Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Newt Gingrich: "Abolish Bilingual Education" (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/115452-newt-gingrich-abolish-bilingual-education.html)

dc_dux 04-03-2007 03:00 PM

As to the bilingual issue:

The 14th amendment to the Constitution provides that "no state shall abridge the privilieges of citizens... nor deny any person equal protection under the law."

If that means bilingual education, multilingual ballots and other govt documents, while at the same time providing the opportunity for learning english....whats the big fucking deal? How does that hurt you or me?

archetypal fool 04-03-2007 03:24 PM

dc_dux
It doesn't. Newt Gingrich is just trying to gain points from his conservative republican/borderline ignorant racists. Since he's gaining in rank within republicans as a presidential candidate, I'm going to assume it's working...

Willravel 04-03-2007 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
If you mean that people can just freely walk into our borders as if they were crossing the street being legalized, again Yes, that is not acceptable.

No. I mean if they were less restrictive, but still in place.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I can see from where I now eat my lunches a glaring hole in the skyline of Lower Manhattan. I can see from my bedroom, and my living room that same missing building space. Our immigration services failed us then and if our borders are porous as they are now they are still failing us now.

Assuming the official story, immigration let us down by allowing the terrorists to quickly and easily slip into our country legally. Do you really think that tighter security will help? I could get into the US for less than $500 from anywhere in the world, and I have no CIA training whatsoever.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Whooping cough and tuberculosis is on the rise in NYC supposedly becuase of illegal immigration. Xenophobia? Perhaps, but I don't like getting stuck with that TB test and having to come back to the doctor's office to have them look at it and say there's nothing there. Great, I just wasted my time taking off from work etc. That is a direct annoyance and an inconvenience to me.

Alright, I had to show a source for the National Alliance thing. Do you have a source for the TB thing? I'm asking honestly, because I'm not aware of any information on this. BTW, according to many medical journals over the past 10 years, a TB epidemic could be a great threat to our entire species...so a few extra antibodies might be a good thing. It might be inconvenient, but so is a tetanus shot after getting shot with a nail gun.

Cynthetiq 04-03-2007 04:50 PM

Less restrictive is fine, they have changed immigration laws over time over decades. Less restrictive happens via due process like my mother and her collegues voting for representatives who were for less restrictive immigration or easier visas for healthcare workers.

Quote:

NYC.GOVAs the TB epidemic has been brought under better control among persons born in the US, a growing percentage of cases in NYC are reported among non-US born persons. In 2005, 70.1% of new TB cases in NYC were non-US born compared to only 17.7% in 1992. The Bureau of TB Control targets TB screening services to immigrants from the countries contributing most to NYC's TB morbidity: China, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Haiti, India, Phillipines, South Korea, Pakistan, Guyana, and Peru.
There is my link for the TB information from NYC's DOH.

As far as INS making it safer, while terrorism is still possible, there are also just simple "normal" crimes, the DC Sniper should never have been here and would have not killed 10 people who were just going about their lives.

jorgelito 04-03-2007 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool
jorgelito, where do you live? I'll admit that I live in Florida and my story revolves around the local people. Every immigrant I know here knows or is actively studying English, except for my father. I really don't know what the case is like in the west. I assumed it was similar to here, but that was just speculation on my part.

I live in LA. It is completely different from the East coast. Besides, the so-called "Hispanic" demographic is a disparate group. The Ecuadorians hate the Peruvians, and the Guatemalans refuse to work with the Hondurans, the Bolivians and Columbians don't get along, none of "them" will hire black people, and the Cubans and Puerto Ricans are always at each other's throats here. Even within the Mexicans, they are not uinified. I live in an Oaxacan neighborhood and they are pretty territorial. I found it interesting when my Mexican friends say how much they hated the Oaxacans for refusing to speak Spanish and assimilate into Mexican culture. I was shocked and speechless.

In any case, the Minutemen et al are NOT racist nor xenophobic. They are not anti-immigrant, they are anti-illegal immigrant. BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG difference. People all too often clud the issues and can't or won't make the distinction.

There can't be any racism simply because Latino's are not a race. If you can show me how Ricky Martin and Sammy Sosa (both Latinos) are the same race then I will eat my hat.

The Minutemen (God bless them) are also posted on our borders with Canada so let's not cloud the issues and try to create racism where none exists. The only thing shameful is the fact that they are doing the job our own government refuses to do and they are not even getting paid to do so. They would ratehr shake down my grandma at the airport than protect our nation's porous' borders. When my international friends ask how they can get a visa or emigrate to the US, I tell them, don't bother. Just go to Mexico and cross over from there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
You didn't say please, but I'll post a source anyway:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=13

They've tried to avoid official ties, but they do recruit heavily out of the National Alliance. It only makes sense, really. Who would be better to keep Mexicans in Mexico than people who want to 'keep America white'? When Gim Gilchrist, the head of the Minutemen, was on Democracy Now!, he was challenged in a debate about having ties to the National Alliance. He didn't deny it, but ended the interview without giving response. Had he publicly made any negative statements about the National Alliance or any other white supremacist groups, he would have been risking losing a great deal of Minutemen. In fact, when Gilchrist has rarely come out and said that the Minutemen is not a supremacist groups he has lost members.

The Minutemen are not good guys. They are both racists and xenophobes. They prey on those that are less fortunate and have no choice but to try and cross the border. I really enjoyed the episode of 30 days where a Minuteman had to live with an immigrant family. I only wish all Minutemen had that opportunity.

They are not trying to "keep Mexicans in Mexico" they are trying to uphold the laws of our country. Again, no one is anti-immigrant, they are anti-illegal immigrant and the flagrant flouting of the laws of this country.

I would also like to point out that the so-called Hispanic population in Cali overwhelmingly voted against driver's licenses for illegals. The Latino-American demographic is also against unlawful entry and illegal immigration. ILLEGAL, NOT, LEGAL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
... and have no choice but to try and cross the border.

Of course they have a choice. They can legally immigrate. We all did. Again, no one is against anyone legally immigrating here. In fact, I welcome them with all due enthusiasm. Immigrants made our country great. What I cannot abide is the unlawful, illegal immigration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Cyn, perhaps another point in your favor in that my neat little solution was neither neat nor a solution - just like the real world. You fall outside my xenophobia/racism argument for the most part. Honestly, most first and second generation immigrants usually do, and they're typically harder on illegals than others.

What I find interesting is that no one has mentioned the thousands of illegal European immigrants that are here. The two Polish women that work for the cleaning service my wife hired are almost certainly illegally working, if not here illegally. I know of at least 5 fencing coaches in Chicago that are here on expired visas, one of whom coached 2 athletes to national championships and makes well over $100k/year. They're all here illegally, but because they got off a plane and didn't have to walk in, they get less attention.

Actually they get more INS attention but less media attention. That is the other problem with this framework is that typically the crowd screaming "you racists" are too narrowminded and only see this as a "Hispanic' issue.

Again, no one is anti-Hispanic nor is anyone racist (mostly due to the fact that Hispanics ARE NOT A RACE). What people are against is illegla immigration, NOT legal immigration. How would that make us racist or xenophobic?

I think part of the problem is that roachboy, Mixedmedia et al (besides insulting us) fail to understand our point and quickly reduce our viewpoint to a one-dimensional "they are hate filled raciast vitriolic fascist etc etc blah blah" instead of the basic argument and premise that we have laid out and keep laying out which is the issue of legality. That's it. Plain and simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
As to the bilingual issue:

The 14th amendment to the Constitution provides that "no state shall abridge the privilieges of citizens... nor deny any person equal protection under the law."

If that means bilingual education, multilingual ballots and other govt documents, while at the same time providing the opportunity for learning english....whats the big fucking deal? How does that hurt you or me?

Um, yes it does. It adds more cost to an already strained system as well as impeding the development of the students they are supposed to help. I am grateful I wasn't given a bilingual education, that I wasn't lazy and worked hard in school. Again, what is so hard or wrong or bad about learning English? I would think it would be beneficial to the student yes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool
You (Pan) still don't seem to understand something, man. Actually, to be more fair, we have a difference in morality, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But I want you ot get something strait. People don't come here explicitly to ruin your life. They come here because they have some problem (war, poverty, etc...) and the solution is to move to a more prosperous country. If they can't move to said country hastily enough, what do you expect them to do? Stay there and starve or die while they wait for visas to clear and their governments (or ours) to get the ball rolling so they can come here? That's ridiculous. And yes...It's illegal. No one's debating that. But realize that this is one of those laws which splits people apart (case in point...).

It all goes back to moral arguments.

I don't remember where I read this, but consider this situation: In biblical time, you and your family are poor for reasons beyond your control, dying of starvation. You get caught stealing a piece of bread for your family. Did you break a law? Absolutely. But should you be condemned to prison (or killed) because of it? After all, you did break the law, and anyone who breaks the law is automatically evil and a shit of a person, right? According to your logic, this person is as bad as a murderer, or rapist. After all, they are all criminals...

Put yourself in the shoes of a person fleeing their country to come to ours. Get rid of this division of "me" and "them".

Since my case didn't make any difference in your view of us, consider the story of Jose Gutierrez. By your standards, a notorious criminal who deserved to rot in jail (for illegally coming to this country). He went to the join the Marines, to serve for his country, and make money for college and his sister. He was the first combat casualty of the war with Iraq. He died for us. Do you think if he hadn't been such a scumbag, you would be grateful? Whatever...He was just another dirty "illegal".

Archetype, I appreciate your humanity but I feel you are making en error in arguing for a moral angle. Obviously all these people are coming here for a better life. But your story is just an attempt to play on emotions and only serves to cloud the issue. I'm sorry that guy died in Iraq but what does this have to do with this thread? If I don't support the war in Iraq then why would I be grateful to Guttierez? He didn't die for us? Please, not in our name. Does this make me xenophobic, racist now? Does this mean all the people against the war are also anti immigrant xenophobic racist because they don't support the war?

Why do you keep saying us? Who are you identifying with? Do you mean you as an American or something else?

You say "get rid of this division of me and them" yet you choose to create a division by using "us" when you say "your view of us" then go back to saying "our country". What do you mean by us? Us Mexicans? Us illegals? Us Americans?

Willravel 04-03-2007 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito
Of course they have a choice. They can legally immigrate. We all did. Again, no one is against anyone legally immigrating here. In fact, I welcome them with all due enthusiasm. Immigrants made our country great. What I cannot abide is the unlawful, illegal immigration.

