom boxes, the crews, I suspect, hire a couple of legal Hispanics, who then share their checks with their illegal friends and brethren.
My crew, a 45 year-old Korean American, my 19 year old nephew and his 17 year old buddy, stands out, along with the electricians, as the only crews that aren't almost 100% Hispanic, this in lily white Utah. It's frustrating to see crews which, I suspect, employ a large percentage of illegals, when there are so many here in the construction trades out of work. The only way I can make decent money on the project is to do much of the work myself. Either that or cheat by hiring a crew of illegals to install at 8 bucks an hour or 2 bucks per blind.
OTOH, there is Carlos, who operates the lift and I've known from other projects I've done for this company. I suspect he's legal, though his English is heavily accented. Unlike the other white lift driver, who sits in his rig smoking cigarettes after raising 60 boxes of blinds to an upper level, Carlos climbs the stairs 4 stories and helps unload. It's not part of his job, but it's a display of dedication that may some day put him in charge of projects like these. If he is illegal, he's at the top of my list for amnesty.
|
|
| 1121 | Khahan
ID: 13126822 Sun, Aug 15, 2010, 10:44
|
Do you realize the contradiction in that passage?
I was out of work 3 years ago for a short time. While I was looking for a full time job in my career field, I applied....
Wow Pancho. How jaded are you to attack somebody's personal story about busting their butt and doing whatever it takes to earn a paycheck?
So you had no plans to make a career out of landscaping...or retail clerk...or waiter. Do you expect the business to hire the person wanting(or even needing) a temporary position, or the person that will fill that position on a permanent basis?
The waiters and long-term work I can understand being reluctant to hire me. They train me and then I up and leave on them. Thats not the point. The point is I tried and if I had been hired as a waiter I would have done that. So go back to your earlier post about the American worth ethic and what jobs Americans are willing to do and rethink it.
The landscapers though is a different story. A) I have experience. B) This was during mid to late fall when they get busy with a lot of projects people want done before the winter. They hire me on for a single project. When that project is done so am I. It actually worked out great.
I'm not saying I blame businesses for making smart business decisions. Thats part of the problem. But that is an easily solvable problem. Come down on businesses doing this so that its not so appealing/profitable for them.
|
|
| 1122 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Sun, Aug 15, 2010, 11:19
|
How jaded are you to attack somebody's personal story about busting their butt and doing whatever it takes to earn a paycheck?
Really? Attacked?
|
|
| 1123 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Sun, Aug 15, 2010, 12:09
|
Khanan
For the record, your strory is that illegal immigrants didn't keep you from finding temporary work while looking for a new job.
|
|
| 1124 | Khahan
ID: 13126822 Sun, Aug 15, 2010, 19:06
|
MITH, in my immediate area we don't have a problem. And my story was that I would do whatever it takes and take any job available despite poor American work ethic that some people on this board would have us believe exists.
You go about 45 mins south of me and illegal immigration is actually a very big problem. Maybe down there I would not have been so lucky?
|
|
| 1125 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Sun, Aug 15, 2010, 19:46
|
Maybe, though a good work ethic wouldnt be stopped by a 45 min drive north to get to work.
But more on topic I think your anecdotes aren't quit analagous to the greater point. The out of work insurance agent looking for whatever income he can find until he gets a job he plans to keep for a while isn't much help to a business that needs a permanent low wage full-time position filled.
Like I said earlier, I don't know a single adult who is actively seeking and unable to find low wage full time work You say you know plenty. Would any of them convince an interviewer he wouldn't leave the place stranded the moment he found a gig in his profession?
|
|
| 1126 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Aug 15, 2010, 20:47
|
I think you're right, MITH. What we are seeing is business retrenching, and instead of new short-time hires are looking for longer term workers.
We know this because while the unemployment numbers remain stubbornly high, this is the first recession of any real length in which wages are actually rising. So businesses are rewarding workers but are expecting long-term commitment as a result.
Another reason short-term government help has a clear place in the recovery efforts.
|
|
| 1127 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Mon, Aug 16, 2010, 09:24
|
But more on topic I think your anecdotes aren't quit analagous to the greater point. The out of work insurance agent looking for whatever income he can find until he gets a job he plans to keep for a while isn't much help to a business that needs a permanent low wage full-time position filled.
The anecdote isn't about what businesses are doing. Its about what employees and prospective employees are doing. 2 completely different things. Somebody out of work who says, "Why bother applying they probably won't hire me." will get exactly the kind of job he deserves: None
The prospect who goes out and realizes his field isn't in the best shape right now and looks for something temporary may not get anything or he may get lucky and find something to help him stay afloat. But he won't know until he tries.
Again, its about the prospects endeavors because the discussion arose around the work ethic of the American employee. It has absolutely nothing to do with the hiring business' needs.
|
|
| 1128 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Mon, Aug 16, 2010, 13:35
|
I am sure the output stats on the Titanic bilge pumps never looked so good as at the end.
HA HA HA! Bilge pumps. Awesome.
I was out of work 3 years ago for a short time. While I was looking for a full time job in my career field, I applied....
Wow Pancho. How jaded are you to attack somebody's personal story about busting their butt and doing whatever it takes to earn a paycheck?
Because you violated their rules Khahan. When you and I were out of work we made finding a job a full time job. These liberals want you on the government dole for the 99 weeks you can get the unemployment benefits. The more you rely on them the more you will vote for them. Personal financial success wakes you up the false idea that government knows whats best for you instead of yourself.
|
|
| 1130 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Mon, Aug 16, 2010, 14:27
|
There's quite a few uncalled for insults in 1129. Can somebody take it down? I will respond to this.
finally was forced to relocate more than 1,500 miles away from my home, to where the cost of living was less and the job market better.
Where did you move to/from?
|
|
| 1131 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Aug 16, 2010, 14:28
|
Here here.
These liberals want you on the government dole for the 99 weeks you can get the unemployment benefits
Unemployment benefits average about 36% of the worker's average salary. Perhaps you are under the impression that "liberals" want to provide these workers a living wage while they are unemployed?
In this deep recession, we want people to continue to eat and maybe pay the rent once in awhile while they look for work.
|
|
| 1132 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Mon, Aug 16, 2010, 14:42
|
I am not against helping unemployed people Perm Dude. Unemployment benefits are a great safety net. I was on them for five weeks this year and it was the most humiliating experience I have had. Before this year I had never been unemployed. I even get the 99 weeks because Obama is failing to create a climate that fosters job creation. The problem here is that those on unemployment are reliant upon the government for their survival like I was. I hated it. And it is in the interests of big government types to have people rely on government "solutions" to their problems. We should also be getting something for our money. I would have done something if the government said hey here's your check now go sweep that church or something. What I get a lot at work when I work with our recruiting department is that a lot of people tell them that they are making almost as much on unemployment for entry level jobs or they want to wait it out when they could be off the government tab. There's nothing right about people gaming the system like that.
|
|
| 1133 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Aug 16, 2010, 15:18
|
In this recession the feeling you get being on unemployment is shared by millions of others who are on unemployment for the first time.
I don't believe we need to stop helping people because of anecdotal stories of people who are not taking entry level jobs because they find they can survive on 35% of their old salaries. Given the kind of person we are talking about and the number of entry level jobs available, those jobs are best given to people who actually want to work.
We shouldn't kill our own recovery efforts because an unspecified number of people might be coasting on the government dime.
|
|
| 1134 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, Aug 16, 2010, 16:12
|
Where did you move to/from?
not at all relevant to the conversation, but if you read around on this boards, it's all there.
FWIW, my unemployment "benefits" were less than 50 percent of my previous salary. if you think i enjoyed unemployment, making less than half of my previous salary, MAKING LESS THAN MY FIRST JOB OUT OF COLLEGE, than you are so woefully mistaken.
The problem here is that those on unemployment are reliant upon the government for their survival like I was.
the alternative for many people, quite frankly, is living in a cardboard box and starving to death.
a lot of people tell them that they are making almost as much on unemployment for entry level jobs
absolutely. and there is nothing wrong with that. as you pointed out, looking for a job is a full time job in itself. so, if i take an extreme pay and level cut just to work a menial job, and deny myself and my family the opportunities i spent the last 20 years working hard for, you're damned straight i'm going to stay on unemployment a little bit longer in order to improve things for my family.
|
|
| 1135 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Mon, Aug 16, 2010, 16:33
|
not at all relevant to the conversation, but if you read around on this boards, it's all there.
Sure it is. Was it out of state? I bet if it was it was to a lower tax area and/or where the cost of living is lower.
FWIW, my unemployment "benefits" were less than 50 percent of my previous salary.
It was more than zero so yeah it was a benefit. Remove the quotes. How much should it have been?
so, if i take an extreme pay and level cut just to work a menial job, and deny myself and my family the opportunities i spent the last 20 years working hard for, you're damned straight i'm going to stay on unemployment a little bit longer in order to improve things for my family.
So why'd you apply for it then unless if it was just to show the unemployment office that you were "trying"?
|
|
| 1136 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Mon, Aug 16, 2010, 16:55
|
#1128
That's an embarrassing post in many ways.
Because you violated their rules Khahan.
Who is "they?" Khahan's statement was addressed to me. What "rules?"
When you and I were out of work we made finding a job a full time job.
The last time I lost a job, I worked 3 jobs while raising a year and a half baby girl....by myself!
These liberals want you on the government dole for the 99 weeks you can get the unemployment benefits. The more you rely on them the more you will vote for them. Personal financial success wakes you up the false idea that government knows whats best for you instead of yourself.
Who are you grouping into "these liberals?" What's your criteria for characterizing someone as "liberal?"
I own a business. I have to pay self employment taxes. If my business fails, I don't get any unemployment benefits. I'm SOL. You also know nothing about people's personal financial success on these boards, so your comment is based on ignorance and false bravado.
One more thing. I never attacked Khahan's personal story about busting his butt and doing whatever it takes to earn a paycheck? Read what I said:
So you had no plans to make a career out of landscaping...or retail clerk...or waiter. Do you expect the business to hire the person wanting(or even needing) a temporary position, or the person that will fill that position on a permanent basis?
If that's considered an attack, I suggest participating in scrapbooking blogs instead of political blogs.
|
|
| 1137 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, Aug 16, 2010, 16:55
|
Sure it is. Was it out of state? I bet if it was it was to a lower tax area and/or where the cost of living is lower.
i said i moved 1,500 miles and to a place where the cost of living was lower and job market was better. did you miss that?
It was more than zero so yeah it was a benefit. Remove the quotes. How much should it have been?
it's in quotes because there are no benefits to being unemployed.
it was the maximum NY State allows. which is less than 50 percent of my salary, which was already lower than the median salary in NYC.
So why'd you apply for it then unless if it was just to show the unemployment office that you were "trying"?
i didn't apply for it. that's the whole point, and the argument other people are making against some of the things you're saying.
|
|
| 1138 | J-Bar
ID: 307521721 Tue, Aug 17, 2010, 22:52
|
Wait did I miss something? I have always used the term "making" as creating or earning something like a wage based on your work. Now we use "making" when referring to UIB. I do not feel that the argument of "making less than half of my previous salary" should ever be made since you are not making anything only accepting a gift to aid in the survival of the individual and their dependents. It is welfare and a safety net should exist. Again as I have posted many times the argument is not the existence but the size.
|
|
| 1139 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Aug 18, 2010, 00:37
|
I do not feel that the argument of "making less than half of my previous salary" should ever be made since you are not making anything only accepting a gift to aid in the survival of the individual and their dependents.
um. no.
you clearly have no idea how the unemployment system works. unemployment benefits are hardly a "gift".
|
|
| 1140 | J-Bar
ID: 307521721 Wed, Aug 18, 2010, 08:46
|
I believe that something given is a gift. In your opinion how long should someone be able to "make" UIB?
|
|
| 1141 | WTC Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, Aug 18, 2010, 09:03
|
you clearly have no idea how the unemployment system works. unemployment benefits are hardly a "gift".
You're right, they are different. The recipient of a gift is not taxed for federal income tax purposes. However, unemployment compensation is taxed by your friends at the IRS.
|
|
| 1142 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Aug 18, 2010, 09:25
|
Partially right. Obama pushed for, and received, a waiver of federal taxes on unemployment benefits up to $2400 (I believe, though this might now be more).
States, on the other hand, still can (and often do) tax unemployment benefits.
Depending on a person's adjusted gross, they might get a credit of the total amounts, however. A person who is on unemployment all year will likely see very little actual tax in the end, due the their very low AGI.
|
|
| 1143 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Aug 18, 2010, 09:51
|
where exactly do you think unemployment comes from, J-Bar?
your taxes (and taxes paid by businesses) go into the system to support it. I am getting back from a system that have paid into for 25+ years.
this is a system i'd much rather not be getting from personally, but by the same token, i'm glad to be able to put into a system that helps others.
and PD - that 2400 in benefits isn't much. for me, in NYC, it was less than 6 weeks.
|
|
| 1144 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Aug 18, 2010, 10:16
|
Oh, I know. But it is something. Saves $360, even if capped at $2400.
|
|
| 1145 | Boldwin
ID: 11746189 Wed, Aug 18, 2010, 10:46
|
where exactly do you think unemployment comes from, J-Bar?
Inefficiency and misallocated resources.
|
|
| 1146 | J-Bar
ID: 347201821 Wed, Aug 18, 2010, 22:20
|
I think I am finally hearing what i hoped was not true but.... someone feels ENTITLED. Not just for the policy calculation of the program of amount and weeks but the continued extensions for as long as the printing press can run.
|
|
| 1147 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Aug 18, 2010, 23:42
|
It's an entitlement in the same way that the insurance company writing you a check for a pile of cash after a tornado wrecks your house is a gift from the insurance company.
|
|
| 1148 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Aug 19, 2010, 01:52
|
Yeah, for about a third of what it is worth.
|
|
| 1149 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Thu, Aug 19, 2010, 13:09
|
The other person is wrong Perm Dude. The insurance policy is a legal document entitling you to x if something happens. If the company pays you x-y then there's a problem because they did not live up to the covenants of the policy. Apples and oranges.
I think I am finally hearing what i hoped was not true but.... someone feels ENTITLED.
There are two kinds of people J-Bar when they become unemployed. Me and Khahan worked hard to get new jobs and did not feel like society owed us one. Then other people who game the system. Complain about how much they get and turn down work because they would rather be on unemployment than at a job.
|
|
| 1150 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Aug 19, 2010, 13:17
|
I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about.
DW made the analogy that UI is like a regular insurance policy. But it isn't. Unemployment doesn't match your salary--it averages about 36% of a person's salary.
|
|
| 1151 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, Aug 19, 2010, 13:30
|
The insurance policy is a legal document entitling you to x if something happens.
exactly. get a clue. there's a reason it's actually called "Unemployment Insurance Benefits."
There are two kinds of people J-Bar when they become unemployed. Me and Khahan worked hard to get new jobs and did not feel like society owed us one. Then other people who game the system. Complain about how much they get and turn down work because they would rather be on unemployment than at a job.
really? really? i suppose for some people, things are simple, because they need it that way.
plenty of people would rather be working than collecting unemployment. in a place like NYC - unemployment benefits haven't increased in over a decade, while the cost of living has sky rocketed - that's not right, because you need to be able to support yourself.
additionally, only a fool - especially in a place like NYC - would take a non-career related job for 200 bucks a week. one cannot survive on that. why on earth would you condemn yourself to living on the street so you can say "i'm not collecting unemployment, i got a job for half of what i would have been collecting!"
that makes ZERO sense, and only adds to the problem.
|
|
| 1152 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Thu, Aug 19, 2010, 13:38
|
the analogy that UI is like a regular insurance policy.
And did it pay the amount it was obligated to? See, UI does not say that it will pay 100% of your salary. It says that it pays a certain amount and it honors that #.
1151 is uncalled for.
|
|
| 1153 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, Aug 19, 2010, 13:57
|
1151 is uncalled for.
good lord, you are quite the tender-skinned young lad, aren't you?
|
|
| 1154 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Aug 19, 2010, 15:10
|
Yes, but the point, which seems to have been obscured, is that calling it an "entitlement" is a bit off base. It's basically an insurance policy, albeit one with a <100% repayment ratio, which everyone who works contributes to.
It's not intended to fully replace salary; it's intended to make it so that someone who loses their job, generally through no fault of their own, isn't eating dumpster food two weeks later.
|
|
| 1155 | J-Bar
ID: 457381919 Thu, Aug 19, 2010, 20:42
|
I know what UIB is, and to continue the analogy that was made. Insurance policy is taken out for x if y happens. y happens and claim is filed and x is paid per the rules of the contract. No problem. My problem lies with an outside entity (Congress in the case of UIB) arbitrarily saying that the claim payment should be increased to 4 times what the contract was for. That is my problem, lets decide on a length of time and percentage amount of past earnings, determine the cost of premium to industry and live with it. Excuse me but IMO UIB along with most safety net programs are programs that people are determined to be eligible for and not entitled to.
|
|
| 1156 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Aug 19, 2010, 20:46
|
Excuse me but IMO UIB along with most safety net programs are programs that people are determined to be eligible for and not entitled to.
That's true. I'm not sure how that maps to your earlier analogy but maybe you're answering a different question.
Taking your example: What if an insurance company, on their own, decided to increase their payouts because they found that people were still hurting? A flood takes out a town and the insurance pays for a third of the value of the homes. So the company decides to make more payments until the town gets back on their feet.
Problem with that? If not, what if a couple of people decide not to rebuild, but are just cashing the checks? Should all payments cease to everyone, then?
|
|
| 1157 | J-Bar
ID: 457381919 Thu, Aug 19, 2010, 21:15
|
PD your example works if the insurance company chooses to do this based on review of their own finances and are able to do it w/o hurting the overall stability of the company. But in the case of UIB, FUTA is not extending benefits based on collections, premiums, and assets. Congress is extending them and the money apparently comes from general revenue, unsure but making assumption based on argument of funding last time.
found this- unsure of accuracy but seems to give a basic idea.
Unemployment insurance is a federal-state program jointly financed through federal and state employer payroll taxes (federal and state UI taxes).[18] Generally, employers must pay both state and federal unemployment taxes if:
(1) they pay wages to employees totaling $1,500 or more in any quarter of a calendar year; or,[18] (2) they had at least one employee during any day of a week during 20 weeks in a calendar year, regardless of whether the weeks were consecutive. However, some state laws differ from the federal law.[18] To facilitate this program, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), which authorizes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect an annual federal employer tax used to fund state workforce agencies. FUTA covers the costs of administering the Unemployment Insurance and Job Service programs in all states. In addition, FUTA pays one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provides for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits.
|
|
| 1158 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Aug 19, 2010, 21:34
|
Short term spending which keeps people from becoming even worse off is a tradeoff I'm absolutely willing to make.
When you are out of a job, you don't worry about paying off your credit cards. Even when you have to charge your groceries on them.
|
|
| 1159 | J-Bar
ID: 457381919 Thu, Aug 19, 2010, 21:48
|
With that logic, there should be no time limits or credit card limits. The key word and the crux of this whole issue is SHORT. What is the definition of short 26 weeks, 52 weeks, 99 weeks, 200 weeks, unlimited weeks?
|
|
| 1160 | J-Bar
ID: 457381919 Thu, Aug 19, 2010, 22:39
|
just wondering what this has to do with immigration protests. lol
|
|
| 1161 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 09:44
|
The key word and the crux of this whole issue is SHORT. What is the definition of short 26 weeks, 52 weeks, 99 weeks, 200 weeks, unlimited weeks?
These blanket extensions aren't a productive or responsible way to approach the issue.
After the initial period of payments runs out, extensions should be granted on a case by case basis. Obviously, we don't want millions of indigent people on the streets, but neither do we want the government extending benefits indefinetly to persons whose situation is not dire. These circumstances might include someone whose spouse earns a large income; someone who lives in Mom and Dad's basement and has little personal overhead; the person who is working a job where they are being paid 'under the table.'
There's been discussion of the American work ethic as it relates to the employment of illegal immigrats in this thread. I don't see the incentive for the unemployed to 'do the jobs Americans won't do' as long as the government continues to pay people to not work.
|
|
| 1162 | chode
ID: 4744089 Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 09:57
|
"I don't see the incentive for the unemployed to 'do the jobs Americans won't do' as long as the government continues to pay people to not work."
Amen.
|
|
| 1163 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 11:26
|
What is the definition of short
That's the real question in the end, I think. and reasonable people can disagree.
