Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: grampster on May 14, 2010, 03:06:17 PM
-
Border and Port Security. One more thing to be thoughtful about before choosing who to cast your vote for in the primaries and then in November.
The question, my friends, is NOT about the desire of many to come to America. Americans have alway welcomed immigrants. Immigration and our Constitutional Republic, a society of laws, not men, has made us the greatest nation on earth, ever. But immigrants in the past have mostly desired to assimilate, become Americans and contribute to our greatness and our unique culture. They did not make the demands that are being made today by those who have broken into our homes, use our medicine, come to our schools, spend our treasure, trample our laws and otherwise abuse our charity and our good will, to say nothing about a civilized progressive culture being stultified by a regressive culture.
Are we perfect? By no means. But show me another nation of people who have constantly, generation after generation, corrected the mistakes of the past and became better for it as well as improving the lot of others along the way. Our patience in this matter has been measured and has been restrained for decades.
Are all illegals bad people? By no means. It takes brave motivated folks to walk the path that many of them have walked. Changes need to be made to deal with today's reality. It starts by securing our borders and ports. Then we can have a discussion about how to move forward with the absorbtion and Americanizing of immigrants.
Many misguided people among us have twisted and obfuscated the border security and port security discussion with accusations of racism and other reactionary terms. Our Attorney General, has called the Arizona law racist, unconstitutional and wrong. Yesterday he admitted in front of a congressional committee that he HAS NOT read the Arizona law. Imagine that. Apparently our President has not read it either as he has made the same biased, incorrect conclusions and comments as his Attorney General. Speaker Pelosi said befoe passing the Health Monster that it needed to get passed so we could find out what was in it. It seems that those we entrust to see to their Constitutional duties that they have taken an oath about, are woefully inadequate for the job and prove it nearly every day.
There is ignorance and arrogance on both sides of the aisle in DC. It's time to elect patriots rather than buffoons and self serving sociopaths and sycophants. Instead of disabusing the people of Arizona for taking a stand and doing what the federal government is Constitutionaly required to, and fails to do, our elected officials should do their job and solve the problem. We can rebuild Europe, collapse the Russian Empire, bail out Greece inter alia, but we can't secure our borders and ports at home? Are we dumb to believe this? Must be!!
I was always taught that one can't read a book by it's cover. I've read the book on the clowns we have elected. It's a lousy book and we need to take it back and get another.
We Americans are the most giving, welcoming, charitable, accepting people on the face of the earth. We have shed our blood and shared our treasure on behalf of the whole world. I'm tired of being maligned by our politicians, the media, our intellectuals and literati who tell us we are greedy, racist and any other vituperative and vindictive adjective that they can think of using their narrow, nasty little minds. They should know better. Listen to what they say and then watch what they do. Usually, what they do is not what they say.
-
Would you consider combining new border security with a new Ellis Island style immigration gateway on our southern border?
-
How would you compare the attitudes of people who immigrated through Ellis Island about becoming American vs the attitudes of illegals today. I'll just come out and say it: if you don't change your heart and truly think of yourself no longer as a citizen of your former nation but instead a new American, I don't think you should be here. Assimilate or GTFO.
-
Any "reform" that ignores 25 million illegals and their children already here is empty nonsense. And legalizing them isn't the answer, not if you want to preserve any vestige of the Founders' vision after "family reunification" imports ANOTHER 50 million-plus.
The truth is too many Americans, even well-meaning ones, do not wish to face the magnitude and malignancy of what we have already wrought. This problem is NOT going to be solved by tea and sympathy, by pathways to citizenship. We are headed toward becoming a Third World nation governed by feudal lords in government cubicles. Either we are okay with that or we are not; if we are not we are going to have to decide, as the people of the generation of our Founding Fathers had to, what we are really willing to do to keep this Republic viable.
-
The other day Michael Medved, who claims to be a conservative, opined that most immigrants came here for one reason: to better their economic lot, not for freedom. I guess the brilliant Medved forgot what it was that made this nation a better alternative: a series of social and political values that empowered the individual through law and ordered liberty, through economic opportunity grounded on righteous behavior and the ability of citizens to trust one another.
If we refuse to confront what it is that makes this nation historically different and superior, the game is over, and right now I don't see much intelligent or honest discussion of this in the country at large, just a lot of propagandizing by people with (usually) leftist agendas.
