Post by: MattC on March 30, 2007, 06:44:58 PM
Highlights:
Quote
The draft immigration legislation is the first stab by the White House and Republican senators this year at addressing the presence of 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants living and working in the country and employers' reliance on illegal workers.
...
The undocumented workers would have legal status with the visas, but to get a green card, making them legal permanent residents, they would have to return to their home country, apply at a U.S. embassy or consulate to re-enter legally and pay a $10,000 fine.
The plan also tries to make border security a priority by requiring 18,300 Border Patrol agents and 370 miles of physical fencing be in place, as well as electronic monitoring of the southern border ongoing before a temporary worker program could start.
The plan is far more conservative than the one the Senate approved last year with bipartisan backing and support from President Bush. That plan, whose principal architects were Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Edward M. Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, allowed illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S., work and apply to become legal residents after learning English, paying fines and back taxes and clearing a background check.
Critics dismissed that bill as an amnesty.
...
A House bill introduced last week by Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois, and Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, also attempts to appeal to conservatives.
It provides six-year work visas to undocumented immigrants and requires them at some point during that period to exit the country and re-enter using their work visa.
...
The undocumented workers would have legal status with the visas, but to get a green card, making them legal permanent residents, they would have to return to their home country, apply at a U.S. embassy or consulate to re-enter legally and pay a $10,000 fine.
The plan also tries to make border security a priority by requiring 18,300 Border Patrol agents and 370 miles of physical fencing be in place, as well as electronic monitoring of the southern border ongoing before a temporary worker program could start.
The plan is far more conservative than the one the Senate approved last year with bipartisan backing and support from President Bush. That plan, whose principal architects were Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Edward M. Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, allowed illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S., work and apply to become legal residents after learning English, paying fines and back taxes and clearing a background check.
Critics dismissed that bill as an amnesty.
...
A House bill introduced last week by Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois, and Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, also attempts to appeal to conservatives.
It provides six-year work visas to undocumented immigrants and requires them at some point during that period to exit the country and re-enter using their work visa.
I do not know what to make of this. It doesn't seem, to me, that larger fences and expensive visas will squash illegal immigration. But at least it is not a blanket amnesty, and it increases the penalties for people hiring illegal immigrants.
Will someone with a better understanding of this weigh in?
Post by: Sindawe on March 30, 2007, 06:49:06 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 30, 2007, 09:39:20 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 31, 2007, 04:39:49 AM
That, or car thefts will suddenly spike in SoCal and other areas, since chopshops and out-of-country-in-a-cargobox smugglers tend to pay per car delivered. Drug dealings would likely go up as well.
You can't deal with willing lawbreakers by asking them for money, or they're more likely to just steal the money.
Post by: Waitone on March 31, 2007, 10:35:58 AM
Shift to this year and we see that same senate grow some smarts and figure out they can't be as in-your-face about the legislation as it was last year, hence the need for a "more conservative" approach. The senate's original operating assumptions has not changed. The trick is to find those provision of law which support the original provisions.
We can look forward to lying, deceit, skulduggery, etc. The ruling elite wants the US and Canada and Mexico "merged" for one simple reason. The consequences of our fiscal irresponsibility for the past decades are about to be felt. We are facing wave after wave of gargantuan economic problems caused things like social security, medicaid, etc. Add to it the high probability of a general eastern war and a subsequent shut off of oil to the west and you've got the perfect financial cataclysm. The ruling elite is desperate for more payment into the SS "trust fund" and access to oil. Mexico and Canada provide both hence the need for "close economic cooperation".
Post by: The Rabbi on March 31, 2007, 04:21:46 PM
Post by: Sindawe on March 31, 2007, 05:03:27 PM
Close the freaking border to all but legal traffic, make the rest a free-fire zone for our military to practice their arts and science. Deny ANY benifits other than life saving emergency care to any but our citizens and our LEGAL immigrants/visitors. Businesses that hire illegals have ALL assests seized. Fiscal assets are divided among legal employees as compensation/severance. Physical assets are publicly crushed to ruble and landfilled. IP assets are cast into the public domain as open source. Corporate officers of said businesses get to live in the stocks for 30 days unguarded.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 31, 2007, 05:05:36 PM
Post by: Sindawe on March 31, 2007, 05:49:53 PM
But if you're so bloodthirsty, I can accommodate ya...
Post by: Car Knocker on March 31, 2007, 05:59:18 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 01, 2007, 05:46:30 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on April 01, 2007, 06:05:06 AM
A major difference between us and Mexico is the rule of law. When that is compromised, do not be surprised to wake up one day in your own urban soz-eco-disaster toilet, where your rights and health are directly proportional to the bribes you can afford to pay. By that time, it will be very late to swerve away from irrationality, exaggerations, faux humanitarianism, stupid greed, and other failures of the mind.
Nuke Mexico now! Do it for the children!
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 01, 2007, 12:59:25 PM
Quote
Nuke Mexico now! Do it for the children!
We have yet to see something workable coming from you on this issue.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 01, 2007, 02:42:38 PM
Quote
Nuke Mexico now! Do it for the children!
We have yet to see something workable coming from you on this issue.
I hope that was addressed to yourself. I've proposed a bunch of stuff that is entirely workable, more workable than the nativist-ranting-kneejerk-anti-immigrant crap I keep reading. "Shut down the border"--gimme a break.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 01, 2007, 05:15:36 PM
Quote
I've proposed a bunch of stuff that is entirely workable... "Shut down the border"--gimme a break.
Hehehehe. Exactly what kind of a set of policies would succeed if it does not include border control?
Post by: Sindawe on April 01, 2007, 05:30:16 PM
Quote
I've proposed a bunch of stuff that is entirely workable, more workable than the nativist-ranting-kneejerk-anti-immigrant crap I keep reading. "Shut down the border"--gimme a break.
Since the rest of here at APS don't have insight into your memory, please be gracious enough to mention some of those threads? I did a search for your posts that mention immigration and I did not find ONE proposal. Lots of nay-saying about ideas other put forth like fences, prosecuting employers who hire illegals and finger pointing at the workers who've been adversely effected by those illegals, but no proposals of your own to address the situation.
You made the claim, time to own up and support it.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 01, 2007, 05:38:48 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on April 01, 2007, 05:42:34 PM
Look harder. I'm not here to do your work for you. And I am not about to engage in yet another stupid fruitless debate. Everyone's mind is made up about this one.
I've looked, too, and I can't find any solutions you've proposed, really. Naysaying other people's proposals and calling them "kneejerk reactionaries" for wanting something so crazy as real national borders, yes.
Post by: Sindawe on April 01, 2007, 06:36:27 PM
Quote
There is an easy solution. Open immigration.
Later in the same thread....
Quote
An easy solution is to abolish the INS and immigration laws. Then all those people will be here legally.
Oh, THERE it is. Silly me, here I was looking for an actual proposal from you that was NOT surrender of the country to criminal invaders.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 01, 2007, 07:41:35 PM
I've proposed a bunch of stuff that is entirely workable, more workable than the nativist-ranting-kneejerk-anti-immigrant crap I keep reading.
Just don't call us cowards.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 01, 2007, 07:42:48 PM
Quote
An easy solution is to abolish the INS and immigration laws. Then all those people will be here legally.
Oh, THERE it is. Silly me, here I was looking for an actual proposal from you that was NOT surrender of the country to criminal invaders.
Most of the reactionary anti-immigration folks insist that he problem is that immigrants are violating our law. But that's really just a red herring, easily identified by proposing that we amend the law to make illegal immigrants legal. The truth is that the reactionaries don't like having Mexicans here in the good ol' US of A. It's easy enough to illustrate. Rabbi did it last time we held this pointless arguement, and folks fell for it then just as readily as y'all did today.
If y'all want to discuss something useful, quit whimpering about foreigners who are too smart to obey our stupid immigration laws. Let's have a discussion about the merits of having a supply of unskilled laborers, and about whether or not we need to import them from foreign countries. Let's discuss real problems caused by Mexican illegals living here (and I don't mean arbitrary violations of stupid laws), and whether or not the best solution to those problems is to institute a "War on Immigration" to go along with our wildly successful War on Drugs and War on Poverty.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 01, 2007, 07:49:25 PM
Man, that's so ridiculous I have been laughing out loud for several minutes now. That solution is up there with "Let them eat pastries." But, no, it is my fault - I honestly believed this time we'd get something meaningful. Silly me. LOL.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 01, 2007, 07:54:52 PM
I've proposed a bunch of stuff that is entirely workable, more workable than the nativist-ranting-kneejerk-anti-immigrant crap I keep reading.
Just don't call us cowards.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 01, 2007, 07:55:45 PM
Open borders?? I wonder what will happen to the Rabbi when the other 6 billion people on this planet decide to immigrate into the US and live down the street of him... He'd better be ready to "share". Har-har-har-har... ROTFLMAO
Man, that's so ridiculous I have been laughing out loud for several minutes now. That solution is up there with "Let them eat pastries."
Care to provide any substance to back up your "ridiculous" assertion?
Man, that's so ridiculous I have been laughing out loud for several minutes now. That solution is up there with "Let them eat pastries."
Post by: De Selby on April 01, 2007, 07:56:42 PM
The only remotely realistic solution to the immigration problems is Real ID. A national licensing system for the right to work, that is easy and fast to verify. Anything else is a waste of money, like a 2000 mile fence or swelling yet another Federal Agency to titanic proportions.
Deprive people of the economic incentive, and they won't come. But you can't do that without a de facto Real ID, and I've seen how popular national identification is on these boards....
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 01, 2007, 08:00:52 PM
I guess "free market" isn't an American ideal anymore.
The only remotely realistic solution to the immigration problems is Real ID. A national licensing system for the right to work, that is easy and fast to verify. Anything else is a waste of money, like a 2000 mile fence or swelling yet another Federal Agency to titanic proportions.
I guess "liberty" isn't an American ideal anymore, either.The only remotely realistic solution to the immigration problems is Real ID. A national licensing system for the right to work, that is easy and fast to verify. Anything else is a waste of money, like a 2000 mile fence or swelling yet another Federal Agency to titanic proportions.
Sigh...
Deprive people of the economic incentive, and they won't come. But you can't do that without a de facto Real ID, and I've seen how popular national identification is on these boards....
Are you certain that this can't be done without Real ID? Have you actually given the matter any thought?
Post by: De Selby on April 01, 2007, 08:04:06 PM
Yes, I've given the matter some thought. There isn't another solution that won't involve either:
A) A ridiculous, impossible to maintain, expensive to build fence in the middle of the desert.
or
B) Massive federal spending on law enforcement. The amount of investment required to arrest, try (since we don't let LE just grab anyone and throw them out of the country), and then deport millions of people would make it like the war on drugs times two.
Edit:
That's not saying I like real ID. Ideally, people would learn to accept minimally effective border control and employment verification, and just live with the fact that a number of people will make it past the checks...and also that there is a need for labor that could be met with immigration reform. But I doubt that's going to get a lot of people waiving fists and doing chants.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 01, 2007, 08:07:11 PM
Quote
Care to provide any substance to back up your "ridiculous" assertion?
If you open the border, tens of millions will move here over a very short time for fear that we'll come to our senses and close the flood gets before they have the chance. Exactly where are they going to live? Who will employ them? What will happen to our infrastructure and communications? Who will pay for the extra services and policing necessary?
We do not live in the 18th or 19th century so any immigrant from anyplace can just come and head for the frontier and be self-sufficient and just grow or hunt or mine something or die trying. Look at our own illegals now. They require emergency services and education, they expect modern living conditions, they unionize, they garner support from politicians and racists. Multiply that by 100x and maybe you'll get a picture of the scope of the problem "open borders" will produce.
It has to be realized that our society is far more complicated and is getting more so, than one that is compatible with the self-sufficient frontiersman spirit that is the ideological underpinning of purist libertarianism. To apply it to a modern industrial society successfully is impossible. Even if it were, the sheeple would not let you. Even if they did, the rich would not let you. Even if they did, the religious people would not let you. Even if they did, the commies and socialists would not let you. Even if they did, the corporations and their pocket politicians would not let you. You get the picture.
Post by: Waitone on April 01, 2007, 09:34:50 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 02, 2007, 02:39:58 AM
Quote
A national licensing system for the right to work, that is easy and fast to verify.
There's a right to work now? I have a right to a job? Sweet.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 02, 2007, 03:40:12 AM
Quote
A national licensing system for the right to work, that is easy and fast to verify.
There's a right to work now? I have a right to a job? Sweet.
Yes you have a right to a job. That comes under the rubric of "pursuit of happiness." You do not have a guarantee of a job, however. I hope I don't have to explain the distinction.
Anyway, those on the "law and order" side of the debate need to first admit that their solutions are unworkable and unrealistic and if implemented would fail to stop the problem while turning the U.S. into a police state. Once I see that concession we can talk about what a real solution would look like.
As for CAnoneer's ridiculous assertion about 10B people moving here, once it becomes apparant that there aren't 10B jobs available and people's standard of living isn't going to improve they wont come. That point will be reached long before even the first billion make their way. And if there are 10B jobs then the US will experience the greatest boom in the economy ever seen.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 02, 2007, 04:04:47 AM
As for CAnoneer's ridiculous assertion about 10B people moving here, once it becomes apparant that there aren't 10B jobs available and people's standard of living isn't going to improve they wont come. That point will be reached long before even the first billion make their way. And if there are 10B jobs then the US will experience the greatest boom in the economy ever seen.
Of course they'll come even if there isn't jobs.
Where's a better place to steal from? A country of tens of millions of hovels, or a country of tens of millions of suburban houses stuffed with flatscreen TVs, PCs, iPods, prescription drugs, jewelry, etc?
Where's a better place to sell drugs? Where people have no money, or where there's plenty of people ready to purchase everything from ziplocs of pot to nickel bags of crack to pure cocaine and heroin, cash?