Where did you and I legally immigrate from? I immigrated from California? The problem is that th system is slow and stupid. It's as meaningless as a jaywalking charge in a town with no cars. Yes, some of the more privileged or lucky can legally immigrate, but MOST can't. MOST are living in drug infested slums in Mexico in a situation where they could die soon. They could watch their family die. I support Mexicans to come up here for work in order to help their families.

jorgelito 04-03-2007 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Where did you and I legally immigrate from? I immigrated from California? The problem is that th system is slow and stupid. It's as meaningless as a jaywalking charge in a town with no cars. Yes, some of the more privileged or lucky can legally immigrate, but MOST can't. MOST are living in drug infested slums in Mexico in a situation where they could die soon. They could watch their family die. I support Mexicans to come up here for work in order to help their families.

I agree with you Will, absolutely. I think the immigration laws need some reform. But like I said before, it's an issue of legality.

Um, I'm not sure why you are only referring to Mexico. I think all peoples deserve a shot at living the US dream so long as they follow the rules. ALL of my immigrant friends, Mexicans included (yes it can be done) did it the legal way. Half of my family (the half not born here) did it the legal way even if it did take 15 years. 15 years, but we still followed the rules.

Part of the issue is about special treatment. It seems like they, the illegals from south of the border are always crying about wanting special treatment, to cut the line. The rest of us immigrated legally, why can't they? Are you (not you, you but the collective you) saying that they are too stupid or incapable to do it the legal way and need "special help"?

If there's something wrong with the law then change the law.

mixedmedia 04-04-2007 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito
I think part of the problem is that roachboy, Mixedmedia et al (besides insulting us) fail to understand our point and quickly reduce our viewpoint to a one-dimensional "they are hate filled raciast vitriolic fascist etc etc blah blah" instead of the basic argument and premise that we have laid out and keep laying out which is the issue of legality. That's it. Plain and simple.

I don't think it has presented as matter of legality, plain and simple, jorgelito. This started as a discussion on bilingual education and assimilation. Obviously, the matter is about more than legality. It is about a clash of cultures. I'm truly sorry if I insulted you, but knowing what we all know about where these sorts of clashes have drifted in the past, I don't think it's out of the realm of polite discussion to bring it up. If you don't see any racism or xenophobia on this thread but you see it among the various Hispanic subsets, then I think you're experiencing a little bit of an ideological blind spot when it comes to this issue.

I agree, there needs to be drastic changes in immigration law so that people who want to come here can do so easier. A LOT of Americans would disagree with that. But some people don't feel they have the time to wait. Some people are desperate. You don't walk out of your house with just enough possessions to fill a duffel bag and walk to another country or pay your last peso to a guy who stuffs you in the back of a suffocating trailer to drive you there if you are not desperate. Have you ever felt desperate? I have. And at these times you are not thinking, let me walk downtown and stand in line so someone else can, maybe, years from now help me. You take matters into your own hands and help yourself. Yes, taking the "moral view" clouds your thinking when it comes to situations like these. As it should. It is the classic line of demarcation between liberal and conservative thought...ironically. And ignoring the "moral view" can often take us to a place where we find it rational to shoot these people as they are trying to cross the border.

dc_dux 04-04-2007 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito
I think part of the problem is that roachboy, Mixedmedia et al (besides insulting us) fail to understand our point and quickly reduce our viewpoint to a one-dimensional "they are hate filled raciast vitriolic fascist etc etc blah blah" instead of the basic argument and premise that we have laid out and keep laying out which is the issue of legality. That's it. Plain and simple.
Sorry if you feel insulted, Jorgelito....but I would suggest it is one dimensional to describe "them" as parasitic disease minded criminals, who should be shot at the border before they come here to get drunk, rob stores and kill our kids...because they are lazy and dont want to contribute, dont want to learn english and want us to accomodate their every need while they wave the Mexican flag.

What exactly is the "basic argument and premise" that you have laid out? That illegal immigration is wrong? I agree. So what do you propose we do?

Or that bilingual education is somehow a special accomodation to recent hispanic immigrants? I disagree...we have a long history of bilingual education.

How does the kind of rhetoric i cited above lead to a productive discussion of solutions?

ubertuber 04-04-2007 05:45 AM

Isn't there really only one person talking that way?

archetypal fool 04-04-2007 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito
Archetype, I appreciate your humanity but I feel you are making en error in arguing for a moral angle. Obviously all these people are coming here for a better life. But your story is just an attempt to play on emotions and only serves to cloud the issue. I'm sorry that guy died in Iraq but what does this have to do with this thread? If I don't support the war in Iraq then why would I be grateful to Guttierez? He didn't die for us? Please, not in our name. Does this make me xenophobic, racist now? Does this mean all the people against the war are also anti immigrant xenophobic racist because they don't support the war?

Why do you keep saying us? Who are you identifying with? Do you mean you as an American or something else?

You say "get rid of this division of me and them" yet you choose to create a division by using "us" when you say "your view of us" then go back to saying "our country". What do you mean by us? Us Mexicans? Us illegals? Us Americans?

My post was meant specifically for Post, because he has a skewed opinion about us, us being illegal (or formally so) immigrants. And I was trying to get him to realize that we are humans. Those who come he legally, they do so because they can. They are able to wait for the chance. If you can wait in such a situation, then immigrating legally isn't an issue. Not everyone can, though. That's what I'm trying to point out.

I mentioned Gutierrez because I'm trying to prove a point I've already tried to prove before: Yes, it's illegal, but that doesn't automatically make the person less-than human at all. You may not agree with the war (and I don't, neither does 70% of America), but that doesn't make my point any less valid. He may not have died in your name, but he did defending the country that gave him freedom and an opportunity to make something out of himself. He died defending what you and I and everyone else here loves about this country.

(by the way, it doesn't make you xenophobic/racist to not agree with this war. I don't understand where that connection came into play)

Don't ever disregard morality. If something is illegal, it isn't automatically immoral. The law and morality don't run hand in hand down a dewy meadow.

I can understand why you may feel threatened by this one particular law being broken, but what I can't understand is why you refuse to acknowledge the situation and have a little empathy, but rather just dismiss it all and condemn those come here illegally.

dc_dux 04-04-2007 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber
Isn't there really only one person talking that way?
Uber..perhaps so, but I have seen other comments like "I really don't understand why they refuse to learn when the rest if us did" or "they dont want to assimilate and want us to accomodate them."

IMO, these are oversimplistic generalizations with no basis in fact and bring us no closer to solutions.

To those who have so vocally expressed such opinions on illegal immigration...I would ask again...what exactly is the "basic argument and premise" that you have laid out? That illegal immigration is wrong? I agree. So what do you propose we do rather than continually bitching about the problem?

Or that bilingual education is somehow a new special accomodation to meet the "demands" of recent hispanic immigrants? Thats just bullshit...we have a long history of bilingual education and we have tinkered with the most recent law and programs numerous times in the last 40 years to make the process of learniing english more efficient and effective.

Where is the evidence that "they" (recent hispanic immigrants) dont want to learn english?

A recent study from the reputable Pew Hispanic Center found this:
Latinos, like nearly all Americans, agree that teaching English to the children of immigrant families is an important goal. The vast majority also says that it is important to help students from immigrant families maintain their native tongue.

* The vast majority of Latinos (92%) say that teaching English to the children of immigrant families is a "very" important goal and another 7% say it is a "somewhat" important goal. Whites and African Americans hold almost identical views.
* Almost nine in ten (88%) Latinos and eight in ten African Americans (79%), say that it is important for public schools to help students from immigrant families maintain their native tongue, including over two-thirds (67%) of Latinos who say that it is "very" important and another 21% say that it is "somewhat" important. Fewer, but still a majority of whites (57%) also agree.
http://pewhispanic.org/newsroom/rele...hp?ReleaseID=7
What is wrong with wanting to maintain your culture and language while at the same time assimlating into the broader community? Why is that a detriment to the nation as whole? IMO, we should value our cultural diversity, not repress it.

Bill O'Rights 04-04-2007 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber
Isn't there really only one person talking that way?

That may be true...here.

But, I do hear very much the same line of thought...almost verbatim, actualy...from numerous sources, in real life.

So, while we may not be seeing the viewpoint being expressed on the boards, I would submit that it's more than likely there. The "one person" may be the only one with the stones to come out with it.

And, I would further submit that the "one person" may not be totaly incorrect in his assesment. I do, however, believe that he is laboring under a misconception. It is human nature to fear and lash out at that which we do not understand. It's foreign. It's alien. They must be out to get us, so let us huddle here in our zone of comfort.

Take, for example, the "flag waving". I could be wrong, but I see that more as national pride than a political statement.
I know that I like to go to La Festa Italiana, Oktobefest, the Greek Festival and numerous other such festivals in the Omaha area that celebrate heritage. In another month...go to a Cinco de Mayo celebration. I guarantee you a good time. And I'm the biggest whitest gringo there is.

mixedmedia 04-04-2007 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber
Isn't there really only one person talking that way?

Yes. And only a handful of us speaking against it.

flstf 04-04-2007 10:03 AM

I don't know enough about government finances to determine if it is disirable (or even possible) for the U.S. to accommodate all who wish to come here. I read and hear conflicting information of the strain on hospitals, schools, and other social costs from immigration (legal and illegal). I suspect that with more government spending in these areas that the costs are much higher than years ago when there was less help for newcomers.

It would be wonderful if the U.S. could open its doors to all but is it wrong to set some limits? In regards to morality and fairness, what does it say to those who follow the rules and wait years to immigrate when we give amnesty to those who cut in line before them?

President Bush's and the Senates "path to citizenship" results in the easiest path being to break the law and come here illegally unless you want to wait in line for years.

I guess I am torn between the concept of controlling the number of immigrants or letting everyone come who wants to. If we are going to grant amnesty to those who broke our laws then we should also allow those who followed the rules to come here immediately.

I also don't think our government or schools should be responsible for teaching classes in all the different languages. Maybe the government can finance some language transition programs or something but putting this burden on the schools seems a bit much.

pan6467 04-04-2007 10:37 AM

Thank you Jorgelito, you expressed very well what I guess I couldn't. :thumbsup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito
I live in LA. It is completely different from the East coast. Besides, the so-called "Hispanic" demographic is a disparate group. The Ecuadorians hate the Peruvians, and the Guatemalans refuse to work with the Hondurans, the Bolivians and Columbians don't get along, none of "them" will hire black people, and the Cubans and Puerto Ricans are always at each other's throats here. Even within the Mexicans, they are not uinified. I live in an Oaxacan neighborhood and they are pretty territorial. I found it interesting when my Mexican friends say how much they hated the Oaxacans for refusing to speak Spanish and assimilate into Mexican culture. I was shocked and speechless.

In any case, the Minutemen et al are NOT racist nor xenophobic. They are not anti-immigrant, they are anti-illegal immigrant. BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG difference. People all too often clud the issues and can't or won't make the distinction.