-
How would you compare the attitudes of people who immigrated through Ellis Island about becoming American vs the attitudes of illegals today. I'll just come out and say it: if you don't change your heart and truly think of yourself no longer as a citizen of your former nation but instead a new American, I don't think you should be here. Assimilate or GTFO.
Dood, there are giant shamrocks painted on the streets in parts of New York and Boston. Should all those Irish assimilate or GTFO?
There are lots of inhabitants in various Chinatown neighborhoods that can't form a coherent sentence in English. Should they assimilate or GTFO?
Can we honestly say that inner city minority blacks have assimilated to mainstream American values?
=|
I'm not against assimilation, so don't get me wrong here. But I notice a lot of people use the assimilation angle to issue sweeping "broad brush" condemnations of entire populations, often without much reason or sense.
I've said before and I'll say it again here, the majority of the illegal Mexican immigrants I know are more American than their natural-born peers at the same economic levels. The left is trying to turn hispanics against traditional America by using class (ethnic?) warfare as a wedge, but I'd wager that left to their own devices most hispanic immigrants would naturally tend more towards cultural conservatism and basic American ideals. They may choose to retain an affinity for Mexico or wherever, but that doesn't mean they can't be good American citizens.
Anyway, my main point would be that many of the "off-the-boat" immigrants that came through Ellis Island didn't assimilate to any great degree. They tended to congregate in neighborhoods with similar ethnic identities and didn't change their culture or ideals much at all. It was primarily the second gen of immigrant families that began assimilating, blending their parents' culture with American culture.
-
I define assimilation as viewing yourself as an American, and not identifying with you previous country.
I would say accepting American values, but I think that is too slippery a slope (i.e. Which values must people accept?). Basically I am happy if immigrants simply ally themselves to America, and act in Americas best interest.
I don't even care if they don't speak English, unless it becomes the official language.
-
Dood, there are giant shamrocks painted on the streets in parts of New York and Boston. Should all those Irish assimilate or GTFO?
There are lots of inhabitants in various Chinatown neighborhoods that can't form a coherent sentence in English. Should they assimilate or GTFO?
Can we honestly say that inner city minority blacks have assimilated to mainstream American values?
The difference lies not in neighborhoods, as listed above, but in entire towns and cities.
I have no problem with "paying homage to the Old Country" or the like. When intentions are malicious, however, I do have a problem.
-
The difference lies not in neighborhoods, as listed above, but in entire towns and cities.
I have no problem with "paying homage to the Old Country" or the like. When intentions are malicious, however, I do have a problem.
Can you be more specific? I'm not seeing much of a difference other than the OMGness.
-
Can you be more specific? I'm not seeing much of a difference other than the OMGness.
I'll do it for him. The Aztlan, Reconquista, La Raza, and MEChA.
-
Dood, there are giant shamrocks painted on the streets in parts of New York and Boston. Should all those Irish assimilate or GTFO?
I have yet to see the Irish, Italians, or Chinese claim part of America is their own and want re/conquest.
Paying homage to the old country is one thing. Even identifying yourself as *-American can be one thing. Hell, peacefully living in America and identifying with your old home is even one thing.
Bleeding your new home dry? Coming here illegally? Nah. No sir.
-
Sure there are a lot of Irish, Italians, and even Asians who still love their old country. But I don't see many of them claiming to hate America. I don't see many Irish who view the American flag as an affront to Ireland. I don't see many Italians who want to annex piece of the US and claim them as Italian provinces. Not to mention most of the people in Boston and NY are here legally.
-
Would you consider combining new border security with a new Ellis Island style immigration gateway on our southern border?
Yes. A. The border has to be secured first. B. There would by necessity have to be more than one Ellis Island. We need a workable, progressive immigration policy. Borders and ports need to be secured first!!
To me, assimilation is becoming an American and embracing our country and our culture even as the immigrants add to the culture. As Teddy Roosevelt said, "There is only room for one flag and one language." What is wrong with that notion? The first generation will always struggle with language and culture as well as stay close to each other. Many of the neighborhoods consisting of one breed of cat have turned over many times. In my home town, in my lifetime, my old neighbor hood went from Italian, to Dutch, to southern blacks, to Mexican to a melting pot of hispanics from Central America.
My grandmother never was able to speak good English. My mother and my aunt and my uncle spoke English, not Lithuanian because my grandmother insisted they become Americans, not Lithuanian Americans. The idea of the multicultural hyphenated American is anethema to me and it is dividing our country. It is not inclusive. It is divisive and pits us against each other. Those who cant see that are worse than stupid. They are shitting in their own bed.