Where's a better place to need medical care, in a third-world corrupt narcostate, or a country where nobody can be turned away from an emergency room?
Of course they'll come.
Rome, anyone?
Post by: The Rabbi on April 02, 2007, 04:10:05 AM
As for CAnoneer's ridiculous assertion about 10B people moving here, once it becomes apparant that there aren't 10B jobs available and people's standard of living isn't going to improve they wont come. That point will be reached long before even the first billion make their way. And if there are 10B jobs then the US will experience the greatest boom in the economy ever seen.
Of course they'll come even if there isn't jobs.
Where's a better place to steal from? A country of tens of millions of hovels, or a country of tens of millions of suburban houses stuffed with flatscreen TVs, PCs, iPods, prescription drugs, jewelry, etc?
Where's a better place to sell drugs? Where people have no money, or where there's plenty of people ready to purchase everything from ziplocs of pot to nickel bags of crack to pure cocaine and heroin, cash?
Yeah, everyone knows that spics are just drug pushers and thieves. Unlike law-abiding Americans who never steal or sell drugs.
Just like the joke about the Black woman who didnt want to marry the Mexican because she was afraid her kids would be too lazy to steal.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 02, 2007, 04:12:00 AM
As for CAnoneer's ridiculous assertion about 10B people moving here, once it becomes apparant that there aren't 10B jobs available and people's standard of living isn't going to improve they wont come. That point will be reached long before even the first billion make their way. And if there are 10B jobs then the US will experience the greatest boom in the economy ever seen.
Of course they'll come even if there isn't jobs.
Where's a better place to steal from? A country of tens of millions of hovels, or a country of tens of millions of suburban houses stuffed with flatscreen TVs, PCs, iPods, prescription drugs, jewelry, etc?
Where's a better place to sell drugs? Where people have no money, or where there's plenty of people ready to purchase everything from ziplocs of pot to nickel bags of crack to pure cocaine and heroin, cash?
Yeah, everyone knows that spics are just drug pushers and thieves. Unlike law-abiding Americans who never steal or sell drugs.
Just like the joke about the Black woman who didnt want to marry the Mexican because she was afraid her kids would be too lazy to steal.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 02, 2007, 04:29:13 AM
Post by: HankB on April 02, 2007, 04:40:30 AM
That's rather more than 9/11 and several years of Gulf War II casualties combined.
Every year.
Here's a source . . . if you don't like WND, check out the links to the original materials the story was based on, contained within the story.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103
Post by: Manedwolf on April 02, 2007, 04:51:31 AM
Sorry, you're the one making the argument that Hispanics are thieves and drug pushers, not me. Playing the "I'm not PC" game won't wash here.
Did I once use the word "hispanic" or even any deragatory reference to them? Did I even mention race? Did I mention nationality?
Nope. You're creating a strawman and putting words in my mouth. People of that sort can come from ANY third-world nation and be of ANY race and ANY ethnic background. It's a matter of culture, NOT RACE.
You go full-tilt globalism and open borders, you're exporting skilled jobs and importing poverty. If you can't defend your borders, the masses of have-nots will come in and take what you have. And the end result of that would, indeed, mirror the fate of Rome.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 02, 2007, 04:53:57 AM
There's a right to work now? I have a right to a job? Sweet.
Yes you have a right to a job. That comes under the rubric of "pursuit of happiness." You do not have a guarantee of a job, however. I hope I don't have to explain the distinction.
That's an interesting position to take, in light of the following:
Quote from: The Rabbi
My position is that "rights" are simply what society says they are. There are no inherent rights in any person. No one has succesfully argued against this...
Quote
I believe rights are things generally agreed on by society to be so.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=3269.0
Now, how is it that you can argue for rights that run contrary to current law?
Post by: The Rabbi on April 02, 2007, 05:24:55 AM
There's a right to work now? I have a right to a job? Sweet.
Yes you have a right to a job. That comes under the rubric of "pursuit of happiness." You do not have a guarantee of a job, however. I hope I don't have to explain the distinction.
That's an interesting position to take, in light of the following:
Quote from: The Rabbi
My position is that "rights" are simply what society says they are. There are no inherent rights in any person. No one has succesfully argued against this...
Quote
I believe rights are things generally agreed on by society to be so.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=3269.0
Now, how is it that you can argue for rights that run contrary to current law?
You haven't shown any contradiction in my position.
Post by: Glock Glockler on April 02, 2007, 05:56:23 AM
You cannot have open immigration and a welfare state.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 02, 2007, 06:00:53 AM
Rabbi,
You cannot have open immigration and a welfare state.
You cannot have open immigration and a welfare state.
Agreed 100%. Do away with the welfare state.
Post by: roo_ster on April 02, 2007, 06:34:41 AM
AS to the OP, the bill in question is a fraction of a degree removed from the Kennedy/GWB amnesty bill. Same shinola, different package.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 02, 2007, 07:42:19 AM
Quote
You cannot have open immigration and a welfare state.
Agreed 100%. Do away with the welfare state.
Agreed 100%. Do away with the welfare state.
Hehehehe. More soz-fiction from the Rabbi. So long as the poor, the old, the sick, and racial victimologists can vote, (and big business can buy politicians) good luck with that. Or are you arguing those people should not be allowed to vote?
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 02, 2007, 07:54:30 AM
Quote
As for CAnoneer's ridiculous assertion about 10B people moving here, once it becomes apparant that there aren't 10B jobs available and people's standard of living isn't going to improve they wont come. That point will be reached long before even the first billion make their way.
That makes as much sense as the statements:
1) "Savers realize that if they all rush the bank, the bank will collapse, so they won't rush the bank at the sight of trouble"
2) "Passengers on a sinking ship realize that if they overload the boats, they will all drown, so they will not overload the boats."
3) "Spectators in an overcrowded stadium realize that if they all run for the gates in an emergency, they will likely get squished by the crowd, so they will not run for the gates in an emergency."
4) "Gamblers in Las Vegas know that the game is crooked in favor of the House, and so they expect to lose on average, so no particular gambler will come to Vegas trying to strike it rich."
People will voluntarily stop coming here (legally or illegally) only when here becomes as bad as where they come from.
Taking into account most of the rest of the world is an unspeakable toilet, the corollary is that the Rabbi's proposal will only work when the US becomes the same unspeakable toilet.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 02, 2007, 07:56:23 AM
People will voluntarily stop coming here (legally or illegally) only when here becomes as bad as where they come from.
Taking into account most of the rest of the world is an unspeakable toilet, the corollary is that the Rabbi's proposal will only work when the US becomes the same unspeakable toilet.
Taking into account most of the rest of the world is an unspeakable toilet, the corollary is that the Rabbi's proposal will only work when the US becomes the same unspeakable toilet.
THANK you. Well said!
Post by: De Selby on April 02, 2007, 07:59:47 AM
I have yet to see a realistic proposal from anyone for stopping immigration. Instead of ragging on the Rabbi for highlighting your problems, maybe you should all try and propose something workable to solve your perceived threat from immigration.
Post by: Sindawe on April 02, 2007, 08:12:19 AM
Quote
I have yet to see a realistic proposal from anyone for stopping immigration.
Its NOT about stopping IMMIGRATION. Its about stopping ILLEGAL immigration. Legal immigrants are screened for criminal backgrounds and infectious diseases like multidrug resistant TB and extensively drug resistant TB. Those crossing the border illegally are not screened until they hit the hospitals for some need.
Post by: De Selby on April 02, 2007, 08:18:51 AM
Okay, so would you support changing the law to make most current illegal immigration, legal?
What if we just said "anyone who wants to can come from Mexico if you undergo a criminal background check and a health check?" The cost would be cheaper than paying a human smuggler, so there's no reason why people wouldn't come legally then...
How about that plan?
Post by: mtnbkr on April 02, 2007, 08:24:13 AM
On the job front, I'm in no danger of losing my job to a "mexican" since the skill and clearance requirements are so high. If a "mexican" took my job, it was because he beat me skillwise and managed to get the appropriate clearances. "Jose" at the local 7-11 isn't a threat to me in that manner. I have worked with Mexican expats prior to getting into the govt side of the industry, but those guys were just as good as their American counterparts and here legally.
That said...
Illegal Hispanics are making a mess of Northern Virginia. I live in a town with a high immigrant population (mostly Hispanic). My neighborhood is largely Hispanic. You can tell the homes Hispanics live in by the trash and general unkempt nature (El Tejon, you listening?). You can also tell which ones have multiple families living in one house by the mountain of trash put out each trash day. Most families put out 1-2 cans once or twice a week. These homes put out 4-5 each trash day. Frequently, rather than walk 10ft to a trashcan (we have 1-2 per block), they'll dump trash from their cars straight onto the street. I've seen this personally and have even confronted the people doing this. I get blank stares at best. In order to maintain some neatness on our street, I frequently pick up any bottle, can, wrapper, etc while walking my dog and drop it off at the next can. It's completely normal for there to be one or two derelict cars on our street. Sometimes, they're repaired and driven, sometimes they get towed. There's absolutely no respect for property either. If you park on the street, their kids may play on your car. If your yard is between them and their destination, they'll walk a path into your lawn rather than follow the sidewalk around the block. All around town, you can see their favorite "commuting routes" because you see the paths walked into the grass as much as 3" deep. I've seen paths created to avoid a curve in the sidewalk. FWIW, I only see Hispanics walking these paths. I've heard stories from folks that live near the new "migrant work center" in Herndon that they've caught illegals crapping in their yard (as in trousers down, squatting).
The only thing that seems to keep our neighborhood from becoming a total dump is the HOA. While I hate them in principle, they have served a purpose here. Lest you think this is a low income neighborhood, we're not. The townhomes range in price from the low $300k range up to just over $400k, but that doesn't stop a renter who can pool his cash with 10 of his best buddies.
I understand cultural differences, but that doesn't mean I want to live among them in that manner. It's not hard to pick up your own garbage, respect property rights, and keep your kids under control. I manage to do it daily, as do my neighbors.
If that makes me racist, then so be it. I'm not as uptight as El Tejon regarding homes, etc, but I do expect folks to at least keep their mess to themselves.
Chris
Post by: The Rabbi on April 02, 2007, 08:38:01 AM
It seems like a red herring to say "'those people' shouldn't be allowed to move here because they live in a dirty manner I find offensive." That isn't an anti-illegal immigrant argument. It is an anti any immigrant argument.
That said, most places have zoning ordinances etc that are supposed to police trash, working on cars, crapping on lawns etc.
Post by: Glock Glockler on April 02, 2007, 08:50:44 AM
If I could snap my fingers right now and get rid of the welfare state I would do it, but until my magic powers improve we are stuck with dismantling it the hard way. That being the case, will bringing in millions of people who are at the bottom of the economic totem pole, who are the most likely to be dependant on govt services, help dismantle it?
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 02, 2007, 08:53:38 AM
You want a plan? Very well:
1) Border enforcement - wall, surveillance, buy off the desert within 5 miles of the border, prevent people from rendering any unofficial assitance to the violators. Capture, try, and shoot coyotes. Deport illegals to point of origin at the particular country's expense.
2) Pass a law that states that an illegal will never under any circumstances be allowed to become a citizen or a permanent resident.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.
4) Demand social security numbers for enrolment in school, emergency visit to hospitals, or any other social privilege. Input name, basic biometrics (gender, eye color, hair color), SSN, and valid address. The system returns "valid" or "invalid" without disclosing details. "Invalid" is reported to the authorities. Failure to report is obstruction of justice.
5) Revoke and refuse to give a driver's license to illegals. To be allowed to drive here, they should first be allowed to be here.
6) Credit card companies will be prohibited from claiming as expense the damages from giving credit to illegals.
7) Employers hiring illegals will face heavy fines and jail terms, rather than a slap on the wrist after a protracted period of turning a blind eye. To determine identity, employers can use the same system as above #4 as well as driver's licenses. If they were forged, so employers were really fooled, let them produce xerox copies of those licenses.
Opposers of enforcement would have us believe that our options are extremely limited and that any enforcement is tantamount to an unchristian racist police state. Do not be fooled.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 02, 2007, 08:54:43 AM
Post by: De Selby on April 02, 2007, 08:59:51 AM
Quote
1) Border enforcement - wall, surveillance, buy off the desert within 5 miles of the border, prevent people from rendering any unofficial assitance to the violators. Capture, try, and shoot coyotes. Deport illegals to point of origin at the particular country's expense.
Oh yeah, because five miles wide times 2000 miles long, plus fences, plus law enforcement to investigate and try all the would-be helpers, plus changing the death penalty to include coyotes, plus collecting the fees for deportation from another country, are totally realistic.
And on top of being realistic, they're low cost
Quote
2) Pass a law that states that an illegal will never under any circumstances be allowed to become a citizen or a permanent resident.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.
What's your plan for revoking the constitution? This is what would be required...
Quote
4) Demand social security numbers for enrolment in school, emergency visit to hospitals, or any other social privilege. Input name, basic biometrics (gender, eye color, hair color), SSN, and valid address. The system returns "valid" or "invalid" without disclosing details. "Invalid" is reported to the authorities. Failure to report is obstruction of justice.
And when you are injured and need emergency services, you'll see the folly of this plan immediately when the nurse denies an unconscious you medical care because she can't find your SSN or ID.
You do need documents for any other privilege besides emergency care, btw. Look how well that's working...
The whole plan is totally unrealistic. This is fantasy land immigration prevention, not real life.
Post by: mtnbkr on April 02, 2007, 09:00:41 AM
As for the zoning ordinances, yes, we have those, but it doesn't seem to help much. Cops make regular rounds in this area, but they can't do much if they can't catch the perpetrators in the act or you can't give them a detailed description.