How long should unemployment benefits be for some in, say, Detroit vs someone in Texas?
Normally, to actually receive and continue benefits, the applicants need to demonstrate that they are looking for work. The oversight varies by state (as you might expect for state-driven programs) but typically a person has to go down to the unemployment office every couple of weeks and give them the names, dates, and places where they applied for work in order to continue to get UI checks. In some states they are required to actually apply for jobs the unemployment office suggests to them.
There seem to be a lot of assumption about how this program is administered which leads to all sorts of assumptions that the "government pays people to not work."
There may, indeed, be a number of people who aren't interested in working, and continue to lie to the unemployment office every couple of weeks. After all, we're talking about 15 million Americans out of work.
And even with the help of state-specific program administration, a country-wide program to address unemployment which is not evenly problematic throughout the country will not be 100% efficient. But I think we can agree that the pervasive unemployment of this particular recession deserves a longer look.
|
|
| 1164 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 13:06
|
How long should unemployment benefits be for some in, say, Detroit vs someone in Texas?
Texas is usually run by good conservative people who can grow an economy so we can make it less for Texas. They do not need. Those sorry souls afflicted by liberalism though may never be able to get off it.
"I don't see the incentive for the unemployed to 'do the jobs Americans won't do' as long as the government continues to pay people to not work."
Amen.
Amen + 1
|
|
| 1165 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 13:35
|
Texas is usually run by good conservative people who can grow an economy so we can make it less for Texas. They do not need. Those sorry souls afflicted by liberalism though may never be able to get off it.
for the past 31 years, Texas has had a Republican governor for 23 of them, including the last 15.
The Texas House has a (slim) Republican majority. The Texas Senate has a Republican majority.
the Texas budget has a 1.3 billion dollar deficit this year.
next year, that gap is currently projected to be 18 billion.
you were saying?
|
|
| 1166 | Frick
ID: 97321912 Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 14:24
|
Texas also has a rainy day fund of 9B.
Compared to New York and California, I would say Texas has done alright through the economic downturn.
Or do you feel that New York and California are in better budgetary shape under their Democratic reigns?
|
|
| 1167 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 14:41
|
California is a completely different animal because of their proposition process, which shackles the legislature from doing pretty much anything.
|
|
| 1168 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 15:24
|
What party is the govenator in?
|
|
| 1169 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 15:26
|
Texas also has a rainy day fund of 9B.
so is it not a rainy day?
most states have rainy day funds - only The states of Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Montana, and Oregon don't.
|
|
| 1170 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 15:29
|
Washington did until some conservative jagoff wrote an antitax initiative that forced to burn thru it.
|
|
| 1171 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 16:09
|
That's the problem in California. Anti-tax porn makes it extremely difficult to close budget loopholes when costs rise for them.
Can you imagine the GOP outcry if it was found out that Obama had a $9 billion "rainy day fund?"
|
|
| 1172 | Frick
ID: 97321912 Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 16:17
|
The only point I was trying to get across was that both parties are equally guilty.
When was the last post actually about immigration in this thread?
|
|
| 1173 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 16:27
|
The only point I was trying to get across was that both parties are equally guilty.
Well, we're all in the same boat, certainly.
|
|
| 1174 | Boldwin
ID: 1183027 Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 13:20
|
Poll 81% support for Arizona immigration provisions.
Support even dipping into the hispanic and hardcore marxist portion of the population.
|
|
| 1175 | Mith
ID: 2672547 Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 15:17
|
The influx of illegal immigrants plunged to an estimated 300,000 annually between March 2007 and 2009, from 850,000 a year between March 2000 and March 2005, according to new study released Wednesday by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group.
The decline contributed to a contraction in the overall size of the undocumented population to 11 million people in March 2009 from a peak of 12 million two years earlier, according to the Pew analysis, which is based on data from the Census Bureau.
|
|
| 1176 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 15:29
|
That's down from the 100 million illegal immigrants Boldwin claimed were in the US the last time the GOP decided to fearmonger on the immigration issue.
|
|
| 1177 | Mith
ID: 2672547 Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 15:33
|
You'd think he'd be thrilled by a 90% decline.
:)
|
|
| 1178 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 15:49
|
No, they must be going somewhere, right? Clearly up to no good.
|
|
| |
| |
| 1181 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 00:39
|
and he even had all that paperwork.
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| 1188 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Tue, Oct 19, 2010, 17:32
|
Continuing to get it wrong..
Lawmakers in at least 14 states are collaborating on proposed legislation to deny U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, according to lawmakers, including the sponsor of Arizona's 2010 law targeting illegal immigration.
just disgusting. actual laws to deny citizenship to those BORN in this country.
|
|
| 1189 | Frick
ID: 42825248 Tue, Oct 19, 2010, 19:33
|
I have no idea how they think this is going to be lawful. The Arizona law only attempts to try and support existing federal laws. Denying citizenship seems to be in violation of the Constitution. Unless they are going for an Amendment I can't see how this isn't going to be quashed.
|
|
| 1190 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Wed, Oct 20, 2010, 12:48
|
What is the difference in the immigration process between somebody from Europe and somebody from Mexico?
|
|
| 1191 | J-Bar
ID: 119342020 Wed, Oct 20, 2010, 21:38
|
For discussion sake; if unlawful acts are committed for gain, then why cannot the gain be considered ill-gotten and therefore not be granted. Don't we practice this in other areas? Why not immigration?
|
|
| 1192 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Oct 20, 2010, 23:46
|
if unlawful acts are committed for gain,
can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that an immigrant coming to this country illegally is doing it solely for the purpose of giving birth to someone who would then legally be an american citizen?
|
|
| 1193 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Oct 21, 2010, 00:07
|
Is that what J-bar is saying? Maybe he's trying to apply that standard to children of illegals being born in the US, but I read it as financial/educational, etc.
In any case, the Constitution is pretty clear cut in that area.
|
|
| 1194 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Oct 21, 2010, 11:28
|
Is that what J-bar is saying? Maybe he's trying to apply that standard to children of illegals being born in the US, but I read it as financial/educational, etc.
from a hypothetical this is kind of interesting. There is huge financial/educational advantage to new born American citizen as compared to new born Mexican citizen. How does the law work if a parent murders some one because they know there children will get the life insurance?
|
|
| 1195 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Thu, Oct 21, 2010, 11:50
|
How does the law work if a parent murders some one because they know there children will get the life insurance?
so, you're comparing immigration with murder? huh?
|
|
| 1196 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Thu, Oct 21, 2010, 12:51
|
For discussion sake; if unlawful acts are committed for gain, then why cannot the gain be considered ill-gotten and therefore not be granted. Don't we practice this in other areas? Why not immigration?
Good one J-Bar.
|
|
| 1197 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Oct 21, 2010, 12:53
|
Back the wagon up, Tree -- it's a semi-legitimate question. He's saying "how do we handle situations where someone does something illegal which accrues benefit to someone else in other areas".
For which I believe (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, etc. etc.) the answer is that as long as the beneficiary (or, for analogous purposes, the newborn) didn't do anything wrong themselves and had no knowledge that someone else was doing this to their benefit, they would get the full benefits.
(And if that isn't how it is, that's really how it should be, because otherwise there would be all sorts of nasty ways to screw over beneficiaries if someone else commits some sort of illegal act of which they have no knowledge or control.)
|
|
| 1198 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Oct 21, 2010, 12:56
|
Where J-Bar (and now TLB) have failed here is that the benefits don't accrue to the person committing the crime -- they accrue to someone else.
In other words, to run with the analogy even though it obviously isn't exact, if you murder someone and YOU were the beneficiary, then you don't collect the insurance. If someone ELSE murders them (and you didn't have a hand in it), surely you agree that as the benficiary you should collect. Similarly, the newborn child CLEARLY had no knowledge or control over the illegal acts of the parents, and therefore they should accrue all the benefits of being a citizen.
Now, if you want to try to make "smuggling a parent across borders by a fetus" a crime, you can go ahead and try and make that argument.
|
|
| 1199 | J-Bar
ID: 99372218 Fri, Oct 22, 2010, 19:50
|
Very good, I am so proud of the last few posts, actual discussion. DW your point is well taken but the parents do stand to gain if the baby (anchor baby) allows them to stay. Which brings up another idea to ponder. When the topic of deporting involves parents of citizen children the opposing side says that the government is tearing apart families which in my mind is not factually true. The parents are still responsible for that child until he/she is 18 and therefore if the parents choose to leave there child behind instead of taking full responsibility for the child they chose to give birth to and raising them where they are legally allowed to live, then it is in fact the parents that have split the family.
|
|
| 1200 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Sat, Oct 23, 2010, 22:26
|
If the parents are being forced out of the country by the govt, and the child is a US citizen.....you are then saying that the govt should have the right to force US Citizens out of the country.
OK, let's assume the govt has such power. What would your position be, if for ex the Dems were in the WH, had the majority in the Senate and in the House; and they chose to force all Republicans out of the country and deported the lot to Ecuador, Peru, Guatemala, etc etc etc?
Just asking a hypothetical here.
|
|
| 1201 | Khahan
ID: 13126822 Sun, Oct 24, 2010, 02:21
|
Sarge, that is going way off topic of what is being discussed.
What we have is a couple about to give birth who CHOOSES to illegally cross the border. They CHOOSE to wait, illegally, in this country until their child is born. They choose to do all this despite the fact that at any given moment they may be caught and deported (at the expense of the tax payer). The choice for the whole scenario falls on the parents. The parents are responsible for the child.
With that said, if they succeed, I don't think the ill-gotten gains clause really would fit here. There is not a tangible gain for the parents. There is also the US Constitution. I would think that is going to trump anything else.
When you couple my first paragraph with my second paragraph I believe you come up with the dilemna and the answer is: There needs to be discussion about the wording of the 14th amendment, its original intent/purpose, how it is applied now and how the times have changed since it was written. In other words, bring the amendment into the 21st Century. Not just by judicial review but by congressional procedure. If Congress feels, after discussion, that the 14th should stand as is, we have our answer. They are citizens and that ain't changing.
If congress feels that the clause needs to be changed and citizenship requirements need to be changed...again we have our answer.
I think McCain had the right answer a few months ago. Revisit it and discuss it. Then go from there.
|
|
| 1202 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Oct 24, 2010, 09:41
|
Khahan, the number of people you are talking about who do that are vanishingly small. You are seriously approaching urban legend status with that.
It doesn't stop people from making stuff up and passing it along as truth, however.
Nearly every one of these "anchor babies" are born to people who came here illegally, in the course of living their lives.
|
|
| 1203 | Khahan
ID: 13126822 Sun, Oct 24, 2010, 11:16
|
PD,all I'm doing is addressing the conversation at hand. The number of people doing it is kind of irrelevant to the conversation (except for my taxpayer comment. I'll give ya that one).
|
|
| 1204 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sun, Oct 24, 2010, 18:28
|
i simply can't imagine stripping citizenship from someone born here, and they didn't do anything wrong.
|
|
| 1205 | Frick
ID: 42825248 Sun, Oct 24, 2010, 19:35
|
I don't believe that Khahan ever said we should strip anyone of citizenship. But there should be a discussion of the rules surrounding citizenship and the 14th Amendment. He wasn't seeking retroactive removal (I could be wrong, but that wasn't how I read his statement.)
While the number of people who actively come across border very late in pregnancy might be low, is it really all that different from someone coming into the country as soon as they realize they are pregnant? Or coming into the country illegally and becoming pregnant while in the country.
Khahan's point is wrapped into the entire citizenship discussion that needs to be addressed by our political leadership, but they won't touch it.
|
|
| 1206 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Oct 24, 2010, 19:59
|
Well, they won't touch it because the Constitution is pretty darn clear on the point. And there's no way to change the Constitution to mitigate it--the bar is set very high to change the Constitution.
But the problem with immigration isn't anchor babies, in the end.
|
|
| 1207 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sun, Oct 24, 2010, 20:57
|
the Constitution is pretty darn clear on the point
It's clear that the child is a citizen, not the parents. There's nothing that says the parents can't be deported, and either take the child with them, or make arrangements for the the child to stay in the US.
Does that break up families? Of course. Is it constitutional? I think so, but I'm no expert.
|
|
| 1208 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Oct 24, 2010, 23:52
|
My response was to Khahan's #120, "When you couple..."
There's no Constitutional unclarity. Sure, we can talk about the policy regarding the parents, but his point was to "bring the amendment into the 21st Century." In other words, to discuss the citizenship status of the native born children of these families. What's to discuss?
|
|
| 1209 | Khahan
ID: 13126822 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 00:24
|
1208 - PD, I'm not looking for discussion of the citizenship of children born here. We both agree it is clear cut. They are citizens. However, does the 14th amendment need amended? I think its enough of an issue that our leadership should open discussions about how the 14th amendment is worded.
And no, I'm not talking about retroactively revoking citizenship. Just from the point of an amendment forward, if our leadership decides further amendment is needed.
|
|
| 1210 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 12:52
|
What's the problem with the wording? It works exactly as intended. This has already been hashed out in this thread, following the discussion of an Ann Coulter column in which her creative revision of constitutional history and precedent was thoroughly fisked.
|
|
| 1211 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 13:33
|
PD and Mith, you guys either aren't understanding whats being said, aren't understanding why its being said or are just being argumentative. With both of you I doubt its the 3rd option.
Nobody is questioning the current wording. Nobody is questioning what the current wording means. What we're questioning is this: Does the 14th amendment need changed? Rather than doing a gut-check saying, "yes it does or no it doesn't" people are answering by saying, "lets not decide yet it if needs changed or left alone. Lets take a close look at, put it up for discussion and bring a concept developed in the 1800's to grant citizenship to former slaves into the 21st century to deal with anchor babies.
Maybe after discussion and review, we'll find its ok as is and no change is needed. Maybe we'll find that this is not what is wanted or intended.
But to make a blanket claim that everything is fine when so many are questioning that is a 'hide your head in the sand,' tactic. If everything is fine and working as intended, then it will stand up to scrutiny. Whats so wrong with opening honest discussion about this amendment in todays world when it was written and designed for yesterdays world?
|
|
| 1212 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 13:38
|
But to make a blanket claim that everything is fine when so many are questioning that is a 'hide your head in the sand,' tactic. If everything is fine and working as intended, then it will stand up to scrutiny. Whats so wrong with opening honest discussion about this amendment in todays world when it was written and designed for yesterdays world?
nothing, I am not sure what the big deal is about reexamining old laws.
|
|
| 1213 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 14:16
|
Khahan I believe I misunderstood the meaning of the last sentence of your first paragraph in your previous post. Of course there's nothing wrong with a discussion about whether the clause still works in our best interest. I do get hung up on people who claim "anchor babies" are an unforseen result of the Amendment (which we know is also something that people commonly say) since the very topic was explicitly discussed by congress at the time.
|
|
| 1214 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 14:18
|
I think we are the only country to have this anchor baby law. When are we going to join the rest of the global community and get rid of this law?
|
|
| 1215 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 15:13
|
I think we are the only country to have this anchor baby law. When are we going to join the rest of the global community and get rid of this law?
so, are you of the belief that just because other countries do something, we should too? because in your above post, that's the only reason your providing to deny US-Born children their citizenship.
|
|
| 1216 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 15:29
|
When are we going to join the rest of the global community and get rid of this law?
Well, when are we going to join the rest of the global community and get rid of the Second Amendment?
Hey, maybe we can work out a deal?
|
|
| 1217 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 20:48
|
or maybe right after we join the "rest of the global community" and have 100% socialized medicine.
|
|
| 1218 | Boldwin
ID: 429412519 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 20:50
|
B7
They will never deal with this issue from an honest footing. They are going to replace all those aborted democrats [and expensive workers] and they don't care what you say.
|
|
| 1219 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 21:05
|
Caring about what you say has nothing to do with it. Respectful acknowledgement of different opinions might lead to democratic compromise. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
|
|
| 1220 | Boldwin
ID: 429412519 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 22:07
|
You can't compromise with a ratchet. Every movement just makes things worse.
The only thing you are willing to offer is 'immigration reform' which is code for amnesty and another round of lawbreaking till the next amnesty.
This aint our first rodeo.
|
|
| 1221 | Boldwin
ID: 429412519 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 22:12
|
Which explains why you will never see Dems or RINO's offer airtight borders first, amnesty only afterwards.
|
|
| 1222 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 22:16
|
Probably because that won't solve the problem. There are a lot of things you won't see Dems or "RINOs" do that would make our problems worse.
|
|
| 1223 | Boldwin
ID: 429412519 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 22:22
|
Yeah, why would airtight borders solve an endless stream of illegal immigration? What was I thinking?
The only reason you think it wouldn't solve the problem is because you see illegal immigrants as the solution to your political problems.
Truth be told.
|
|
| 1224 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 22:30
|
If the length of the Mexican border were the same as the sum of the lengths of the Isreali borders with the Palestinian territories, something like airtight borders coul be possible. Of course you don't know what type of unintended consequences that might bring. Maybe worse than rabies and anchor babies and beheaded ranchers and bubonic plague.
|
|
| 1225 | Khahan
ID: 13126822 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 22:34
|
You can't compromise with a ratchet.
Hmm, MITH and I generally are on opposite sides of the discussion. Yet he and I are able to generally speak respectfully and reach an understanding. Even if its an end result to 'agree to disagree,' we can find somewhere to head with civility.
|
|
| 1226 | Boldwin
ID: 429412519 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 22:39
|
There is nothing uncivil about calling a ratchet a ratchet.
|
|
| 1227 | Boldwin
ID: 429412519 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 22:45
|
Humor me, MITH. Run with that idea of all the unintended consequences.
The last Mexican citizen turns out the lights, crosses the border and cures cancer...no wait, they finally put up a fence and sensors, kept the last man in Mexico, and he couldn't figure out how to cure cancer in Mexico because there were no cancer patients.
|
|
| 1228 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 22:54
|
A) There are no "airtight" borders. The old Warsaw Pact country of East Germany tried that with land mines and machine guns mounted on the walls and STILL, people managed to cross.
B) Illegal immigration, is nothing remotely CLOSE, to the cause of problems that some of the extremists on the far right would like to have us believe it to be. Our nation, faces far more dire threats, than a few thousand Mexicans annually, who want a better life for their families.
C) I can only attest to maybe 2 or 3 people here abouts, who would fit your use of the term "ratchet", in terms of not being able to discuss things with them. (And yes, sometimes I'm one of them)
|
|
| 1229 | Boldwin
ID: 429412519 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 23:12
|
Getting someone to discuss it is easy. Finding a liberal who will offer anything that would stop the flood is what is impossible.
|
|
| 1230 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 23:52
|
Perhaps it is the use of the term 'flood' which is part of the dilemma. Or your accusatory use of the term 'liberal'. I might say, it's nearly impossible to find a rational rightwinger to discuss this topic. Problem you're having B, is your premise is set in stone, and you accuse all who disagree with you of a myriad of faults. Try listening more, and shouting less.
|
|
| 1231 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 23:52
|
Run with that idea of all the unintended consequences.
More open borders means that seasonal workers go back at the end of the harvest. Now, they stay here, without work.
Oh, wait, you intended groups of unemployed migrant workers to stay in the US through the winters, right?
|
|
| 1232 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 00:20
|
Humor me, MITH. Run with that idea of all the unintended consequences.
Humor me, Baldwin. Run with that idea of airtight borders.
tell us how you do that. do you set up land mines and barbed wire? do you put an armed guard every 12 inches?
how do pay for everything?
so, humor us.
tell us how you do this?
|
|
| 1233 | Boldwin
ID: 38943264 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 10:11
|
Minutemen will do it for free in case you hadn't noticed.
|
|
| 1234 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 10:32
|
Yes, the Minutemen can be trusted to apply justice as they see fit.
Three people have been arrested in connection with a double homicide in Arivaca, Ariz., that left a nine-year-old and her father dead, including Shawna Forde, the National Executive Director of Minuteman American Defense, a group known for patrolling the border.
Way to pick your heroes.
|
|
| 1235 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 10:44
|
The shooter in the gang, Jason Eugene Bush, is scheduled to appear in Pima County Superior Court this afternoon for an extradition hearing.
Bush, another member of the Minutemen American Defense, was charged June 12 in the 1997 stabbing death of a sleeping, homeless Hispanic man in Wenatchee, Wash.
link
|
|
| 1236 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 11:27
|
Serves that illegal right for being in our country, amirite? This is just further proof that Boldwin is right, PV.