The idea is that the first generation will demand that their children embrace America first, but nothing wrong with remembering the past. But it is the past. For most immigrants, they left behind what they did because it was something they wished to leave behind. Why else come here. If it's for the money to send home, to make demands that America become what they left behind, and cater to them, then I say GTFO.
I've more to say on the subjetc, but I'll shut up for awhile.
-
good points heres on i'll toss out a side effect to being illegal is that it makes assimilation much more difficult and less likely. hard to mingle as a fugitive. it requires a desire and then opportunity. neither is likely when you neeed to hide from la migra
-
The other day Michael Medved, who claims to be a conservative, opined that most immigrants came here for one reason: to better their economic lot, not for freedom.
He never talked to my grandfather, who came here in 1919, from Russia.
Anyway, my main point would be that many of the "off-the-boat" immigrants that came through Ellis Island didn't assimilate to any great degree.
I grew up less than 60 miles from NYC. The neighborhood I grew up in had lots of Puerto Ricans, Koreans and whites. There are plenty of Greek and Russian Orthodox people where I grew up. To say that these groups didn't assimilate makes me think you don't live anywhere near NY, NJ, or the New England states.
My father knew very little Russian and I know even less because my grandparents refused to speak any other language than English. Most of my friends and neighbors had the same experience as me. I can't really say that for a lot of the Hispanics I know.
-
Come to Southern California, the illegal alien capitol of America, and you will quickly realize that few if any are hiding from "la migra." That is another canard as bromidic as "living in the shadows." The only shadows I see are the shadows over the wallets of the American taxpayers subsidizing this folly.
-
Come to Southern California, the illegal alien capitol of America, and you will quickly realize that few if any are hiding from "la migra." That is another canard as bromidic as "living in the shadows." The only shadows I see are the shadows over the wallets of the American taxpayers subsidizing this folly.
I think it is the subsidizing that bothers a lot of people. That and the frustration that we apparently have these immigration laws that we are not enforcing which is a just bad govt IMO.
I would like to make it much easier or at least less bureaucratic to work here legally, but I think enforcement has to come first.
-
I would like to make it much easier or at least less bureaucratic to work here legally, but I think enforcement has to come first.
The only real job growth in America is "Hispanics," mostly illegals, and they are rapidly displacing what's left of the non-Hispanic blue collar sector. Where are all the ousted American citizens supposed to find employment? Temporary work programs, in selected fields (agriculture, e.g.), could be argued for, but we long, long ago exceeded any reasonable numbers in terms of "needed" manual workers.
-
I'm still seeing an awful lot of those broad brush condemnations...
=|
-
I think it is the subsidizing that bothers a lot of people. That and the frustration that we apparently have these immigration laws that we are not enforcing which is a just bad govt IMO.
I would like to make it much easier or at least less bureaucratic to work here legally, but I think enforcement has to come first.
The enforcement has to happen at the same time as the reforms to legal entry.
The two are synergystic and neither would be terribly effective on their own.
Right now our situation is carrot and stick, and exactly backwards. We make it nigh impossible to enter legally, and painfully easy to come illegally. You can't come through a border crossing station, but you can easily trespass across some poor landowners private property. It should be no wonder why people break the law and hop the border.
Enforcing the border is great, it fixes the stick part of the problem, but it leaves out the carrot. On it's own, border enforcement will never be really effective. Unless there's a reasonable legal alternative, desperate people will still risk the stick. Desperate and enterprising people will find/make a way to cross the border illegally. Give them a real legal alternative and they'll take that instead.
I'd further the solution by eliminating any sort of public handouts to immigrants. If you choose to come here, it should be because you intend to earn your keep.
-
my grandparents refused to speak any other language than English.
That's a little on the silly side. Speaking a second language is in no way incompatible with being an American. My kids switch from Russian to English depending on the company with no problem and have been doing it since they learned to talk.
I have yet to see the Irish, Italians, or Chinese claim part of America is their own and want re/conquest.
This gives me an idea. I should start a movement to "reconquer" Alaska. I already have a motto - "Catherine was wrong!" and an anthem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94eV8kkFI3A). Maybe I can get some money for this... :)
-
The enforcement has to happen at the same time as the reforms to legal entry.
The two are synergystic and neither would be terribly effective on their own.