Anyway Rabbi, try living among it for a while. Maybe it hasn't gotten to Nashville yet (haven't been there in nearly 20 years).
Chris
Post by: Oleg Volk on April 02, 2007, 09:03:33 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on April 02, 2007, 09:08:36 AM
As for requiring social security numbers, that already is the case. In the Swift Meat Packing case reported not too long ago, Swift had a system in place to verify legality. In fact they wanted an even more intrusive system and were told my Justice that it would be a violation of civil rights. So I guess the Justice Dept cares more about civil rights than many of the "libertarian" posters here.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 02, 2007, 09:17:33 AM
Quote
2) Pass a law that states that an illegal will never under any circumstances be allowed to become a citizen or a permanent resident.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.
What's your plan for revoking the constitution? This is what would be required...
Revoking the constitution is not required, but you knew that. A Constitutional amendment would do the trick. You've heard of those, I assume. I'm not saying that would be easy, but "revoking the Constitution" is just over-heated rhetoric.
Post by: De Selby on April 02, 2007, 09:20:45 AM
I was using his word. "Revoke the rule", he says.
But yeah, a constitutional amendment is feasible in what sci-fi scenario? What would the new rule be? The pre-Dredd Scott rule?
Post by: mtnbkr on April 02, 2007, 09:32:19 AM
Mtnbiker, I wouldnt want to live next door to that either. But try going to Chinatown someplace and I think you'll see an amazing lack of English as well. What you are objecting to is obnoxious behavior. But that behavior is neither caused by nor the result of illegal immigration.
Actually, living in Northern Virginia, I see it everywhere. Also, this being such a touristy area (DC and all), I don't really pay attention to it except when it's in my own neighborhood. It's the total lack of care that bothers me though. I don't see that with the African family across the street. The worst we had to deal with regarding the Iranian family next door was their seeming inability to mow their backyard (thanks to privacy fences, I only saw it from 2nd and 3rd floor windows). However, the Hispanic households tend to use their front and backyards for gathering places, drinking parties, etc. They're the ones using the Mexican flag (or other Central and South American flags) as curtains in their windows. Then there's all the other stuff I mentioned above. That's without getting into the potential criminal actions that have been documented by others. I'll leave that out since I haven't witnessed it myself (other than a hit and run via stolen car).
It really is something that you have to see firsthand. I can't describe the cultural element that's moving in clearly enough, but you'll know it when you see it. Like I said, I don't have a problem with immigrants, just the ones that want to turn my town into the American equivilent to theirs. I've been to theirs, I don't want that here.
Chris
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 02, 2007, 09:32:51 AM
fistful,
I was using his word. "Revoke the rule", he says.
But yeah, a constitutional amendment is feasible in what sci-fi scenario? What would the new rule be? The pre-Dredd Scott rule?
I was using his word. "Revoke the rule", he says.
But yeah, a constitutional amendment is feasible in what sci-fi scenario? What would the new rule be? The pre-Dredd Scott rule?
He said "revoke the rule." You twisted that into "revoke the Constitution." But you had to go further, by presenting an obvious false dichotomy and playing the race card. You know very well that there is plenty of ground between the anchor babies and Judge Taney. It would be a simple matter to write an amendment revoking birthright citizenship for any future children of non-citizens. And, no, it needn't be retro-active.
Post by: Gewehr98 on April 02, 2007, 09:42:03 AM
Quote
Capture, try, and shoot coyotes.
And just how well do you think that would go over, making it a capital offense? I'd say the chances of the law being changed to support execution of coyotes will happen, oh, about NEVER. (Thankfully so, it would be a dangerous precedent)
Mtnbkr, wanna find out for sure if your neighbors are illegals? I have a souvenir INS jacket you can wear and just walk by the place. Watch the illegals scatter like cockroaches.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 02, 2007, 10:06:13 AM
Quote
2) Pass a law that states that an illegal will never under any circumstances be allowed to become a citizen or a permanent resident.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.
What's your plan for revoking the constitution? This is what would be required...
Revoking the constitution is not required, but you knew that. A Constitutional amendment would do the trick. You've heard of those, I assume. I'm not saying that would be easy, but "revoking the Constitution" is just over-heated rhetoric.
It's simpler than that, Fistful. The Constitution applies to CITIZENS. Not to non-citizens.
Non-citizens do not have any constitutional rights in this country. None. Period. Does not apply.
Courts and lawmakers have chosen to extend the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments to them in court proceedings. But they do not have second, they do not have the right to vote, etc...
It's our constitution. They are still citizens of another nation, not ours.
And that's why when they swear the oath of citizenship, they also renounce allegiance to any other nation.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 02, 2007, 10:14:20 AM
The problems you describe sound like poverty and disinterest. Making the Mexicans legal would go a long way towards solving both. Legality would bring them above ground and into the economy, where they might be able to earn a reasonable living and could thereby spare enough money to maintain their properties at American standards.
Making them legal would also give them a sense of, I'm not sure how to put it, a sense of belonging, of ownership, of permanence. As things stand now, they aren't here legally and they can't expect to stick around long. They know it won't be long before they get booted out, either out of their house or out of the country. Or they might choose to return to Mexico after a few months or years. What incentive do they have to care about the long-term maintenance of their houses? Make 'em legal and their temporary houses will become their long-term homes. You'll find that if they know they can stay, if they know they'll have a future stake in their properties, that they'll start to care about proper upkeep.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 02, 2007, 10:17:10 AM
Quote
2) Pass a law that states that an illegal will never under any circumstances be allowed to become a citizen or a permanent resident.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.
What's your plan for revoking the constitution? This is what would be required...
Revoking the constitution is not required, but you knew that. A Constitutional amendment would do the trick. You've heard of those, I assume. I'm not saying that would be easy, but "revoking the Constitution" is just over-heated rhetoric.
It's simpler than that, Fistful. The Constitution applies to CITIZENS. Not to non-citizens.
Non-citizens do not have any constitutional rights in this country. None. Period. Does not apply.
Courts and lawmakers have chosen to extend the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments to them in court proceedings. But they do not have second, they do not have the right to vote, etc...
It's our constitution. They are still citizens of another nation, not ours.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 02, 2007, 10:21:03 AM
Quote
2) Pass a law that states that an illegal will never under any circumstances be allowed to become a citizen or a permanent resident.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.
What's your plan for revoking the constitution? This is what would be required...
Revoking the constitution is not required, but you knew that. A Constitutional amendment would do the trick. You've heard of those, I assume. I'm not saying that would be easy, but "revoking the Constitution" is just over-heated rhetoric.
It's simpler than that, Fistful. The Constitution applies to CITIZENS. Not to non-citizens.
Non-citizens do not have any constitutional rights in this country. None. Period. Does not apply.
Courts and lawmakers have chosen to extend the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments to them in court proceedings. But they do not have second, they do not have the right to vote, etc...
It's our constitution. They are still citizens of another nation, not ours.
Yes, they are. However, that's been used as a tool by illegals, the so-called "baby anchor". So yes, perhaps some Supreme Court clarification is needed, because it's being abused.
As Fistful said, first, 1) No illlegal can ever become a citizen, and 2) baby born to illegals can not be a citizen. Just as if a baby was born to visiting foreigners while they were on vacation in the US, it's still a citizen of the only legal country of its parents.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 02, 2007, 10:27:50 AM
It's simpler than that, Fistful. The Constitution applies to CITIZENS. Not to non-citizens.
Non-citizens do not have any constitutional rights in this country. None. Period. Does not apply.
And what planet do you live on again? Non-citizens (which includes green card aliens) have every right that U.S. citizens have, except the ability to vote. And yeah, that includes the right to buy firearms.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 02, 2007, 10:43:22 AM
Quote
Oh yeah, because five miles wide times 2000 miles long, plus fences, plus law enforcement to investigate and try all the would-be helpers, plus changing the death penalty to include coyotes, plus collecting the fees for deportation from another country, are totally realistic. And on top of being realistic, they're low cost.
Much of the land is already gov property. How much is a square mile of desert worth anyway? Not buying the land is a nice cover for drug dealers with border ranches shipping dope across the border, though.
Oh, no, it costs! Newsflash: illegals already cost billions in social services they do not pay for. The WoD costs more every year, yet those ranches are tolerated.
Quote
What's your plan for revoking the constitution? This is what would be required...
The usual exaggerated demagogic bullpoop. A simple amendment would be good for the country and will cut off the current blatant abuse once and for all.
Quote
And when you are injured and need emergency services, you'll see the folly of this plan immediately when the nurse denies an unconscious you medical care because she can't find your SSN or ID.
Sorry dude, but a simple cold is not an emergency that prevents you from being certified. Most of the expense is incurred when illegals use emergency services as their primary source of medical care when there is no real emergency. Nobody says somebody must bleed to death before certified. More exaggerations and extreme extrapolations from you. Again, nobody is fooled.
Quote
You do need documents for any other privilege besides emergency care, btw. Look how well that's working...
That's a bold-faced lie. In Texas now and soon in California, it is prohibited to ask the incoming students if they are in the country legally. You should know that. A blind eye is turned when parents are suddenly "forgetful" about names and other identification information as well.
Quote
The whole plan is totally unrealistic. This is fantasy land immigration prevention, not real life.
If the blue moon shines and Tancredo wins, you will see.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 02, 2007, 10:49:08 AM
Non-citizens do not have any constitutional rights in this country. None. Period. Does not apply.
Thank you Rush Limbuagh. Much as I love "America's Anchorman," you're both wrong on that point.
Quote
As Fistful said, first, 1) No illlegal can ever become a citizen, and 2) baby born to illegals can not be a citizen.
I didn't say that.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 02, 2007, 12:02:12 PM
Quote
And just how well do you think that would go over, making it a capital offense? I'd say the chances of the law being changed to support execution of coyotes will happen, oh, about NEVER. (Thankfully so, it would be a dangerous precedent)
Please explain your position.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 02, 2007, 12:16:02 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on April 02, 2007, 12:19:50 PM
It's simpler than that, Fistful. The Constitution applies to CITIZENS. Not to non-citizens.
Non-citizens do not have any constitutional rights in this country. None. Period. Does not apply.
And what planet do you live on again? Non-citizens (which includes green card aliens) have every right that U.S. citizens have, except the ability to vote. And yeah, that includes the right to buy firearms.
A legislatively granted group of rights, not any given specifically in the Constitution or its amendments. The rights of aliens, including green-card holders, CAN be changed at the will of lawmakers, and the green card program could be stopped if they so wished.
Difference between rights enumerated in the bill of rights for citizens, and those simply given by writ of law.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 02, 2007, 12:21:09 PM
Non-citizens do not have any constitutional rights in this country. None. Period. Does not apply.
Thank you Rush Limbuagh. Much as I love "America's Anchorman," you're both wrong on that point.
Quote
As Fistful said, first, 1) No illlegal can ever become a citizen, and 2) baby born to illegals can not be a citizen.
I didn't say that. My mistake, you were quoting CAnnoneer there.
Post by: Gewehr98 on April 02, 2007, 12:32:51 PM
Execution, last I heard in these United States, was reserved almost exclusively for those heinously criminal acts that resulted in the death of another human being. Even under the UCMJ, they don't execute traitors or deserters found guilty in courts martial anymore - they get life in prison at Club Leavenworth, KS (I got to escort one from the sentencing to Leavenworth once, something I think all GIs should experience in their careers). Human rights violations notwithstanding, we don't kill 'em for spitting on the sidewalk these days.
The death penalty list of capital offenses:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=29&did=192
Note the severity of the crimes that garner such punishment. You *might* be able to convince a jury that aforementioned coyote was trafficking in large amounts of illegal drugs, thereby justifying the death penalty, but I'd wager it's a pretty damned far stretch to come on board and say "Kill 'em, they're smuggling illegal aliens across the Rio Grande!" At that point, we're right back to Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge, and The Killing Fields. You wear glasses? You're dead. You have a university degree? You're a threat to my government's game plan, so you get to die. You brought in a dozen beaners to SoCal? Line up against the wall, amigo...
So I stand by my original question - just how seriously do you think a proposal to execute coyotes would be received by legislators and lawmakers? Judge Roy Bean has been dead and buried how many years?
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 02, 2007, 12:44:14 PM
Do you see what I'm saying?
Post by: roo_ster on April 02, 2007, 12:48:43 PM
Amendment 14 Section 1 reads, in part:
Quote
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Dont forget the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That bit is how the children of foreign ambassadors born on American soil, in an American hospital, do not get any sort of American citizenship. Ambassadors, being citizens of a foreign country, fail the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" test.
So do illegals. Congress can address this.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 02, 2007, 01:02:04 PM
The anchor baby problem can be solved legislatively without an amendment to the COTUS.
Amendment 14 Section 1 reads, in part:
Dont forget the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That bit is how the children of foreign ambassadors born on American soil, in an American hospital, do not get any sort of American citizenship. Ambassadors, being citizens of a foreign country, fail the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" test.
So do illegals. Congress can address this.
Amendment 14 Section 1 reads, in part:
Quote
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Dont forget the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That bit is how the children of foreign ambassadors born on American soil, in an American hospital, do not get any sort of American citizenship. Ambassadors, being citizens of a foreign country, fail the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" test.
So do illegals. Congress can address this.
Illegals living here aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US? In that case they could never be deported.
I suspect that children of ambassadors choose not to take American citizenship.
Post by: Glock Glockler on April 02, 2007, 01:03:38 PM
If we take that idea to it's logical conclusion then why shouldn't non-citizens be allowed to vote?
Post by: De Selby on April 02, 2007, 01:04:09 PM
It looks like what this boils down to is the chance that Tancredo wins and installs cronies in Congress and the Senate....so again, this is fantasy land. Tom "Take a Tomahawk to da headz o' dose mexicans" Tancredo is going to get about as much of the vote as David Duke did when he ran for president.