(I mean, I'm sure the militia guy rummaged through the pockets of said sleeping homeless person for his green card to find out if he was here legally before dispensing some Holy Justice.)
|
|
| 1237 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 11:36
|
Run with that idea of all the unintended consequences.
You mean in the hypothetical that the border is only as long as Israel's with Palestinian territories or in the hypothetical that we attempt to seal the actual border?
Off the cuff, denial of rights on both sides. Violent attacks from cartels or other groups resulting in escalating loss of life on both sides. Deteiorating relationship and possibily hostility with the Mexican government. Escalating internal unrest, especially in Hispanic communities.
If the latter hypothetical, add unsustainably massive border protection expenditures.
|
|
| 1238 | Boldwin
ID: 39442610 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 11:44
|
Any government that wanted to could put a serious dent in this invasion.
|
|
| 1239 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 11:49
|
Gawrsh, that clearly means that no government in the last 30+ years has wanted to make such a dent.
Either that's because they're all stupid anti-white-male racists, or because maybe they realize that putting a dent in it isn't in the country's best interest, right-wing-lunatic ramblings aside.
|
|
| 1240 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 11:54
|
That's a pretty heavily forested area. Nothing at all like the border along California, Arizona or even New Mexico or West Texas.
So, where exactly is this green, forested open crossing - Minnesota?
|
|
| 1241 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 12:02
|
Damn Canadians. Sneaking across for our Marxist healthcare.
|
|
| 1242 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 12:05
|
keep trying. i'm sure one of those strands of spaghetti will stick.
your idea of a "airtight borders" simply isn't feasible.
|
|
| 1243 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 12:09
|
Or desirable.
|
|
| 1244 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 13:37
|
Re: 1216: I think there are a lot of countries that allow guns. Why do you think we are the only country with this anchor baby law?
|
|
| 1245 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 13:41
|
Are we? I'll have to check on that. You say there are no other countries which confer citizenship onto native born people automatically?
I don't know the answer--perhaps you do?
|
|
| 1246 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 16:16
|
Canada is the only other country I could find.
|
|
| 1247 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 16:24
|
Just because everybody else is doing it is NOT a reason to do it. But because everybody else is doing it is a reason to look and say, "maybe we're missing something. we should re-examine this."
|
|
| |
| 1249 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 10:29
|
How many of the the "fiscal conservatives" would spend our money:
|
|
| |
| 1251 | Boldwin
ID: 58119236 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 07:22
|
You are shameless.
|
|
| 1252 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 10:07
|
Only proper response:
no u
|
|
| 1253 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 12:32
|
You are shameless.
YOU are the one who praised the minutemen in post 1233.
YOU are the one who supports someone for president WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHERE HE STANDS ON ONE SINGLE ISSUE, with the exception of the fact he appears to support torture, murder, and corpse desecration, things that you have condoned, not condemned.
YOU are the one who supports James O'Keefe's tactics, even if they are crimes of which he has been convicted.
there is not one single thing that i just posted that you didn't do or say. your posts here support what i typed.
this is YOUR cross to bear, not mine. don't you DARE call me shameless.
|
|
| 1254 | Boldwin
ID: 58119236 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 13:06
|
The minutemen can't be indicted over the actions of one individual.
Every Allen West speech carries an abundance of positions to judge him by.
The systemic felonious behavior O'Keefe exposed makes him a hero for revealing it. I love whistle-blowing and reject your shots at the messenger.
You are indeed shameless. Even you aren't such a creten as to believe minutemen stand for murder, that I don't know West, or that Acorn can erase their words with slander.
|
|
| 1255 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 13:10
|
Every Allen West speech carries an abundance of positions to judge him
This is very true, but we're only interested in the one position for which you seem unwilling to think through.
|
|
| 1256 | Boldwin
ID: 58119236 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 13:25
|
Well we both agree then that your only interest is in portraying American soldiers as the bad guys.
|
|
| 1257 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 13:27
|
Just the scumbag murdering ones. Of course, the victim was Muslim, so that explains why you're supporting him.
|
|
| 1258 | Tree
ID: 320371412 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 13:48
|
The minutemen can't be indicted over the actions of one individual.
the fact that you can say this statement seriously, and then in your very next post say your only interest is in portraying American soldiers as the bad guys show little of you can be taken seriously.
nobody on this board - and nobody in my history on this board - paints with a broader brush stroke than you. you are the king of taking the actions of one, and judging many by those actions.
Every Allen West speech carries an abundance of positions to judge him by.
and you've had ample opportunity to state those positions. yet you can't, or won't. and both have the same result. i know that i would be spreading the gospel of my candidate to the hills, not keeping his positions close to the vest.
The systemic felonious behavior O'Keefe exposed makes him a hero for revealing it. I love whistle-blowing and reject your shots at the messenger.
they're not my shots. HE BROKE THE LAW. period. no ifs and or buts, and you excuse that law-breaking
You are indeed shameless. Even you aren't such a creten as to believe minutemen stand for murder, that I don't know West, or that Acorn can erase their words with slander.
i am just taking what you said, and repeating it. i am taking the methods you use, and re-using them. you have unquestionably stood up for murderers, torturers, and other criminals.
there is nothing fictional in my accounts - you posted them, and if you're choosing to no longer stand by them, i applaud you for showing some sense of morality.
|
|
| 1259 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 13:59
|
#1256: Well, I believe in portraying bad guys as bad guys despite their nationality.
God isn't going to ask whether someone was American in order to determine if they did right or wrong. Neither should you.
|
|
| 1260 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 14:15
|
How many years are you guys going to spend posting 3, 4 or 5 replies for everyone 1 nonsensical post? It's a waste of everyone's time and ends up going nowhere. There are debates worth having in every thread, yet all of the current threads have disintegrated into arguing about nonsense.
|
|
| 1264 | Frick
ID: 5310541617 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 15:12
|
Re: 1262
The problem with that is it often leads to people skipping over or missing actual comment or potential debate. I typically just skip certain posters comments because I've learned that they aren't worth reading.
I can't help but think that there are any number of lurkers that might start posting or rereading if all of the threads weren't spammed with crap.
|
|
| 1265 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 15:26
|
If I had an ignore feature, I'd gladly use it. And if I had a nickel for every time I'd been insulted and called a troll out of the blue, I'd have the money to pay for it. If I'm slightly off in my website development costs, I'm pretty sure Tree would have the money to front the difference and buy a governor or two off with the spare change.
If there are lurkers reading this who are afraid: if you're interested in debating things in a calm, rational manner, there are plenty of us here who would love to do that. Speak your mind. Even if you disagree with the more liberal than not makeup of the posters. Hell, ESPECIALLY then.
On the other hand, if you're one of those people who is angry because you'll be called out on your lack of facts when you just want to bash them dumb liburulz and defend America against the Muslim-Soros grand conspiracy and call everyone who disagrees with you and points out the gaping holes in your logic and remarkable lack of intellectual consistency "trolls" (and worse) and don't understand why that's wrong... I'm glad you're being deterred.
I think that in general, I've done quite a good job over the last few months of ignoring the cheap shots. However, that doesn't seem to have reduced the quantity of the unprovoked cheap shots much at all. So, I guess if you want a forum where the guy continually taking the unprovoked cheap shots gets to keep doing that, then this is what you're going to get.
|
|
| 1266 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 16:20
|
I suggest you just learn to let arguments that are not conducive to a legitimate, on-topic debate go and continue posting as though it never happened. You, Tree, PD and increasingly PV seem to be interested in going into long debates about nonsense and minutiae than in carrying on and enhancing the debate at hand in a given thread.
|
|
| 1267 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 16:58
|
When there are a growing number of people who are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with a particular person, perhaps you might also direct some of your attention to figure out why.
If you're unhappy that we would bother to debate (wrong word -- it's more like hitting the pinata of stupidity), then perhaps you might equally well take your own advice and just ignore it all. If you feel like you can't, and feel like it needs to stop in order to have the rational debate that you crave -- well, then you feel exactly like I do when Boldwin comes on here and out of the blue decides to call Tree or me a troll.
So, if the advice is to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist -- you go ahead and do that too. If you feel like it's such a big problem that it can't be ignored, then join the rest of us in asking for it to be stamped out.
I'd rather not have this fight, especially because I'm utterly certain that nothing will come of it. I guess the alternative is that everyone else just decides that getting insulted over and over is not worth it, and stops using the site -- but, well, then the terrorists will have won.
|
|
| 1268 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 17:11
|
I think 1266 is the best way to go about it. As much as boldwin calls names and goes off on irrelevant tangents, he has generated a lot of good debate and conversations on these boards.
There are many times I'll find myself agreeing with him and supporting his initial point. Of course he usually takes that point down a path I can't follow.
Just have to learn to ignore the completely out of this world comments and move on.
|
|
| 1269 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 17:23
|
"Just have to learn to ignore the completely out of this world comments and move on."
Again... as a general rule, I have ignored the really out of the world ones (which are most of them, IMO). Hasn't stopped the insults one bit.
This is the magical point I can't quite understand: if you think the best solution is to simply ignore people whose posting you disagree with, why can't you simply ignore the posting that's being directed at Boldwin instead of posting about how people should just ignore it?
If you think it's because "there's too much of it", what if I say that IMO there's too much of his insults now?
|
|
| 1270 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 17:27
|
The insults - sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
I don't say ignore it because there's so much of it. I say ignore it because its irrelevant. Who cares if some guy in with extreme views of the world on the west coast calls you names over the internet? I'm not forming any impression of you based on what other people say. Its being formed based on what you say.
As for ignoring the posts at boldwin, at this point I see boldwin as a lost cause. Nothing is going to bring him around to reality. Nothing is going to change him. But people who constantly fall into his verbal traps and take his bait every single day - a lot of you guys are really smart people with diversified opinions who can challenge me to think. Why would I ignore that?
|
|
| 1271 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 17:32
|
good post.
|
|
| 1272 | Frick
ID: 52182321 Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 23:02
|
I agree with Khahan and thank him for expressing my views much more elegently.
|
|
| 1273 | Boldwin
ID: 55249323 Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 00:52
|
We learned that when 'they bring a knife we bring a gun' - Obama.
But that's only against republicans.
When up against drug smuggling illegal aliens wielding AK47's on the other hand we bring beanbags.
Because when it comes to border security it has to work.
The trafficking that is.
|
|
| 1274 | Boldwin
ID: 55249323 Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 01:33
|
While the ATF was demonizing American gun dealers:Agent Dodson and other sources say the gun walking strategy was approved all the way up to the Justice Department. The idea was to see where the guns ended up, build a big case and take down a cartel. And it was all kept secret from Mexico.
ATF not only allowed it - they videotaped it.
Documents show the inevitable result: The guns that ATF let go began showing up at crime scenes in Mexico. And as ATF stood by watching thousands of weapons hit the streets... the Fast and Furious group supervisor noted the escalating Mexican violence.
One e-mail noted, "958 killed in March 2010 ... most violent month since 2005." The same e-mail notes: "Our subjects purchased 359 firearms during March alone," including "numerous Barrett .50 caliber rifles."
Dodson feels that ATF was partly to blame for the escalating violence in Mexico and on the border. "I even asked them if they could see the correlation between the two," he said. "The more our guys buy, the more violence we're having down there."
Senior agents including Dodson told CBS News they confronted their supervisors over and over.
There was so much opposition to the gun walking, that an ATF supervisor issued an e-mail noting a "schism" among the agents. "Whether you care or not people of rank and authority at HQ are paying close attention to this case...we are doing what they envisioned.... If you don't think this is fun you're in the wrong line of work... Maybe the Maricopa County jail is hiring detention officers and you can get $30,000 ... to serve lunch to inmates..."
"We just knew it wasn't going to end well. There's just no way it could," Dodson said.
On Dec. 14, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was gunned down. Dodson got the bad news from a colleague.
According to Dodson, "They said, 'Did you hear about the border patrol agent?' And I said, 'Yeah.' And they said 'Well it was one of the Fast and Furious [ATF provided - B] guns.'
|
|
| 1275 | Mith
ID: 1325133 Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 02:02
|
This is inexcusable, however high up the food chain it goes.
|
|
| 1276 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 19:51
|
Sheriff Arpaio in the news again. Who brings a tank to a cockfight? Sheriff Joe, that's who.
This isn't an immigration problem of his--more of a "might is right" problem. Also, a demonstration that conservatives, at one time, had it right to be skeptical of giving too much unchecked power into law enforcement. By pouring (literally) billions of borrowed tax dollars into tanks and other military grade weapons for local and county police departments, we set up a system where the way they fight crime becomes self-fulfilling.
And it is a habit that is hard to break.
|
|
| 1277 | Boldwin
ID: 16253251 Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 13:11
|
No Americano
|
|
| 1278 | Mith
ID: 51253421 Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 00:22
|
Was 1277 intended for the 'Not Flat' thread?
If not, it should be noted that the foreign language sample is from a 1950s Italian song. There's nothing Hispanic about it except for the Latin-inspired sound, incorporated by the Australian artist.
|
|
| |
| 1280 | Boldwin
ID: 16253251 Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 00:36
|
Just enjoy the song, MITH.
|
|
| 1281 | Mith
ID: 51253421 Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 00:45
|
It is a good track. Side story - a dance music DJ I work with claims to be the first American DJ to play that in the US.
Here's one for you:
|
|
| |
| 1283 | Boldwin
ID: 253231814 Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 15:23
|
So was that a yes?
|
|
| 1284 | Tree
ID: 16329157 Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 15:35
|
rambling again?
|
|
| 1285 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 15:48
|
Shush! Clearly he's talking to Sarah Palin. I wanna hear what she says...
|
|
| 1286 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710 Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 15:49
|
All you have to do is pick her up and put her to your ear...
|
|
| 1287 | Boldwin
ID: 253231814 Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 16:35
|
Yes? Meir Kahane?
|
|
| 1288 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 16:42
|
Are you intentionally ratcheting up your dialogue to the level of harassment or can you simply no help yourself?
People can be of a certain religion without agreeing with there most extreme members.
I repeat for the upteenth time, you and tree should not interact. Ever. You poison the boards and add no value when you do.
|
|
| 1289 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 17:07
|
Does it matter?
The funny (not funny like a clown, not funny like it amuses you, funny like that smell the milk has when you think it probably ought to be thrown out but you think maybe just this one more glass won't be so bad) thing is, when people take the exact same tactic with Boldwin, pointing out what the extreme (?) members of his religion have done, suddenly it's a vile personal attack worthy of his oft-deleted vitriol and how dare anyone say that stuff.
Yet he thinks it's A-OK-skippy to do it to others, even people whose religion he doesn't know about because they don't feel it important to bring it into every single political conversation ever as a personal smear (first hint to B: you missed; second hint: I'm not giving any more hints, because it's none of your damn business and I intend to keep it that way).
|
|
| 1290 | Boldwin
ID: 253231814 Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 17:34
|
bili
Where do you see harrassment?
|
|
| 1291 | Tree
ID: 320371412 Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 17:41
|
the part i found most interesting about the Muslim-themed video was the passion of those defending the woman.
it is easy to be angry. it's a lot harder to make a stand, and it's very clear that in the case of some of those who were defending her, the feelings were deep, and emotion raw, as if they were being attacked as well.
|
|
| |
| 1293 | Boldwin
ID: 8562116 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 03:59
|
Because that's just exactly what the Forest Service had told him a week ago.
|
|
| 1294 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 09:08
|
Not according to the Forrest Service. And now, not according to McCain, either, as his latest walkback is that he wasn't talking about these wildfires.
|
|
| 1295 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 14:59
|
Nope, it was about "A" wildfire, from 2010 if I recall correctly from my reading.
|
|
| 1296 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 20:34
|
Following GA Gov. Nathan Deal's signing of an anti-immigration law similar to the controversial AZ statute, migrant farm workers have fled the state en masse, leaving some 11,000 unfilled jobs in, as Deal describes the agiculture industry there, "the number one economic engine in Georgia."
And since the political right is so sure that the contention that undocumented workers fill jobs that most Americans won't do is just a heap liberal of poppycock, this should be a nice leg up for a state that ranks 7th in unemployment, right?
Apparently not, given Gov. Deal's statement on the status of agriculture workforce in Georgia.it is my sincere hope to find viable and law abiding solutions to the current problem our farmers face. Specifically, I asked Department of Corrections Commissioner Brian Owens and Commissioner Black to review the current situation and offer possible options. Commissioner Owens has indicated that there are 100,000 probationers statewide, 8,000 of which are in the Southwest region of the state and 25 percent of which are unemployed. Commissioner Owens is working with Commissioner Black and other state agencies to connect unemployed probationers--especially those in the Southwest part of the state--and others who are preparing to reenter the workforce to employers who are seeking labor. Now, on the one hand he gets high marks from me for creativity and for a program which could potentially provide assistance to people who could use it.
Alas, the early results are not promising.On the first two days, all the probationers quit by mid-afternoon, said Mendez, one of two crew leaders at Minor's farm.
"Those guys out here weren't out there 30 minutes and they got the bucket and just threw them in the air and say, `Bonk this, I ain't with this, I can't do this,'" said Jermond Powell, a 33-year-old probationer. "They just left, took off across the field walking."
Mendez put the probationers to the test last Wednesday, assigning them to fill one truck and a Latino crew to a second truck. The Latinos picked six truckloads of cucumbers compared to one truckload and four bins for the probationers.
"It's not going to work," Mendez said. "No way. If I'm going to depend on the probation people, I'm never going to get the crops up." Politico Jerry Gonzalez, the executive director of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, said the move won’t help save farmers he said could lose $300 million because of the loss of migrant workers.
“This points to complete out-of-touch perspective that some of our legislators and our leadership in this state have with regard to the current immigration crisis we are facing,” Gonzalez said. “The governor is really shortchanging on solutions for our number one industry.”
Funny, the political right lambasts undocumented workers as criminals who take jobs away from law-abiding citizens. But when none of the latter group shows up to fill the jobs left vacant by all the undocumented workers they chased away, they turn to actual criminals in desperation. Go figure.
|
|
| 1297 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 20:35
|
Maybe I should have put that in the "Unexpected" thread.
|
|
| |
| 1299 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Jun 23, 2011, 09:45
|
re:1296 how does reading this make you feel about people saying they can not find work? It sounds to me that there are jobs out there. How much of unemployment is selective unemployment? Does this also give evidence to theory that some people would rather be on welfare than work?
|
|
| 1300 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Jun 23, 2011, 09:46
|
I think this might also give evidence to why a national job program like WPA would not work now.
|
|
| 1301 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Jun 23, 2011, 10:39
|
It sounds to me that there are jobs out there.
there absolutely are jobs out there. but be it a farm worker or a brain surgeon, there are still specific skill sets needed.
i'm in fairly good shape. i am not sure i could last more than a few days in blistering heat, picking fruits and veggies. nor could i last more than a few seconds performing brain surgery.
|
|
| 1302 | Frick
ID: 5310541617 Thu, Jun 23, 2011, 10:55
|
I'm sure you would last more than a few seconds as a brain surgeon, your patient might not however.
I live in an area that had close to 20% unemployment in the last two years. In the last week I've talked to two business owners who were complaining that they couldn't find and retain employees. The jobs were blue-collar, but with decent wages and benefits. One of the owners had said he had implemented a bonus simply for showing up each day on time. There was another bonus if they met their production schedule for which could (according to the owner) be met easily enough if each employee was present for the entire week. Most of the employees felt the extra $100-150 for showing up on time wasn't worth it.
|
|
| 1303 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Jun 23, 2011, 11:10
|
Does this also give evidence to theory that some people would rather be on welfare than work
I don't think I know anyone who denys that. People who are opposed to welfare services for the jobless often make that point to argue against such provisions. I think the most typical response is that citing that small minority shouldn't be an effective case that we shouldn't have such safety nets.
But in this case we're talking about a job where you have to be willing and physically conditioned to endure what most of us would call terrible or hazardous working conditions for less than $8/hr and little or no benefits.
|
|
| 1304 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 15:19
|
Not sure it this fits here or not or if I just missed someone mentioning it before Obama tries to stop execution of Mexican in mexico. I do find it kind of interesting that guy had been living in US since he was 2.
|
|
| |
| 1306 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 20:21
|
Followup on HB-87 in GA (post 1296):ATLANTA—Georgia farmers are suffering from the state’s new immigration law. HB 87 was partially blocked by the courts, but other parts took effect July 1. Even without fully becoming law, the legislation had a chilling effect on migrant workers essential to agriculture, according to George Hall, executive director of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association.