Right now our situation is carrot and stick, and exactly backwards. We make it nigh impossible to enter legally, and painfully easy to come illegally. You can't come through a border crossing station, but you can easily trespass across some poor landowners private property. It should be no wonder why people break the law and hop the border.
Enforcing the border is great, it fixes the stick part of the problem, but it leaves out the carrot. On it's own, border enforcement will never be really effective. Unless there's a reasonable legal alternative, desperate people will still risk the stick. Desperate and enterprising people will find/make a way to cross the border illegally. Give them a real legal alternative and they'll take that instead.
I'd further the solution by eliminating any sort of public handouts to immigrants. If you choose to come here, it should be because you intend to earn your keep.
I would argue that we are not using a carrot and stick approach. We are only using a carrot approach. People don't seem to want us to use the stick at all.
-
I happen to be listening to Fox News this evening and Gretta has this human rights activist talking about Arizona. The stupid thing to me is that she is trying to pin him down on what exactly he doesn't like about Arizona's laws and he can't get specific. He keeps saying they are concerned about potentials and how the law might be used. My thought is that liberals never seem to worry about those things with laws they like. No one would ever overstep the original intent of their laws.
-
This gives me an idea. I should start a movement to "reconquer" Alaska. I already have a motto - "Catherine was wrong!" and an anthem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94eV8kkFI3A). Maybe I can get some money for this... :)
Marvelous. You must, of course, translate.
Or at least explain why a fish busts through a brick wall. :lol:
-
I'm still seeing an awful lot of those broad brush condemnations...
If that's directed at my statements you'll have to do a lot better than that. I'm citing statistics (employment numbers) you can verify for yourself. If there is anything "broadbrush" it is the incontrovertible fact that we have a massive illegal invasion on our hands that is going largely untouched by our own government.
-
We make it nigh impossible to enter legally, and painfully easy to come illegally. You can't come through a border crossing station, but you can easily trespass across some poor landowners private property. It should be no wonder why people break the law and hop the border.
You do realize that we permit a million legal immigrants a year, far more than any other nation. HiB Visas: a lot of those too. Student Visas? Asylum seekers? Refugees?
What this comes down to is restoring control of who comes to America to the American people and removing it from the agendas of the State Dept. and special interests.
Border control, employment strictures, and termination of public benefits are all part of the "solution," but, frankly, though some don't want to hear this, so is a temporary moratorium on ALL immigration until we get a grip on this situation.
-
how many do we allow legally from mexico a year i know do you?
-
I think, frankly, that's a moot question. Mexico has fulfilled its rightful "quota" many, many times over already. Whatever we do with immigration slots from here on out, part of what we do needs to be to apply "diversity" intelligently. Geographic proximity should not be priority one.
-
that number is a part of the problem and it being "moot" might be another component. for some in the debate its moot for different reasons
-
I stand by what I said: Mexico is dramatically over-represented. Ditto the rest of Central America. Time for them to "get to the back of the line." Anyone who looks at the demographic allocation of today's America cannot seriously make an argument for admitting more people from Mexico and Central America unless they have a clear bias. I'm not even going to get into the cultural issues, which are critical, just appeal to your notions of "diversity." You know as well as I do what the '65 immigration bill (Ted Kennedy's) promised and what it failed to deliver in terms of equity and oversight.
-
what you seem to not want to address is the quotas as they stand now. its a simple first question. whats the current quota for mexico? is it you don't know or want to know? or that you know this is a bad direction for your position in the debate
-
what you seem to not want to address is the quotas as they stand now. its a simple first question. whats the current quota for mexico? is it you don't know or want to know? or that you know this is a bad direction for your position in the debate
The question that interests me more is how many mexicans are there that 1. want to come here and 2. have a skill set that will make America stronger?
Our imigration policy shouldn't be driven by who wants to come here, but rather whose coming here will make us better.
It doesn't really matter how many Mexicans we let in legally per year, if all Mexico has to offer us is field workers and maids (note the word if in that sentance) then we're full up, and don't really need any more mexicans. What are these folks offering America in exchange for the good life?
-
Why don't you tell us?
My point was that it's IRRELEVANT with 25 million illegals and their kids here already. Or do you not want to count all that? Please do not tell me about how many more we need to bring north, including their relations through "family reunification." That's social madness as far as I'm concerned, not to mention blatantly unfair to every other immigrant group.
Not counting illegals + progeny already here is like not counting the trillions spent on welfare in the last four decades against "reparations." (Yes, that's another topic, but you get the idea. Liberals count what they want to count.)