The facts remain:
Building a 2000 mile fence and then maintaining it is a ridiculous idea, and it's never going to happen.
Amending the constitution to restore the Dred Scott rule for citizenship is not going to happen either.
Hence, no workable solution yet proposed by the anti-immigrant crowd
Post by: Manedwolf on April 02, 2007, 01:19:24 PM
Maned, you've also got a problem with saying that the Constitution only applies to citizens, yet the issue at hand is, who should be a citizen?
Do you see what I'm saying?
Do you see what I'm saying?
Who should be a citizen? I'd think that'd be the people who come in legally, apply for the proper paperwork, pay the fees, and swear the oath of citizenship?
If someone is willing to follow those rules, I think it's a safer bet they're more willing to follow other rules?
If someone breaks the law to come in as an illegal, they've already shown a complete and utter disregard for our laws. Why would we want them as a citizen, and why wouldn't they then disregard other laws they don't care to follow?
BTW, shootinstudent, it's anti ILLEGAL immigrant, not anti immigrant. That deliberate misnaming to garner sympathy is really getting old.
Post by: De Selby on April 02, 2007, 01:23:59 PM
And like I said, would you support changing the law so that all those immigrants currently coming would be legal with a health and criminal background check?
Why or why not?
Post by: Manedwolf on April 02, 2007, 01:27:15 PM
Manedwolf,
And like I said, would you support changing the law so that all those immigrants currently coming would be legal with a health and criminal background check?
Why or why not?
And like I said, would you support changing the law so that all those immigrants currently coming would be legal with a health and criminal background check?
Why or why not?
The only immigrants that should be coming in are those who have been waiting in line, when their number is called. There's lots of people waiting to enter legally.
Post by: De Selby on April 02, 2007, 01:29:53 PM
But hey, if we change the law, they won't be illegal. You said that was your only objection right?
Are you going to stop opposing their presence if we just change the law?
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 02, 2007, 01:55:53 PM
Quote
Who should be a citizen? I'd think that'd be the people who come in legally, apply for the proper paperwork, pay the fees, and swear the oath of citizenship?
That's not the point. You can't say that anchor babies should not get citizenship by simply saying that the Constitution doesn't apply to them. If the Fourteenth Amendment says they are citizens, then they will be citizens. That part of the amendment must be either amended or shown not to apply.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 02, 2007, 02:35:41 PM
Removing illegals from US jurisdiction would mean you couldn't legally do anything to them.
It looks like what this boils down to is the chance that Tancredo wins and installs cronies in Congress and the Senate....so again, this is fantasy land. Tom "Take a Tomahawk to da headz o' dose mexicans" Tancredo is going to get about as much of the vote as David Duke did when he ran for president.
The facts remain:
Building a 2000 mile fence and then maintaining it is a ridiculous idea, and it's never going to happen.
Amending the constitution to restore the Dred Scott rule for citizenship is not going to happen either.
Hence, no workable solution yet proposed by the anti-immigrant crowd
It looks like what this boils down to is the chance that Tancredo wins and installs cronies in Congress and the Senate....so again, this is fantasy land. Tom "Take a Tomahawk to da headz o' dose mexicans" Tancredo is going to get about as much of the vote as David Duke did when he ran for president.
The facts remain:
Building a 2000 mile fence and then maintaining it is a ridiculous idea, and it's never going to happen.
Amending the constitution to restore the Dred Scott rule for citizenship is not going to happen either.
Hence, no workable solution yet proposed by the anti-immigrant crowd
Those look like opinions to me, not facts. And very ignorant opinions, at that.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 02, 2007, 02:36:32 PM
Manedwolf,
But hey, if we change the law, they won't be illegal. You said that was your only objection right?
Are you going to stop opposing their presence if we just change the law?
You won't get a straight answer on this. The objection isn't that they are here illegally (which can be changed pretty easily, a lot more easily than amending the Constitution). The objection is that they don't speak English and have different habits and a different culture. This culture appears threatening since it is pretty pervasive in some parts of the country.But hey, if we change the law, they won't be illegal. You said that was your only objection right?
Are you going to stop opposing their presence if we just change the law?
I would be interested to see a history of immigration in this country. I would bet money much of the rhetoric you see now has been used over and over already.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 02, 2007, 02:39:47 PM
Removing illegals from US jurisdiction would mean you couldn't legally do anything to them.
It looks like what this boils down to is the chance that Tancredo wins and installs cronies in Congress and the Senate....so again, this is fantasy land. Tom "Take a Tomahawk to da headz o' dose mexicans" Tancredo is going to get about as much of the vote as David Duke did when he ran for president.
The facts remain:
Building a 2000 mile fence and then maintaining it is a ridiculous idea, and it's never going to happen.
Amending the constitution to restore the Dred Scott rule for citizenship is not going to happen either.
Hence, no workable solution yet proposed by the anti-immigrant crowd
It looks like what this boils down to is the chance that Tancredo wins and installs cronies in Congress and the Senate....so again, this is fantasy land. Tom "Take a Tomahawk to da headz o' dose mexicans" Tancredo is going to get about as much of the vote as David Duke did when he ran for president.
The facts remain:
Building a 2000 mile fence and then maintaining it is a ridiculous idea, and it's never going to happen.
Amending the constitution to restore the Dred Scott rule for citizenship is not going to happen either.
Hence, no workable solution yet proposed by the anti-immigrant crowd
Those look like opinions to me, not facts. And very ignorant opinions, at that.
A 2000 mile fence through desert is a non-starter of an idea. Amending the Constitution to deal with illegal immigration is also a non-starter. Is there anyone responsible out there pushing this as a serious proposal? Anyone?
Post by: Manedwolf on April 02, 2007, 04:12:29 PM
Manedwolf,
But hey, if we change the law, they won't be illegal. You said that was your only objection right?
Are you going to stop opposing their presence if we just change the law?
You won't get a straight answer on this. The objection isn't that they are here illegally (which can be changed pretty easily, a lot more easily than amending the Constitution). The objection is that they don't speak English and have different habits and a different culture. This culture appears threatening since it is pretty pervasive in some parts of the country.But hey, if we change the law, they won't be illegal. You said that was your only objection right?
Are you going to stop opposing their presence if we just change the law?
I would be interested to see a history of immigration in this country. I would bet money much of the rhetoric you see now has been used over and over already.
What different culture? That people who break laws to come in are more likely to break laws for things like identity theft, driving without a license and such? You bet. The parents of a five year old who already has a busted car loan on her credit report due to illegals using her identity would say the same. Different habits? Like dumping garbage in the street, hitting women, sleeping with underage girls, doing the first-ever driveby in broad daylight on the main street of a nearby city? (All cases with illegals involved.) Yeah, I object to that, too. That mayor in Pennsylvania that's watching his city disintigrate and be overwhelmed by crime while the fed refuses to do anything about illegals tried to do something, and is getting sued by the ACLU over it.
THAT is the "culture" of illegals.
And damn right they should speak English. Vote in English, government business in English, speak English or you don't get to take the oath of citizenship.
I have plenty of people of differerent races and cultures who live near me and work at my workplace. The difference is that they're all successful professionals who worked hard to get there. And they all speak English. I grew up in S. Florida, which had people of EVERY culture. And honestly, the Haitians were the hardest workers of all, and spoke a beautiful King's English. But unlike the Mexicans and Cubans, they ALWAYS get sent back. You want to see racism? There's racism.
Apparently, you're one of the sorts who gets along just fine with the leftists, who thinks that "diversity" means accepting that you now have to lock your doors.
Sorry, but you sound like you're parroting ACLU talking points here.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 02, 2007, 04:12:50 PM
Guess what, if it is good for the country, we should change our laws, including making an amendment to the Constitution to close a loophole that has been more used than a Tijuana whore. We as a society and a nation should decide what is good for us, and keep our eyes on that target. We owe nothing to the outside world; neither are we responsible for its welfare or problems. If we let anyone inside the country, it should only be if and because it is good for us. Importing massive amounts of poverty, criminality, ignorance, and hostile foreign cultural influence is idiotic to the extreme, and only justifiable in the eyes of select few that have their own agendas completely misaligned with ours as a nation.
Those of you who believe in open borders and misguided humanitarianism, run us through a simple scenario. What are you going to do if squatters break into your house through the back door, crap in your living room, demand a portion of your fridge, and tell you to buzz off because they have the right, as human beings, to have food and a roof over their heads. Maybe they will also say that your house is built on a land that belonged to their grandgrandwhateverfather, so they have the right to be in your house. So, let us know what you do then.
Gewehr, I am still waiting for a clear explanation as to why shooting coyotes dead is such a horrible idea. We shoot enemies attacking our troops in Iraq. I am certain our intelligence services have offed quite a few "hostiles" over the years. Coyotes are doing real damage to our national interests, so I do not see why we cannot put them in the same basket. Come to think of it, drug-traffickers should end up with a 9mm aeration port as well - they are killing American citizens by poisoning. Traitors, mind you, are in a different category since they are American citizens, so the parallel does not hold.
Fistful, I am all for trying, convicting, sentencing, and executing traitors. We should start with most folks in Congress, especially on the Dem side.
Rabbi, as a sovereign nation, we have the right and duty to control our borders and choose whom, how many, and when to admit through our front door. If we choose to limit immigrants to English-speakers of a certain educational and property level, then it is our right to do that.
Post by: De Selby on April 02, 2007, 05:23:59 PM
But in all that, no realistic proposal.
I'm sorry, but pointing out that "shooting all the coyotes", building a 2000 mile fence, and amending the constitution based on illegal immigration are unrealistic is well....realistic.
But by all means, throw your votes away on Tancredo or another "border security" candidate. I'll be happy to have my vote count that much more.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 02, 2007, 06:07:10 PM
Lots of talk about rights, duties, sovereignty etc etc....
But in all that, no realistic proposal.
I'm sorry, but pointing out that "shooting all the coyotes", building a 2000 mile fence, and amending the constitution based on illegal immigration are unrealistic is well....realistic.
But by all means, throw your votes away on Tancredo or another "border security" candidate. I'll be happy to have my vote count that much more.
But in all that, no realistic proposal.
I'm sorry, but pointing out that "shooting all the coyotes", building a 2000 mile fence, and amending the constitution based on illegal immigration are unrealistic is well....realistic.
But by all means, throw your votes away on Tancredo or another "border security" candidate. I'll be happy to have my vote count that much more.
And you'd be voting for Hillary, then, or Obama?
Post by: De Selby on April 02, 2007, 06:12:02 PM
The main point is that I won't be wasting my vote on a guy whose whole platform is building a giant fence in the desert. It's not a realistic idea.
Do you have anything like a realistic plan for immigration control?
Post by: Manedwolf on April 02, 2007, 06:14:12 PM
I doubt I'll be voting for Hilary or Obama, but who knows what the candidates will be...they conceivably be better than the other guy.
The main point is that I won't be wasting my vote on a guy whose whole platform is building a giant fence in the desert. It's not a realistic idea.
Do you have anything like a realistic plan for immigration control?
The main point is that I won't be wasting my vote on a guy whose whole platform is building a giant fence in the desert. It's not a realistic idea.
Do you have anything like a realistic plan for immigration control?
Not a realistic idea? It sure works for Mexico's southern border.
Post by: De Selby on April 02, 2007, 06:31:55 PM
Mexico is full of central Americans, some staying, some on their way to America....and that's with a southern border that is small by comparison.
Who got sold on this idea that Mexico, a country plagued by serious corruption and inability to deliver services in other areas, has some magical ability when it comes to administering a border? I've seen that claim repeated often, and I find myself confused every time...
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 02, 2007, 06:37:37 PM
The pro-alien demagogues would let us believe that nothing can work and therefore nothing should be done. Barf.
Post by: De Selby on April 02, 2007, 06:41:45 PM
I would like to know a plan, any plan, that will work and is acceptable to anti-immigrant folk. If it's a wall, let's see at least one realistic proposal for building and maintaining a wall of that size at a reasonable cost.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 02, 2007, 08:22:11 PM
Removing illegals from US jurisdiction would mean you couldn't legally do anything to them.
It looks like what this boils down to is the chance that Tancredo wins and installs cronies in Congress and the Senate....so again, this is fantasy land. Tom "Take a Tomahawk to da headz o' dose mexicans" Tancredo is going to get about as much of the vote as David Duke did when he ran for president.
The facts remain:
Building a 2000 mile fence and then maintaining it is a ridiculous idea, and it's never going to happen.
Amending the constitution to restore the Dred Scott rule for citizenship is not going to happen either.
Hence, no workable solution yet proposed by the anti-immigrant crowd
It looks like what this boils down to is the chance that Tancredo wins and installs cronies in Congress and the Senate....so again, this is fantasy land. Tom "Take a Tomahawk to da headz o' dose mexicans" Tancredo is going to get about as much of the vote as David Duke did when he ran for president.
The facts remain:
Building a 2000 mile fence and then maintaining it is a ridiculous idea, and it's never going to happen.
Amending the constitution to restore the Dred Scott rule for citizenship is not going to happen either.
Hence, no workable solution yet proposed by the anti-immigrant crowd
Those look like opinions to me, not facts. And very ignorant opinions, at that.
You're probably right. They're either ignorant or dishonest, and I was trying to give shootinhismouthoffstudent the benefit of the doubt.
According To My Views (ATMV), Tom Tancredo has never advised the tomahawking of Mexicans, or anything that warrants his being compared to David Duke. To say so, one must either be misinformed (ignorant) or lying. But that's just my view.
ATMV, a great many measures have been proposed, other than building walls or eliminating the anchor baby proviso. To say otherwise, one must either be misinformed (ignorant) or lying. But that's just my view.