Some small businesses must hire others to do the checking, at an average cost of $147 per worker, according to Javier Palomarez, president and CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. No one is allowed to check a person’s status before he or she is hired.
“For every farm field job there are about three jobs upstream and downstream of that,” said Palomarez. Every migrant worker who did not arrive to harvest crops, or every worker who is rejected by E-Verify and loses his job, costs about six other jobs, according to his estimate.
“E-Verify is a job killer. It’s not just taking one job. It’s taking jobs upstream and downstream,” he asserted.
“State efforts to pass mandatory E-Verify legislation only add to the labyrinth of absurd and outdated state laws and regulations that impact America’s immigration system, which is federal law and a responsibility of the federal government”, said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, in a press release after the meeting. “States would be better served by pressuring their Congressional delegations to address this problem with a national solution and passing federal immigration reform.” There's also the question of what it's going to do to produce prices for the rest of the country.
|
|
| 1307 | Boldwin
ID: 54651104 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 21:02
|
This is complete BS.
Just head into the nearest town and offer those jobs to the parade of people buying groceries on state aid cards. Each of those jobs have a hundred locals who need jobs just waiting to fill them. Those upstream and downstream jobs will do just fine.
|
|
| 1308 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 21:15
|
You clearly haven't been following the discussion. GA farmers are short 11,000 workers. They were so desperate when no one came to fill them that they began recruiting parolees. Most lasted less than 1 day in the dreadful working conditions. The few who toughed it out are inexperienced at selecting ripe fruits and vegetables and work at a fraction of the pace. Most of the jobs are still unfilled even as millions in Georgia-grown produce has surely already died on the vine.
BS, says the side which makes an enemy of facts.
|
|
| 1309 | Boldwin
ID: 54651104 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 21:21
|
Yeah, Americans are too stupid to pick fruit and I should pay them to sit on their butts and watch tube in section 8 housing instead.
Is their a problem liberals can't make worse?
|
|
| 1310 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 21:28
|
Maybe in a free market the farmers who need this stuff picked should increase their offered wages to get people to do the job instead of depending on government to get them cheap labor, right?
|
|
| 1311 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 21:32
|
Too stupid, no. But from my own gardening experience I know you get better at it over the years. Do you really not understand how thin profit margins are for farmers?
But moreover, average Americans outside of the agriculture industry are not anything close to conditioned for it.
But even if you reject both of those reasons for why Americans won't take those jobs, you remain defiantly ignorant that a state with the 7th highest unemployment rate cannot get Americans to fill the 11,000 job vacancies created by your side's anti-immigration agenda put into practice. That is real, despite you assurance that the parade of people buying groceries on state aid cards are lined up to take them.
I linked and pasted Governor Deal's statement from almost a month ago about a problem that was caused by the harsh anti-immigration law. A problem which still hasn't been and apparently just won't be fixed. And you think you have found some reason to blame liberals? Are you on pain medication?
|
|
| 1312 | Boldwin
ID: 54651104 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 21:38
|
Do you know how much money they are offering? Last I heard it was over $14 dollars an hour.
And you are telling me we should pay Americans to do nothing instead of accept $14/hr jobs? So that we can also pay the social services for 1/4 of Mexico?
|
|
| 1313 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 21:49
|
And you are telling me we should pay Americans to do nothing instead of accept $14/hr jobs?
?
Mith: The anti-immigration law scared off all the undocumented workers and now there's not enough workers to harvest the crops. The farm industry there is going to take a bath because of this law and food prices will increase in many places as a result.
B: Hire some of the multitudes of unemployed in that state.
Mith: I'm sure that's how they thought it wouls work out but the unemployed just aren't taking those jobs.
B: How stupid you are. Of course they want them.
Mith, Well they didn't come and fill them. The industry was so desperate that the Governor ushered a program to pair convicted parolees with the job openings. But most of them couldn't hack the work and left in the first couple of days.
B: Liberals have no faith in American labor.
Mith: Dude it's been a month and the fruit is dying in the fields.
B: Add this situation to the list of problems caused by liberals.
|
|
| 1314 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 21:54
|
1313, in reality....says it all.
|
|
| 1315 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 22:18
|
Clearly, in a supply and demand free market, the labor pool isn't responding to $14/hour. Maybe they should try offering $25/hour and see if that helps. I bet for $50/hour they'll get some people out there willing to do it. And if you say "that's too much", I'll simply observe that the market disagrees, and therefore you're wrong.
This is the free market you wanted doing its magic, Boldwin. Why should the business owners not have to suffer the consequences of basing their business model on illegal labor, as they have done for many years? If they can't afford it, then let them go bankrupt on the basis of their own personal failings. Or does personal responsibility not apply to business owners?
The good news is that after they go bankrupt, they can go into the field and pick fruit for $14/hour for somebody else, since there are plenty of those jobs available.
|
|
| 1316 | Boldwin
ID: 54651104 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 22:28
|
Actually you shouldn't get assistance if you turn down $14/hr jobs. It's real simple. They are supposed to be proving they've looked for work before they get it. How does the ready existance of all those jobs square with welfare requirements since the wave of welfare reform?
|
|
| 1317 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 22:30
|
As usual, the point whooshes right over your head.
|
|
| 1318 | Boldwin
ID: 54651104 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 22:33
|
As usual government isn't doing it's job. Does it ever?
Welfare is screwing up. Immigration is screwing up.
|
|
| 1319 | Boldwin
ID: 54651104 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 22:34
|
Send the Welfare and Immigration workers out to pick fruit. At least we can get some return for our money.
|
|
| 1320 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 22:40
|
And business, which hired people illegally for decades and now refuses to pay adequate wages to supply the labor it supposedly demands, is completely blameless as part of this?
Why do you always give business a free pass? Is it just because you're a corporate shill, or is there some underlying hatred of someone else that you just refuse to articulate?
|
|
| 1321 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 23:24
|
Boldwin
You can change the subject to how you think social safety nets should work if you insist but it doesn't change the fact that many undocumented workers do indeed fill jobs that Americans won't do, especially for the low pay that helps keep those businesses operating (most of the jobs are actually $12 or less and grueling, miserable labor performed in highly oppressive weather conditions. Even if you could fill most of these jobs with inexperienced labor (as opposed to the highly efficient undocumented worker who havebeen doing it their whole lives), the question of whether the loss in work quality and production levels would be too big a hit to their tiny profit margins.
Blaming liberals or the welfare state won't fix it.
|
|
| 1322 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 23:36
|
DWetzel in this particular industry I think your scorn for business is misplaced. I have no problem telling our restaurant and hotel chains to get with it. But the farming economy is a far more delicate thing, not to mention much more closely tied to the state of the greater economy, I believe.
|
|
| 1323 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 23:46
|
Of course it's tied closely to the state of the greater economy. Believe me, I do understand that actually paying farm workers $50/hour (or whatever arbitrarily large number you want to choose) would completely screw up the economy, forcing farmers to raise prices well out of control, etcetera, etcetera.
Of course, I wouldn't have made it a point to drive out those damn brown people to create this problem in the first place. "You reap what you sow" seems doubly amusing in this case.
|
|
| 1324 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 01:12
|
Despite the facts on the ground, Boldwin is sticking to his theories.
Now who is the ivory tower resident with no real world experience?
|
|
| 1325 | chode
ID: 16647119 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 10:47
|
Isn't the point that "many undocumented workers do indeed fill jobs that Americans won't do" *because* those Americans are getting a better deal from the government/welfare system, without putting in any of the backbreaking work? This seems to be the link B isn't making/explaining, and one you're purposefully ignoring. You can't simply argue that in a vacuum "Americans won't" do these jobs without acknowledging that, because of the social assistance they receive from the government (read: taxpayers), they're simply not incentivized to take those jobs. You don't think people would step up for $14/hour if the alternative was ... ??
Argue complicity of Big Business, whether the price of fruit should rise, make this a political party-driven issue, and debate whether this is an issue that's endemic of the 21st century "American work ethos", but the fact that the welfare state provides what it provides is a front-and-center part of this equation, not some tangential issue or post-facto byproduct.
And before anyone jumps to conclusions I am not in favor of abolishing the welfare system altogether. But the concept of "need" among the masses, who qualifies for it, and who ought to foot that bill has taken on entirely too large a scope IMO.
|
|
| 1326 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 10:52
|
re 1308: If this had been the 1930's people would have been lining up to work those fields, Just more evidence that things are not nearly as bad as people would like to have you believe.
|
|
| 1327 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 11:29
|
Chode, you have some valid points, and in principle I don't have a huge problem with some sort of work requirement. I'd be happy to have this discussion with you. I think that from a practical perspective, there's obviously some minimum standard which a civilization owes its people, and at the same time those with the real ability to contribute to it obviously ought to take a more active part.
Unfortunately, it's a lot more fun to mock Boldwin, who blames the illegal workers for taking American jobs, the blames liberals when the "illegals are taking jobs Americans can't/won't do" thing turns out to be true, all while bitching that he's unemployed/underemployed and yet is posting repeatedly on a message board rather than hopping in the car and going to get that juicy $14/hour job.
|
|
| 1328 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 11:39
|
I am also in agreement with the thinking that there is legitimacy in asking able-bodied Americans who get food stamps, housing vouchers, free medical and other forms of government support to provide labor in obvious cases like Georgia where it is desperately needed.
Unfortunately, the law of unintended consequences should have been addressed at the time e-verify was implemented, rather than when the fields are being plowed under.
|
|
| 1329 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 11:39
|
I am also in agreement with the thinking that there is legitimacy in asking able-bodied Americans who get food stamps, housing vouchers, free medical and other forms of government support to provide labor in obvious cases like Georgia where it is desperately needed.
Unfortunately, the law of unintended consequences should have been addressed at the time e-verify was implemented, rather than when the fields are being plowed under.
|
|
| 1330 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 11:53
|
I'm not sure they count as unintended when everyone points out what's going to happen and you go ahead with it anyway.
I mean, I guess maybe it does, in the same sense that a drunk guy crashing his car into a crowd after everyone tried unsuccessfully to wrestle the keys away from him is "unintended", but then we need a new word for "unintended but incredibly easily foreseeable".
|
|
| 1331 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 11:56
|
obviously some minimum standard which a civilization owes its people
I agree, but I also believe this is a 2 way street. There is a minimum standard which a citizen owes it civilization.
Here's some of the roadblocks I see to people taking these jobs:
1. Not my line of work 2. Working will cut into time to look for a job 'in my line of work.' 3. As Chode pointed out - don't really get much more than I would from social programs.
Here's some answers - 1. Tough. If you are that desparate (and I have been), you'll take a job where ever you can get it. I've been in insurance for 13 years now. Between my last job and this one I applied at Lonestar, various outlets in the mall, landscapers, WaWa. My college ed. didn't mean crap. My prior work experience didn't mean crap (except landscaping as I was hoping that would help). All that mattered was keeping some cash flowing into my family.
2. Be honest with prospective employers. "I'm looking for something part-time, 2 or 3 days a week." Yes, this means you won't be having access to certain jobs. But you are looking at a stop-gap while you search in your field of work. Take what you can get.
3. This goes back to #1. Why should I bust my back in a field or take a job that says, 'would you like fries with that?' which will only serve to pay the basics, when the government will pay the basics for me?
I'm not saying in #3 we should eliminate social services like welfare. But it needs to be viewed as a balanced math problem. Contribution from society to an individual should be relatively equal to that individual contributing to society.
Right now it seems there is so much abuse of the sytem that it is very unbalanced and the equation looks like I N D I V I D U A L = society.
I'd love to be able to say, "just don't abuse the system and it'll work itself out," but I dont have that faith in humanity.
|
|
| 1332 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 11:59
|
I think the level is skill needed is also being overlooked. Picking food is a skill, and illegals have (like it or not) gotten very efficient at it.
|
|
| 1333 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 12:54
|
for my part, I couldnt do such work for more than an hour or two. My back, my knees...simply wouldnt take it. I doubt, more than 2 hours could be had from me in such a position and the last 25% of that time would see FAR lower productivity than the first 25% of that time, as pain set in and worsened steadily.
I also doubt, I am alone in that. So you have a combination of skill sets and ability (physically) to perform the work.
I will however, grant that there ARE those for whom the trade off is in fact, "do I work for $14/hr and LOSE my assistance?". The REAL "welfare" reform we need, is to STOP taking benefits down $$ for $$ earned, and instead take benefits down by 50 cents for each dollar NET from work. Then, you see an incentive to generate income, even if a lesser than ideal amount.
|
|
| 1334 | Boldwin
ID: 426151116 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 17:41
|
More ideas like that on how to prevent a welfare trap, please.
|
|
| 1335 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 18:25
|
I have long B, advocated welfare reform as I described above. Loss of 50 cents in aid, for every dollar net earned from work. As it stands now, the first thing lost by many, is medical, and the work earnings generated wont replace it. So there is a net loss to the household, in going to work. This is not IMHO a propblem with providing assistance, it is a problem in how we treat those trying to get OFF assistance.
|
|
| 1336 | Boldwin
ID: 426151116 Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 19:03
|
It is unsettling to hear you agreeing with me. Where did I go wrong? 8]
|
|
| 1337 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 11:37
|
You are learning grasshopper. Welcome, to the enlightened world of the Left. ;)
|
|
| 1338 | Tree
ID: 41512710 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 19:30
|
i read the below linked article today, and it really hit home. It sums up, to me, a lot of what being unemployed or underemployed is like.
i've been unemployed or underemployed for much of the last three years. it's been probably the most challenging 3 years of my life, and so far, i really don't see a way out. my hole is getting deeper, my shovel is long gone, and the ground around me continues to sink.
post 1331 really misses the mark in a lot of ways.
1. If you are that desparate (and I have been), you'll take a job where ever you can get it. - and the fact of the matter is, if the job isn't offered, you can't take it. my work experience over qualifies me for most jobs you've mentioned, and hate to break it to you, employers aren't likely to hire someone they know will bust out of there as soon as something better/in that employees true field, comes along.
2. Be honest with prospective employers. "I'm looking for something part-time, 2 or 3 days a week." Yes, this means you won't be having access to certain jobs. But you are looking at a stop-gap while you search in your field of work. Take what you can get. - again, great in theory, terrible in practice. it's a buyer's market. employers want someone flexible, who they think might stick around. they don't wanna go through the time and expense of training you, only to have you leave.
3. 3. This goes back to #1. Why should I bust my back in a field or take a job that says, 'would you like fries with that?' which will only serve to pay the basics, when the government will pay the basics for me?
see 1 and 2.
i currently work in a dog hotel. i'm making less than half of what i made 3 years ago, but i was able to get this job because i have dog walking experience, a business i started myself in NYC when i was first laid off. but if i didn't have that, they'd have taken one look at my resume, and told me i was over qualified.
getting a job you're over qualified for is not easy. fast food joints don't want to hire a guy in his 40s that has 20 years of professional writing, sales, and marketing experience.
|
|
| 1339 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 19:58
|
I know that pain. 13 yrs in the car biz, 12 in management, published in industry rags, speaker at 2 national conventions. Dealers KNOW, I should command 150k+/yr. They KNOW, if they hire me and pay me 100k, once the economy recovers, I'm gone. Hence, they dont hire me. Fast Food doesnt want me, knowing they can pay me 35k, and once the economy recovers, I'm gone.
Trust me Tree, I know full well, the precise pain you are feeling.
|
|
| 1340 | Khahan
ID: 54138190 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 20:05
|
Tree, I think you are taking my post out of context. For one, I was not addressing job hunting for your career. For two, I was responding to the discussion about farm work being available and Americans not taking it.
I was more addressing what societies expectations should be of individuals who are struggling. Nobody should just sit back and take the handout. The handouts, welfare, unemployment - they should all be supplemental. None of them should be your main form of income.
As for #2, I believe I specifically said, "yes, this means you won't have access to certain jobs." Those jobs are going to cut you out, whether its a fast food joint, a waiter/waitress, receptionist, whatever. But not all jobs will. But you choose to cut out the jobs that would still take you because its 'too tough,' or 'not what I want to do,' then don't come asking for my tax money to support yourself. (generic you, not you specifically tree).
Find a landscaper, or contractor, or be a dishwasher. Pick a farmers crops. Jobs are out there. Work is out there. People need to change their mindset and take away the artificial barriers they put up when they are in survival mode.
I was responding to the comment "obviously some minimum standard which a civilization owes its people" which I agree with 100% but stating that individual owe it to the society that is supporting them to do anything and everything within their means, no matter how unpalatable it may be, to ease the burden they are placing on the system.
|
|
| 1341 | weykool
ID: 343561414 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 21:11
|
Stop the world I want to get off. I find myself in agreement with much of what is being said.
MITH:I have no problem telling our restaurant and hotel chains to get with it. But the farming economy is a far more delicate thing, not to mention much more closely tied to the state of the greater economy, I believe. Agree 100%.
PV: #1328&1329 Excellent points. Sarge: #1335 Makes a lot of sense. How do we get a reform plan implemented?
I have always viewed the jobs being performed by illegals as falling into 3 categories: 1. Jobs that Americans would not do even if the pay was substantially increased (Agriculture) 2. Jobs that Americans would do but not at the current rate. (Restaurant/hotel) 3. Jobs that Americans would do at the current market rate. When the left says illegals dont take jobs from Americans there is some truth to the statement, but not entirely true. When the right says they take jobs from Americans there is some truth to that statement, but not entirely true.
Implementing the E-verify plan like Alabama did was pretty stupid. They should have had workers lined up or given agriculture a temp/phase in for compliance. As MITH pointed out agriculture jobs require a certain amount of a learned skill. In addition there is a big physical conditioning learning curve. I have to admire Sarge....Two hours? I doubt I could last even one hour. I also was under the impression that farm workers were not paid by the hour but by the amount of produce collected.
|
|
| 1342 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 22:19
|
Holy Crap!!! 1 thread, in one month...and WK, B AND myself....are in agreement? In which alternate universe did I just awaken and find myself an occupant? :)
|
|
| 1343 | Boldwin
ID: 396501420 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 22:28
|
I'm for ending ethanol subsidies.
|
|
| 1344 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 00:14
|
I'd go along with that B, provided we end the big oil subsidies too. Both provide gasoline for our cars. Govt should NOT subsidize one and not the other.
|
|
| 1345 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 01:17
|
#1343: The entire Farm Bill should be scrapped. That would save about $60 billion per year.
The good parts (like straightforward pest control studies, etc) can be folded into the Dept of Ag budget.
|
|
| 1346 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 01:21
|
At one time I'd have disagreed PD. But since the 80s, when Corporate Farming replaced family farming, and MANY recipients of ag subsidy money have never set foot IN the "country", let alone ON the farm...I now agree. End Farm Subsidies, End Oil/Ethanol Subsidies, End Tobacco Subsidies. There goes HUGE "entitlement" spending without harming the family, with VERY few exceptions.
|
|
| 1347 | weykool
ID: 19613142 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 01:43
|
Seriously how stupid is ethanol subsidies? It takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the gallon of ethanol provides. Add my vote to scrapping all farm subsidies.
Sarge: What oil subsidies are you speaking about?
|
|
| |
| 1349 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 01:58
|
link
Senate Vote in May, to repeal 21 BILLION in tax subsidies for "big oil". Dem proposal, defeated.
|
|
| 1350 | Boldwin
ID: 16637151 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 02:41
|
My understanding is that while the big oil companies don't need those subsidies, they are crucial to the small and independent operator. I don't see a legal, constitutional way you could target them to only benefit small guys. Usually having the government pick the winners is a bad idea.
|
|
| 1351 | Frick
ID: 5310541617 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 08:08
|
It wouldn't bet that hard to differentiate. There are plenty of examples in the tax code of exemptions that are phased out based on income.
I would support phasing out farm subsidies, they go to a select group of land owners. They don't go away due to the receivers use the income they provide to donate to their congressmen. It almost seems like a quasi legal kickback system.
|
|
| |
| 1353 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 14:47
|
Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant officials say that the illegal immigrant was never allowed into any secure areas or into the plant itself.
and
Palo Verde Plant Officials say "the safety of the plant and public were never jeopardized." They add that their security system worked exactly as it was supposed to.