There can't be any racism simply because Latino's are not a race. If you can show me how Ricky Martin and Sammy Sosa (both Latinos) are the same race then I will eat my hat.

The Minutemen (God bless them) are also posted on our borders with Canada so let's not cloud the issues and try to create racism where none exists. The only thing shameful is the fact that they are doing the job our own government refuses to do and they are not even getting paid to do so. They would ratehr shake down my grandma at the airport than protect our nation's porous' borders. When my international friends ask how they can get a visa or emigrate to the US, I tell them, don't bother. Just go to Mexico and cross over from there.



They are not trying to "keep Mexicans in Mexico" they are trying to uphold the laws of our country. Again, no one is anti-immigrant, they are anti-illegal immigrant and the flagrant flouting of the laws of this country.

I would also like to point out that the so-called Hispanic population in Cali overwhelmingly voted against driver's licenses for illegals. The Latino-American demographic is also against unlawful entry and illegal immigration. ILLEGAL, NOT, LEGAL.



Of course they have a choice. They can legally immigrate. We all did. Again, no one is against anyone legally immigrating here. In fact, I welcome them with all due enthusiasm. Immigrants made our country great. What I cannot abide is the unlawful, illegal immigration.



Actually they get more INS attention but less media attention. That is the other problem with this framework is that typically the crowd screaming "you racists" are too narrowminded and only see this as a "Hispanic' issue.

Again, no one is anti-Hispanic nor is anyone racist (mostly due to the fact that Hispanics ARE NOT A RACE). What people are against is illegla immigration, NOT legal immigration. How would that make us racist or xenophobic?

I think part of the problem is that roachboy, Mixedmedia et al (besides insulting us) fail to understand our point and quickly reduce our viewpoint to a one-dimensional "they are hate filled raciast vitriolic fascist etc etc blah blah" instead of the basic argument and premise that we have laid out and keep laying out which is the issue of legality. That's it. Plain and simple.



Um, yes it does. It adds more cost to an already strained system as well as impeding the development of the students they are supposed to help. I am grateful I wasn't given a bilingual education, that I wasn't lazy and worked hard in school. Again, what is so hard or wrong or bad about learning English? I would think it would be beneficial to the student yes?



Archetype, I appreciate your humanity but I feel you are making en error in arguing for a moral angle. Obviously all these people are coming here for a better life. But your story is just an attempt to play on emotions and only serves to cloud the issue. I'm sorry that guy died in Iraq but what does this have to do with this thread? If I don't support the war in Iraq then why would I be grateful to Guttierez? He didn't die for us? Please, not in our name. Does this make me xenophobic, racist now? Does this mean all the people against the war are also anti immigrant xenophobic racist because they don't support the war?

Why do you keep saying us? Who are you identifying with? Do you mean you as an American or something else?

You say "get rid of this division of me and them" yet you choose to create a division by using "us" when you say "your view of us" then go back to saying "our country". What do you mean by us? Us Mexicans? Us illegals? Us Americans?

I still have a hard time understanding why I am a racist, Xenophobic KKK, white supremist, neo Nazistic, Facsist because I expect and demand people who want to immigrate to my country to do so legally. Those that choose to come illegally are criminals they broke a law... but I'm the bad guy, I'm the racist, Xenophobic KKK, white supremist, neo Nazistic, Facsist.

I have often wondered what if the next wave of terrorists comes from these illegals. What do these people who are so passionate about letting them in, embracing them and just all happy that they got here say then?

"Oh it was just a small group, the vast majority would never hurt anyone."

"You're still a racist, Xenophobic KKK, white supremist, neo Nazistic, Facsist and they acted out of your hatred. It was because they were so hated by you that they blew up a mall, passed anthrax, passed tuberculosis, brought in massive amounts of heroin, cocaine, etc. all laced with poisons."

"You don't understand, they are people too. They just want a better life... who cares that they broke a law the second they came here? They were treated poorly, discriminated against when they got here so they blew up a plane, a bridge, a hospital.... it's our fault because we didn't try to embrace them enough."

Like I said.... not saying any of that will happen.... but what if it does? Will I still be a racist, Xenophobic KKK, white supremist, neo Nazistic, Facsist for having the balls to stick up for my country and demand people come here legally?

Or will I be attacked and reminded that some terrorists come here legally, some were born here.... so, no big deal that we allowed in illegals that turned out to be terrorists.

Willravel 04-04-2007 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito
I agree with you Will, absolutely. I think the immigration laws need some reform. But like I said before, it's an issue of legality.

I'm not so much advocating breaking the law as I am advocating changing the law. I do view it as peaceful civil disobedience, which I still feel is a powerful tool in bringing about change. I would hope that civil disobedience on the scale we see with illegal immigration would bring about change. So far, things have only improved slightly.
Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito
Um, I'm not sure why you are only referring to Mexico. I think all peoples deserve a shot at living the US dream so long as they follow the rules. ALL of my immigrant friends, Mexicans included (yes it can be done) did it the legal way. Half of my family (the half not born here) did it the legal way even if it did take 15 years. 15 years, but we still followed the rules.

I name Mexico (because I have the most experience with Central Americans, namely Mexicans), but I mean any impoverished nation. I'm not as worried about people coming from the slums of Canada or the UK. Norvin, a friend of mine from Nicaragua, is a lawful (other than his illegal immigration), valuable member of society.
Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito
Part of the issue is about special treatment. It seems like they, the illegals from south of the border are always crying about wanting special treatment, to cut the line. The rest of us immigrated legally, why can't they? Are you (not you, you but the collective you) saying that they are too stupid or incapable to do it the legal way and need "special help"?

The line is broken, and that leaves them little choice but to try and cut. They are tired, poor, and yearning to be free, as the saying goes. I am not suggesting that they are too stupid to get in. I'm saying they aren't the lucky ones. Yes, many are incapable of legal immigration, not because of anything they have control over mind you, but because of circumstance and a broken system.
Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito
If there's something wrong with the law then change the law.

I'd love to.

Cynthetiq 04-04-2007 11:08 AM

really the line is broken?

do you have any relatives or friends who are currently applying for citizenship, green card or any type of visa?

Because so far, it doesn't seem broken to me for the vast amount of people I know who travel or visit the US via the tourist or work visas.

Willravel 04-04-2007 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
do you have any relatives or friends who are currently applying for citizenship, green card or any type of visa?

I can name a dozen from Mexico alone off the top of my head, maybe 25-30 from Central America. As a matter of fact, I've helped several of them study for the civics test, which is not by any means easy. Had I not had available to me resources on the test, I might have failed the test myself. And I'm no dummy. Even if all requirements are met, the odds of one of the 30 being accepted as a citizen are slim to none. Most of them have worked on visas here, and speak English well enough to make it in the US. The problem is that the education system in Mexico has let them down. Unless you're very rich or very lucky, you won't go to a decent school in Mexico. In addition to that, the same rich and lucky are really the only ones who are granted citizenship. If a border-hopper is lucky, he or she can marry an American, but that's not common enough to really help a fraction of those who need help.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Because so far, it doesn't seem broken to me for the vast amount of people I know who travel or visit the US via the tourist or work visas.

You mean people from rich countries that vacation in the US or spend time here as a student? Why would it be hard for them?

dc_dux 04-04-2007 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
I have often wondered what if the next wave of terrorists comes from these illegals. What do these people who are so passionate about letting them in, embracing them and just all happy that they got here say then?

"Oh it was just a small group, the vast majority would never hurt anyone."

"You're still a racist, Xenophobic KKK, white supremist, neo Nazistic, Facsist and they acted out of your hatred. It was because they were so hated by you that they blew up a mall, passed anthrax, passed tuberculosis, brought in massive amounts of heroin, cocaine, etc. all laced with poisons."

"You don't understand, they are people too. They just want a better life... who cares that they broke a law the second they came here? They were treated poorly, discriminated against when they got here so they blew up a plane, a bridge, a hospital.... it's our fault because we didn't try to embrace them enough."

Like I said.... not saying any of that will happen.... but what if it does? Will I still be a racist, Xenophobic KKK, white supremist, neo Nazistic, Facsist for having the balls to stick up for my country and demand people come here legally?

Or will I be attacked and reminded that some terrorists come here legally, some were born here.... so, no big deal that we allowed in illegals that turned out to be terrorists.

Pan..it is intelectually dishonest to put words in someone else's mouth and IMO simply is a way to ignore acknowledging your ugly generalizations.

But putting that aside, I dont advocate an open immigration policy and open borders. i dont believe we can support unlimited immigration. The current policy of allowing about 1 million/yr seems generally reasonable to me - based on quotas from countries of origin (the quotas may need to be changed to be less heavily white European) and factors like family connections, meeting our employment needs, and/or need for personal asylum. The policy is not broken; it just may need tinkering (eg...we have allowed less than 1,000 Iraqis to emmigrate here over 3 years after we raped their country and left the personal security of millions threatened)....along with a much more serious committment to border security (beyond a symbolic fence).

And that is an entirely separate issue from what to do about the more than 12 million illegals already here.

...the ones that you (Pan) seem to be bitching about the most, yet you still offer no intelligent thoughts on solutions.`

On bilingual education:
Quote:

I also don't think our government or schools should be responsible for teaching classes in all the different languages. Maybe the government can finance some language transition programs or something but putting this burden on the schools seems a bit much.
I agree its a burden on the educational system, but probably the most cost-effective way given that the primary beneficiaries are children.

archetypal fool 04-04-2007 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
Thank you Jorgelito, you expressed very well what I guess I couldn't. :thumbsup:



I still have a hard time understanding why I am a racist, Xenophobic KKK, white supremist, neo Nazistic, Facsist because I expect and demand people who want to immigrate to my country to do so legally. Those that choose to come illegally are criminals they broke a law... but I'm the bad guy, I'm the racist, Xenophobic KKK, white supremist, neo Nazistic, Facsist.

I have often wondered what if the next wave of terrorists comes from these illegals. What do these people who are so passionate about letting them in, embracing them and just all happy that they got here say then?

"Oh it was just a small group, the vast majority would never hurt anyone."

"You're still a racist, Xenophobic KKK, white supremist, neo Nazistic, Facsist and they acted out of your hatred. It was because they were so hated by you that they blew up a mall, passed anthrax, passed tuberculosis, brought in massive amounts of heroin, cocaine, etc. all laced with poisons."

"You don't understand, they are people too. They just want a better life... who cares that they broke a law the second they came here? They were treated poorly, discriminated against when they got here so they blew up a plane, a bridge, a hospital.... it's our fault because we didn't try to embrace them enough."

Like I said.... not saying any of that will happen.... but what if it does? Will I still be a racist, Xenophobic KKK, white supremist, neo Nazistic, Facsist for having the balls to stick up for my country and demand people come here legally?