ATMV, anyone who equates the anti-anchor-baby suggestion with the non-personhood of Blacks according to a Supreme Court ruling that had nothing to do with immigration is either ignorant or lying. But that's just my view.
ATMV, the slur "anti-immigrant" has been rebuffed so many times that the pro-crime element must know that it is indeed a slur. Or maybe shootinhismouthoffstudent is just ignorant. But that's just my view.
Post by: De Selby on April 02, 2007, 08:40:17 PM
The charge wasn't that no solutions had been offered-it was that no realistic solutions had been offered.
If I said "hey, let's do an ancient egyptian dance praying for the sun god to come wipe out all the illegals", that would be a proposed solution...but not a realistic one.
The problem with your idea of a 2000 mile fence, and changing the constitution, is that neither are going to happen. They are not even remotely within the foreseeable future...in fact, they're probably even less likely than a Tom Tancredo election in 2008 (and that's down there near impossible on the scale).
Repealing the 14th amendment, would in fact, restore the United States to the pre-Dred Scott rule for citizenship. Maybe you don't like that this is what it is, but it's a fact.
And of course, when I asked what would be the response if we just changed the law to make all immigration legal....the opposition continued. "Anti-immigration" is the proper term to describe the belief, because whether it's legal or not, it's opposed.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 03, 2007, 03:12:43 AM
The charge wasn't that no solutions had been offered-it was that no realistic solutions had been offered.
Blah, blah, blah. I know what the charge was. You decided to pick the items that seem less likely, denounce them, and then declare that the "anti-immigration" side hadn't proposed anything workable. Quit lying.Quote
The problem with your idea of a 2000 mile fence, and changing the constitution, is that neither are going to happen. They are not even remotely within the foreseeable future...in fact, they're probably even less likely than a Tom Tancredo election in 2008 (and that's down there near impossible on the scale).
I'm pulling for Fred Thompson, myself. Why are you obsessed with these non-solutions? I haven't said they're realistic, so why do you keep talking as if I did? Quote
Repealing the 14th amendment, would in fact, restore the United States to the pre-Dred Scott rule for citizenship. Maybe you don't like that this is what it is, but it's a fact.
You need to learn the difference between a fact and an opinion. And your opinion is, of course, ignorant. The "pre-Dred Scott rule for citizenship"? Before the Dred Scott ruling, slaves sued for their freedom and won. But Dred Scott lost because the court ruled he had no legal standing, on the basis of his race. His immigration status never came up. You may not like that, but it's a fact.Quote
And of course, when I asked what would be the response if we just changed the law to make all immigration legal....the opposition continued. "Anti-immigration" is the proper term to describe the belief, because whether it's legal or not, it's opposed.
Blah, blah, blah. Reasonable people recognize that immigration must be regulated and limited to reasonable numbers. So, no, simply opening the borders is not a workable solution. Post by: roo_ster on April 03, 2007, 05:46:28 AM
Thing is, tight border control in general, and a border fence in particular are favored by large majorities of US citizens.
Also, building an Israeli-style fence on the border is more do-able by the USA than the West Bank fence is by Israel (when one looks at population, GDP, and miles of fence).
A viable means of getting a handle on the illegal alien problem attacks supply, demand, and attractions.
Supply
Border controls. A fence is part of that, as is networked comms, sensors, and conops to take advantage of the new functionality.
Joe Arpaio-style/inspired facilities in the SW to hold captured illegals so that we don't have to play catch & release would be needed, too.
Demand
Most illegals come here because their barbarous, bass-ackwards countries of origin can not manage to get their economic house in order.
Going after the employers of illegals, hammer & tongs, will reduce the demand for illegal alien un/semi-skilled labor. The current laws on the books are sufficient to this task, given enforcement. Frankly, I would prefer to see prison time added for these offenses and the offenders perp-walked on the 5PM news.
Make it more expensive and prohibitively risky to employ illegals, and employers will stop hiring the border-hopping criminals.
Attractions
The only social-welfare benefit available to illegals ought to be immediate, life-saving medical treatment. Legislation addressing the anchor-baby problem, forbidding access by illegals to schools, other-than-emergency care, and the grab-bag of welfare gimmes combined with mandatory reporting of illegals who try to access them to LEOS ought to reduce the attractions of illegally entering America.
So, given time & the attrition effect of the above policy, the illegal alien problem will be severely attenuated. All the measures are favored by majorities of citizens, do-able financially, and in line with what a sovereign country can and ought to do.
Post by: De Selby on April 03, 2007, 09:27:56 AM
You need to read Dred Scott. There was no "standing" because blacks could not be citizens, since their parents hadn't been citizens. That's why the 14th amendment made the rule birth, instead of lineage.
As for border plans...yeah, so far your most detailed plan consists of calling my opinions "ignorant." Well, if it's ignorant to realize that building a giant fence in the desert and amending the constitution aren't going to happen...I think we've got two different dictionaries.
Like I said though, live in fantasy land all you want...it just makes it easier on those illegals when the only plans against them are ones guaranteed to never be implemented.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 03, 2007, 09:50:15 AM
You need to read Dred Scott. There was no "standing" because blacks could not be citizens, since their parents hadn't been citizens. That's why the 14th amendment made the rule birth, instead of lineage.
You seem confused about whether it was a racial matter or a matter of hereditary non-citizenship. It really doesn't matter, as Dred Scott has nothing do with immigration (unless you count his moving from state to state). The key point to be made is that citizenship should be the result of formal naturalization or heredity, rather than being determined by the accident of birthplace. To bring up Dred Scott is merely a smear, but you knew that.
Quote
As for border plans...yeah, so far your most detailed plan consists of calling my opinions "ignorant."
Yeah, I really thought chatting with you was going to resolve the immigration issue. I don't owe you any plan. And until you tell me where Tancredo said we should "take a tomahawk to Mexicans," I won't feel obligated to discuss any other plans with you.
Post by: De Selby on April 03, 2007, 09:53:46 AM
I'm not doing it to smear: Dred Scott was the legal basis for laying out that rule of citizenship.
But yeah, it is kind of moot, because no one is going to amend the constitution solely due to anti-illegal sentiment. It didn't happen in the past when amendments were easier to achieve and immigration was even more hated than it is now; it won't happen tomorrow.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 03, 2007, 09:58:35 AM
fistful,
I'm not doing it to smear: Dred Scott was the legal basis for laying out that rule of citizenship.
I'm not doing it to smear: Dred Scott was the legal basis for laying out that rule of citizenship.
What rule of citizenship? Hereditary?
Post by: De Selby on April 03, 2007, 10:00:31 AM
Yes
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 03, 2007, 10:55:08 AM
As for border plans...yeah, so far your most detailed plan consists of calling my opinions "ignorant."
Yeah, I really thought chatting with you was going to resolve the immigration issue. I don't owe you any plan. And until you tell me where Tancredo said we should "take a tomahawk to Mexicans," I won't feel obligated to discuss any other plans with you. Let me also clear up that my contention with you has never been about whether a wall or an amendment are likely to happen. You could be right on that point, I just don't know.
Quote
I'm not doing it to smear: Dred Scott was the legal basis for laying out that rule of citizenship.
You're not that naive. You know it's just a smear tactic. But if that is the best you can do to support your position...
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 03, 2007, 11:05:11 AM
Post by: De Selby on April 03, 2007, 12:19:38 PM
My whole point about this immigration debate is that the anti-immigrant types never propose workable, realistic solutions. That's it.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 03, 2007, 12:29:23 PM
Please note that what I posted about Tancredo was my own nickname for him. But yeah, it doesn't really matter who he is or what he's said, because he won't be elected.
Don't be too sure of that. If he runs and Thompson doesn't, I'll be voting for him.
Quote
My whole point about this immigration debate is that the anti-immigrant types never propose workable, realistic solutions. That's it.
Since you persist in the "anti-immigration" canard despite repeated corrections, I don't think any further discussion with you is possible.
Post by: De Selby on April 03, 2007, 12:33:01 PM
Tancredo announced his bid. Be my guest to vote for him, but know that you will be voting for someone who won't be elected.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 03, 2007, 01:06:47 PM
While America has welcomed great numbers of immigrants to its shores, it has long seen fit to regulate that influx, sometimes limiting the number who may enter at a particular time. While racially-based policies are thankfully no longer widely acceptable, there remain many reasons why immigration is regulated by law. Wiki will get you started, and I am sure you can find other sources on the internet. If there is a lending library in your area, you might want to take advantage of that, too. Have fun, tiger!
Quote
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 03, 2007, 01:23:29 PM
Post by: De Selby on April 03, 2007, 01:33:52 PM
Creating a hypothetical to locking your home, and then extrapolating to national immigration policy is a great way to make soundbites that a) don't really add anything and b) come with ridiculous plans.
"Why don't we just lock the door of the nation!?"
Uh, because there isn't a door with a deadbolt on it. There's thousands of miles of open desert instead.
Not really the same, are they?
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 03, 2007, 04:54:29 PM
Quote
Uh, because there isn't a door with a deadbolt on it. There's thousands of miles of open desert instead. Not really the same, are they?
More bullcrap. "Open borders" is a philosophical, not pragmatic stance. The scenario has nothing to do with the physical capability or lack thereof, of securing the actual border, just as no security system on earth will prevent somebody determined enough to burglarize your house. Still, just because somebody might make it through with crowbars and dynamite does not mean you leave your door unlocked because "nothing can be done anyway". Therein the hypocrisy. I will believe the Rabbi and co. are sincere and intellectually honest about their stance only after their own houses are brimful of drifters, homeless, etc.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 04, 2007, 04:44:52 PM
Please note that what I posted about Tancredo was my own nickname for him. But yeah, it doesn't really matter who he is or what he's said, because he won't be elected.
My whole point about this immigration debate is that the anti-immigrant types never propose workable, realistic solutions. That's it.
My whole point about this immigration debate is that the anti-immigrant types never propose workable, realistic solutions. That's it.
Shootin'
You will not get anything here other than insults, dished out by the fistful, false comparisons (your house and the US really are the same. Really!), and cultural stereotypes.
I began by saying that meaningful debate would not occur until those on the anti side aknowledge they have no workable solutions to the problem. That hasn't happened. Nor will it.
But just to stir things: one of the claims made (which is ludicrous in light of the country's sub 5% unemployment rate) is that illegals take jobs from "fine upstanding Americans."
In fact, not only is this not so, illegals have actually raised wages. This was the result from this study:
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=737
So the arguments against the current illegal immigration are:
1) They steal jobs from Americans. Refuted.
2) They use a disproportionate amount of government services. Unproven.
3) They violate the law when they come here illegally. So change the law. And people who buy on the internet without paying sales taxes also violate the law. Big deal.
4) They steal and commit crimes. So do tons of native born Americans. Punish the guilty.
5) They talk funny languages. So did my great-grandfather.
6) Their culture threatens to overwhelm our own. I dont know what "our own" culture is. My life is very different from most of the people on this board. Many of us have unique pursuits and tastes. This is a scare-tactic worthy of Harry Reid or something.
I'll end by saying you cannot beat something with nothing. And those on the anti side have nothing to offer.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 04, 2007, 05:18:00 PM
Quote
So the arguments against the current illegal immigration are:
1) They steal jobs from Americans. Refuted.
1) They steal jobs from Americans. Refuted.
You know that to be false. At the least, there are occasions in which Americans have been violently driven away by illegals from trying to get certain low-paying jobs. It has been mentioned here and on THR.
Quote
2) They use a disproportionate amount of government services. Unproven.
They should not get ANY government services because they should not be here in the first place. Also, maybe you should come visit SoCal and take a quick tour of the schools. They are stuffed with illegals' kids. So long as I am made pay for their education through my state taxes, I have a legitimate complaint and so do all other Californians.
Quote
3) They violate the law when they come here illegally. So change the law. And people who buy on the internet without paying sales taxes also violate the law. Big deal.
Maybe the rest of us should pay you a visit and help ourselves to your gun store. But it is illegal? Big deal. Just change the law.
Quote
4) They steal and commit crimes. So do tons of native born Americans. Punish the guilty.
Are you willing to pay for the extra prisons etc.? Are you willing to take all the added negative consequences of the added criminality? I am not.
Quote
5) They talk funny languages. So did my great-grandfather.
But you speak English now and we understand you. Have it your way and then you'd better learn at least a few other languages and so should your progeny.
Quote
6) Their culture threatens to overwhelm our own. I dont know what "our own" culture is. My life is very different from most of the people on this board. Many of us have unique pursuits and tastes.
Therein the heart of the matter. You live in your own insular bubble made possible by the nature of the very society you are willing to change so cavalierly. If you think you will not be negatively affected by what you propose, I have some prime tundra to sell you in L.A.
Post by: De Selby on April 04, 2007, 05:25:37 PM
It does no good arguing facts when it's "for the children" you're arguing against-
Quote
. Have it your way and then you'd better learn at least a few other languages and so should your progeny.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 04, 2007, 05:27:32 PM
Your side is utterly bankrupt of ideas. Paying for jails for illegals who commit crimes? Don't you imagine that might be cheaper--by a factor of 100 or more--than building a wall to nowhere and repatriating 10M people, every year?
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 04, 2007, 05:50:05 PM
Quote
Your side is utterly bankrupt of ideas.
Again, you know this to be false. We have plenty of workable ideas. The problem is we have to overcome the resistance of leftists, big business, and the confused like yourself, to implement them. But you already knew this.
Quote
Paying for jails for illegals who commit crimes? Don't you imagine that might be cheaper--by a factor of 100 or more--than building a wall to nowhere and repatriating 10M people, every year?
They will repatriate themselves once it becomes clear to them that:
1) They will never get citizenship
2) They will not get any gov assistance
3) They will not get any job other than possibly the most menial, least paying, most unenforcible ones, ever.
In fact, several hundred thousand of them do exactly that, each year, on their own dime. But you already knew that.