But still, if only we could spend ten times as much to keep dem brownies out, flowers would bloom and rainbows would fill the sky!!!!
(Also, smaller government!!!!)
|
|
| |
| 1355 | Tree
ID: 16628411 Sun, Jul 17, 2011, 08:27
|
Pssst.... Post 1338
|
|
| 1356 | sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sun, Jul 17, 2011, 12:10
|
see...told you it was a great article. :)
|
|
| |
| 1358 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 16:15
|
The retards in Georgia found out quickly that the "they took our jobs" meme wasn't actually true. Fortunately (?), Alabama has found a solution to the problem:
1. Prevent migrant workers from working in fields, because it's obviously immoral for them to be doing that.
2. Lock up these horrible blights on our society.
3. Force them to... well, DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL BEFORE, only this time without actually letting their employers pay them and collecting the cash for the state instead (because you criminalized their behavior in the first place, now they're prisoners and you can make them do whatever you want).
Someone help me out here... what's it called when you imprison someone and force them to work without pay? It's right on the tip of my tongue... S_______... can't quite place it.
link
|
|
| 1359 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 19:59
|
Taxpayer
|
|
| 1360 | sarge33rd
ID: 17921415 Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 20:26
|
work without pay B...no pay, no taxes TO pay.
Try again
|
|
| 1361 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 22:33
|
No pay till about July.
|
|
| 1362 | sarge33rd
ID: 17921415 Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 22:52
|
<--anxiously awaiting the ACLUs arrival in AL
|
|
| 1363 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 2899151 Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 02:10
|
Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (wiki)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
|
|
| 1364 | sarge33rd
ID: 399261511 Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 12:26
|
Congress yes, State Legislature? No.
|
|
| 1365 | DWetzel
ID: 369311513 Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 14:33
|
So, wilmer, what court has convicted them? None. They"re being detained by local authorities for something they have no jurisdiction over in the first place.
Facts are hard, especially when pithily quoting irrelevant parts of the constitution.
Glad you are firmly on the pro-slavery side of things though!
|
|
| 1366 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 09:48
|
New law bankrupting Alabama farms
Oneonta, Ala. • Potato farmer Keith Smith saw most of his immigrant workers leave after Alabama’s tough immigration law took effect, so he hired Americans. It hasn’t worked out: Most show up late, work slower than seasoned farm hands and are ready to call it a day after lunch or by midafternoon. Some quit after a single day.
In Alabama and other parts of the country, farmers must look beyond the nation’s borders for labor because many Americans simply don’t want the backbreaking, low-paying jobs immigrants are willing to take. Politicians who support the law say over time more unemployed Americans will fill these jobs. They insist it’s too early to consider the law a failure, yet numbers from the governor’s office show only nominal interest.
"I’ve had people calling me wanting to work," Smith said. "I haven’t turned any of them down, but they’re not any good. It’s hard work, they just don’t work like the Hispanics with experience."
Alabama passed its law in June and it was immediately challenged by the Obama administration as it has been in other states. Unlike those states’ measures, Alabama’s law was left largely in place while challenges played out in court, frightening Hispanics and driving many of them away.
The agriculture industry suffered the most immediate impact. Farmers said they will have to downsize or let crops die on the vine. As the season’s harvest winds down, many are worried about next year.
Didn't we just go through this in Georgia? Where does this fit in with the "common sense solutions" we hear so much about from the radical right? Wouldn't common sense dictate that we look to find a way to keep these workers on the job, because they are an integral part of the agricultural economy in these states?
What's even more disconcerting is that these laws are driving away workers who are here legally.
Rick Pate, the owner of a commercial landscaping company in Montgomery, lost two of his most experienced workers, who were in the country legally. He spent thousands of dollars training them to install irrigation systems at places such as the Hyundai plant.
"They just feel like there is a negative atmosphere for them here. They don't feel welcome. I don't begrudge them. I'd feel nervous, too," Pate said.
link
This issue needs to be addressed in real life terms. I know that when I'm working on a commercial project like an apartment complex, and almost every worker is Hispanic of questionable legality, it's upsetting to me when I have friends in the construction trades struggling mightly to make ends meet since the housing bust. However, the solution isn't blanket laws that target hard working, industrious Hispanics who are instrumental in the economic success of certain industries. The solution isn't to make Hispanics in general feel as if they are the target of discrimination. After all, there are millions of Hispanics whose ancestry can be traced to this country for centuries, yet there's a contingency that wants to tell them they aren't "real Americans."
|
|
| 1367 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 11:00
|
Oneonta, Ala. • Potato farmer Keith Smith saw most of his immigrant workers leave after Alabama’s tough immigration law took effect, so he hired Americans. It hasn’t worked out: Most show up late, work slower than seasoned farm hands and are ready to call it a day after lunch or by midafternoon. Some quit after a single day.
So in other words "Americans" are too lazy to get jobs? People would rather stay unemployed, complain about the government, the 1%, or what ever other bogie man they can come up with then do work they consider beneath them? I guess this goes along way to show the people would rather live of hand outs then actually work. Maybe the real "Americans" can be traded to Mexico?
|
|
| 1368 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 11:06
|
I think that Americans, by and large, don't have the skills that the immigration population does in working the fields and so forth.
Like it or not, immigrants (legal and illegal) acquire a skill set in working at the job that Americans have not had to.
The idea that Americans can just jump in and do the jobs that immigrants do is a little silly when you think in terms of sets of skills.
|
|
| 1369 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 11:36
|
PD, it is not rocket science, I am sure the migrants workers are much more proficient at it, but it is not like they were born with the knowledge and ability to do it, they learned it. That also does not explain why they "Americans" showed up late, would call it a day after lunch, quite after one day...So you are telling me that if the jobs paid 100k a year there would not be 1000's of people lined up finding that "skill set" really quickly?
This reminds me of observation a friend once made about when they went to go pick berries, while they paid to pick there basket the works in the field over were being paid to pick berries.
|
|
| 1370 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 11:56
|
Farms make a lot of money from city folk coming out and paying to pick their crops for them, that's for sure.
The immigrant's skill set in working the farm isn't one they are born with--I apologize if I implied that. It comes from doing the work, and doing it well, for a long time. I wasn't born to be the rights editor I am, but I worked at it and if someone else stepped in they wouldn't be very efficient or even good at it.
Why do "Americans" find the job hard and quit? Because it is damn hard work.
|
|
| 1371 | sarge33rd
ID: 309252112 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 13:29
|
re 1367....such sanctimonious crap boikin. This discussion was had when the GA law appeared. There are skills involved in harvesting and by and large, Americans lack those skills. Further, the work is back breaking. Literally, physically it is EXTREMELY demanding work. Unemployed or not, lacking UE benefits or not, I for one, can no longer physically DO that work. And frankly FU or anyone else who calls me lazy, for not desiring to cripple myself for a few days pay.
|
|
| 1372 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Fri, Oct 21, 2011, 17:27
|
I know a former sports writer [fired from a downsizing legacy media newspaper][who packs more trivia than anyone else I know]
He recently ended up in the fields alongside migrant workers. He says they were freaking amazing. Putting in 90 hour hot and heavy work-weeks when he was dying at 40 hrs. Of course that was his secondary job, the both of them not over 60 per week in total.
|
|
| |
| 1374 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Mon, Dec 12, 2011, 08:00
|
Mexico drug gangs up ante with high-tech tunnels
There have been more than 100 tunnels discovered during President Felipe Calderon's five years in office, double the number found over the previous 15 years.
A well built tunnel could be used to move 25 tonnes of drugs in one or two days, he said. ........................ They're building tunnels faster than they can build the fence. How is the fence going to stop a tunnel. Or a ladder. If they found 100 tunnels....how many did they not find?
|
|
| |
| 1376 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 16:56
|
That is not a failure of our system that is failure of Mexico to protect it's citizens.
|
|
| 1377 | Tree
ID: 2518915 Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 17:43
|
That is not a failure of our system that is failure of Mexico to protect it's citizens.
a system that requires someone who moved to this country as a child, has lived here for a dozen years, and then forces that person who wants to do the right thing to move to another country in order to gain citizenship, is, a failed system.
|
|
| 1378 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 17:56
|
Any process which discourages people from doing the right thing is flawed. Most of the immigration system is this way.
|
|
| 1379 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 11:45
|
It is also a failure on her parents for not applying for citizenship, so she would not have had to go back to mexico.
|
|
| 1380 | Tree
ID: 25119219 Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 12:15
|
Perhaps. But to punish her for mistakes that were not hers, and to punish her for stepping up and doing the right thing, goes against everything this country stands for.
|
|
| 1381 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 12:23
|
If you look at what this country actually does (as opposed to what we claim in our constitution or through our political mouth pieces), our defining motto would be "Look at parents, screw and lavish accordingly".
Those that succeed against the odds do so in spite of our economic and political system, not because of it.
|
|
| 1382 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 16:32
|
Three hours ago: The Chicago Sun-Times reports that [Cook County Sheriff Tom] Dart says people would feel more secure if his office was allowed to notify immigration officials when inmates charged with violent crimes are about to be released so the officials could detain them. Indeed any law that prevents Mexican parents from raising their children in Mexico or encourages them not to, is flawed. Our entire legal system is rigged to turn their heads and look the other way when immigration laws are broken.
Those that succeed against the odds do so in spite of our economic and political system, not because of it.
Yet we are the immigration mecca of the world precisely because to the extent we still have a free market economy and non-confiscatory taxes, people can rise from poverty to success here, better than anywhere else in the world.
|
|
| 1383 | Tree
ID: 351141016 Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 17:17
|
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that [Cook County Sheriff Tom] Dart says people would feel more secure if his office was allowed to notify immigration officials when inmates charged with violent crimes are about to be released so the officials could detain them.
no problem with that.
also, don't see how that's relative to the situation at hand, but you've made it clear before that you are completely in favor of separating families and/or deporting American citizens, so the fact that someone who did the right thing paid heavily for it being lost on you is hardly shocking.
|
|
| 1384 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 18:44
|
I am the one who never wants to separate a family.
|
|
| 1385 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 19:22
|
Full American families, sure.
|
|
| 1386 | Tree
ID: 25119219 Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 19:43
|
I am the one who never wants to separate a family.
Even if it means forcing an American citizen to live in a country they may have never even been to.
If the American citizen wanted to stay in this country, you would have no issues separating that family.
|
|
| 1387 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 22:24
|
Kids belong with their families. Families belong where they are legal.
This isn't even slightly complicated.
|
|
| 1388 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Sat, Feb 11, 2012, 00:37
|
Families belong where they are legal.
This isn't even slightly complicated.
3 people born in the United States. so, tell me, where are they legal?
|
|
| |
| 1390 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 22:37
|
Is #388 refering to #375?
You marry an illegal, you face complications. Sometimes tragic ones. There is no guarantee you'll even get to live together.
|
|
| 1391 | Mith
ID: 50151411 Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 12:43
|
6:44pm: I am the one who never wants to separate a family.
10:24pm: Kids belong with their families. Families belong where they are legal.
This isn't even slightly complicated.
10:37pm: You marry an illegal, you face complications.
|
|
| 1392 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 14:51
|
And their family was together and unseparated in Mexico. Kids were with their family. Family was where they were legal.
The complication was that they couldn't live in the USA, but you fall in love, you make sacrifices.
This really isn't complicated, MITH.
Other than that you can't wrap your mind around any outcome that doesn't fit the liberal agenda, there is nothing hard to understand or decide here.
|
|
| 1393 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 18:19
|
And their family was together and unseparated in Mexico. Kids were with their family. Family was where they were legal.
the father and the child were Americans.
|
|
| 1394 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 10:59
|
So what?
|
|
| 1395 | Tree
ID: 26226510 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 11:30
|

next. i'm done.
|
|
| 1396 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 11:53
|
You were done before you clicked 'post now' on #1393.
#1393 doesn't conflict with anything in #1392.
|
|
| 1397 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 12:15
|
As long as they all stay in the back of the bus, what's the problem? They are together with their own kind?
|
|
| 1398 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 18:36
|
They are obeying the law.
|
|
| 1399 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sun, Mar 11, 2012, 22:08
|
Always makes me laugh:
|
|
| |
| 1401 | sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Wed, Apr 25, 2012, 13:31
|
We have atm, a SCOTUS weighted by GOP appointments. If they uphold this AZ law, someone please tell me how far we are from "Show me your papers", as we hear it recited in how many WWII movies?
|
|
| 1402 | Khahan
ID: 30223147 Wed, Apr 25, 2012, 14:52
|
We're no further or closer than we are now Sarge. The slippery slope scare tactics don't hold when boldwin does them and they don't hold when you do them.
If an officer does not have a reasonable suspicion (reasonable in this case would be defined by the courts and simply 'being hispanic' would not qualify) that the person is illegal he should not demand proof of citizenship. Just like now. It would change nothing in practice. It would simply make it a state law to go with the federal law.
|
|
| 1403 | sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Wed, Apr 25, 2012, 14:56
|
Nice theory, now lets apply human nature. Do you REALLY thinkk, that caucasians would be asked for proof of citizenship, with the same frequency as Latinos? And if YOU were asked, how could you prove your citizenship on any avg day?
|
|
| 1404 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Apr 25, 2012, 14:58
|
The law does more than allow officers to ask about the immigration status of people (and detain those not able to come up with proof on the spot). There are restrictions regarding selling anything to those who might be immigrants, as well as criminalizing illegal immigrants who seek work (as opposed to those who hire them).
|
|
| 1405 | Khahan
ID: 30223147 Wed, Apr 25, 2012, 15:07
|
Sarge, I can produce a valid drivers license and my social security card RIGHT NOW. I can do that any day and every day I am out and about.
When I worked as a landscaper and I was 17 yrs old I could do it. When I have my kids at the pool I can do it (Ok, I have to walk over to my towel and get it out of my bag).
If I go to a bar I can do it. If I'm stopped by a police officer for speeding I can do it. I can produce a valid drivers license and valid car registration. Any legal citizen should be able to and regardless of their heritage if they can, there should be no questions about legal status. If there are, that is then something to take up with that officer. Re-educate him or fire him and replace him with somebody who will do the job right.
To answer your question: YES I CAN.
PD: That is true and there are parts of it that can be very questionable. The criminalization of looking for work if you are an illegal alien is a good example that could be ruled to go against federal immigration policy. But that does not change in the least what I said in 1402. Its a wholly different argument.
Federal law currently allows for local officers to do exactly what Sarge is saying he is concerned about. My response still stands. The Arizona law (with regards to that concern) changes absolutely nothing about the practice. Zip.
|
|
| 1406 | Tree
ID: 46352514 Wed, Apr 25, 2012, 15:17
|
Sarge, I can produce a valid drivers license and my social security card RIGHT NOW. I can do that any day and every day I am out and about...
...If I go to a bar I can do it. If I'm stopped by a police officer for speeding I can do it. I can produce a valid drivers license and valid car registration.
as has been previously discussed, you don't need to be a citizen to get a driver's license.
|
|
| 1407 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Apr 25, 2012, 15:24
|
#1405: Then you have indicated no difference between sarge's "papers please" argument.
The actions you are describing require some form of proof of age. Suppose you don't have it while taking a walk or a jog? Should the police be able to detain you for not proving you are citizen? That's the additional push by Arizona. Besides, of course, making federal law violations state law violations.
You take offense at the government requiring you to purchase health care insurance which is in your best interest to have, yet have no problem requiring people to purchase and always have on-hand government forms of ID in case that have to prove they are not here illegally. Hmmm.
|
|
| 1408 | sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Wed, Apr 25, 2012, 15:47
|
Most 'illegals' can produce those too K. Those wont work. Hell, in TX to get a DL, the docs for the Federal I-9 and your out of state DL, are insufficient proof of identity to get a TX DL. Your PA DL and SS Card, are NOT gonna prove citizenship.
|
|
| 1409 | Khahan
ID: 30223147 Wed, Apr 25, 2012, 16:11
|
The actions you are describing require some form of proof of age. Suppose you don't have it while taking a walk or a jog? Should the police be able to detain you for not proving you are citizen? That's the additional push by Arizona. Besides, of course, making federal law violations state law violations.
Here's the slippery slope fear mongering I was mentioning. Again, how is the arizona law's effect any different than the federal law we have now? The answer: its not. 100% its not with regards to questioning people. And the law does not stand in a vacuum. It never will. There are standards and other laws regarding discrimination that would be used in conjunction with this law to prevent what you and Sarge keep bringing up.
Does that mean every cop will always 100% of the time do things the right way? No. Nothing will. But the Arizona immigration law does NOT give them any further leeway or rights or opportunities to do things improperly than they have now under federal law.
The argument that it expands police powers to stomp on civil rights is completely hollow because it does NOT expand police rights. It just states those same rights come from the state as well as the fed. And the Justices are indicating they are ok as long it does not change federal law.
as has been previously discussed, you don't need to be a citizen to get a driver's license
Way to ignore the point of 'illegal' residents tree. Here are the forms of identification required to obtain a drivers license in Arizona. All of them require you to be in the US legally. Every single one. If you can produce a valid drivers license you can prove you are here legally. No further reasonable cause to question.
|
|
| 1410 | sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Wed, Apr 25, 2012, 16:50
|
I dont have an AZ DL Khahan, do you?
|
|
| 1411 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Apr 25, 2012, 16:53
|
Again, how is the arizona law's effect any different than the federal law we have now?
Federal agents aren't permitted to stop someone and require them to provide proof of citizenship in order to prevent detention.
In this, Arizona believes the feebs to be lax and clearly pro-illegal immigration.
The Arizona law also goes much farther than federal law with regard to employment (as noted above). Asking for work is a crime, according to to AZ law. So is selling something to someone you think might be here illegally. Neither of those are against federal law.
But even if Arizona exactly matches federal law (and remember: it doesn't) it is an impermissible encroachment of areas of the law which have been carved out exclusively for the federal government. In other words, the law is wrong not just in what it requires, but because of the areas in which it purports to cover are not Arizona's to regulate.
|
|
| 1412 | Tree
ID: 473342516 Wed, Apr 25, 2012, 17:40
|
Here are the forms of identification required to obtain a drivers license in Arizona. All of them require you to be in the US legally.
you can drive in Arizona with a license from any state - or an international DL for that matter. that doesn't prove citizenship.
|
|
| 1413 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Fri, Jun 15, 2012, 17:25
|
Obama makes bold immigration decision
The White House will halt the deportation of as many as 800,000 young illegal immigrants and in some cases give them work permits, in a sweeping new initiative announced by the Department of Homeland Security. The process will begin sometime in the next 60 days. People under 30 who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas when they were under the age of 16 will be immune from deportation if they have not committed a significant misdemeanor or felony and have graduated from a U.S. high school or joined the military. They can apply for a renewable two-year work permit that won't provide a path to citizenship. Applicants will have to prove they've lived in the country for five consecutive years. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told reporters on Friday that she believed the move "is the right thing to do" and will help the agency focus on deporting criminals. "It is not immunity, it is not amnesty," she said. "It is an exercise of discretion so that these young people are not in the removal system."
Similar to his recent expression of support for gay marriage, Obama has shown that he's willing to take stances that will face negative reactions because it's the right thing to do. Many, including myself, have been disappointed in Obama's lack of leadership skills in the first three and a half years of his presidency. So I applaud this decision, which clearly defines our nation as a compassionate land that rewards hard work and a committmment to community as opposed to the tyrannical notion that kids should be sent to countries where they have no roots, and, in many cases, don't even speak the language.
|
|
| 1414 | sarge33rd
ID: 34536813 Fri, Jun 15, 2012, 17:38
|
agreed PV. And the GOP is flooding the airwaves with blanket condemnations. Disgraceful, IMHO.
|
|
| 1415 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Jun 15, 2012, 17:44
|
This is pretty close to the alternative DREAM act that the GOP darling Rubio was working on (of course, they like Rubio for his Hispanic base but there was no way they would get behind his plan).
Both Rubio and Romney have given Obama some lukewarm support for the move. The base? Like they just got slapped in the face.
To the point where they are heckling the President during statements:
|
|
| 1416 | Tree
ID: 145291517 Fri, Jun 15, 2012, 18:31
|
the heckling? that was from a so-called "reporter".
this is a fantastic decision by Obama. and it is the right thing to do from a moral perspective.
|
|
| 1417 | Tree
ID: 145291517 Fri, Jun 15, 2012, 18:38
|
the guy interupted him was Neil Munro, from the conservative website the Daily Caller.
i cant watch the video from work, so not sure if it has Obama's response, based on this article. :
Munro asked Obama, "What about American workers who are unemployed while you employ foreigners," suggesting the policy change would lead to the employment of illegal immigrants.