Or will I be attacked and reminded that some terrorists come here legally, some were born here.... so, no big deal that we allowed in illegals that turned out to be terrorists.

Ok, honestly Pan, I don't know where to begin with this. At least I see where you're coming from here. Now I see why you just think of illegal immigrants as monsters who are here to kill you...Because you think all illegal immigrants are terrorists...Ok, seriously... Do you honestly think that if we start treating illegal immigrants badly, they would "blew up a mall[s], plane[s], a bridge[s], hospital[s], [pass] anthrax, [pass] tuberculosis, [bring] in massive amounts of heroin, cocaine, etc. all laced with poisons," here in the United States? Also, please disregard that those who committed 9/11 came here legally, since that would sully your argument. Terrorists are terrorists, and if they decide to come here and attack us, they will find a way...

But that's beside the point. This thread isn't about terrorism, and you know that. But now it's easy to see where your comments are coming from...you seem to rank ALL illegal immigrants the same as those misguided militant extremists from the middle east (and those are the minority). What you've essentially done is lump together everyone into one group, and given them all mean and scary Al-Qaeda faces.

Quote:

I also don't think our government or schools should be responsible for teaching classes in all the different languages. Maybe the government can finance some language transition programs or something but putting this burden on the schools seems a bit much.
Is that what they do? Offer every class in two languages? I honestly didn't know that.

I must've gone to a pretty sad school. All classes were in English (save for the foreign language classes), but ESL kids would be taken out of class by the resident ESL specialist (or something like that), who would then teach them specially with the smart kids from class. It's a pretty fucked-up system, but I though it was like that everywhere.

Also, about the limitation on the number of immigrants, I absolutely agree. This country, as great as it is, can't have open borders for all. But that doesn't mean you can look down your nose at people who do sneak in (and who you've never met) and consider them less than you.

Cynthetiq 04-04-2007 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool
Also, about the limitation on the number of immigrants, I absolutely agree. This country, as great as it is, can't have open borders for all. But that doesn't mean you can look down your nose at people who do sneak in (and who you've never met) and consider them less than you.

yes, I can.

Just like I can look up the guy who lives down the street listed as a sex offender, or the guy who signed a document to live in our buildings and said he didn't or wouldn't own a dog then you see him in the elevator with his new jack russell, or even the guy who stands on the corner that deals drugs. Sure I can look at them and think of them as less with good reason.

Now if you said, that spanish guy over there, no I couldn't look down on that individual, but the moment he says,"Yeah I don't have papers to be here, I snuck across the border." or "I came here on a travel visa and overstayed."

I sure as hell can look down upon him.

Am I dehumanizing him? No, I am not tolerating that kind of behavior flouting rules and laws.

filtherton 04-04-2007 02:30 PM

I just want to say, on behalf of the torta i ate for lunch, that i am very thankful that some don't assimilate right away.


Also, on the subject of laws, i don't think that all laws are created equal, and i don't think every law is automatically just, or that all laws ought to be followed.

I just got an apartment in minneapolis' mexican enclave. I don't want to speculate as to the legal statuses of my neighbors, but they generally seem like nice folk who generally aren't prone to crime or much vice. There are plenty of businesses in my neighborhood where you would probably need to know spanish to interact effectively with the employees, but damn can you get some great food.

dc_dux 04-04-2007 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Now if you said, that spanish guy over there, no I couldn't look down on that individual, but the moment he says,"Yeah I don't have papers to be here, I snuck across the border." or "I came here on a travel visa and overstayed."

I sure as hell can look down upon him.

Am I dehumanizing him? No, I am not tolerating that kind of behavior flouting rules and laws.

Fine...look down on him as a perpetrator of a misdomeanor. Seems to me to be just more bitching without offering solutions. Do you proposed we round up 12+ million illegal immigrants here and kick them out?

archetypal fool 04-04-2007 02:40 PM

The sex offendor comited an act against a human...he raped someone. Furthormore, he chose to do so. He could've lived his life normally and been fine. What's his excuse? "You see, at the time, I was horney, and she was the only one around." ?

The guy living with his dog against the rules of the complex is doing so because he choose to. What's his excuse? "I need my dog to live with me, or else I'll be unhappy." ?

The guy who sells drugs on the corner is as low as they come. He's choosing to sell drugs. What's his excuse for doing it? "Oh, well, yeah, I have every opportunity in this country to go to college, get a job, and become a great man, but I'd rather sell just sell some rocks." ?

The Mexican you see walking down the street choose to come here. What's his excuse for doing so? "There are no jobs or food in my country to raise my family, so I came here, where there is food and the opportunity for my children to have a future."

I'm sorry, but these cases don't match up at all.

Oh, and I didn't mean to say that "You can't..." because we're all entitled to our opinions. That's just mines, since I wouldn't just consider someone less than me unless they do something which would truly call for it. Bad choice of words on my part...


Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
I just want to say, on behalf of the torta i ate for lunch, that i am very thankful that some don't assimilate right away.


Also, on the subject of laws, i don't think that all laws are created equal, and i don't think every law is automatically just, or that all laws ought to be followed.

I just got an apartment in minneapolis' mexican enclave. I don't want to speculate as to the legal statuses of my neighbors, but they generally seem like nice folk who generally aren't prone to crime or much vice. There are plenty of businesses in my neighborhood where you would probably need to know spanish to interact effectively with the employees, but damn can you get some great food.

Thanks for opening up a window in this thread. It was getting a little hot in here...:) :rolleyes:

ubertuber 04-04-2007 02:52 PM

I think that it's ironic that a lot of (maybe most?) illegal immigrants are self-selecting for the kind of perseverance, risk taking, and work ethic that we think of as being the American character. These are people that are willing to take on huge risks and work multiple low-wage jobs to give their kids an opportunity to succeed. You'd think we'd try to capitalize on that.

I agree that there is some difference between those who "follow the rules" and those who don't, but I don't necessarily think that it is what some are portraying here. Far more illegal immigrants are willing to worker harder for a little opportunity than are looking for a free ride in a rich country.

Willravel 04-04-2007 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I sure as hell can look down upon him.

Am I dehumanizing him? No, I am not tolerating that kind of behavior flouting rules and laws.

You can look down on anyone you want, but that doesn't make it right. I can look down on you for not being in great shape like me. I can look down on you because you have long hair, even. Of course, that would make me a complete and total unbelievable asshole, and ironically, it would make a lot of people look down on me. What I'm wondering is how you can look down on people who are willing to fight with their last breath for what we get for free every day.

Cynthetiq 04-04-2007 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
Fine...look down on him as a perpetrator of a misdomeanor. Seems to me to be just more bitching without offering solutions. Do you proposed we round up 12+ million illegal immigrants here and kick them out?

Why not? It's what they'd do to me if I was an illegal immigrant in Iceland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Spain...I don't care if it's a misdemeanor, my parents came here via legal channels as did all of my extended family.

If you want to do like Regan and wave the magic wand and make all the 12 million here legals, by all means fine. Then prevent FURTHER people from just walking over. Because if you aren't going to do that then in a decade or so we'll have another 12 million illegals again.

I'll offer my solution, legalize all 12 Million people currently here. Create a moritorium of NO IMMIGRATION for 2-5 years to determine the actual REAL impact the 12 million have on social services and tax base. Allow further immigration based on economic and education stratas allowing ratios of all classes to a FINITE number. Once that number is hit for the year, NO MORE IMMIGRATION for that year. And again, be vigilant of people who overstay tourist/student visas and cross borders illegally. Raid known businesses that tend to hire illegal immigrants. Punish employers who hire illegal workers with hefty fines.

archetypal fool 04-04-2007 03:11 PM

Well, it's good to see we agree on some things. :)

Quote:

Why not? It's what they'd do to me if I was an illegal immigrant in Iceland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Spain...
Yeah, and you sure as hell wouldn't appreciate it. "Do onto others, etc, etc...".

dc_dux 04-04-2007 03:19 PM

I dont want to gve blanket amnesty to all 12 million... I want most to have the opportunity for citizenship...with penalties, recognizing that they came here illegally ahead of others who played by the rules but that they have been contributing to the country and the economy in a postive way.
"Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes," said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/bu...1dc383&ei=5090
And absolutely, tougher penalties and fines on employers as well as SERIOUS border security to prevent FURTHER people from just walking over.


Aside from that,I generally like our current policy of allowing about 1 million/yr - based on quotas from countries of origin and factors like family connections, meeting our employment needs, and/or need for personal asylum.

I just dont see what name-calling, misrepresentations and generalizations about the illegal immigration problem accomplishes.

Cynthetiq 04-04-2007 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
You can look down on anyone you want, but that doesn't make it right. I can look down on you for not being in great shape like me. I can look down on you because you have long hair, even. Of course, that would make me a complete and total unbelievable asshole, and ironically, it would make a lot of people look down on me. What I'm wondering is how you can look down on people who are willing to fight with their last breath for what we get for free every day.

I get it for free???? No I do not get ANYTHING for free. My parents paid the price to come here legally, worked and paid taxes. When they got the opportunity they got naturalized and became US citizens. I paid taxes the moment I started working and I continue to pay taxes. I've not gotten ANYTHING for free since the day I've been born.

Again, if they came here LEGALLY and I was looking down upon them I'm in agreement with you. I don't understand how someone could do that. But to not have disdain for those who came illegally, sorry, not in my backyard, you can open your home to them.

archetypal fool 04-04-2007 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I get it for free???? No I do not get ANYTHING for free. My parents paid the price to come here legally, worked and paid taxes. When they got the opportunity they got naturalized and became US citizens. I paid taxes the moment I started working and I continue to pay taxes. I've not gotten ANYTHING for free since the day I've been born.

Again, if they came here LEGALLY and I was looking down upon them I'm in agreement with you. I don't understand how someone could do that. But to not have disdain for those who came illegally, sorry, not in my backyard, you can open your home to them.

I think what dc_dux is getting at is that you have your liberty, your country to back you up, your home, and your family. Illegal immigrants usually only have a family, and they work damn hard to earn the other things on that list, just as you have.

And for the record, no, I do not get ANYTHING for free. My parents paid the price to come here illegally (including selling everything they owned...it's not as easy as some seem to think), after they applied legally and nothing was done. They work hard and pay taxes, as they have always done. When they got the opportunity they both got naturalized, and my mother became a US citizen. I paid taxes the moment I started working and I continue to pay taxes. I've not been given ANYTHING for free since the day I was born.

You see, we aren't that much different after all. :)

djtestudo 04-04-2007 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool
The sex offendor comited an act against a human...he raped someone. Furthormore, he chose to do so. He could've lived his life normally and been fine. What's his excuse? "You see, at the time, I was horney, and she was the only one around." ?