What you might not know is that 30% to 50% of our prison population is illegals, and that each one of them costs you, me, and the other taxpayers the tidy sum of $55k per year.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 04, 2007, 05:54:52 PM
Quote
It does no good arguing facts when it's "for the children" you're arguing against-
Keep sidestepping the real issues and pulling at words to think you are negating arguments. Keep thinking anybody is fooled.
If you live in this country (which I seriously doubt), you will be certain to pay the consequences of the policies you espouse, if we have the misfortune or lack of vision to implement them as a society. Unfortunately, watching you suffer because of them as well, would be insufficient repayment for the harm caused.
Post by: De Selby on April 04, 2007, 06:02:45 PM
Quote
If you live in this country (which I seriously doubt), you will be certain to pay the consequences of the policies you espouse, if we have the misfortune or lack of vision to implement them as a society. Unfortunately, watching you suffer because of them as well, would be insufficient repayment for the harm caused.
"lack of vision"=that majority of the population that will not be mobilized by your fear of illegal immigrants.
I really don't mind your opinion, I'm just pointing out that it's not realistic. Here in America, things don't happen at the snap of a finger, and there are all sorts of things (like laws, humane attitudes, etc etc) that prevent the enactment of draconian measures.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 05, 2007, 02:30:26 AM
Quote
Your side is utterly bankrupt of ideas.
Again, you know this to be false. We have plenty of workable ideas. The problem is we have to overcome the resistance of leftists, big business, and the confused like yourself, to implement them. But you already knew this.
Your ideas of "workable" include amending the Constitution, building the wall to nowhere, and shooting people on sight. I wouldn't call those workable outside of internet discussion fora. I am hardly confused on the issue. Not nearly so confused as to think that effective measures against illegals would render the US a police state. But maybe that's what you want after all.
Post by: woodcdi on April 05, 2007, 04:37:55 AM
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
Post by: roo_ster on April 05, 2007, 05:15:06 AM
I began by saying that meaningful debate would not occur until those on the anti side aknowledge they have no workable solutions to the problem.
Ahh, the "Iranian School" of debate: "Meaningful debate can not begin until you have admitted you are wrong and I am right."Perhaps an alias change from "The Rabbi" to "The Mullah" is in order.
That hasn't happened. Nor will it.
It will not happen because:1. There are effective, workable solutions.
2. Those solutions are do-able financially.
3. Those solutions have the support of the majority of citizens.
I have done the math, in simple terms here and at THR in the past. Others have gone beyond simple spreadsheet-whipping/ROM estimation and priced out candidate hardware, software, labor & other costs in tools like http://www.pricesystems.com/ and others.
Industry is currently developing solutions, submitting bids on RFPs, and implementing solutions in this and other countries as we sit here in front of our keyboards. They think it can be done in a cost-effective manner, while turning a tidy profit.
THAT is reality. Until the open-borders crowd manage to squeeze some of that reality in between their ad hominem, misconceptions, and FUD; I'll find it difficult to take them seriously.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 05, 2007, 05:21:11 AM
I began by saying that meaningful debate would not occur until those on the anti side aknowledge they have no workable solutions to the problem.
Ahh, the "Iranian School" of debate: "Meaningful debate can not begin until you have admitted you are wrong and I am right."Perhaps an alias change from "The Rabbi" to "The Mullah" is in order.
That hasn't happened. Nor will it.
It will not happen because:1. There are effective, workable solutions.
2. Those solutions are do-able financially.
3. Those solutions have the support of the majority of citizens.
I have done the math, in simple terms here and at THR in the past. Others have gone beyond simple spreadsheet-whipping/ROM estimation and priced out candidate hardware, software, labor & other costs in tools like http://www.pricesystems.com/ and others.
Industry is currently developing solutions, submitting bids on RFPs, and implementing solutions in this and other countries as we sit here in front of our keyboards. They think it can be done in a cost-effective manner, while turning a tidy profit.
THAT is reality. Until the open-borders crowd manage to squeeze some of that reality in between their ad hominem, misconceptions, and FUD; I'll find it difficult to take them seriously.
I certainly think that a nation that put the first human beings on the moon and helped bring down the Soviet Union, one that built coast to coast highways and giant dams...
...can certainly solve the problem of securing the border effectively. And yes, private industry has been busy developing workable solutions. I think it's far more productive to consider them than to just sit back and throw bombs, and say "It'll never work."
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 05, 2007, 06:18:34 AM
Quote
I think it's far more productive to consider them than to just sit back and throw bombs, and say "It'll never work."
I agree but they never will, and the real reason is that they oppose it on philosophical and ideological grounds, not practical ones. Before we can agree how to go in a certain direction, we must first agree that we need to go in that direction in the first place. That is where the disconnect is, not the details. But it is easier to say "It will never work" than "I don't want it even if it can work".
Oh, yeah, let's just save the time and assume I am again called a racist anti-immigrant FBI-plant that wants police state and shooting people on sight. It would be even easier if the ad hominem is included in the signature line - let's save bandwidth. In fact, from now on, let's tacitly assume that all of that is included in the posts. Let's see what and how much is left visible.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 05, 2007, 06:30:50 AM
Doing nothing, at this point, is like just standing outside looking at an approaching brush fire, and saying "I'm not sure the hose will work, so I won't try it. I'm not sure digging a firebreak will work, so I won't try it." Just stand there, and the fire will keep growing...and you'll get burned.
If there is bad, they won't stop coming here until here is as bad as there. Period.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 05, 2007, 06:33:59 AM
I look at it this way. Trying NOTHING won't help, and the problems are going to get worse and worse. Communities have literally been destroyed by the influx of illegals and resultant crime waves. Social services are strained. Identity theft is rampant, and rising every day. "Protestors" have ripped down American flags and run up Mexican flags in a number of places. Even burnt American flags on the street. In American cities. The Azatlan movement and La Raza are threats to national secutiry.
Doing nothing, at this point, is like just standing outside looking at an approaching brush fire, and saying "I'm not sure the hose will work, so I won't try it. I'm not sure digging a firebreak will work, so I won't try it." Just stand there, and the fire will keep growing...and you'll get burned.
If there is bad, they won't stop coming here until here is as bad as there. Period.
Doing nothing, at this point, is like just standing outside looking at an approaching brush fire, and saying "I'm not sure the hose will work, so I won't try it. I'm not sure digging a firebreak will work, so I won't try it." Just stand there, and the fire will keep growing...and you'll get burned.
If there is bad, they won't stop coming here until here is as bad as there. Period.
I'm glad we live in different countries. Where I live, which has a huge Hispanic population (and Kurdish, and Laotian, and.....)we don't have any of these problems.
Protesters have ripped down American flags? Boy, sounds like the end of the world as we know it.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 05, 2007, 06:36:56 AM
I look at it this way. Trying NOTHING won't help, and the problems are going to get worse and worse. Communities have literally been destroyed by the influx of illegals and resultant crime waves. Social services are strained. Identity theft is rampant, and rising every day. "Protestors" have ripped down American flags and run up Mexican flags in a number of places. Even burnt American flags on the street. In American cities. The Azatlan movement and La Raza are threats to national secutiry.
Doing nothing, at this point, is like just standing outside looking at an approaching brush fire, and saying "I'm not sure the hose will work, so I won't try it. I'm not sure digging a firebreak will work, so I won't try it." Just stand there, and the fire will keep growing...and you'll get burned.
If there is bad, they won't stop coming here until here is as bad as there. Period.
Doing nothing, at this point, is like just standing outside looking at an approaching brush fire, and saying "I'm not sure the hose will work, so I won't try it. I'm not sure digging a firebreak will work, so I won't try it." Just stand there, and the fire will keep growing...and you'll get burned.
If there is bad, they won't stop coming here until here is as bad as there. Period.
I'm glad we live in different countries. Where I live, which has a huge Hispanic population (and Kurdish, and Laotian, and.....)we don't have any of these problems.
Protesters have ripped down American flags? Boy, sounds like the end of the world as we know it.
When a bunch of them pull down the American flag from a United States Post Office and run up the Mexican flag in its place, then dance around chanting like a street scene from Iraq? You bet it's a problem.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 05, 2007, 06:43:37 AM
Quote
Where I live, which has a huge Hispanic population (and Kurdish, and Laotian, and.....)we don't have any of these problems.
Once I had an argument about gun freedoms with a co-worker. She is an old-school smoldering liberal and when I told her that guns save lives by the ability of citizens to defend themselves, she said: "What? That's nonsense. Who are you afraid of? We have not had any problems like that."
The reason is, a long time ago she bought into an upscale community where the houses now start at $1,000,000. The police makes sure they patrol the area exceptionally well. Her perspective is understandably (albeit inexcusably) "different" from the one of people actually living in gang lands just a few dozen miles away. But, she is happy to venture vehement opinions and fight tooth and nail for them with messianic certainty.
Enjoy your social bubbles, while they last.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 05, 2007, 06:47:33 AM
Quote
Where I live, which has a huge Hispanic population (and Kurdish, and Laotian, and.....)we don't have any of these problems.
Once I had an argument about gun freedoms with a co-worker. She is an old-school smoldering liberal and when I told her that guns save lives by the ability of citizens to defend themselves, she said: "What? That's nonsense. Who are you afraid of? We have not had any problems like that."
The reason is, a long time ago she bought into an upscale community where the houses now start at $1,000,000. The police makes sure they patrol the area exceptionally well. Her perspective is understandably (albeit inexcusably) "different" from the one of people actually living in gang lands just a few dozen miles away. But, she is happy to venture vehement opinions and fight tooth and nail for them with messianic certainty.
Enjoy your social bubbles, while they last.
Hazelton, PA's bubble sure popped, and now groups are trying to prevent the mayor from salvaging what he can of what his town used to be by getting harsh on those who employ or rent to illegals.
I'm sure they didn't expect to get hit with the problems caused by illegals, being a small town in Pennsylvania. But they sure have.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 05, 2007, 08:09:55 AM
I look at it this way. Trying NOTHING won't help, and the problems are going to get worse and worse. Communities have literally been destroyed by the influx of illegals and resultant crime waves. Social services are strained. Identity theft is rampant, and rising every day. "Protestors" have ripped down American flags and run up Mexican flags in a number of places. Even burnt American flags on the street. In American cities. The Azatlan movement and La Raza are threats to national secutiry.
Doing nothing, at this point, is like just standing outside looking at an approaching brush fire, and saying "I'm not sure the hose will work, so I won't try it. I'm not sure digging a firebreak will work, so I won't try it." Just stand there, and the fire will keep growing...and you'll get burned.
If there is bad, they won't stop coming here until here is as bad as there. Period.
Doing nothing, at this point, is like just standing outside looking at an approaching brush fire, and saying "I'm not sure the hose will work, so I won't try it. I'm not sure digging a firebreak will work, so I won't try it." Just stand there, and the fire will keep growing...and you'll get burned.
If there is bad, they won't stop coming here until here is as bad as there. Period.
I'm glad we live in different countries. Where I live, which has a huge Hispanic population (and Kurdish, and Laotian, and.....)we don't have any of these problems.
Protesters have ripped down American flags? Boy, sounds like the end of the world as we know it.
When a bunch of them pull down the American flag from a United States Post Office and run up the Mexican flag in its place, then dance around chanting like a street scene from Iraq? You bet it's a problem.
Really? What's the problem? Destruction of gov't property? Sounds like the end of the world to me.
Post by: De Selby on April 05, 2007, 08:50:41 AM
I look at it this way. Trying NOTHING won't help, and the problems are going to get worse and worse. Communities have literally been destroyed by the influx of illegals and resultant crime waves. Social services are strained. Identity theft is rampant, and rising every day. "Protestors" have ripped down American flags and run up Mexican flags in a number of places. Even burnt American flags on the street. In American cities. The Azatlan movement and La Raza are threats to national security.
Doing nothing, at this point, is like just standing outside looking at an approaching brush fire, and saying "I'm not sure the hose will work, so I won't try it. I'm not sure digging a firebreak will work, so I won't try it." Just stand there, and the fire will keep growing...and you'll get burned.
If there is bad, they won't stop coming here until here is as bad as there. Period.
Doing nothing, at this point, is like just standing outside looking at an approaching brush fire, and saying "I'm not sure the hose will work, so I won't try it. I'm not sure digging a firebreak will work, so I won't try it." Just stand there, and the fire will keep growing...and you'll get burned.
If there is bad, they won't stop coming here until here is as bad as there. Period.
Well, if your house is burning down, is coming up with plans like "I know! I'll call Jack Bauer and have him use satellite imagery to direct a secret flame retardant-packed space-launched weapon designed to protect the whitehouse onto my roof!" really any different from just standing there?
Come up with a realistic proposal and people will support it. The problem is that there aren't that many realistic proposals out there, just lots of complaining about Mexicans ruining the neighborhood.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 05, 2007, 08:52:37 AM
Quote
I The problem is that there aren't that many realistic proposals out there, just lots of complaining about Mexicans ruining the neighborhood.
"Repeat it enough times, and it will become the truth" Dr. Goebbels
NOT.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 05, 2007, 09:57:23 AM
Quote
I The problem is that there aren't that many realistic proposals out there, just lots of complaining about Mexicans ruining the neighborhood.
"Repeat it enough times, and it will become the truth" Dr. Goebbels
NOT.
Yeah, you're right. There are tons of great proposals out there, which is why none of them has been enacted yet. And no one is complaining about Mexicans ruining neighborhoods, least of all here.
NOT.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 05, 2007, 10:03:06 AM
Quote
I The problem is that there aren't that many realistic proposals out there, just lots of complaining about Mexicans ruining the neighborhood.
"Repeat it enough times, and it will become the truth" Dr. Goebbels
NOT.