"Here's the reason: because these young people are going to make extraordinary contributions, and are already making contributions to our society," Obama replied at the end of his remarks. "I've got a young person who is serving in our military, protecting us and our freedom. The notion that in some ways we would treat them as expendable makes no sense. If there is a young person here who has grown up here and wants to contribute to this society, wants to maybe start a business that will create jobs for other folks who are looking for work, that's the right thing to do."
brilliant. more and more, i do believe the far right fears economic recovery, people of color, and doing what is morally the correct thing to do.
|
|
| |
| 1419 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 08:48
|
Romney's response: i am going to come up here and say a whole lot of nothing!
"I think the actions the president took today make it more difficult to reach a long term solution because an executive order is, of course, just a short term matter than can be reversed by subsequent presidents." - Mitt Romney
|
|
| 1420 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 08:54
|
I took that, as a veiled threat from Mitt. Meaning, "if elected, I'll issue my own EO, reversing this one."
|
|
| 1421 | Khahan
ID: 54138190 Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 09:44
|
This reminds me of the healthcare issue all over again. Obama has an issue that most of the country agree is a problem. However, there is far from a good general consensus on how to handle it. Rather than thinking, "well half the people hate my plan but the other half of the people hate the other sides plan so maybe neither is really a good solution and we should keep looking," all he can do is say, "I'm doing this because I can and the rest of you who disagree can suck it."
|
|
| 1422 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 09:54
|
A leader that attempts to lead by looking at opinion polls is, by definition, not a leader at all.
Healthcare has seen nearly a century of politicians attempting to correct the early usurpation by the insurance industry. All we have seen is failure. Until now. No, it's not perfect. But we have a leader who led, and succeeded where all others failed.
|
|
| 1423 | Tree
ID: 16521169 Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 10:25
|
"I'm doing this because I can and the rest of you who disagree can suck it."
which is not exactly a problem.
you have people who came here as children, who, in most cases, don't know much more than this country. they go to school here. they work here. and in many cases, they are looking to have better lives, AND give back to their community, HERE.
our system is broken. this is a step in the right direction to fix it - otherwise, it sits in congress forever and ever and ever, because lord knows the Right isn't going to do anything to help these folks out, because they're terrified of how their "base" will respond to this.
Obama's stance on this is the right thing to do. it is morally correct, and it is, without question, the epitome of the American Way and living the American Dream.
|
|
| 1424 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 11:03
|
The immigration problem is a large and complicated issue, with many opinions. But the very narrowly-focused problem of these kids really isn't. Congress has become dysfunctional, and if they can't do even the things they say they would like to do, I have no problem with Obama (or any other president) doing what needs to be done through other legal ways (this, btw, is not technically an EO so Romney is getting misinformed here).
We also need to remember the context: Obama has been urging Congress to move on this for months, which they have refused to do, despite Obama being able to do this act all along.
|
|
| 1425 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 11:18
|
"well half the people hate my plan but the other half of the people hate the other sides plan so maybe neither is really a good solution and we should keep looking," all he can do is say, "I'm doing this because I can and the rest of you who disagree can suck it."
A few years ago, this was called "an electoral mandate" by Republicans, and anyone who disagreed with it on those terms was called (and still is called, in some circles) a treasonous commie un-American. What's changed?
|
|
| 1426 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 11:33
|
Ignore the bar graph, which refers to only the Latino voters in this poll, but 62% of non-white respondents supported the DREAM Act.
And that was with a path to citizenship, which Obama's action does not provide.
So well over a majority of Americans support an even more comprehensive plan than Obama can provide, Congress refused to act for years on it (despite urging from the President). I realize that the Right is plugging this meme as an "end around" Congress, but Obama is, in fact, doing the right thing here that a vast majority of the people want to see done.
|
|
| 1427 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 12:47
|
all he can do is say, "I'm doing this because I can and the rest of you who disagree can suck it."
I find it ironic that many of those who disagree at one time were proponents of the idea, like Orrin Hatch.
Hatch, who is seeking a seventh term in November, first sponsored the Dream Act in 2001
But now he says Obama is pandering to Latino voters. It's almost comical, since Hatch's entire political posture recently(Romney's as well) has been all about pandering to the red meat conservatives who view obstructionism as an effective means of governing.
Fortunately, there are still Republicans who feel free to speak honestly and sensibly.
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, a Republican, disagrees with Lee. He believes the Obama administration is wisely using its "prosecutorial discretion," focusing its efforts on illegal immigrants who commit crime rather than those in school. "They have the right to say we don’t have the resources to go after everybody," he said. "That, I believe, is well within their powers, and I think it is good public safety policy."
|
|
| 1428 | Frick
ID: 52182321 Sun, Jun 17, 2012, 00:11
|
So, was Obama's EO anything substantive than election year pandering? Or does he have plans to try and get more overarching legislation through?
|
|
| 1429 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Sun, Jun 17, 2012, 00:27
|
he's been asking Congress to act on this. The HOuse GOP, will do NOTHING, he asks for, n-o-t-h-i-n-g.
|
|
| 1430 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sun, Jun 17, 2012, 00:35
|
1421 Khahan
Your recollection of how the ACA came to be is mistaken. Obama ran for president on a platform that featured his healthcare proposals. And then he was elected.
Like many of the features of the ACA - including the healthcare mandate - this idea is one that was proposed by a Republican before Obama adopted it.
Half the country is going to hate anything he does no matter what, even when it's the same thing their guy wanted the day before. In that regard, yes, it's very much like healthcare all over again.
If you really think sitting around and think about it some more could possibly lead to an immigration policy with broad bipartisan support you're a lot more naive than you usually come across.
And as far as I'm concerned those people who care less about the policy than what they think of the person proposing/mandating it can by all means suck it. They drag the process and inflame the political divide.
And the Daily Caller should be banned from presidential briefings for defending that ridiculous excuse for a journalist.
Where do they think that will lead WH press corps decorum? When it's their guy at the podium trying to get through a statement while some liberal faux-journalist heckles him will they applaud him too?
How embarrassing these times must be for American conservatives who aren't filthy scum.
|
|
| 1431 | Khahan
ID: 54138190 Sun, Jun 17, 2012, 00:44
|
Your recollection of how the ACA came to be is mistaken
Actually I'm pretty sure that was my impression of ACA at the time it happened, too.
A leader that attempts to lead by looking at opinion polls is, by definition, not a leader at all.
I never said he should lead by opinion polls. I said he should stop making major decisions with such far reaching and important impact as the ACA and dream act when there is still so much division over how to accomplish the goals. That is not leading by opinion polls. That is recognizing that the work isn't done.
|
|
| 1432 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sun, Jun 17, 2012, 01:30
|
he should stop making major decisions with such far reaching and important impact as the.... dream act
Overreaction. Read my post #1413 again to see what this supposed major, far reaching decision is designed to accomplish.
#1 - Cease deporting non-criminal immigrants who have grown up here and have graduated from a US high school or the military.
#2 - Allow these persons an opportunity to work legally in the country where they were raised and they call home.
There's no valid opposition. How can you tell a young person who grew up here, studied hard, graduated, and committed no crimes, that not only can they not work, they risk being deported to a country that is totally foreign to them. Obama did the right thing, concentrating our resources on the immigrant criminal element and the drop outs.
You'd think Obama had signed a law that granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously.
No, that was Ronald Reagan. link
|
|
| 1433 | Mith
ID: 18451815 Sun, Jun 17, 2012, 02:12
|
that was my impression of ACA at the time it happened, too.
So you've been mistaken for a couple of years now.
There was no collective conservative outcry of opposition to the healthcare mandate until Obama picked it up.
The people telling anyone to "suck it" are the ones who opposed the ACA after they didn't take issue with GOP legislators proposing healthcare mandates in the 90s or while they were/are also supporting Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney for president, both of whom thought it was just a terrific idea before the political ramifications of agreeing with Obama on the issue were clear.
|
|
| |
| 1435 | Tree
ID: 265471912 Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 13:50
|
Marco Rubio says he would come to the US illegally if he had to
Rubio gets it.
"Many people who come here illegally are doing exactly what we would do if we lived in a country where we couldn't feed our families," Rubio writes in his book, which went on sale Tuesday. "If my kids went to sleep hungry every night and my country didn't give me an opportunity to feed them, there isn't a law, no matter how restrictive, that would prevent me from coming here."
|
|
| 1436 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 14:42
|
OK, so SCOTUS strikes down some of AZ's immigration law, and lets stand other parts. Obviously, it's all over the news and both the Reps and a nr of Latinos being interviewed, are blasting Obama for "failing: to address meaningful immigration reform.
WHY, are these news people not challenging the falsity of that statement? The DREAM Act, was passed by the House before the Rep take over in 2010. It was however, filibustered in the Senate BY the GOP, and it died there.
The Pres did not "fail" to address this. The GOP killed it, and now is blaming Obama for their own actions AND, the so called "journalists" are letting them lie and get away with it!
WHY?
|
|
| 1437 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Jun 26, 2012, 03:17
|
Because journalists aren't about rotting out the truth anymore, but seeking out and printing both "sides" of an argument in order to appear "balanced." The story then becomes about which side is "winning" the media cycle.
|
|
| 1438 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Jun 26, 2012, 14:03
|
Er, "rooting" no "rotting"
A fine typo, however.
|
|
| |
| 1440 | Boldwin
ID: 225162520 Tue, Jun 26, 2012, 14:52
|
“If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.” Indeed, it's not immigration at all. It's an invasion. And the premise that states do not have the right to defend their own borders against a foreign invasion is 'off the charts' crazy.
|
|
| 1441 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Jun 26, 2012, 15:00
|
We should, indeed, not refer to them as a "sovereign State." States simply are not in a position to interfere in areas of federal law.
|
|
| 1442 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Jun 26, 2012, 15:02
|
Word on the street is that Scalia flipped out because he lost on the healthcare vote (which will be issued on Thursday) and he's taking it out where he can.
Or, he's just a petulant child with a robe.
|
|
| 1443 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Jun 26, 2012, 15:02
|
or both
|
|
| 1444 | Tree
ID: 576501118 Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 20:00
|
another reason why our current immigration policy fails...
Tattoo Checks Trip Up Visas
In December, Hector Villalobos traveled from Colorado to his native Mexico for an interview, part of his application for U.S. permanent residency. Mr. Villalobos expected to be gone a couple of months to complete the process.
Seven months later, U.S. consular officers haven't allowed the 37-year-old handyman to return home to his wife and three children. The problem: tattoos—some associated with violent Mexican gangs—on Mr. Villalobos's body....
...Lawyers and criminologists say many tattoos causing trouble for immigrants symbolize gang membership but have been adopted by the wider public. One familiar design: a pair of theatrical masks, known as "Smile Now, Cry Later," which Mr. Villalobos has.
i know people with that tattoo.
you can commit no crime, yet still be denied, even if you're doing the right thing.
|
|
| 1445 | Khahan
ID: 39432178 Wed, Sep 19, 2012, 11:02
|
Law ok to enforce
Judge ok'd the 'show me your papers.' I have no problem with the law itself. Now for the realistic approach, lets see how its handled by the police.
I *do* think any cops found abusing it should be let go immediately. I admit its a fine line, but if used properly it has a lot of merit. Using it properly is key, though.
|
|
| 1446 | Mith
ID: 98342014 Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 10:26
|
Denver Post "The people who have received the special visa that the president has put in place, which is a two-year visa, should expect that the visa would continue to be valid. I'm not going to take something that they've purchased," Romney said. "Before those visas have expired we will have the full immigration reform plan that I've proposed."
Romney said in a sit-down interview with The Post aboard his campaign bus ahead of a Denver rally that he would work with Congress in the first year to pass permanent immigration reform legislation.
He didn't furnish specifics on that plan, but has said in previous interviews that students who served in the military may get a path to citizenship.
"I actually will propose a piece of legislation which will reform our immigration system to improve legal immigration so people don't have to hire lawyers to figure out how to get here legally," Romney said. "The president promised in his first year, his highest priority, that he would reform immigration and he didn't. And I will."
Obama's order mirrors the "DREAM" Act, which has been dead on arrival in every Congress that's tried to pass it. It was blocked by Senate Republicans two years ago.
|
|
| 1447 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Fri, Mar 29, 2013, 13:14
|
|
|
| 1448 | Boldwin
ID: 22210309 Sat, Mar 30, 2013, 12:24
|
You could have possibly jerked a single tear if you had suggested 'what if the guy is actually an innocent ex gang member being judged unfairly by his past'...but it's just weak-minded or disingenuous to suggest people in Mexico are tattooing themselves with tattoos that can get them killed if the wrong gang sees it, for no particular reason. Cause they think it looks cool. Yeah, tell me another.
|
|
| |
| 1450 | Boldwin
ID: 384162217 Thu, May 23, 2013, 06:14
|
|
|
| 1451 | Boldwin
ID: 125451212 Wed, Jun 12, 2013, 18:14
|
The really deadly other shoe that is going to drop...
The one we're all too busy with all the other scandals to even consider...
...is that the new immigration bill moves to clean up the mess we've created by turning Islamic countries into islamist countries..
The new immigration bill will loosen asylum qualifications. God knows there are going to be a billion or so people put at serious risk of persecution in these new islamist countries..
...but the deadly reality is that we won't just end up with an electorate more in tune with the people's revolutionary party of Mexico than the FF of this country...
We'll also be outnumbered by people voting for sharia eventually.
That's what you get when half the country reflexively votes for anything inimical to the interests of America just to show how self-loathing they are of their own 'white privilege'.
|
|
| 1452 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Wed, Jun 12, 2013, 18:25
|
Thats OK B, because the GOP of today, has NOTHING in common with the FF, nor does it have much n common with the Bible. So you should have nothing at all to worry about.
|
|
| 1453 | Tree
ID: 275221211 Wed, Jun 12, 2013, 20:23
|
We'll also be outnumbered by people voting for sharia eventually.
while anything is possible, this is not something we would see for literally hundreds of years, if not thousands.
right now, Islam makes up 0.8% of the US Population. it won't even increase by a full percentage point in the next 20 years.
even less than that follow Sharia.
stop grasping at straws to provide reasons for your hate.
|
|
| 1454 | Boldwin
ID: 535391222 Wed, Jun 12, 2013, 23:48
|
Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.
Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.
We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel's formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.
Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown jihadists — inside mosques — and disrupted dozens of plots against the homeland. They're actually harrassing Tom Francois over an anti-Obama cartoon, meanwhile mosques are off-limits. Because the Muslim Brotherhood mouthpiece insists.
The operation which fully penetrated the first WTC bombing, [but which they were allowed to go thru with anyway] would not have been be penetrated with today's rules.
The Murray bombing which they knew all about and had fully penetrated would still be fully penetrated and allowed to go forward under today's rules, presumably.
So there's yer solution if you don't like to give up yer privacy. Turn islamic. They'll keep their snooping well away from you.
|
|
| 1455 | Boldwin
ID: 535391222 Wed, Jun 12, 2013, 23:48
|
this is not something we would see for literally hundreds of years, if not thousands.
Tell it to Europe.
|
|
| 1456 | Frick
ID: 432501512 Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 08:32
|
Re: 1455
We import our cheap labor from Latin countries south of us, not Islamic countries. The large increase in Muslim people in Europe is caused by hiring cheap labor, just like we are doing here with latino people. The unrest is very similar as well, bringing people into the country and then trying to make them 2nd class citizens generationally is going to lead to resentment.
|
|
| 1457 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 10:31
|
Tell it to Europe.
Tell what to Europe? Can you name a country in Europe where Sharia law is enforced as a national policy? Even hugely predominant Muslim countries like Boznia-Herzegovina and Albania don't have Sharia Law.
...but the deadly reality is..We'll also be outnumbered by people voting for sharia eventually.
This comes from a person who adamantly claims,
No one writing anything I endorse is talking about rounding up the 'human shield' moderate muslims in order to get at the radical muslims.
That's not the way I see it. I see a concerted campaign to use fear as a weapon to endorse stopping Muslims(all of them) by any means before they either enslave us with Sharia Law, or simply cut our throats with their jihadist thirst for conquest.
Your desire for a final solution is very transparent and duly noted...again.
|
|
| 1458 | Tree
ID: 585331311 Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 12:34
|
Tell it to Europe.
don't need to. they're well aware.
well aware, in fact, that THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MUSLIMS IN EUROPE WAS ALL OF 6% OF THE POPULATION in 2010.
by 2030, that number is estimated to grow to 8 percent.
that is a long, long, long way to being outnumbered by people voting for sharia, in either Europe or the United States.
the United States won't be at TWO percent Islam in 20 years. Europe will be at EIGHT percent Islam in 20 years.
an even smaller percentage of those single digits will be practicing Sharia.
your fears are unfounded, and again, just an attempt at covering up your own hate.
there are facts backed up by actual data. and then there is fear-based mis-information supported by hate. you can live in reality, or, as you apparently have chosen, to live in fiction.
|
|
| 1459 | Boldwin
ID: 05581410 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 12:30
|
We are well on the way to a minority of people who grew up with American cultural values.
Europe is well along on the path towards a muslim consensus and were deliberately put on that path. Notice that it doesn't matter what the public votes for, it happens anyway.
|
|
| 1460 | biliruben
ID: 41431323 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 13:13
|
What in the love of Allah are you talking about?!?
Woops.
|
|
| 1461 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 14:57
|
We are well on the way to a minority of people who grew up with American cultural values.
If by that you mean, we are moving toward a minority of Americans, willing to mandate a religious tenant for all others to follow; or we are moving toward a minority of Americans willing to deny civil rights to their neighbors, or that we are moving toward a minority of Americans who spread lies, falsehoods, hate and fear; then I say that is a good thing.
|
|
| 1462 | Boldwin
ID: 05581410 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 18:46
|
I mean a majority for whom the constitution is relevant. Who believe it should be a deciding factor.
This does not apply to those who are more attached to the politics and 'solutions' of:
Institutional Revolutionary Party
Party of the Democratic Revolution
Nor does it apply to those for whom the only valid source of law is from
sunni jurisprudence
Shiia jurisprudence
Sufi jurisprudence
etc.
People are largely free to emigrate to those places already transported into paradise by those visions of cultural order.
|
|
| 1463 | Tree
ID: 564211423 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 18:49
|
post 1459 ignores every possible fact and reality there is.
i suppose hate and bigotry exist, because there is ignorance. 1459 goes to show that.
|
|
| 1464 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 19:19
|
reread the 1st Amendment B.
|
|
| 1465 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 20:03
|
Shorter version: "You who we make up crap about can leave at any time, you know."
|
|
| 1466 | Boldwin
ID: 256156 Sat, Jun 15, 2013, 07:09
|
Save some of your love of diversity and other people's religions for after the world war. You'll need it then.
|
|
| 1467 | Tree
ID: 58548159 Sat, Jun 15, 2013, 12:23
|
Save some of your love of diversity and other people's religions for after the world war. You'll need it then.
if more people chose love over hate, we wouldn't have to worry about it.
but hate, and the fear and LIES (post 1459, post 1455, 1451, for starters) that come with it, are easy excuses for the lazy and the pseudo-intellectual.
|
|
| 1468 | Boldwin
ID: 14538161 Sun, Jun 16, 2013, 06:06
|
Gather round the Neville Chamberlain bonfire and cast your fears to the wind children. What could go wrong?
|
|
| 1469 | Tree
ID: 564211423 Sun, Jun 16, 2013, 10:34
|
post 1468 - another in a long line of the same theme - ignore all previous posts, don't address the facts presented to you, and instead come up with something you imagine is cute and witty.
|
|
| 1470 | sarge33rd
ID: 45251611 Sun, Jun 16, 2013, 12:25
|
Watch "V for Vendetta", for a glimpse into Boldwins ideal world.
|
|
| 1471 | Boldwin
ID: 57519186 Tue, Jun 18, 2013, 07:20
|
Speak for yourself, Sarge.
The SCOTUS just delivered Sarge's ideal world.
There is now no federal requirement that proof of citizenship be shown at the time of voting, and now no requirement that proof of citizenship be shown at the time of registration.
America is now officially dead barring some miraculous change of heart from the SCOTUS that won't happen. Any anti-American anywhere in the world with the ambition to vote, now can do so with no difficulty. It's just left for the vultures to pick the bones clean.