The guy living with his dog against the rules of the complex is doing so because he choose to. What's his excuse? "I need my dog to live with me, or else I'll be unhappy." ?

The guy who sells drugs on the corner is as low as they come. He's choosing to sell drugs. What's his excuse for doing it? "Oh, well, yeah, I have every opportunity in this country to go to college, get a job, and become a great man, but I'd rather sell just sell some rocks." ?

The Mexican you see walking down the street choose to come here. What's his excuse for doing so? "There are no jobs or food in my country to raise my family, so I came here, where there is food and the opportunity for my children to have a future."

I'm sorry, but these cases don't match up at all.

If you were robbed twice, once by someone who was greedy and wanted the money without working, and then by someone who was starving and just wanted to feed their family, do you believe they should face different consequences for the same crime?

dc_dux 04-04-2007 05:15 PM

Quote:

I think what dc_dux is getting at is that you have your liberty, your country to back you up, your home, and your family. Illegal immigrants usually only have a family, and they work damn hard to earn the other things on that list, just as you have.
What I think is that we, as a nation, are a compassionate people, and the punishment should fit the crime.

Cynthetiq 04-04-2007 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool
I think what dc_dux is getting at is that you have your liberty, your country to back you up, your home, and your family. Illegal immigrants usually only have a family, and they work damn hard to earn the other things on that list, just as you have.

And for the record, no, I do not get ANYTHING for free. My parents paid the price to come here illegally (including selling everything they owned...it's not as easy as some seem to think), after they applied legally and nothing was done. They work hard and pay taxes, as they have always done. When they got the opportunity they both got naturalized, and my mother became a US citizen. I paid taxes the moment I started working and I continue to pay taxes. I've not been given ANYTHING for free since the day I was born.

You see, we aren't that much different after all. :)

I'm sorry no we aren't that much different.

My parents didn't have family here. They came here ALONE. In fact they even met here and married after 30 days. They didn't have country to back them up, they didn't have family, or even a home. My father came here with some money in his pocket and brains in his head. My mother came here with some savings and much needed skills in the healthcare industry.

See you came here illegally and by luck of the draw the magic wand was waved and your crime was "wiped away." You are fortunate, equally as fortunate as me to have been born in the United States. That is just plain luck. Life is not fair, we don't get to pick where we are born or what family circumstances will surround us. No that's just luck of the draw.

No my parents did not come here illegally. Other family members did not do that. They waited YEARS to come here, being petitioned over and over by various family members until they were finally approved.

In my opinion if I were to rob someone and take that money and buy lottery tickets and win millions of dollars, ALL that winnings is tainted by the fact that it was born of something illegal. So again, you are fortunate that something happened to make you legitimate and eventually a citizen. That's wonderful, but for those still out there as illegals everything they do in my opinion is tainted by the false premise and pretense they started here with, committing the crime of immigrating here illegally.

Willravel 04-04-2007 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I get it for free???? No I do not get ANYTHING for free. My parents paid the price to come here legally, worked and paid taxes. When they got the opportunity they got naturalized and became US citizens. I paid taxes the moment I started working and I continue to pay taxes. I've not gotten ANYTHING for free since the day I've been born.

Your parents and you are actually separate people, just fyi. When your dad has breakfast, you aren't having breakfast. When your parents legally immigrate, that's not you.

Sure you work, but you get the opportunity to work without too much difficulty. That's not the case in Mexico. Unemployment is unreal there. Education, something FREE to you, is either incredibly expensive or very low in quality in Mexico. I'll bet you eat at least 3 meals a day. You go to a 9-5 job that you earned by getting a decent education. Put 2 and 2 together here.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Again, if they came here LEGALLY and I was looking down upon them I'm in agreement with you. I don't understand how someone could do that. But to not have disdain for those who came illegally, sorry, not in my backyard, you can open your home to them.

I did. Now it's illegal for me to do that. I'll still invite them over for dinner, though. I'll also help them find the best jobs I can. I feel empathy for them, and I want to help. Even without pity or sympathy or empathy, they are a large part of the foundation of the economy in most of the southern and western states of our country, and turning on them would be stupid. If we were to suddenly remove them, do you know what would happen?

archetypal fool 04-04-2007 06:11 PM

Pardon me, djtestudo, but I honestly don't see what's the relevance of the situation you're giving me. Could you elaborate a little bit more?

On a side note, I didn't particularly like the analogy you proposed on the second page of this thread. The reason I didn't like it is that right from the get-go, the "bad guy" from the analogy is breaking into the resort, and stealing the food and comfort. So from the very begging, you're already shining a light of immorality onto those, and I don't think this is the case at all.

Maybe it's just that we see things differently...We come from different backgrounds, it's to be expected. Here's an analogy I've come up with which I think is more fitting:
_____________
You're in a small village, in which a man (lets call him Tom) is responsible for providing the people with cherries. Consequently, he owns may, many cherry trees. He can't possible pick them all. Because of this, whenever anyone comes around and asks for money, Tom instruct them to pick a few cherries, and then he will pay them money. Of course, he make more profit from a basket of cherries than do the people who pick them for him. All Tom asks is that people sign a sheet, so that he has a record of who has worked for him.

Tom's a fair employer, and word of him crosses from village to village. Every once in a while, a poor, illiterate straggler from one of the poorer villages, having heard of what Tom does, will come around and pick cherries without signing the sheet (remember he's illiterate), but always gives Tom the full baskets, and Tom pays him respectively.
____________

I know it's not perfect, but I feel it's more accurate than the hotel one. Yes, the straggler IS breaking the rules, but he isn't stealing anything (like illegal immigrants aren't necessarily stealing anything). And if the straggler uses the money to pay for his family to eat, where's the harm?

Cynthetiq 04-04-2007 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Your parents and you are actually separate people, just fyi. When your dad has breakfast, you aren't having breakfast. When your parents legally immigrate, that's not you.

No, that's why I stated:
Quote:

You are fortunate, equally as fortunate as me to have been born in the United States. That is just plain luck. Life is not fair, we don't get to pick where we are born or what family circumstances will surround us. No that's just luck of the draw.
But again, I want to live in another country of my choosing. I cannot because of whatever immigration laws that make it neigh impossible for me to be there. I'm willing to pay the price for living abroad, in fact it's even crazy what I'd be paying in taxes since I'd have to pay the country residence tax PLUS United States federal taxes.

Quote:

Sure you work, but you get the opportunity to work without too much difficulty. That's not the case in Mexico. Unemployment is unreal there. Education, something FREE to you, is either incredibly expensive or very low in quality in Mexico. I'll bet you eat at least 3 meals a day. You go to a 9-5 job that you earned by getting a decent education. Put 2 and 2 together here.
Again, LUCK. Just like YOU, you are equally lucky to be here for the same reasons I am lucky to be here. You wish to spend your free time in your empathy space, great, you find satisfaction and fullfillment in it. Great. More power to you. I don't. To say you do something out of sympathy is just disrespectful to them, you are then implying that they need the help, need the handout. That my friend in my opinion is you looking down on them.

Quote:

I did. Now it's illegal for me to do that. I'll still invite them over for dinner, though. I'll also help them find the best jobs I can. I feel empathy for them, and I want to help. Even without pity or sympathy or empathy, they are a large part of the foundation of the economy in most of the southern and western states of our country, and turning on them would be stupid. If we were to suddenly remove them, do you know what would happen?
What would happen? Economies that should have not existed or be corrected because the illegals are no longer here? What doomsday thing will you predict? Suddenly my fruits and vegetables will cost 4 times as much? Great I'm willing to pay that price, it should have been climbing like that to begin with. Suddenly labor prices will cause manufactured goods to increase? Flowers will not be sold at intersections? Oranges not sold at freeway offramps? No all these things would still happen as they should. Free markets are what they are. Now are these people making living wages that battle cry of those who disdain Walmart and other large corporates? or does it not apply to them because you have sympathy and empathy and what they are getting here is better than whatever they'd get in their homeland. No, in my opinion it's all part and parcel of the same labor pool. As I see it the immigrants know how to sacrifice to get the things that they want, illegal or not, they are willing to trade something today for future tomorrow. My desire is that they come here via the legal channels.

archetypal fool 04-04-2007 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I'm sorry no we aren't that much different.

My parents didn't have family here. They came here ALONE. In fact they even met here and married after 30 days. They didn't have country to back them up, they didn't have family, or even a home. My father came here with some money in his pocket and brains in his head. My mother came here with some savings and much needed skills in the healthcare industry.

The post was directed at you, since obviously you have family, a great country, and a home you worked hard to earn. Equally obvious is that most immigrants will be in similar situation as those of your parents (i.e. no home, little money). I'll add, that neither did mine when they brought me here.

Quote:

No my parents did not come here illegally. Other family members did not do that. They waited YEARS to come here, being petitioned over and over by various family members until they were finally approved.
OK, and back to my original point: What if you don't have the years to wait it out? Here's what my father told me when I asked him why he decided to bring us over here:
_________
Cuba's a communist state. None of my dad's friends had "jobs". They would all steal from others and shops so they could sell the loot and make money. But not my father...No, he made shoes. He tells me his shoes were famous around the town and a little further. One day the government came and decided they didn't want him making shoes for money any more, so they took all his equipment, his stocks of leather, and everything he had invested in his business. What was he to do? At this point, he was supporting me (3 yrs old), my mother, and TWO daughters (1 and 12 yrs old). He filed the papers for immigration after his cache of money ran out, and so did my grand-aunt, who was here in the States at the time. Family and friends were able to help us with food and shelter while we waited for our vessel. MONTHS went by, we had no money, then the people who were helping us ran into problems of their own. We were literally living in a space not much bigger than 5 x 9 ft. FEET. For all six of us (my father showed me the space last time I visited Cuba. The opportunity presented itself where we were able to escape, and my father took it.

If we hadn't left, who knows what would've happened? After all, the only people who could help us at the time fell into their own hardship, so we were on our own, with not so much as a mound of dirt to sleep on. According to my father, concrete is not very comfortable...
__________

So what was the solution? Commit to a life of crime to make enough money for food (which is very illegal, and immoral to the core, and harms many innocent people)? Or illegally go to another country where you can give your family future?

Yeah, life isn't fair, but that doesn't just mean give up, and damn your family of 5 just because you fall under hard times. Sometimes it isn't as simple as "Just wait YEARS for your chance to come." That's the whole point I've been trying to make...

djtestudo 04-04-2007 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool
Pardon me, djtestudo, but I honestly don't see what's the relevance of the situation you're giving me. Could you elaborate a little bit more?