Yeah, you're right. There are tons of great proposals out there, which is why none of them has been enacted yet. And no one is complaining about Mexicans ruining neighborhoods, least of all here.
NOT.
Or it could be that anytime someone tries to lay the groundwork for any of those plans, the ACLU sics their attack lawyers on them...
Post by: De Selby on April 05, 2007, 10:05:32 AM
How many legislative attempts to stop illegal immigration has the ACLU defeated?
Post by: Manedwolf on April 05, 2007, 10:11:09 AM
Manedwolf,
How many legislative attempts to stop illegal immigration has the ACLU defeated?
How many legislative attempts to stop illegal immigration has the ACLU defeated?
Most notable in the news right now? Look at Hazelton, PA. The mayor tried to get laws enacted that would punish employers for hiring illegals, and punish landlords for renting to them.
The ACLU has sent so many lawyers that it's likely to bankrupt the town's treasury to fight.
Post by: De Selby on April 05, 2007, 10:12:45 AM
If there were no legal problems with the plan (due process, discrimination claims, etc etc), it would be cheap for the city to use all the savings this plan is generating to fight off the phoney legal claims.
You have to wonder how well the plan works if it's supposedly saving all this money, yet the county can't fight off some volunteer attorneys.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 05, 2007, 10:15:55 AM
Manedwolf,
If there were no legal problems with the plan (due process, discrimination claims, etc etc), it would be cheap for the city to use all the savings this plan is generating to fight off the phoney legal claims.
You have to wonder how well the plan works if it's supposedly saving all this money, yet the county can't fight off some volunteer attorneys.
If there were no legal problems with the plan (due process, discrimination claims, etc etc), it would be cheap for the city to use all the savings this plan is generating to fight off the phoney legal claims.
You have to wonder how well the plan works if it's supposedly saving all this money, yet the county can't fight off some volunteer attorneys.
The discrimination claims were MADE UP by the ACLU's attack dogs. That's how they roll. They don't like something, they make sh*t up about it and get the accused buried in court documents.
And what's wrong with a town deciding its own laws if the federal government fails to act on a crisis affecting them? The ACLU is trying to get the feds to trample on state's rights and block the measures.
Post by: De Selby on April 05, 2007, 10:17:58 AM
I see what you're saying, but my point is that bogus claims are relatively cheap to defeat. If Hazleton is saving thousands and thousands because of this new plan, they should easily be able to defend against the bogus legal theories and still have money left over to install "english only" signs all over the place.
Looks like this plan isn't really adding that much to the bottom line after all, is it?
Post by: The Rabbi on April 05, 2007, 10:26:31 AM
Manedwolf,
If there were no legal problems with the plan (due process, discrimination claims, etc etc), it would be cheap for the city to use all the savings this plan is generating to fight off the phoney legal claims.
You have to wonder how well the plan works if it's supposedly saving all this money, yet the county can't fight off some volunteer attorneys.
If there were no legal problems with the plan (due process, discrimination claims, etc etc), it would be cheap for the city to use all the savings this plan is generating to fight off the phoney legal claims.
You have to wonder how well the plan works if it's supposedly saving all this money, yet the county can't fight off some volunteer attorneys.
The discrimination claims were MADE UP by the ACLU's attack dogs. That's how they roll. They don't like something, they make sh*t up about it and get the accused buried in court documents.
And what's wrong with a town deciding its own laws if the federal government fails to act on a crisis affecting them? The ACLU is trying to get the feds to trample on state's rights and block the measures.
So Hazelton's solution is to make landlords and employers enforcers of government policy. Certainly will encourage people to go into those jobs. not.
The policy has clear constitutional issues. No one is making anything up. Regardless of how a municipality "feels" (do they even have feelings), they cannot usurp the role of the Federal government, which is arguably what Hazelton is doing.
But people in favor of such policies can lobby for them on the Federal level. That would by-pass some objections anyway. But I haven't seen it.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 05, 2007, 11:00:38 AM
Manedwolf,
If there were no legal problems with the plan (due process, discrimination claims, etc etc), it would be cheap for the city to use all the savings this plan is generating to fight off the phoney legal claims.
You have to wonder how well the plan works if it's supposedly saving all this money, yet the county can't fight off some volunteer attorneys.
If there were no legal problems with the plan (due process, discrimination claims, etc etc), it would be cheap for the city to use all the savings this plan is generating to fight off the phoney legal claims.
You have to wonder how well the plan works if it's supposedly saving all this money, yet the county can't fight off some volunteer attorneys.
The discrimination claims were MADE UP by the ACLU's attack dogs. That's how they roll. They don't like something, they make sh*t up about it and get the accused buried in court documents.
And what's wrong with a town deciding its own laws if the federal government fails to act on a crisis affecting them? The ACLU is trying to get the feds to trample on state's rights and block the measures.
So Hazelton's solution is to make landlords and employers enforcers of government policy. Certainly will encourage people to go into those jobs. not.
The policy has clear constitutional issues. No one is making anything up. Regardless of how a municipality "feels" (do they even have feelings), they cannot usurp the role of the Federal government, which is arguably what Hazelton is doing.
But people in favor of such policies can lobby for them on the Federal level. That would by-pass some objections anyway. But I haven't seen it.
How....statist.
In the case of Hazelton, based on the crisis shown in the community, that'd be like someone whose house is on fire having to fill out a Request For Fire Department Consideration To Extinguish in triplicate, put it through the proper channels, and wait for committee hearings by people thousands of miles away.
By that time, the house is ash.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 05, 2007, 11:39:30 AM
How....statist.
In the case of Hazelton, based on the crisis shown in the community, that'd be like someone whose house is on fire having to fill out a Request For Fire Department Consideration To Extinguish in triplicate, put it through the proper channels, and wait for committee hearings by people thousands of miles away.
By that time, the house is ash.
Why is it the anti side always reverts to ridiculous false analogies? Hazelton is not a house. It is not on fire. They are not being asked to fill anything out, in single or triplicate.
Or are you in favor of suspending the Constitution whenever some mayor or other declares a crisis?
Post by: roo_ster on April 05, 2007, 11:54:09 AM
I'm glad we live in different countries. Where I live, which has a huge Hispanic population (and Kurdish, and Laotian, and.....)we don't have any of these problems.
Protesters have ripped down American flags? Boy, sounds like the end of the world as we know it.
You live in a different state, that is for sure. Come on down to DFW and drink deep the reality you don't get in the hills. Maybe when the majority of kids in your public school system are illegals & anchor babies...and you get to foot the bill, you might sing a different tune.Protesters have ripped down American flags? Boy, sounds like the end of the world as we know it.
So Hazelton's solution is to make landlords and employers enforcers of government policy. Certainly will encourage people to go into those jobs. not.
The policy has clear constitutional issues. No one is making anything up. Regardless of how a municipality "feels" (do they even have feelings), they cannot usurp the role of the Federal government, which is arguably what Hazelton is doing.
But people in favor of such policies can lobby for them on the Federal level. That would by-pass some objections anyway. But I haven't seen it.
Hazelton's landlords are not enforcers, they are complying with the policy of the lawfully constituted local government.The policy has clear constitutional issues. No one is making anything up. Regardless of how a municipality "feels" (do they even have feelings), they cannot usurp the role of the Federal government, which is arguably what Hazelton is doing.
But people in favor of such policies can lobby for them on the Federal level. That would by-pass some objections anyway. But I haven't seen it.
Lower levels of gov't enforce law written by higher levels of gov't all the time. For instance, if Hazelton does not have a car-jacking law, the state probably does & I know the federales do. Meanwhile, HPD nabs car-jackers either way. Also, any LEO agency is required to report illegal aliens arrested to the federales...which is one reason "sanctuary cities" are controversial: they are breaking the law by not enforcing the federal law.
In TR's world, if Hazelton's Finest picks up terrorists attempting to set off a nuke while intoxicated, they can cite the terrorists for public intox, but not for lighting off a nuke.
Post by: roo_ster on April 05, 2007, 12:07:58 PM
I was wondering. You say there is no practical solution to be found, yet a multitude of companies are sinking money into integration, R&D, etc., to implement such solutions. Care to share with us your feasability analysis on, say, a border fence with networked sensor & comms? Were most of your projected costs in sensors, commo equipment, labor (construction), training, or paperclips? Since you have THE answer, enlighten us. I can only claim to have an array of solutions and trade-offs.
Perhaps you can save foreign gov'ts a potful of money by getting on the horn and telling them to stop releasing Requests for Proposals to companies with solutions to their border security problems.
I guess I'll see you at UTEP's border security conference in a booth with a placard reading, "STOP! You're all wasting money trying to secure the border!" Sweet.
Post by: Gewehr98 on April 05, 2007, 12:32:36 PM
It torqued me bad enough when the Sacramento Unified School District tried to force their teachers and part-time teachers (ala', ME) to learn Spanish for our classrooms overrun with Los Illegals. ("F*ck, NO!", was what I told the administrator) It was even worse when one of my injured in-laws with no health insurance was denied medical care in the Irvine area, and told by the admissions nurse that it would be better if he were an illegal.
In Spacecoast Florida, we watched in horror as one of the illegal immigrants hired by a housing contractor for the military's housing privatization project walked off-site to the high school next door and raped one of the students in the female restroom. It caused a huge shake-up and more than half of the workforce just plain disappeared, initiating a ripple effect as the contractor first went into cost overruns and missed deadlines, then defaulted and skipped town. Then the DoD had to step back in and clean up the mess while sourcing another contractor to finish construction on the 550+ military homes.
I'll loan my INS jacket to anybody who wants to try an experiment. Just wear it and walk through a suspect neighborhood. Take particular note of who stays and who scrambles to get out of sight.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 05, 2007, 12:52:49 PM
Is it bubbled communities, or do people live with blinders firmly attached?
It torqued me bad enough when the Sacramento Unified School District tried to force their teachers and part-time teachers (ala', ME) to learn Spanish for our classrooms overrun with Los Illegals. ("F*ck, NO!", was what I told the administrator) It was even worse when one of my injured in-laws with no health insurance was denied medical care in the Irvine area, and told by the admissions nurse that it would be better if he were an illegal.
In Spacecoast Florida, we watched in horror as one of the illegal immigrants hired by a housing contractor for the military's housing privatization project walked off-site to the high school next door and raped one of the students in the female restroom. It caused a huge shake-up and more than half of the workforce just plain disappeared, initiating a ripple effect as the contractor first went into cost overruns and missed deadlines, then defaulted and skipped town. Then the DoD had to step back in and clean up the mess while sourcing another contractor to finish construction on the 550+ military homes.
I'll loan my INS jacket to anybody who wants to try an experiment. Just wear it and walk through a suspect neighborhood. Take particular note of who stays and who scrambles to get out of sight.
It torqued me bad enough when the Sacramento Unified School District tried to force their teachers and part-time teachers (ala', ME) to learn Spanish for our classrooms overrun with Los Illegals. ("F*ck, NO!", was what I told the administrator) It was even worse when one of my injured in-laws with no health insurance was denied medical care in the Irvine area, and told by the admissions nurse that it would be better if he were an illegal.
In Spacecoast Florida, we watched in horror as one of the illegal immigrants hired by a housing contractor for the military's housing privatization project walked off-site to the high school next door and raped one of the students in the female restroom. It caused a huge shake-up and more than half of the workforce just plain disappeared, initiating a ripple effect as the contractor first went into cost overruns and missed deadlines, then defaulted and skipped town. Then the DoD had to step back in and clean up the mess while sourcing another contractor to finish construction on the 550+ military homes.
I'll loan my INS jacket to anybody who wants to try an experiment. Just wear it and walk through a suspect neighborhood. Take particular note of who stays and who scrambles to get out of sight.
I've got a heavy seemingly "slash resistant" black parka with a removeable orange liner and brass buttons that say "UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION SERVICE", made by Aggressor, but it unfortunately does not say "INS" on the back. Just has a badge holder.
I'd try that.
Post by: De Selby on April 05, 2007, 01:02:09 PM
Wear a jacket that says "ATF" and go to a gunshow! Everyone that looks away or leaves is probably a gun criminal.
Wear a jacket that says "To Catch a Predator" With an NBC turkey logo, and go to places with lots of white males to watch all the predators run!
Post by: Manedwolf on April 05, 2007, 01:05:35 PM
I like this INS idea...it's stereotyping at its best.
Wear a jacket that says "ATF" and go to a gunshow! Everyone that looks away or leaves is probably a gun criminal.
Wear a jacket that says "ATF" and go to a gunshow! Everyone that looks away or leaves is probably a gun criminal.
Nobody is breaking the law at a gunshow. Illegals are breaking the law. What are you saying there?
That's downright offensive. Sounds like something an anti-gun sort would say.
Post by: De Selby on April 05, 2007, 01:16:30 PM
The comparison I'm making is about walking into neighborhoods with hispanics wearing an INS jacket. It's a stereotype that labels whole neighborhoods of people with certain colors and accents criminals.
The point of the comparison was that, just like going to a gun show with an ATF jacket isn't going to result in anything eventful, neither is wearing an INS jacket in a neighborhood with tons of hispanics. But that doesn't stop a lot of anti-gunners from stereotyping all gun owners as criminals and saying "Hey! We should send cops to those gun shows!", just like it doesn't stop people from looking at a neighborhood with a bunch of hispanics and saying "HEy! I know, we'll send an INS jacket wearing guy...that'll teach e'm"
Post by: The Rabbi on April 05, 2007, 01:28:53 PM
I like this INS idea...it's stereotyping at its best.
Wear a jacket that says "ATF" and go to a gunshow! Everyone that looks away or leaves is probably a gun criminal.
Wear a jacket that says "ATF" and go to a gunshow! Everyone that looks away or leaves is probably a gun criminal.
Nobody is breaking the law at a gunshow. Illegals are breaking the law. What are you saying there?