-
Yes, the issue is not provenance, it's what they bring that enhances the nation. And the corollary issue is that who enters legally is up to American citizens, not to anyone else. There is no "right" to come to America.
-
the current quota is 65k has been there a while. as has been observed they come here because they can get work . its like hunting over bait
-
If you live in a city, as I do, that has two million illegals, most from Mejico and Central America, the legal quota is not only irrelevant it's outright laughable.
The issue is not how can we increase legal quotas for Mexicans, it's how do we get them to leave. There, I said it.
You talk about jobs they need and jobs they fill. Try talking about how society is changed by their presence and what the real cost of it has been. Perhaps you think it's an accident that my city, county, and state are all going belly-up. Illegal immigration is a major element in that, as is the massive governmental bureaucracy that directly and indirectly feeds off the invasion.
-
The issue is not how can we increase legal quotas for Mexicans, it's how do we get them to leave. There, I said it.
bout time i won't think less of you for it , nor are you wrong imho
the hey here is as you said "how"
and identifying the gov as the problem is probably good too. i think you can't solve this problem froma single point or ens. we prove that with the war on drugs
-
The issue is not how can we increase legal quotas for Mexicans, it's how do we get them to leave. There, I said it.
Well, that turns the discussion in entirely creepy directions. If you want to talk about societal problems, root causes, and possible solutions then I'm right there with you. But if you want to operate from a blanket assumption that all of those people are bad and shouldn't be here, should be made to leave, I'm not at all comfortable with that.
Certain individual people may take specific actions that are harmful, and when they do we ought to address them and their actions. But to condemn an entire group, especially when most of them haven't done anything truly bad? Nuh uh. I'm not going to go there.
A sense of morbid curiosity compels me to ask how you plan to convince those 25 million people to leave?
-
get the kids outa the room
-
i think you can't solve this problem froma single point or ens. we prove that with the war on drugs
True. however, I believe that if the feds enforced immigration law with half the zeal that they enforce drug law, there would be a lot fewer than 25 million illegal immigrants.
-
since longeyes doesn't like the question whats your read on a quota of 65k?
-
Assimilate or GTFO.
So should we be assimilating with the Native Americans or should they be assimilating with us?
-
Who says I don't like the question?
As for "creepy," yeah, I think watching my country wink at a huge influx of people committing illegal trespass qualifies in spades. No one said all Mexicans, latinos, or "Hispanics" are intrinsically bad, but all illegal aliens are law-breakers and, in the opinion of most, are net minus for the society in the ways that count most. If you want to condone law-breaking and fiscal parasitism, THAT is creepy. Also "creepy" is ignoring gangs, street crime, identity theft, drunken driving, drain and strain on resources and infrastructure. Yeah, we can talk about "creepy" if you really want to.
How to get them to leave? Begin by cutting off employment and public benefits--penalizing employers, stopping welfare payments, barring "free" education, and abolishing "anchor babies"--then we'll see where we stand and what we do next.
I realize what you want me to say, and, to be honest, I think your sanctimony is more repulsive than any draconian methods I might propose. Sanctimony is going to kill America sure as hell.
-
So should we be assimilating with the Native Americans or should they be assimilating with us?
assimilation isn't in the bill of rights? [tinfoil]
-
i guess i'm saying it since i've asked it 3 or 4 times and you avoid it
-
Assimilating means agreement on our basic founding principles, beginning with the protection of individual rights under law and the acknowledgement that these rights do not inhere in government largesse.
It's not about whether I prefer tofu to tostadas. (For the record, I favor the latter.)
-
Who are you talking to?
-
True. however, I believe that if the feds enforced immigration law with half the zeal that they enforce drug law, there would be a lot fewer than 25 million illegal immigrants.
treat it exactly like drug law, hire an illegal lose you car, house and every dime in your bank accounts. the aclu would explode. be fun to watch. [popcorn]
-
do you imagine thats how drug laws work?
-
imagine?
http://www.erowid.org/freedom/law/forfeiture/forfeiture_media1.shtml
http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100405/ARTICLES/100409721
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/forfeiture.html
http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/das.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-179es.html
http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/Asset_Forfeiture_Briefing.pdf
http://www.liberty-lawyer.com/drugcrimecharges/forfeiturelawminnesota.html
http://www.waynecounty.com/mygovt/prosecutor/docs/Forfeiture.pdf
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/14/nation/20100114204938&sec=nation
http://www.drugwarrant.com/2010/03/civil-asset-forfeiture/
http://www.justice.gov/dea/programs/af.htm
http://www.hwylaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1489447.html
did i hallucinate all of that? ??? remember i said drug law, not less than 1/2 an ounce of pot drug law.