Exactly what Sarge wants.
|
|
| 1472 | Boldwin
ID: 57519186 Tue, Jun 18, 2013, 08:39
|
Contradictory readings...here's one [from big budget PJMedia] that says states can still use their forms.
This one is going to take some sorting time.
|
|
| 1473 | bibA
ID: 54522612 Tue, Jun 18, 2013, 09:21
|
Please sort asap - we are waiting with baited breath to find out whether our country is dead or not.
|
|
| 1474 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Tue, Jun 18, 2013, 12:59
|
Exactly--will the decision stop the influx of millions of ninja-like illegals from voting??
|
|
| |
| 1476 | Boldwin
ID: 505472513 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 15:08
|
Lol...yeah, I love how libs post these 'Coulter gets pwned videos' which are always spankings of liberals.
Palin is of course right.Contrary to Palin's obviously uninformed statement to the contrary, the new immigration bill explicitly conditions the issuance of green cards on the implementation of tougher border security measures. In other words, no "amnesty" until our situation at the border is resolved. There will be no border crackdown. The language of the bill allows Napolitano to recind every 'border security provision' republicans 'won' in the 'negotiations'. Border agents will still be put in prison if they do their job. The 'extra border agents' will be the first thing on the chopping block the next sequestration fight. This administration would be more likely to point their guns at us than at illegals anyway.
Other countries like Mexico for example have no problem pushing rejected applicants across their borders, back where they came from and neither would we. It's easy. The walk across the border is no longer than the walk from holding cell to courtroom over and over until the illegal is let in by default or technicality after numerous 'keep trying until it works' attempts.
The only reason 'Immigration is a remarkably thorny issue for the GOP politically' is because there is unlimited campaign contributions available for any challenger willing to sell out America on this issue.
|
|
| 1477 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 15:27
|
RIF
|
|
| 1478 | Tree
ID: 25412510 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 16:15
|
|
|
| |
| |
| 1481 | Boldwin
ID: 145312114 Sat, Jun 21, 2014, 15:31
|
|
|
| 1482 | Boldwin
ID: 43540233 Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 04:58
|
Here is how brazen the attack on our borders is. The newest 'immigration reform' attempt places this language in the law: “in making routine or spontaneous law enforcement decisions, such as ordinary traffic stops, Federal law enforcement officers may not use race or ethnicity to any degree, except that officers may rely on race and ethnicity if a specific suspect description exists.”“in enforcing laws protecting the integrity of the Nation’s borders, Federal law enforcement officers may not consider race or ethnicity except to the extent permitted by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
In other words, unless they have the specific description of that particular illegal alien, they are never allowed to use 'doesn't look like an American' as a guide.
Illegals can walk right by border agents assured they cannot be stopped.
People who write language like that into bills, cannot credibly offer the deal "We'll enforce the law if you'll legalize these illegals."
|
|
| 1483 | biliruben
ID: 41431323 Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 05:26
|
Please enlighten me as to what an American looks like.
|
|
| 1484 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 09:13
|
Bingo.
|
|
| 1485 | Boldwin
ID: 43540233 Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 10:41
|
Please don't apply for border patrol.
|
|
| 1486 | Boldwin
ID: 43540233 Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 10:43
|
Profiling is the essence of effective police work. Sherlock Holmes wasn't looking for clues for nothing. He was building a profile.
|
|
| 1487 | biliruben
ID: 561162511 Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 14:59
|
Also, Jack Bauer uses profiling. And torture!
Now we have all the evidence we need to help the DHS develop profiling and torture policies!
Except there is something bugging me in the back of my mind. There is something that Sherlock and Jack have in common...
What is it... what is it...
|
|
| 1488 | Tree
ID: 438482411 Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 20:20
|
Please don't apply for border patrol.
please don't speak for all Americans.
good lord.
answer the question. what does an American look like?
|
|
| 1489 | Tree
ID: 438482411 Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 21:37
|
never mind. here's what an American looks like:
 born in Germany to an American soldier and a German woman. grew up in ILLINOIS, Mississippi, and Germany
and
 Born in Nacogdoches, Texas, and grew up in a trailer park.
and
 the child of an American serviceman from CHICAGO, born and raised in Berlin. (notice the tattoos representing his dual heritage of Illinois and Germany)
These guys. these are what Americans look like:
|
|
| 1490 | Tree
ID: 438482411 Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 19:49
|
i figured the bigot wouldn't respond. (caveat - "the bigot" could mean anyone, not anyone specifically)
|
|
| 1491 | Boldwin
ID: 85582420 Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 22:13
|
Let's just invalidate every border agents collar if he hasn't stopped an equal number of swedish grandmothers.
We all know what you liberals are attempting.
|
|
| 1492 | Tree
ID: 438482411 Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 23:16
|
not shocking, your lack of response.
|
|
| 1493 | Boldwin
ID: 45539258 Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 09:43
|
Ask a border agent. They know there are precious few swedish grandmothers climbing the fence.
|
|
| 1494 | biliruben
ID: 81382416 Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 09:56
|
So old. Blonde. American or not American?
|
|
| 1495 | Boldwin
ID: 45539258 Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 10:09
|
Former KGB official explains that our immigration policy is actually their plan for destruction.After Stalin died, his “immutable” theory of the world proletarian revolution was replaced with Khrushchev’s “parliamentary road to power.” Communist insurgencies were out. Mass immigrations – of Soviet bloc propagandists – were in. It worked. By the mid-1950s, some 30 million people in Western Europe were voting the Communist Party ticket. Communism had not been imposed on them by force, as it had been in Eastern Europe, but that was not the whole story. Our mass immigration plot, supported by the numerous émigré organizations we financed in the West, was so successful that we even started selling some of our own citizens to capitalist countries for hard currency. Stalin
West Germany became my personal target in 1956, when I was appointed chief of Romania’s espionage station in that country. My operational directive, written by KGB advisers, looked like a five-year plan for transforming West Germany into a socialist country by inundating it with immigrants of German origin. Moscow believed that a mass influx of immigrants from Soviet bloc countries would not only spread the miracles of socialism to West Germany, but it would also overwhelm its governmental bureaucracy, squeeze the country’s treasury, provoke economic chaos and sway the West Germans into voting the socialist ticket. ... According to a book published by a West German ambassador to Romania, who kept track of this human traffic, Bucharest had sold off 200,000 Volksdeutsche (ethnic Germans living outside of the Reich) up until 1989, when the Soviet bloc collapsed.[1] Some of the Volksdeutsche who emigrated to West Germany were intelligence agents who had been trained in planting the seed of anti-Americanism. The rest were just expected to popularize the cradle-to grave socialist concept of the welfare state. People everywhere love free lunches. ... According to Silvo Gorenc, my Yugoslav counterpart, almost a million Yugoslav émigrés were sent to West Germany. In the mid-1970s, when West Germany started importing guest workers from Turkey as well, the Romanian espionage service began recruiting Romanians of Turkish origin (Romania had a large Turkish community) and dispatching them to West Germany – directly or via Turkey. ... the per-capita rate of immigration to Germany in the 1980s was substantially higher than that of the U.S., and that there are over 15 million people with immigrant background living in today’s Germany, whose population is 82 million. Just before I left Romania for good, the DIE (Romania’s foreign intelligence service, which I headed) received a letter signed by KGB chairman Yuri Andropov stating our immigration offensive on West Germany had played a substantial role in determining the government and the parliament of that country to adopt the policy of Ostpolitik (“an opening toward the East”). ... In 1998, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, another pro-Soviet socialist, was instrumental in granting mass citizenship to most German immigrants. This made those immigrants a powerful political force. During the same year of 1998, Joschka Fischer, whose parents had immigrated from Hungary, became vice chancellor of West Germany. Soon, the German media revealed that Fischer had been affiliated with the Revolutionärer Kampf, a terrorist organization financed by the KGB ... Fischer moved to quiet, leafy Princeton University in the U.S. to write his memoirs and teach political science.
Soon after, Germany was astounded to learn that Schroeder was holding a high position at the Russian Gazprom company. ... In my other life, the KGB community was deeply involved in spreading anti-Americanism in South America, whose map has now become mostly red. KGB advisers and Russian military ships and bombers are back in Cuba – and newly in Venezuela – for the first time since the Cuban missile crisis. Nicaragua, Honduras and Argentina are shepherded into the Russian fold. Brazil, the world’s 10th largest economy, had even installed a former KGB-inspired guerrilla fighter, Dilma Rousseff, as the country’s president. ... All these things give me strong reason to suspect a KGB hand behind the current sudden mass immigration of children from South America being dropped at our Southern borders.
|
|
| 1496 | Boldwin
ID: 45539258 Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 10:20
|
bili
You are always so proud of your abilities to see the gray areas, no Manichean, you.
I'll never forget a famous kidnapping case in Illinois where a Mendota policeman just picked up on the suspects suspicious look as he drove by the parked policeman.
Our border patrol can do the job if we ever let them.
Go tell South Korea that borders are aparteid and impossible to enforce. Try telling them it's racist of them to stop that Korean looking guy crossing the border.
|
|
| 1498 | Gator
ID: 13521231 Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 16:03
|
Boldwin , this is were you and I are going to differ. Since McCain changed his illegal immigrant ideas, I have not heard much I disagree with this man. I am a big fan of his, a true American hero.
|
|
| 1499 | Boldwin
ID: 54641010 Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 19:43
|
George Soros' puppet and no friend of mine or yours.
|
|
| 1500 | Boldwin
ID: 54641010 Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 20:16
|
|
|
| 1502 | sarge33rd
ID: 346281019 Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 20:28
|
re post 1500...
are you claiming then, that Pres Obama is being too strict in enforcing immigration laws?
|
|
| 1503 | Gator
ID: 13521231 Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 09:27
|
Illegals that enter this country do not have a job and some are felons to escape Mexican law. They will either take a job from an American, use our social services or steal to survive. If there is another option please state it. You have to ask why the left is so pro illegal alien? Other than the left does not give a damn about this country and only want to strengthen their base, how can you explain this love for people breaking the law? I truly believe if these were conservatives entering the country illegally, PD, Biliruben, Sarge, Tree and crew would personally fly to Texas and help build a wall the size PV's ego to stop the migration.
|
|
| 1504 | biliruben
ID: 81382416 Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 09:42
|
How do you know Mexicans entering the US illegally aren't conservative?
Just because the far right has treated them like trash and pushed them away, many latinos share far more ideals with baldwin than with me.
|
|
| 1505 | Boldwin
ID: 216341110 Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 11:34
|
Sarge
I am pointing out that your constant, "Surely you aren't crazy enuff to think we can deport them." meme is a faulty premise. If they were as anti-socialist as the refugees from Castro's early days, you'd be all for deporting them.
Witness Elian.
|
|
| 1506 | Boldwin
ID: 216341110 Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 11:36
|
bili
We have every expectation that you intend to hand them enuff free things to eventually bribe them thru and thru.
|
|
| 1507 | biliruben
ID: 81382416 Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 12:36
|
Free things? Education? Food? A roof?
Outrageous luxuries. Clearly just bribes for their illegal vote.
You delusional, dude.
|
|
| 1508 | sarge33rd
ID: 86541113 Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 15:05
|
anti-child trafficking law
Much to the chagrin of many, this is the impetus for this influx of unaccompanied children. The law specifies how these kids are to be handled. If they are NOT from Mexico or Canada, they WILL be housed and given a day in court.
|
|
| 1509 | Boldwin
ID: 216341110 Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 18:30
|
bili
Don't forget the obamaphones. Just remember how much government freebie the Tsarnaev family was getting.
|
|
| 1510 | Tree
ID: 438482411 Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 12:33
|
or people who vote Republican. they get more government freebies than anyone.
also, houses of Religious worship.
not everyone is going to be happy.
but hey, as long as those Mexican children aren't being fed with food paid for by American money, Baldwin is ok. let 'em starve!
|
|
| 1511 | Perm Dude
ID: 586411123 Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 07:39
|
Boehner, unable to get his own party to agree on anything regarding border security, once again asks Obama to do his work for him in the usual form of an ultimatum.
|
|
| 1512 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 12:30
|
Unless you are heartless, you can't help feeling ready to take these kids in.
Unless you're a fool, you can't help wondering when the exceptions become the rule, and when all illegals become the exception. Some might even wonder how we will ever plug this dike (or even if anyone would ever want to plug a dike, given the opportunity).
It's nice that some people are so principled that they would send innocent children to a horrible fate to prove their point. However their principled protests are destroying their cause in the eyes of the voting public.
|
|
| |
| 1514 | biliruben
ID: 81382416 Mon, Sep 01, 2014, 12:13
|
If a thousand folks showed up with rifles slung over their shoulder and protested for the right to bear arms, would you be okay with and arresting them, then checking each one for mental illness and prior felonies?
You don't see any conflict with the first amendment here?
|
|
| 1515 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Mon, Sep 01, 2014, 15:20
|
If arrested, presumably they would have to show identification. If they could not produce identification then there would need to be some kind of research done to identify them, wouldn't there. The article reads that they were checked for criminal record and that's all. If I found that they were illegals, I would interpret their illegal status as breaking a law, so guess what I would do.
There is no conflict of any kind with first ammendment rights. I am sure that park officials let them know they were in violation of the law by blocking the sidewalk before they were arrested. They could have just as easily formed their protest in the mall somewhere, but being beligerant got them press.
If 1000 showed up with guns slung over their shoulders I would enforce the local laws concerning that. It would not be any kind of violation of their rights. Frankly, 1000 people open carrying is a threat and should be dealt with as such. Perfect time for an armored vehicle I would think. Perhaps even calling in military troops.
|
|
| 1516 | biliruben
ID: 81382416 Mon, Sep 01, 2014, 16:41
|
You think sicking the us military on some dudes exercising the right to bear arms is a reasonable response?
I'm not sure we share similar enough beliefs to have a rational discussion. I have some respect for our constitution.
|
|
| 1517 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Mon, Sep 01, 2014, 21:30
|
The First Amendment is intended primarily to recognize the right to speech without government interference. There is no requirement that people hold and show ID to the government as a condition to exercise their right to protest against it.
|
|
| 1518 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 11:26
|
<1516> Define "sicking", I think bringing armed troops to protect citizens from armed protestors is an appropriate response in your scenario. I did not advocate that the troops in this hypothetical situation would open fire on the protestors. Get a grip on REALITY my friend, and quit living in your make believe world.
Your constitution protects you to do legal, safe things that can bring no harm to your country nor your fellow citizen. It does not give YOU exclusive rights to do what ever the fugg you want and to hell with the rest of us.
|
|
| 1519 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 11:29
|
<1517> First ammendment rights are given to US citizens and not visitors, particularly those who were not invited here. Checking identities of people who have been arrested does not in any way violate a first ammendment right.
It is absolutely appropriate to deport criminals.
|
|
| 1520 | biliruben
ID: 229341622 Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 11:37
|
Ordering the military to confront a rally on US soil would be unprecedented.
If you bring a gun to a fight, you have to be ready, and have the expectation, that the gun may be used.
If the army is there, their is a fair chance the army will be firing on civilians.
This is not make-believe. You are the one living in some fantasy world where our constitution is toilet paper, and military might solves all problems.
|
|
| 1521 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 12:41
|
-Unless you know which ones are citizens and which ones are not, you would be violating those citizen's rights in that action, Bean. And since you don't know which ones are citizens (or even whether any non-citizens are involved), you can't possibly take that action to violate citizen rights. And make no mistake: Requiring citizens who are using their free speech rights to identify themselves to the government to do so is a violation of their rights.
-Being here illegally is not actually a crime. This might be news to you (not being snarky here).
Yes, people who are here illegally should be deported. The problem is that you would needlessly violate the rights of citizens in order to do so.
|
|
| 1522 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 20:55
|
<1520> If you bring a gun to a fight, you have to be ready, and have the expectation, that the gun may be used.
Yes you are right, if a 1000 protestors come to a protest armed, then there is a high liklihood that they will fire their weapons and THAT FACT is why if I was governor of a state that had advance knowledge of an armed protest, I would make sure that the local police force had all of the available support to defend the citizenry.
What part of this common sense is foreign to you? I think you are so concerned with protecting the rights of some misguided jerk to be an a$$hole, that you forget about public safety.
|
|
| 1523 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 21:15
|
<1521> Are you serious PD? Let me be VERY clear about which people I am talking about...THE ONES WHO WERE ARRESTED!!!! They were arrested for blocking the sidewalk and perhaps other things. They need only have moved their protest away from the White House and they refused, and they were arrested.
So, are you telling me that amongst those who are arrested and required to provide identification associated with the arrest are not going to be discovered to be here illegally as a direct result of their arrest? Are you now trying to tell me that its a violation of first ammendment rights to be required to produce identification for disorderly conduct and failure to comply with law enforcement officials? What world do you live in that arrested people are let go because nobody can id them? That world will become lawless quickly. I commit a murder, I have no identification, therefore I cannot be imprisoned or tried...nice defense there, think you can win?
At least one of us has work-related association with POTUS that would give an insight into what is really going on here. I think bili wants to give armed protestors the right to storm the White House too. Perhaps there is some very basic concept both of you are missing here.
|
|
| 1524 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 23:25
|
You want people to get arrested first, then have to show ID as a result. Sure--that's one way to catch illegal immigrants. Putting aside the fact that immigrants aren't so stupid, for the most part, to be part of a public demonstration (let alone with guns).
There are few, if any, local ordinances against people carrying firearms. The reason is because the operative laws are state and federal ones. Again: Yes, people acting illegally will get arrested and have to show ID. But you've demonstrated no reason for an arrest (which requires and even higher burden of care that requesting ID).
|
|
| 1525 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Wed, Sep 03, 2014, 01:37
|
What I want is for officers of the law to enforce immigration law when they have apprehended criminals who are illegal aliens, something wrong with that?
I have not said that it is the best way to catch illegals. I agree with you that it would be pretty stupid for an illegal alien to reveal themselves at a protest. That said, we absolutely want to get rid of someone that stupid, we obviously have enough stupid people in this country, like the 145 for example who cannot follow a simple lawful and necessary order.
I suspect the best way to catch illegal aliens is to go to any construction site in the Western US and ask for ID there. Of course, we've tried to make that illegal too, unless we can find probable cause, which realkly isnt that hard as you know.
Seems some people wont be content until we are all unemployed and the only ones with private sector jobs are illegal immigrants from Mexico. Nobody will be paying taxes, so you wont have to worry about militarizing America, because there wont be any tax dollars left to pay the cops. Of course we could have the cops work for tips (AKA bribes) and then we might still have some protection.
The good news, you wont have to worry about your right to free speech then, cause unless you speak Spanish, nobody will know what you are saying anyway.