On a side note, I didn't particularly like the analogy you proposed on the second page of this thread. The reason I didn't like it is that right from the get-go, the "bad guy" from the analogy is breaking into the resort, and stealing the food and comfort. So from the very begging, you're already shining a light of immorality onto those, and I don't think this is the case at all.

Maybe it's just that we see things differently...We come from different backgrounds, it's to be expected. Here's an analogy I've come up with which I think is more fitting:
_____________
You're in a small village, in which a man (lets call him Tom) is responsible for providing the people with cherries. Consequently, he owns may, many cherry trees. He can't possible pick them all. Because of this, whenever anyone comes around and asks for money, Tom instruct them to pick a few cherries, and then he will pay them money. Of course, he make more profit from a basket of cherries than do the people who pick them for him. All Tom asks is that people sign a sheet, so that he has a record of who has worked for him.

Tom's a fair employer, and word of him crosses from village to village. Every once in a while, a poor, illiterate straggler from one of the poorer villages, having heard of what Tom does, will come around and pick cherries without signing the sheet (remember he's illiterate), but always gives Tom the full baskets, and Tom pays him respectively.
____________

I know it's not perfect, but I feel it's more accurate than the hotel one. Yes, the straggler IS breaking the rules, but he isn't stealing anything (like illegal immigrants aren't necessarily stealing anything). And if the straggler uses the money to pay for his family to eat, where's the harm?

No, because the illegal immigrants ARE taking from America. They may not all be criminals (anyone who says that is uninformed), but they are costing our tax dollars, both through services and through security.

That is why the hotel analogy works; they want the same advantages everyone else get, but don't want to follow the same rules as everyone else to get them.

My second analogy goes towards your point about different situations calling for different views on punishment. However, whereas you used several unrelated situations, I gave you two identical crimes separated only by the reasoning behind them (lazy criminal vs. starving family).

flstf 04-04-2007 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
On bilingual education:

I agree its a burden on the educational system, but probably the most cost-effective way given that the primary beneficiaries are children.

As I understand it from the few immigrants I know, the kids pick up the language quickly without formal training. Its the adults who have the most trouble. When I visited some Czech communities with my wife the kids quite often function as interpreters for their parents and grandparents.

archetypal fool 04-04-2007 09:11 PM

You seem to have missed an interesting post above by dc_dux. Check out his source, I learned things I didn't know before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
I dont want to gve blanket amnesty to all 12 million... I want most to have the opportunity for citizenship...with penalties, recognizing that they came here illegally ahead of others who played by the rules but that they have been contributing to the country and the economy in a postive way.
"Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes," said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/bu...1dc383&ei=5090
And absolutely, tougher penalties and fines on employers as well as SERIOUS border security to prevent FURTHER people from just walking over.


Aside from that,I generally like our current policy of allowing about 1 million/yr - based on quotas from countries of origin and factors like family connections, meeting our employment needs, and/or need for personal asylum.

I just don't see what name-calling, misrepresentations and generalizations about the illegal immigration problem accomplishes.

If you want to continue to hold onto the notion that illegal immigrants cost tax dollars, realize that they are being deducted from pay checks, just like yours and mines. So your hotel analogy implies that people come here and just take everything (parasites), when in fact they're contributing back. Where as in my analogy, work is done and there's an exchange between labor and money.

And as for your most recent analogy, I'll emphasize again that sneaking into this country IS ILLEGAL. Anyone caught doing is is braking the law. I'm not arguing for/against punishment for the act. Nor am I implying that it's any more legal for one situation than it is for another. But I'm not going to sit around and let some people continue regarding illegal immigrants as parasites, or a shit of a people, or selfish entities withing the country, or people who want to change this country to give them better benefits, or any thing like that, because simply, I don't believe this is the case.

So to explicitly answer your question, both should be punished equally.

I can see where you can use my previous "morality" argument for this case, since using the "morality" argument, you'd expect me to say that the criminal doing it to save his starving family is somewhat justified. This isn't the case though. Mugging someone is directly affecting that person, and hurting that person. My previous "morality" argument only holds water if the person is acting morally (as is usually the case with those who choose to come here illegally).

Therefor, if I was mugged by the latter mugger from you analogy, it isn't justified. It's directly stealing, which isn't the case with illegal immigration.

Quote:

As I understand it from the few immigrants I know, the kids pick up the language quickly without formal training. Its the adults who have the most trouble. When I visited some Czech communities with my wife the kids quite often function as interpreters for their parents and grandparents.
That's correct. According to my family, I learned English in less than a year (I came when I was 3 yrs old). I've been the family translator ever since. Most of my family already knows English, but they rather have me take care of their dirty work since I'm so much more comfortable with the language than they are.

Children are much more capable of learning languages. They have a propensity for it, in fact. In Matt Ridley's book "Genome", he sites a particularly interesting case where children, when brought up in a situation where many different languages are used frequently by people who don't speak them all (imagine an island with 1000 people, 20% English, 20% Spanish, 20% Arabic, 20% Asian, and 20% African, all interacting together daily...The case was similar), synthesized a more efficient language, composed of all the languages. Each generation created a better and better language. It's truly amazing.

For the same reason, it's harder for adults to learn things like languages. The proverbial roots have already been anchored.

Cynthetiq 04-05-2007 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool
You seem to have missed an interesting post above by dc_dux. Check out his source, I learned things I didn't know before.

If you want to continue to hold onto the notion that illegal immigrants cost tax dollars, realize that they are being deducted from pay checks, just like yours and mines. So your hotel analogy implies that people come here and just take everything (parasites), when in fact they're contributing back. Where as in my analogy, work is done and there's an exchange between labor and money.

And as for your most recent analogy, I'll emphasize again that sneaking into this country IS ILLEGAL. Anyone caught doing is is braking the law. I'm not arguing for/against punishment for the act. Nor am I implying that it's any more legal for one situation than it is for another. But I'm not going to sit around and let some people continue regarding illegal immigrants as parasites, or a shit of a people, or selfish entities withing the country, or people who want to change this country to give them better benefits, or any thing like that, because simply, I don't believe this is the case.

So to explicitly answer your question, both should be punished equally.

I can see where you can use my previous "morality" argument for this case, since using the "morality" argument, you'd expect me to say that the criminal doing it to save his starving family is somewhat justified. This isn't the case though. Mugging someone is directly affecting that person, and hurting that person. My previous "morality" argument only holds water if the person is acting morally (as is usually the case with those who choose to come here illegally).

Therefor, if I was mugged by the latter mugger from you analogy, it isn't justified. It's directly stealing, which isn't the case with illegal immigration.



That's correct. According to my family, I learned English in less than a year (I came when I was 3 yrs old). I've been the family translator ever since. Most of my family already knows English, but they rather have me take care of their dirty work since I'm so much more comfortable with the language than they are.

Children are much more capable of learning languages. They have a propensity for it, in fact. In Matt Ridley's book "Genome", he sites a particularly interesting case where children, when brought up in a situation where many different languages are used frequently by people who don't speak them all (imagine an island with 1000 people, 20% English, 20% Spanish, 20% Arabic, 20% Asian, and 20% African, all interacting together daily...The case was similar), synthesized a more efficient language, composed of all the languages. Each generation created a better and better language. It's truly amazing.

For the same reason, it's harder for adults to learn things like languages. The proverbial roots have already been anchored.

re: those that are paying taxes is patently FALSE for a good portion of those illegal immigrants. Those that are paying taxes are using STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, committing yet ANOTHER CRIME of identity theft. Yes, they have taxes taken out of the wages being paid and leaving someone else holding the bag. I have known a couple people who were left having to pay ADDITIONAL taxes on monies because of someone else using their social security number for employment. The example below is just one case of many.

Furthermore, there are many day laborers and other workers who get paid CASH, who won't go out and get any documentation, they too do not pay payroll taxes, while they may pay sales tax on good purchased, they don't pay property taxes which goes to pay for education in most districts.

Quote:

Illegal Worker, Troubled Citizen and Stolen Name
LINK
JULIA PRESTON

MARSHALLTOWN, Iowa — The two women named Violeta Blanco have never met. But for a long time they shared not only a name, but the same birth date and the same Social Security number.

One is an illegal immigrant from Mexico who went to work slicing pork in a meat-packing plant here after her husband left her with three children. The other is a single American mother in California who has never held a job, struggles with drug addiction and is fighting to keep the state from taking her children.

With little in common but their shared identity, the two women are unwittingly linked by an illicit trade that is the focus of a new federal crackdown on illegal immigration. Detained in a recent raid on the Iowa plant, the Mexican worker admitted that she had used the California woman’s identity to get her job. Now she is in jail on felony charges of identity theft, her trial set to begin in Des Moines on Monday.

Immigration raids at six Swift & Company meat-packing plants in six states in December, as well as more recent sweeps in Michigan, Florida and Arizona, have exposed an expanding front in the underground business that caters to illegal immigrants looking for work, officials say.

As the authorities have aggressively prosecuted employers for hiring undocumented workers, companies are examining applicants more carefully, and fake documents no longer pass inspection as easily as they did. Illegal immigrants have turned increasingly to bona fide documents, stolen or bought by traffickers from actual Americans.

With scrutiny tightening, illegal immigrants “invest more effort and money into getting better documents,” said Julie L. Myers, the top official at Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “More and more, that includes taking on the identities of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.”

The case of Violeta Blanco, 31, of Bakersfield, Calif., and the woman in Iowa who used her name, Eloisa Nuñez Galeana, 32, provides a rare view of the new identity trade through hard lives on both ends.

On one side is an immigrant who is eager to work and who says she never thought she could be stealing from a real person; on the other is an American down on her luck who says she does not know how her personal information came to be exchanged on the black market.
Continued   click to show 



Another article re: stolen SSI numbers used for employment

Quote:

Some ID Theft Is Not for Profit, But to Get a Job; STOLEN LIVES: The Crucial Number

LINK
Camber Lybbert thought it was a mistake when her bank said her daughter's Social Security number was on the bank's files for two credit cards and two auto loans, with an outstanding balance of more than $25,000. Her daughter is 3 years old.

For Lybbert and her husband, Tyson, the call began a five-month scramble trying to clear up their daughter's credit record. As it turned out, an illegal immigrant named Jose Tinoco had stolen their daughter's Social Security number, not in pursuit of a financial crime but to get a job.

"From what I've picked up, he wasn't using it maliciously," Camber Lybbert said. "He was using it to have a job, to get a car, provide for his family. My husband's like, 'Don't you feel bad, you've ruined this guy's life?' But at the same time, he's ruined the innocence of her Social Security number because when she goes to apply for loans, she's going to have this history."

Though most people think of identity theft as a financial crime, one of the most common forms involves illegal immigrants using fraudulent Social Security numbers to conduct their daily lives. With tacit acceptance from some employers and poor coordination among government agencies, the practice provides the backbone of some low-wage businesses and a boon to the Social Security trust fund. During the 1990s, such mismatches accounted for about $20 billion in Social Security taxes paid.