That's downright offensive. Sounds like something an anti-gun sort would say.
You're joking, right? Plenty of people break laws at gun shows. All those tables with "non dealers" selling "their own personal guns." The majority of people, no. Same with Hispanic neighborhoods.
Post by: Gewehr98 on April 05, 2007, 02:12:37 PM
Quote
I like this INS idea...it's stereotyping at its best.
WTF? Nobody's stereotyping anything. You show up in a neighborhood infested with illegals while wearing an INS jacket, and watch 'em scatter. Care to guess which ones are bugging out and which ones stay put? I'll give you a hint - the ones scattering are sans Green Cards, and have something to hide from the INS.
Just like walking into a dark room and turning on the lights - the cockroaches scurry hither and yon until you can't see them anymore.
Post by: De Selby on April 05, 2007, 02:41:20 PM
But yeah, that comparison to cockroaches is not so nice. I prefer to think about all people as, well, people. I also think that comparing illegals to cockroaches brings harm to people who want to voice legitimate gripes about immigration, because it's the kind of dehumanization that makes people (rightly or wrongly) wonder whether or not racism is part of the reason you're so upset about it.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 05, 2007, 02:51:42 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on April 05, 2007, 03:16:29 PM
Now, why did you just play the race card? (Shades of Al Sharpton, there) That's weak, in and of itself. Which race would that be? I'll assume you meant the human race, since there is no other definition. Even my anthropology professor back in 1984 knew that. (ie, the DNA makeup from one Homo Sapiens to the next is remarkably human no matter which specimen is selected from whatever continent)
Shootinstudent, I'm exceptionally curious. Why are you so sympathetic to people breaking the law and causing problems to law-abiding residents? Perhaps you have something to hide. My ancestors immigrated through the normal channels, I've even got family pics of some at Ellis Island. It's an insult to them and all other legal immigrants to suggest that they didn't need to raise their hands and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Post by: De Selby on April 05, 2007, 03:21:58 PM
Quote
It's an analogy, and unless you have a better way of describing illegals hauling a** at the sight of INS (like I have over the last 20+ years, btw), I will continue to use it. I've got plenty of descriptions for you that come from the animal world, too. Would that be racist?
Well, my point was that when many people read that, they do think "racism." Comparisons to animals was one of the hallmarks of racism, and so doing it now in relation to people of a different race makes people wonder. It does not make you a racist, nor does it mean I'm calling you one, as I'm not. But I think it's true to say that making those kinds of comments puts off a large segment of the population that might otherwise be willing to sympathize with your fear of illegals.
Quote
Shootinstudent, I'm exceptionally curious. Why are you so sympathetic to people breaking the law and causing problems to law-abiding residents? Perhaps you have something to hide. My ancestors immigrated through the normal channels, I've even got family pics of some at Ellis Island. It's an insult to them and all other legal immigrants to suggest that they didn't need to raise their hands and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
I'm really curious now too. What exactly would I "have to hide" that would make me post this? What sorts of things would you be thinking of?
Where did I suggest that legal immigrants didn't need to say the pledge of allegiance???
What's ellis island have to do with proposals about controlling illegal immigration today? Surely you do not mean to say that there was no illegal immigration in those days, or that immigration was "controlled"...the period descriptions of immigrant towns from the turn of the century make the Compton of Boyzndahood look like a gated community.
Post by: Gewehr98 on April 05, 2007, 04:12:32 PM
I said that folks like you who staunchly defend illegal immigrants do so as an insult to all the legal immigrants who actually had the integrity to go through the naturalization process, culminating in their raising of hands and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in front of a magistrate. Ie, some of my ancestors who went through Ellis Island vs. just camping out and sponging off of citizens.
You're protecting the illegals, and justifying their right to entitlements granted to full-fledged citizens. That stinks on ice. Then you pulled the race card, which I found hilarious, considering I'm a graduate of the Defense Equal Opportunity Managagement Institute, and had many subordinates from all ethnic groups under my command. Ask any of my superiors or subordinates, and they'll tell you I'm color-blind, but very much performance-critical.
BTW, even in the military, if you're not a citizen by the end of your first enlistment, you're out, period. Nor will you get a regular commission if you're not a bona-fide legal resident.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 05, 2007, 04:16:37 PM
1) SS is a shooter, yet he has never mentioned any guns he owns. Hmmm.
2) He is an American-born of Irish descent, yet he blindly defends the ME cultures, particularly arabs.
3) He sounds like a leftist moonbat on most occasions, yet he is also religious, likely muslim.
4) He professes schooling in philosophy and history, yet he's been wrong far more often than not on virtually any topic related to them, and quite blatantly so.
5) He professes strong support for democracy, yet he vehemently defends theocratic dictatorships
6) He is against Saudi dictatorship, yet he is for Iranian dictatorship
7) He is born here (and therefore a citizen by current rules), yet he places virtually anybody else before America and its interests
8 ) He is supposed to be pro-2A, yet he believes in the global kumbaya that will certainly destroy it.
Either we are being misled somewhere, or we truly have a psychiatric specimen here.
Post by: De Selby on April 05, 2007, 05:33:12 PM
Quote
I said that folks like you who staunchly defend illegal immigrants do so as an insult to all the legal immigrants who actually had the integrity to go through the naturalization process, culminating in their raising of hands and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in front of a magistrate. Ie, some of my ancestors who went through Ellis Island vs. just camping out and sponging off of citizens.
Right....and how does that equate to me saying that legal immigrants shouldn't have to say the pledge of allegiance? I'm still not seeing that.
What I've been saying here is that no one is proposing workable solutions to the problem, and that's why nothing is being done. You harping on an even more hole-filled process from 100 years ago (tons and tons of criminals, sick, and non-english speakers flowed in back then....the slums that resulted were worse than anything in any city in America today by far)...does not constitute proposing something sensible for today.
Quote
You're protecting the illegals, and justifying their right to entitlements granted to full-fledged citizens. That stinks on ice. Then you pulled the race card, which I found hilarious, considering I'm a graduate of the Defense Equal Opportunity Managagement Institute, and had many subordinates from all ethnic groups under my command. Ask any of my superiors or subordinates, and they'll tell you I'm color-blind, but very much performance-critical.
Again, my point was that dehumanizing people and comparing them to animals inevitably will make a large number of people uncomfortable, and whether they tell you or not, they will suspect racism is the motivation for it. Are you saying that's not true? Or are you just repeating that it's "the race card" even after I said twice that I don't think you're a racist?
"I have black friends", btw, tends to give that impression also, as does "Hey, I can't have ever said a racist thing because I employed black people", especially after you just got done calling mexicans cockroaches. No, that doesn't prove anything, and no, it's not necessarily right that people jump to this conclusion....but it certainly doesn't help motivate people on the fence to join your calls to scatter the Mexicans.
Post by: De Selby on April 05, 2007, 05:36:04 PM
The thing you're missing is that the whole list left off the slient "CAnnoneer says based on his internet psychoanalysis..." in front of each part of the list. That changes the equation somewhat, don't you think?
Are you an American?
Post by: The Rabbi on April 05, 2007, 06:15:33 PM
CAnnoneer,
The thing you're missing is that the whole list left off the slient "CAnnoneer says based on his internet psychoanalysis..." in front of each part of the list. That changes the equation somewhat, don't you think?
Are you an American?
The thing you're missing is that the whole list left off the slient "CAnnoneer says based on his internet psychoanalysis..." in front of each part of the list. That changes the equation somewhat, don't you think?
Are you an American?
Why, he's as American as George Soros!
Post by: De Selby on April 05, 2007, 06:33:15 PM
Just look at how much I enjoy Pizza, I mean, does that smile on my face not scream "Chicago deep dish"?
Would you like some pizza too?
Post by: Manedwolf on April 06, 2007, 03:59:00 AM
Quote
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A Mexican national accused of causing the crash that killed "A Christmas Story" director Bob Clark and his son will face deportation proceedings once the charges against him are resolved, officials said Thursday.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement put an immigration hold on Hector Velazquez-Nava, a 24-year-old illegal immigrant living in Los Angeles, said agency spokeswoman Virginia Kice.
The action means Velazquez-Nava will be turned over to U.S. immigration officials and placed in deportation proceedings once his local case is completed. He was arrested for investigation of driving under the influence of alcohol and gross vehicular manslaughter and was being held on US$100,000 bail in a county jail.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement put an immigration hold on Hector Velazquez-Nava, a 24-year-old illegal immigrant living in Los Angeles, said agency spokeswoman Virginia Kice.
The action means Velazquez-Nava will be turned over to U.S. immigration officials and placed in deportation proceedings once his local case is completed. He was arrested for investigation of driving under the influence of alcohol and gross vehicular manslaughter and was being held on US$100,000 bail in a county jail.
Illegal driver, driving like many illegal drivers seem to, kills director of iconic American film "A Christmas Story" and his son. Faces deportation. Ten to one he'll be back, too.
Talk about a metaphor for the bigger picture...
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 06, 2007, 06:09:43 AM
Quote
The thing you're missing is that the whole list left off the slient "CAnnoneer says based on his internet psychoanalysis..." in front of each part of the list. That changes the equation somewhat, don't you think?
Nice try. Everything I mentioned is easily verifiable by just reading your posts - things you have said about yourself and positions you have taken on multiple issues. The incongruences are there, not in some imaginary interpretation of mine. So, let us know where you lied or if, instead, you are just a nutcase. That it is either one or the other is beyond question this late in the game.
Quote
Are you an American?
Yes I am. What an interesting question to come from the one who claims to be one, yet he places foreigners and foreign countries before and above American interests. Even if you are an American (which jfruser and I seriously doubt), you certainly are AIPO (American in passport only). Your allegiances are very clear, and they are not American, or even Western for that matter. The sad part is you are not alone. We have a large fifth column of AIPOs. The most obvious and most reviled, but probably also the most honest ones, moved to France or Afghanistan a long time ago.
Post by: De Selby on April 06, 2007, 06:22:04 PM
Quote
Everything I mentioned is easily verifiable by just reading your posts -
Woah there, you're making this like it's a cold hard fact. Let me take the descriptions you give and list them, then you tell me if these phrases are ones that could not possibly be the product of personal judgment more than fact-checking against established criteria:
Quote
blindly defends
Quote
leftist moonbat
Quote
he's been wrong far more often than not on virtually any topic
Quote
vehemently defends
Quote
he places virtually anybody else before America
Quote
he believes in the global kumbaya
What am I missing here? Are these labels that one establishes through say, a scientific process? Or do you think that perhaps deeply personal reactions might be at play in deciding, for example, when someone is "blindly" doing anything, or "vehemently" doing something else?
I think it would be nutty to read that list, then to read you saying that it's all "easily verifiable", and not end up scratching my head.
Quote
Even if you are an American (which jfruser and I seriously doubt), you certainly are AIPO (American in passport only). Your allegiances are very clear, and they are not American, or even Western for that matter. The sad part is you are not alone. We have a large fifth column of AIPOs.
We also have a large number of people who believe that Jews are controlling the media in order to bring America down.
Which group is more dangerous, of the two, and which are you a member of?
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 07, 2007, 05:16:07 AM
Quote
I think it would be nutty to read that list, then to read you saying that it's all "easily verifiable", and not end up scratching my head.
We do not need you to say "I am a leftist traitorous xenophile moonbat" before we can reach the same conclusion. Believe it or not, we can actually extract it from what you say, given enough material, which you have provided abundantly. Anyone interested and still in doubt can read your posts here and on THR and piece it together.
Quote
We also have a large number of people who believe that Jews are controlling the media in order to bring America down. Which group is more dangerous, of the two, and which are you a member of?
The usual redirection. Because I despise AIPOs, I must be an anti-semitic ZOG-spouting neo-nazi. Because these are the only two possibilities. Please try to be more original in your diversionary smear tactics.
Which group is more dangerous?? When the neo-nazis come anywhere close to controlling half the Congress, most of the traditional media, most of primary and secondary education, most of the fundraising, most of the gov bureaucracy, etc, and when they lose a war or two for us, I will consider that question a serious one.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 08, 2007, 03:47:41 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 08, 2007, 06:16:00 AM
Quote
But in the meantime he'll be contemplating how to maintain his hold on power and eliminate his enemies. Right, comrade?
Whatever you say, comrade Kaczynski.
Post by: Lonestar49 on April 08, 2007, 09:05:12 AM
Three things to say:
1. immigration programs: just a means to buy votes
2. the whole situation, since day one, is no different today than yesterday, ants are gonna invade picnics..
3. The idea of making the entire border a Military FFZ has merit..
*an old thought.. back in the early 70's, my buddy and I went down to Ensenada for some R&R and after riding our Dirt bikes all day, got cleaned up and headed out to the ~ The Long Bar ~ for some thirst quenchers but it had a block long line to get in. We decided to head down the street and get a bite to eat first, and come back when the line was no more, around 9pm.
Just as we crossed the street, away from the line to get in, 2 Mexican Police Vans (big ones) came rushing by, lights on, and in the matter of less than 5 mins, they cleaned out the line by forcing 90% (Gringo's-non Mexicans) of the people into the Police Vans and hauling them off, to where, I have no idea, but the line was gone.
Seems if it can work down there and it's good for the goose, why not up here, where it should be good for the Gander?
LS
Post by: Sindawe on April 08, 2007, 08:10:22 PM
Quote
Just as we crossed the street, away from the line to get in, 2 Mexican Police Vans (big ones) came rushing by, lights on, and in the matter of less than 5 mins, they cleaned out the line by forcing 90% (Gringo's-non Mexicans) of the people into the Police Vans and hauling them off, to where, I have no idea, but the line was gone.
I've heard tales of such from my older associates and their exploits south of the border.
Application here does have a certain symmetry I find appealing...