-
thats a tiny fraction of the drug cases and its by no means limited to drug laws. i'm much more scared of an irs case than a dope case. never lost anything myself except a car but do know folks that have lost cars homes and a couple business's. all of those were drug cases in one case it was 5 years after he left the business
-
and apply it, at the same rate to companies hiring illegals. would it be insignificant?
-
i think it would pucker em good but the big companies will lobby and the pols will sell out. pass a law that sounds good but has enough loopholes to keep those contributions coming in
-
Are the companies most affected only in limited sectors, however? Construction, agri, hotels? The biggest sector is government itself--all levels--social welfare and education.
-
I said:
my grandparents refused to speak any other language than English.
and got this reply:
That's a little on the silly side. Speaking a second language is in no way incompatible with being an American. My kids switch from Russian to English depending on the company with no problem and have been doing it since they learned to talk.
It might seem silly to you, I don't really care. My grandfather survived that period from 1914 to 1919 and the death of his first wife. Whatever decision he made about speaking or not speaking Russian was his decision alone. Having heard stories about what his life was like, especially after the Revolution, I can understand why he thought the way he did.
-
On the matter of "strongarming" illegals already here:
Let's save time and cut to the chase. To me it looks like this: this problem will end with either coercing illegals to leave or coercing the American people to "embrace" them. Which option do you prefer? Even if we could penalize employers, cut off benefits, and get a new judicial ruling on "anchor babies," I don't see most illegals leaving. They have learned how to use the law to entangle us, they have learned from liberals how to play the victim card both domestically and internationally. There are no easy or nice options left. Choose which group you want to antagonize.
-
The reason we can't seem to solve the question of illegal immigration is that the conversation, like this thread, disolves into minutae arguing about questions that will eventually have to be answered. But at the moment we need, as a nation, that means our elected critters, have to come together and formulate a plan to secure the border and ports that is actually reasonable and will work and then go do it. The rest of the story comes later.
Talking about immigration is like talking about drilling for oil and gas; the minute we start getting serious about it, someone starts pointing out ancilliary crap and the conversation bogs down. Example: (whiny voice) If we drill for oil and gas over there (name your spot where there is oil and gas but it is prohibited) it will take 6-8-10 years before the wells are producing. Well, gee whiz Molly, it's been nearly 30 years since the first politician whined about it being 6 years to get oil. That's when Carter created the Dept of Energy that has thousands of employees and costs billions of dollars a year to do what? Reduce our reliance on imports.
My overall point here, fellow campers, is that government proves on a daily basis how inefectual it is on nearly every thing it does. Yet half the people that vote continue to believe that in America, post modern liberalism, with its faith in, well, nothing but whatever the narative of the day is, that there is no objective truth. That is why those in power refuse to confront major issues and solve them. That is why we need to defend the Constitution for what it is; and that is not that it is a living document.
The federal government will never solve any ouf our problems that are reality based until we begin to demand that they do. Maybe that time is coming. We'll see.
-
The problem, as I see it, is not that the government is ineffectual but that it is lawless. They make the laws they want and enforce or do not enforce at their will. Many of the most important decisions in this nation are made behind closed doors, by unknown people who were never elected. I'll give you a small example, the 80,000 Somali immigrants that "someone" thought needed to brought to this nation regardless of whether they would ever assimilate and whether the communities they were sent to wanted them and regardless of the cost, on all levels, to that community. I'll tell you what I think; I think one or two people are behind this policy. Who are they and why are they doing what they are doing and why is it that we the people have never been asked whether we want this or don't want it? This in microcosm is what America 2010 is all about on a political level.
I see half this nation as lost in a passive lotus-eater's dream. Mexico is not the only "narco-state." We are one too. How many people bother to vote? How many of those have any in-depth knowledge of or interest in the issues? How many under-30s care about anything beyond the world according to Facebook? One-tenth of our population is now illegal trespassers. How many care enough to do anything about it? We are a few years from being "Greece"--why are we not massing in the streets?
We talk about solving problems as a nation, but the truth is we stopped being That One Nation a long time ago. The people who still give a damn had better take some action to save what's left and they'd better do it damn soon.