What a wonderful world this could be, if we'd just give it a chance, right?
|
|
| 1526 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Wed, Sep 03, 2014, 05:11
|
1519 is not correct. 1st Amendment rights, are granted to all who are within our borders, be they US citizens or foreign nationals here on a VISA/Passport. There is no requirement of citizenship. Our laws apply to all within our borders.
|
|
| |
| 1528 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Wed, Sep 03, 2014, 12:11
|
Bean, as a US citizen on vacation in Turkey....does the US Constitution prevail, or does Turkish law?
case closed.
|
|
| 1529 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Wed, Sep 03, 2014, 12:20
|
<1528> hehe, I hope for your sake that you're not there illegally.
|
|
| 1530 | biliruben
ID: 561162511 Wed, Sep 03, 2014, 12:38
|
Pro-gun rights protesters have often shown up armed to rallies in the past. Nobody has been shot that I know of, though that might change if you start the tanks a rollin'.
|
|
| 1531 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Wed, Sep 03, 2014, 12:38
|
I make no distinction between either legal or illegal presence. It doesnt matter. The laws apply to all, or they are not laws at all.
|
|
| 1532 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Wed, Sep 03, 2014, 12:54
|
<1530> OK snipers instead of tanks then...hehe
|
|
| 1533 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Wed, Sep 03, 2014, 12:55
|
<1531> And that is where you lose support from the American public sarge
|
|
| 1534 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Wed, Sep 03, 2014, 22:30
|
doesnt matter Bean...whats right is right, regardless of whether or not the majority of the public supports it.
|
|
| 1535 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Thu, Sep 04, 2014, 00:19
|
OK brother, save the world....my heart is not that big
|
|
| 1536 | biliruben
ID: 81382416 Thu, Sep 04, 2014, 10:35
|
Not heart. Head.
|
|
| 1537 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Thu, Sep 04, 2014, 13:32
|
Perhaps bili, but I like to believe my head and heart are pretty symmetrical even if the wrong size. Not off centered if you know what I mean.
|
|
| 1538 | biliruben
ID: 105572020 Thu, Sep 04, 2014, 14:00
|
Heh. I meant that the argument for handling immigration constitutionally is best made using your head. I didn't mean to call you a pea brain. ;)
|
|
| 1539 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Thu, Sep 04, 2014, 17:40
|
I hope you are not implying that you can actually logically interpret the meaning of the constitution, and that the founding father's intent is somehow relevant or knowable. It isn't, it all comes down to whose opinion will prevail on any issue.
|
|
| 1540 | biliruben
ID: 28420307 Thu, Sep 04, 2014, 17:54
|
Nope. I simply think is good for our country to bring in those striving immigrants. Anyone willing to go through that sort of risk and hardship would be a good bet to improve our country and be a net job creator.
|
|
| 1541 | Tree
ID: 161036918 Fri, Nov 21, 2014, 19:10
|
Ronald Reagan on immigration
"Illegal immigrants in considerable numbers have become productive members of our society and are a basic part of our work force. Those who have established equities in the United States should be recognized and accorded legal status. At the same time, in so doing, we must not encourage illegal immigration." - Ronald Reagan
|
|
| 1542 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Fri, Nov 21, 2014, 21:11
|
By taking the steps he's talking about, Obama will enable those people to invest in their new citizenship by learning English, putting money in the bank, getting a Social Security card, health care, and so on. All things they were discouraged from doing so long as they could get forced out of the country at any time.
|
|
| 1543 | Bean
ID: 121011511 Sat, Nov 22, 2014, 12:12
|
The simplest of issues is that we have far too many of our own unemployed to ask more to come here to take what few jobs we have to offer.
For me, the ability of the US government to deliberately control immigration is erased when we shelter illegals from our law. So, even if our economy could provide something close to full employment, I'd see it no different.
How can we institute effective assimilation, if we do not intentionally control the flow of people into our society? We can't. We will be the ones assimilated instead of ensuring that our society remains OURS. When it comes to assimilation, WE need to be the Borg, making assimilation futile to resist.
Though xenophobia is rampant in many corners of American Society, it has never been my guiding light as I opine on the immigration issue. My concerns are calculated, not a knee jerk reaction to what many see as an "invasion" of our country.
The time has come to get rid of the law that allows an illegal immigrant's child to become a US citizen. It's bad enough that we allow law breakers to employ them, but offering citizenship to progeny of illegals simply encourages the practice.
So as Obama "fixes" this problem. He needs to ensure that it doesn't come back ever again. Change the law that makes a US citizen out of the progeny of illegals and deporting FUTURE illegals does not "break up families".
|
|
| 1544 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Sat, Nov 22, 2014, 20:05
|
As we saw in Georgia, illegals often do work that US citizens won't do. Because there is not so much overlap, there really isn't as much job taking as you might think. And here's the thing: These people are already working--they aren't taking jobs so much as already doing them. And jobs many Americans won't do.
But putting that aside, we can't just "change the law" when it is the Constitution at work here. A person born in the United States is a citizen of the United States. It isn't a "practice" as you put it. It is what the 14th Amendment states.
|
|
| 1545 | Bean
ID: 121011511 Sun, Nov 23, 2014, 11:50
|
I point to the construction industry for the only evidence needed of stolen jobs. Those are trade skill jobs which historically provided the best wages for laborers. We've managed to give those away.
|
|
| 1546 | Bean
ID: 121011511 Sun, Nov 23, 2014, 11:59
|
One more point....I'm sure you are aware of the efforts of Eva Longoria in trying to get better pay for migrant farm workers picking tomatoes in Florida.
That's the solution to the low wages for migrant farm workers, pay them better and American citizens will flock to the jobs.
|
|
| 1547 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Sun, Nov 23, 2014, 13:07
|
That's not what actually happened in Georgia. And there is little evidence of job theft across industries. It just isn't there.
Migrant workers *should* get paid better. And a path to citizenship would allow them to invest in the tools of citizenship such as learning English, buying a home, and setting down roots into a community.
It isn't an us-vs-them situation.
|
|
| 1548 | Khahan
ID: 521035218 Mon, Nov 24, 2014, 09:25
|
1547 - I have no problem with migrants who come here seeking citizenship and wanting to be part of the system. My problem and the problem so many people have is the millions of undocumented illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes, don't get counted on payroll, use our educational system, use our healthcare system, take up jobs and housing and send all their money back to their family in their country of origin. They just take from the system with no contribution to it and no intention of contributing to it.
In my eyes, anybody here, doing it right and wanting to be a part of the American society is welcome to stay, even if they are technically illegal at the moment, they are working towards legality. At least for me, when I refer to illegal immigrants I'm referring to those who are illegal with no intention of ever becoming legal.
|
|
| 1549 | Bean
ID: 121011511 Mon, Nov 24, 2014, 10:59
|
1547 The article uses the same fallacious argument problem most people use in understanding unemployment. They rationalize keeping the illegals by saying that an unemployed US citizen doesn't want or can't do the job as well. In the process they doom the unemployed US citizen to remain unemployed and allow them to continue being a burden to our society. It's very simple, eliminate the illegal immigrant and the job they were doing becomes available, the wage for that job inevitably goes up to the point of someone taking the job, or the job simply goes away. If that job is vital to US interests then it will not disappear, because the government can do something about it.
Let us not forget that illegal immigration is illegal for both the person who came here and the person who employs them. Enforce the law, and we aren't having this discussion.
|
|
| 1550 | biliruben
ID: 28420307 Mon, Nov 24, 2014, 11:16
|
The job currently is available. The Georgia farms couldn't find enough workers.
Go out and pick strawberries. Just do it for a few days. Report back, if you aren't hospitalized or dead.
Until then, you talking about Americans doing the work is just talk.
|
|
| 1551 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Mon, Nov 24, 2014, 14:25
|
#1549: Unlike the argument about jobs being stolen by illegals, the Georgia case is about what actually happened in real life.
It might be that illegals are stealing jobs. If so, it will be despite the evidence we have.
|
|
| 1552 | Boldwin
ID: 510591420 Mon, Nov 24, 2014, 18:53
|
Bean #1545
Having two sons who have been relieved of their 45K yearly construction jobs [drywall] by Mexican labor, you can count that post as indisputable.
No one has a problem with guest visas for the harvest. We have a problem with no border and a rock solid guarantee that half the political landscape will never allow us to have a secure border for crass selfish political calculations. They don't like the way Americans vote and intend to import a different set of people with a different set of cultural principles and voting patterns.
No deals are possible with Dems on this issue. They will renege on border security every time.
|
|
| 1553 | Bean
ID: 121011511 Tue, Nov 25, 2014, 09:48
|
Pay a farm worker $100K per year and you have no shortage of workers. One you accept that as true, we can begin the negotiating process.
|
|
| 1554 | biliruben
ID: 81382416 Tue, Nov 25, 2014, 11:16
|
Don't be silly. In most places, they get far less than minimum wage now. In California, farmers have an exemption that allows them to be by the amount picked, which often works out to near $3/hr.
So let's say they triple their wages and crush their competitiveness. You getting out there to hump for cotton then?
|
|
| 1555 | Bean
ID: 121011511 Tue, Nov 25, 2014, 16:32
|
I believe Eva Longoria sputed that if you double the wages of the tomatoe pickers, you raise the cost of tomatoes by 1 penny per pound. You can do the math, but bottom line is eliminate the opportunity for farmers to break the law along with the illegal aliens and the market will determine the wage. Any other argument is not one of freedom and market economics, its an argument for subsidies for law breakers.
|
|
| 1556 | biliruben
ID: 105572020 Tue, Nov 25, 2014, 19:18
|
Eva longoria?
|
|
| 1557 | Bean
ID: 121011511 Wed, Nov 26, 2014, 11:15
|
She's been doing the talk show circuit lately. Saw her on Bill Maher and Colbert. Just google what she's been up to.
|
|
| 1558 | Action Figure
ID: 3610522610 Wed, Nov 26, 2014, 11:52
|
Eva longoria?
Yes he plays for the Devil Rays Gold Glover plays the hot corner
|
|
| |
| 1560 | Bean
ID: 121011511 Mon, Jan 12, 2015, 13:13
|
I agree with some of what Reagan spouted 30 years ago. Let them in if we need them ONLY. Illegals need to go back to Mexico, get in line and get a green card if the US government determines we need additional workers. However, I would argue, if we have high unemployment, we probably don't need more workers. It's a pretty simple concept, that should be readily apparent to anyone who does not have emotional attachment to the Mexican people.
Reagan's motivation in "opening borders" was simply one of legitimizing the acquisition of cheaper labor for his business compatriots at the expense of organized labor. Let us not forget Reagan's bullying of the air traffic controllers under his purview. So, when one argues for what is good for a non-citizen, remember that it is at the expense of unemployed American citizens.
Deliberately managing the number of immigrant workers in this country is a pretty simple concept, it's a no-brainer, that most dismiss, preferring emotional appeals to determine what should be deliberate policy. Deliberate management of immigrant work permits works only as long as we don't have people breaking the law and giving jobs to those who are here illegally. And that is where the problem lies, the lack of enforcement of existing laws with prison time punishment for the illegal employers.
Like Reagan, these law breaking slave labor employers are only motivated by the sole purpose of lowering labor costs through lower wages. They dont give a shit about the Mexicans, they just want to use the emotional appeal to further their benefit. This benefit is only gained at the expense of the American worker and the American unemployed. Employment of illegal workers are not good for the law abiding citizens of OUR country, and, in fact creates more criminals amongst our citizenry due to the desperateness, cynicism, unrest and idleness the unemployment creates.
The impact of deporting illegal immigrants from our country should be borne by the Mexican government and those American businesses that have employed them illegally, not by anyone else. However, that will never happen.
Giving amnesty to this wave of illegal immigrants just emboldens the next wave of illegals, making future law enforcement even more difficult. Taken to a ridiculous end, this process continues and our borders will become untenable, our cities become chaotic and our society collapses.
To me, this notion that "anarchy is desirable" seems to be the aim of many advocates of amnesty. For others, the emotional appeals have clouded their judgement.
|
|
| 1561 | Boldwin
ID: 510591420 Wed, Jan 14, 2015, 13:08
|
The corollary of believing America is the root cause of everything wrong with the world...the default position of liberals, is that anything would be preferable to the wishes of the American people and a new set of voters, any new set of voters is preferable.
Next, liberals will be insisting the tens of millions of illegals who have been magically recreated as citizens, be moved to the head of the line for government preferences. It would be raaaacist to resist this.
|
|
| 1562 | biliruben
ID: 229341622 Tue, Mar 24, 2015, 14:10
|
The chief logical mistake we make is something called the Lump of Labor Fallacy: the erroneous notion that there is only so much work to be done and that no one can get a job without taking one from someone else. It’s an understandable assumption. After all, with other types of market transactions, when the supply goes up, the price falls. If there were suddenly a whole lot more oranges, we’d expect the price of oranges to fall or the number of oranges that went uneaten to surge.
But immigrants aren’t oranges. It might seem intuitive that when there is an increase in the supply of workers, the ones who were here already will make less money or lose their jobs. Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones. That means there are more jobs building apartments, selling food, giving haircuts and dispatching the trucks that move those phones. Immigrants increase the size of the overall population, which means they increase the size of the economy. Logically, if immigrants were “stealing” jobs, so would every young person leaving school and entering the job market; countries should become poorer as they get larger. In reality, of course, the opposite happens.
This is the point I have been trying to get across, but who knew? That's what all the economists are saying as well, and they even have a name for it!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/debunking-the-myth-of-the-job-stealing-immigrant.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth®ion=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below
|
|
| 1563 | Bean
ID: 14147911 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 10:45
|
Why is it that all of the arguments in favor of the proliferation of illegal immigrants try to debunk the intuitively obvious to the most casual observer loss of American jobs? Why is it that the appeal is to deny what most so clearly see as fact? Do you think telling people to call themselves fools is a winning strategy, an argument that can win hearts and minds? All of the 3 card monty tricks in the world will not convince a guy who has lost his construction job to an illegal alien, that there is even the slightest chance that allowing illegal aliens to work in America is a good idea.
|
|
| 1564 | biliruben
ID: 28420307 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 10:48
|
Sometimes, like in this circumstance, intuition is wrong.
Read the article.
|
|
| 1565 | Bean
ID: 14147911 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 10:57
|
If the federal government concluded that we need more laborers they could issue more green cards. However, they have not done that. If you are in this country working without a green card, you are working illegally here. We welcome tourists, but if you want a job here, you need to do it legally. If there aren't any jobs back home, tell it to your own government. Is there really anything else to say on this matter?
|
|
| 1566 | biliruben
ID: 28420307 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 11:16
|
We are the government. We need to conclude it's good for this country to issue vastly more green cards. Then we elect like-minded representatives to make it so.
That's how it works.
|
|
| 1567 | Bean
ID: 14147911 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 11:32
|
We have laws, people should follow laws or we are a lawless society. Thats how it works (as in doesnt fail).
|
|
| 1568 | biliruben
ID: 105572020 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 12:16
|
I agree. We should only enact laws that are enforceable, and we should enforce t hem with proportionate punishment. Every time.
Speed. Lose you license for 30 days. Failure to yield, lose your license for 90 days.
The economic pressures and the obviously nonsensical nature of our immigration laws make them unenforceable. We should change them, for the good of our country and out moral compass.
|
|
| 1569 | C1-NRB
ID: 33292710 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 12:22
|
Speed. Lose you license for 30 days. Failure to yield, lose your license for 90 days.
The problem here is loss of license doesn't mean loss of ability to drive; it means loss of ability to drive legally. I work with a former police officer who says the number of unlicensed/suspended drivers on the road is staggering. For the most part it's an unenforceable law.
|
|
| 1570 | biliruben
ID: 561162511 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 12:25
|
Drive without a license, impound the car. Buy a car, require a valid license. Lend a car to someone without a license, lose the car.
Pretty soon friends will get the picture.
|
|
| 1571 | Boldwin
ID: 412132511 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 12:51
|
Silicon Valley is already FULL of green card holders being trained by the American workers they are replacing, and they will be working for half the pay.
Mother Jones
Maybe they will spend so much that the former native workers will get their jobs back tho, huh bili?
|
|
| 1572 | Boldwin
ID: 412132511 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 12:54
|
Not when they will most likely turn around and take the job with them when they move back to their home country.
|
|
| 1573 | biliruben
ID: 105572020 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 12:58
|
If you listen to those know-nothing economists, they create far more jobs than they take.
Read. The. Article.
It helps you not demonstrate your incredible ignorance so blatently.
|
|
| 1574 | Boldwin
ID: 412132511 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 14:03
|
I did read it and is merely fatuous spin. Take that economist's article and explain that theory to those tech workers training their replacements.
It's is hogwash. That economist's theory is wishful thinking. Seriously, explain to that tech worker how that Indian he is training is going to go back to India, with the job, and his spending is gonna trickle back to the worker who has to train his replacement...uhuh...how does that work? He'll sit there in India and buy stuff on Amazon dot com and this will so stimulate the American economy? Give me your theory how those lost wages ever return to America and make the American dream bigger and brighter.
Preposterous.
|
|
| 1575 | Boldwin
ID: 412132511 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 14:27
|
Conversely, if it becomes easy to find workers who will work high skill jobs for half price, explain how this could ever make wages grow.
Preposterous.
Just be honest and admit you don't think Americans deserve jobs that pay better than jobs pay in India.
|
|
| 1576 | Boldwin
ID: 412132511 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 14:36
|
And just because you can find an economist or other anti-american, marxist, or big government micromanager specialist to make any point that fits your agenda...
*cough*Krugman*cough*
...it doesn't make it so.
Whatever happened to common sense? Sheesh. If unlimited immigration led to higher prosperity for everyone we'd be floating in prosperity right now.
|
|
| 1577 | biliruben
ID: 229341622 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 15:10
|
Uh... We are floating in prosperity right now.
I look out my window and my beautiful view of the Olympics and the Puget Sounds is dotted with a dozen cranes, and soon to be blotted out by the dozens of sky scrapers going up all around me.
Cities are booming. Jobs are being created at a pace not seen since Clinton.
If you are too negative, cynical and slow to take advantage, that's your problem.
|
|
| 1578 | Boldwin
ID: 412132511 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 15:18
|
The view from the ivory tower I am sure looks lovely if you tilt your head just so.
|
|
| 1579 | biliruben
ID: 229341622 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 15:21
|
Actually, I'm consulting for a private corporation right now.
Because they are so desperate for workers, they even will hire the likes of me.
|
|
| 1580 | biliruben
ID: 229341622 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 15:26
|
|
|
| 1581 | Boldwin
ID: 412132511 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 15:48
|
Amazing what you can make numbers do if you rule out the numbers you don't like. For example workers who have become so discouraged they have given up looking...*POOF!* Problem solved! No longer unemployed!!!
|
|
| 1582 | Boldwin
ID: 412132511 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 15:50
|
I'm just curious bili...do you charge them extra for customized results?
|
|
| 1583 | biliruben
ID: 229341622 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 15:57
|
All I have to do is look out the window to know shadowstats is worse than a joke.


I'm not the best photographer, you gotta look hard to see all the cranes.
|
|
| 1584 | Boldwin
ID: 412132511 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 16:12
|
Here's an idea. Just impose the outcome you really want and you can practically get the number to zero unemployment.
Unconstitutional Executive Order #bazzillion and one
Henceforth the only jobseekers who need apply are feminists, the cisgendered and homosexual, disabled, veterans, undocumented and non-english speaking.
Walla! Unemployment solved. No one else will even bother to apply.
|
|
| 1585 | biliruben
ID: 229341622 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 16:16
|
I don't have any idea what you are talking about.
I don't have time for statistics deniers.
You have officially lost the argument, when you claim the reality most not be reality.
|
|
| 1586 | Boldwin
ID: 112382716 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 17:41
|
A liberal who doesn't understand that a person can become so discouraged he just gives up and resigns himself to living off of public aid.
Uhuh...riiight.
That is the whole point and modus operandi of the liberal sabotage of America.
|
|
| 1587 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 21:54
|
"A fool is a person who ignored information because it disagreed with desired results." -- Brandon Sanderson
|
|
| 1588 | Boldwin
ID: 112382716 Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 22:08
|
Like the long term discouraged? I agree, that would be foolish.
|
|
| 1589 | Frick
ID: 17640169 Mon, Mar 30, 2015, 10:06
|
A Sanderson reference, nice PD.
And the long erm discouraged only exist with a Democrat in office, if it was Republican, it would be 100% factual and a sign of great leadership.
|
|
| 1590 | Bean
ID: 14147911 Mon, Mar 30, 2015, 10:30
|
So, you're running in formation, the pace is too swift for some, too slow for others. If you are the leader, how do you get them ALL to the finish line in the fastest possible time?:
You sing them a song, we'll call it cadence. Maybe even the dimwitted ones will learn the toon, but if not, we hope they arent also the physically slow ones.
So what if you are the rank and file? The guy in front of you is one step out of cadence, he is stepping with the left as everyone else is stepping with the right. He doesn't even know and he's a jerk and cant be told anything. You are working your ass off not to step on his heels and you just cant get into a rhythm. If you drop out you look like a wuss, and someone else has to deal with this "out of step" guy as they move up in the ranks.
If you got nobody out of step and you are singing a rhythmic song with funny lyrics, all is good and you'll go to war with these guys. If not, we'll be writing a lot of sad letters.
It's a metaphor, in case you didn't know.
Left, Left, Left, Right, Left.
|
|
| 1591 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 18:42
|
Yeah, Frick, I just finished the second book in The Stormlight Archive, and that quote just popped out at me.
|
|
| 1592 | Khahan
ID: 54152322 Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 18:56
|
Absolutely can't wait for the next book in that series. He's a prolific writer so hopefully we dont have 3 and 4 years (or 6) between books like other series (looking at you Mr. Martin and Mr. Jordan).
His newest one in the Reckoner series is due out soon.
|
|
| 1593 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 22:18
|
I understand he had to put it off two years to finish the Robert Jordan Wheel of Time series, which was well done, I thought.
|
|
|