"It's clear that it is a different intent or purpose than trying to get someone's MasterCard and charge it up, knowing they're going to get the bill," said Richard Hamp, an assistant attorney general in Utah. "But it has some similarities. It goes on the other person's credit record. Illegals are filing for bankruptcy using someone else's number. I had one 78-year-old with three defaults on houses she never owned."

The Federal Trade Commission estimates that 10 million Americans have their identities stolen each year.

Illegal immigrants make up nearly one of every 20 workers in America, according to estimates by the Pew Hispanic Center, and most are working under fraudulent Social Security numbers, which can be bought in any immigrant community or in Mexico.

In Caldwell, Idaho, a woman named Maria is just such a worker.

Maria, 51, came from Mexico City illegally six years ago and bought a counterfeit green card and Social Security card through a friend for $180. She earns $6.50 an hour, and like most of the seven million working illegal immigrants in the United States, she pays income tax and Social Security tax. She agreed to be interviewed on the condition that her last name not be used.

''We know we'll never get it back,'' Maria said of the Social Security payments. ''It's unfortunate, but it's a given.''

Like most victims of identity theft, the Lybberts did not lose any money in the long run. But Camber Lybbert estimated that for four or five months she spent 30 hours or more a week making telephone calls, feeling passed from one agency or voice-mail system to another: the Social Security Administration; the attorney general; the three credit bureaus that issue credit ratings; and police departments in two cities.

''Everyone I talked to handed me off to someone else, saying that's not our department, call this number,'' she said. ''I was being led in a circle.''

The Social Security Administration each year receives 8 million to 9 million earnings reports from the Internal Revenue Service filed under names that do not match the Social Security numbers. Some are from workers whose employers botched their personnel forms or women who recently changed their names after marriage. Others are from people using a Social Security number that is not their own.

"It's basically a subsidy from migrant workers to the aggregate of American taxpayers," said Douglas S. Massey, a professor of sociology at Princeton who studies Mexican migration.

Though no one knows how many of these mismatches are illegal immigrants, a Government Accountability Office study found that employers with the most mismatches were concentrated in industries that hire a lot of illegal immigrants, including agriculture, construction and food services.

"Right now, employers are not motivated to care if their workers give them false Social Security numbers," said Barbara Bovbjerg, the office's director of education, workforce and income security issues.

The Social Security Administration is legally barred from sharing information with immigration or law enforcement agencies or from telling the rightful owner of a Social Security number that someone else is working under their number, said Mark Hinkle, a spokesman.

The rightful owner of a stolen number does not get the benefits accrued under its false use.

Ms. Bovbjerg's office and others have called for better cooperation among the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Homeland Security to prosecute workers who use false Social Security numbers and the companies that hire them.


"We've had this ridiculous situation where, theoretically, this information could be shared and we could identify these people and repair the situation," said Marti Dinerstein, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonprofit organization that supports tighter restrictions on immigration. "Falsely using a Social Security number is a felony. ... The IRS says privacy laws prevent them from sharing information. So we know who the guilty employers are. The IRS knows who the guilty employees are. And nothing's being done about it."

In 2000, using Social Security Administration data, the Utah attorney general's office found that there were 132,000 people in the state whose Social Security numbers were being used by other people, far more than the state could prosecute.

This use caused problems even when the person using the number led a financially responsible life, said Hamp, the assistant attorney general.

"I've had families denied public assistance for their children or disability payments because records show somebody is working in their Social Security number," he said.

Scott Smith of Ogden, Utah, discovered that someone was using his daughter Bailey's Social Security number when he applied for public health insurance for her.

Like Lybbert, he has mixed feelings about what happened next.

"All that was happening was that the illegal alien who had gotten the card had gotten a job at a Sizzler steakhouse in Provo and was paying her bills and doing a good job," he said. "My opinion was, hey, we've got someone hard-working who's come from Mexico, who just wants to get a leg up -- give her Bailey's Social Security number and issue us a new one. ...

"But they arrested her. I actually feel bad about her being deported."

In immigrant communities, most counterfeiters invent Social Security numbers at random, choosing only the first three digits to signal the card's state of origin, prosecutors and investigators say.

When the numbers belong to children, the problems can start when they turn 18, said Jay Foley, a founder and director of the Identity Theft Resource Center in San Diego, a nonprofit organization that helps victims and proposes legislation. ''Now the child goes for student loans or jobs, and the companies say, 'You've got a problem of bad credit. We aren't going to touch you.' ''

Most affected, Mr. Foley said, are foster children who are suddenly independent at 18.

dc_dux 04-05-2007 06:10 AM

Quote:

re: those that are paying taxes is patently FALSE for a good portion of those illegal immigrants. Those that are paying taxes are using STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, committing yet ANOTHER CRIME of identity
The fact that MANY millions of illegal immigrants are paying taxes is patently TRUE....and most are using fictious SS numbers, not stolen numbers.

The SS "earning suspense file" is now at nearly $200 billion.

From testimony of the SS actuary:
Quote:

Since the beginning of the program in 1937 and through Tax Year (TY) 2003, the most recent year for which data is available, the suspense file has grown and now contains about 255 million W-2s. While the suspense file represents an accounting of unassociated wage items, the taxes on these wages have been paid into the trust funds. In TY 2003, $7.2 billion in payroll taxes were credited to the Trust Funds based on wage items placed in the suspense file. This represented approximately 1.3 percent of total payroll taxes credited to the Trust Funds....

As of October, 2005, approximately 8.8 million W-2s (3.5 percent of the total) representing $57.8 billion in wages remained in the suspense file for TY 2003.

It is important to note that wages that remain in the ESF include wages paid to individuals who were not and may not be currently authorized to work in the U.S. Thus, these individuals have actually paid into the Social Security Trust Fund and are unable to receive benefits.

http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_072506.html
There is no hard evidence, but the SS Admin estimates that MANY of these "unidentified" SS wage earners who end up in the suspense file are "undocumented aliens".

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ness/immig.gif

I dont condone the act of using fake (not stolen) SS #s, and I blame the employer (who turns a blind eye) as much as the employee...but there is NO denying that illegal aliens contribute $billions to Social Security and Medicare.

Cynthetiq 04-05-2007 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
The fact that a many millions of illegal immigrants are paying taxes is patently TRUE....and most are using fictious SS numbers, not stolen numbers.

The SS "earning suspense file" is now at nearly $200 billion.

From testimony of the SS actuary:

There is no hard evidence, but the SS Admin estimates that MANY of these "unidentified" SS wage earners who end up in the suspense file are "undocumented aliens".

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ness/immig.gif

That doesnt excuse the act of using fake (not stolen) SS #s, but there is NO denying that illegal aliens contribute $billions to the Social Security and Medicate.

I'm sorry but I don't disagree that those using FAKE or STOLEN documents as not paying taxes and contributing to the base pot. They are. The part I am stating as there are a GOOD NUMBER of illegal workers who are NOT paying taxes.

Quote:

Furthermore, there are many day laborers and other workers who get paid CASH, who won't go out and get any documentation, they too do not pay payroll taxes, while they may pay sales tax on good purchased, they don't pay property taxes which goes to pay for education in most districts.
Ask the undocumented day laborer how much in taxes he paid last week, he was paid in cash. Ask the house cleaner or nanny how much they paid in taxes last time they got paid. Again, they got paid in cash. If they were then many politicians who got outed as using undocmented workers who didn't pay taxes were unfairly and unjustly lynched by the media.

dc_dux 04-05-2007 06:33 AM

We agree that the government must come harder on employers, even those politicians who knowingly hire illegals as nannys and maids.

The enforcement record has been dismal.

(We might also want to look into all those law-abiding citizens who work as wait staff, street vendors, etc. about reporting their real income.)

Willravel 04-05-2007 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Again, LUCK. Just like YOU, you are equally lucky to be here for the same reasons I am lucky to be here. You wish to spend your free time in your empathy space, great, you find satisfaction and fullfillment in it. Great. More power to you. I don't. To say you do something out of sympathy is just disrespectful to them, you are then implying that they need the help, need the handout. That my friend in my opinion is you looking down on them.

Are police looking down on people they respect? Is Superman looking down on Metropolis? Is the Red Cross looking down on the world?

Cynthetiq 04-05-2007 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Are police looking down on people they respect? Is Superman looking down on Metropolis? Is the Red Cross looking down on the world?

do you mean by the police and people they respect? Police are PAID to PROTECT and SERVE the community. They aren't doing it out of volunteerism.

Superman, um, he is a comic book character, he is FICTIONAL.

Red Cross as an non profit organization has people who come to them for assistance.

Red Cross Charter:

Quote:

The purposes of the corporation are:
(1) to provide volunteer aid in time of war to the sick and wounded of the
armed forces, in accordance with the spirit and conditions of:
(A) the conference of Geneva of October, 1863;
(B) the treaties of the Red Cross, or the treaties of Geneva, of
August 22, 1864, July 27, 1929, and August 12, 1949, to which the United
States of America has given its adhesion; and
(C) any other treaty, convention, or protocol similar in purpose to
which the United States of America has given or may give its adhesion;
(2) in carrying out the purposes described in clause (1) of this section, to
perform all the duties devolved on a national society by each nation that has
acceded to any of those treaties, conventions, or protocols;
(3) to act in matters of voluntary relief and in accordance with the military
authorities as a medium of communication between the people of the United
States and the armed forces of the United States and to act in those matters
between similar national societies of governments of other countries through the
International Committee of the Red Cross and the Government, the people, and
the armed forces of the United States; and
(4) to carry out a system of national and international relief in time of
peace, and apply that system in mitigating the suffering caused by pestilence,
famine, fire, floods, and other great national calamities, and to devise and carry
out measures for preventing those calamities.
and Will, I'm still waiting for because I don't know what would happen or at least what your opinion of what would happen...

Quote:

they are a large part of the foundation of the economy in most of the southern and western states of our country, and turning on them would be stupid. If we were to suddenly remove them, do you know what would happen?

Willravel 04-05-2007 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
do you mean by the police and people they respect? Police are PAID to PROTECT and SERVE the community. They aren't doing it out of volunteerism.

So being paid means they don't look down on people.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Superman, um, he is a comic book character, he is FICTIONAL.

If I didn't have people like you to explain things like this to me, I'd probably drown in my cereal every morning. Superman is a mythical figure that represents some part of humanity like many fictional characters. Part of his character is this altruistic streak brought about by his sense of responsibility. He has power, so he uses it to help people. I hope you can understand that.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Red Cross as an non profit organization has people who come to them for assistance.

Have you ever had a homeless person ask you for money? I see that as the same thing. They are asking for help from people or organizations of greater means. Some people, like me, actually give a shit about these people and give them money not out of pity but out of a sense of responsibility.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
and Will, I'm still waiting for because I don't know what would happen or at least what your opinion of what would happen...

You're still waiting for...what? I try to read my posts after I write them in case they don't make sense.


What do I think would happen if the US tried to get all illegals out immediately? Mass riots, infrastructure (shipping, agriculture, etc.) would start to collapse in many places in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, and elsewhere, GSP (gross state product) would drop off considerably in the aforementioned states, this would quickly spread as all the lower 48 are in a symbiotic economic relationship. Because things are so instable now, this could trigger a depression.

Cynthetiq 04-05-2007 09:24 AM

Sorry will, I walk past about 15 homeless people every day. I'm not going to give them anything. NYC has plenty of programs to assist them. The area I live in has plenty of homeless.

Getting badgered 15 times in the morning and 15 times at night just so that I can go to work and come home is not very exciting nor does it inspire me to assist them.

Yep, you go to work in your car protected by metal and glass listening to your morning radio show or your MP3s. I'm sorry 16 years of being hit up for money each and every place I go to, sorry. No. No sympathy, no empathy, I've hung out with homeless and street urchins, you know as well as I do that people are there mostly because they want to.

When I was in SF in January I was surprised how many homeless there were in Union Square, but then again, people pay them to stay there.

this article in 1999 highlights it well:

Quote:

WHETHER or not Paris Drake is guilty of flinging a brick at a woman on 42nd Street, his sudden notoriety is not doing a lot for New York's image. The stories of his life raise an obvious question: why was a crack addict with a history of violence and a long rap sheet prowling the streets?

Some blame New York courts for being too lenient; some fault the city's social programs. But the most direct explanation has nothing to do with local policies. Mr. Drake was using drugs and hanging out on 42nd Street because out-of-towners were paying him to do it.

He hustled around Times Square and the Port Authority bus terminal because the area had so many tourists and suburbanites (and a few gullible locals) willing to respond to his begging. Like other panhandlers, he relied on the kindness of strangers who thought they were helping someone with nowhere else to turn.

''Drug addicts come from out of state to panhandle in Times Square,'' said James McNamara, who was once an addict himself living in a cardboard box. ''The tourists think they're doing good, but they're just making it easier for them to get high, and that makes our job tougher.''

Mr. McNamara was busy walking along Eighth Avenue near 42nd Street offering help to street people who did not want it. He was one of many such missionaries working for public and private agencies in Midtown, which probably has more ''outreach'' workers per square mile than any other place on earth.

He and his co-worker, Wendell Parks, passed a panhandler they had known for years. ''His money's going for heroin,'' Mr. Parks said. ''I guarantee you that 90 percent of the money people give to panhandlers goes to drugs and alcohol. It's frustrating. We'll be talking to someone for 15 minutes, finally getting somewhere, and then a tourist will drop him a ten or a twenty, and we're finished.''

Mr. McNamara and Mr. Parks work for the Times Square Consortium for the Homeless, which has meticulously tried to help street people -- and meticulously documented how difficult that can be. Financed by $800,000 a year in federal and state grants, the consortium of private groups has been running a ''respite center'' at St. Luke's Lutheran Church on West 46th Street near Eighth Avenue.

Over the last four years, its outreach teams have invited nearly 1,000 people to the center, which offers showers, meals, clothes and beds for the night. After repeated coaxing -- on average, each person was contacted 10 times -- about 500 stopped in.

More than 80 percent of them reported abusing drugs or alcohol; a third were judged mentally ill. The center tried to guide them through treatment programs and find them permanent housing. The success rate was above average because the eight-person staff -- which included a psychiatrist, two social workers and a specialist in drug and alcohol abuse -- was able to lavish attention on individual cases.

BUT even with all that help, most people dropped out along the way. Fewer than 100 made it into halfway houses or permanent homes. Of the many reasons for the others' failure, one was undoubtedly the easy money available back on the streets.

''What can I do when a guy tells me he's making $300 a day panhandling?'' Mr. McNamara said as he approached Times Square and spotted a man on the corner they had been trying for years to entice to the center. They invited him again, explaining that they had a coat and shoes waiting, but he waved them off. ''I remember another gentleman,'' Mr. McNamara said, ''that I managed to get in for a shower and a meal. We were working on getting him into detox, but he said, 'No, I'm going back on the street to smoke crack.' Well, that was his right. The next week I saw him on the subway with a cup pretending to be crippled. He said he needed money for an operation to straighten his leg.''

A hard-core libertarian might argue that there's nothing wrong with giving a panhandler money, even when it will be used for drugs. Aren't you and the panhandler both consenting adults? You might compare drug use with another taboo activity, prostitution, and say that adults should be free to spend their money and treat their bodies as they wish.

But most people who patronize prostitutes do not pretend they're doing it for the prostitute's benefit. Most out-of-towners who give to panhandlers probably see themselves as altruists, though ultimately they may be the only beneficiaries from the transaction. They get to go home warmed by the glow of their generosity. The crackhead left behind is not their problem.
People look down upon other people paid or unpaid. It doesn't matter. Does the rich altruistic person do more good who writes a check for $10,000 to a charity or is it the person serving soup at the kitchen?

I don't believe that rounding up all the illegals would cause such catostrophic events. It's not like it would happen overnight, it would happen over time.

Besides, if you look at my previous posts, I have not advocated rounding them up and getting rid of them. I'm advocating STOPPING future millions from coming in.

Willravel 04-05-2007 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Yep, you go to work in your car protected by metal and glass listening to your morning radio show or your MP3s. I'm sorry 16 years of being hit up for money each and every place I go to, sorry. No. No sympathy, no empathy, I've hung out with homeless and street urchins, you know as well as I do that people are there mostly because they want to.

Yes, when they're young and their teacher asks them what they want to be when they grow up, they scratch their little heads and proudly proclaim: "I want to be a vagrant! I want to sleep in a cardboard box and eat trash and desperately beg people for help! I want to live in front of a McDonald's and crap behind a McDonald's because I don't have the means for basic human needs like food and shelter! I hope someday people will look down on me as less than human!!" Then they go eat clay.

That you could, with a straight face, say that homeless people WANT to be homeless means that not only do you not know the first thing about the homeless, but your ability to read people is pretty messed up.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
People look down upon other people paid or unpaid. It doesn't matter. Does the rich altruistic person do more good who writes a check for $10,000 to a charity or is it the person serving soup at the kitchen?

I look down on people, too. I look down on people who don't put any work into figuring things out and sit their on their soap box assuming they know everything. You're satisfied to ignore the plight of the homeless, but you sure are ready and waiting to judge them, aren't you? Well, I now judge you. I say that you're wrong for ignoring the homeless, but that's forgivable because not everyone cares about suffering. I say that you're very, very wrong for making the assumption that they want to be homeless (wtf?!), and that's not forgivable. Ban me if you want, but I think that misrepresenting the less fortunate like that is pretty horrible of you.

Cynthetiq 04-05-2007 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Yes, when they're young and their teacher asks them what they want to be when they grow up, they scratch their little heads and proudly proclaim: "I want to be a vagrant! I want to sleep in a cardboard box and eat trash and desperately beg people for help! I want to live in front of a McDonald's and crap behind a McDonald's because I don't have the means for basic human needs like food and shelter! I hope someday people will look down on me as less than human!!" Then they go eat clay.

That you could, with a straight face, say that homeless people WANT to be homeless means that not only do you not know the first thing about the homeless, but your ability to read people is pretty messed up.

I look down on people, too. I look down on people who don't put any work into figuring things out and sit their on their soap box assuming they know everything. You're satisfied to ignore the plight of the homeless, but you sure are ready and waiting to judge them, aren't you? Well, I now judge you. I say that you're wrong for ignoring the homeless, but that's forgivable because not everyone cares about suffering. I say that you're very, very wrong for making the assumption that they want to be homeless (wtf?!), and that's not forgivable. Ban me if you want, but I think that misrepresenting the less fortunate like that is pretty horrible of you.

I ignore the plight of the homeless? Because I don't give change to the guy on the sidewalk????? WTF is that?

If I give to organizations and assist my local charities like Henry Street Settlement and I don't give to the local fuckard who'd rather stay on the streets because of drug addition and alcholism makes me a bad person? Because that's what your implication is.

I don't assume I know anything, in fact, I'm the first to admit I know nothing. I've not made any assumptions in this thread but speak from my FIRST HAND experience however that comes.

I'm sorry my friend, it is YOU who is on a soap box. To tie this back into the OP, it's MY parents who immigrated here. It is me who had to sleep on the floor because I had relatives who were trying to move to the US legally. It is ME who has disdain for those people who care not to follow the immigration laws.

It is YOU who speaks on a soap box preaching you know how it is because you housed and fed them once in your past. YOU preaching how bad it is in Mexico with high unemployment and poor educational system. YOU preaching how altruistic you are.

No my friend, I think you need to see where your feet are standing, it seems to look like a soap box to me.

pan6467 04-05-2007 10:30 AM

There's only one solution and it is not amnesty to the ILLEGALS, again they committed a crime and they are slapping everyone who sacrificed, worked and did what they had to to become citizens.

The solution is for enough people to vote for politicians that will change the immigration laws.

Until then, I expect and want a government that will take this seriously, fine those that hire them, deport those they catch and tighten our borders so that it makes it harder to come in ILLEGALLY.

We pay BILLIONS of our hard earned tax dollars going to prop up hospitals so that they can help ILLEGALS meanwhile if you are a citizen good luck getting so much as a band aid from a hospital without insurance or in a deathly situation.

And what of the people who jam into trucks with very little air circulation? That's ok?

That's what you condone when you allow ILLEGAL immigration.

But I'm the bad guy, I'm the uninformed, I'm the one that is insensitive, the one ya all like to want to attack.... I think ya all are a bunch of fucking hypocrites. You sit there and shake your head and say "where's you humanity, you self righteous, racist, neo nazistic, KKK, white supremicist xenophobe......

I guess you're right, I am all of the above, but at least I have maintained a solid stance the whole way through instead of backtracking and at first saying... "Illegals are doing what they have to... but I don't condone their behavior.... but I accept them... but what they did is wrong.... but they had no choice...."

I guess instead of helping them better their own countries and working on spreading freedom to other countries.... we'd rather just bring everyone here.

But they are poor and have no power and voices in their lands.... Bullshit, throughout the history of man it's been the poor, the weak and the underdogs that have had enough that raise up and change their governments. We are not giving them help, we are just absorbing problems and divisiveness instead of working on a lasting solution.


But keep letting ILLEGALS pile up into poorly circulated trucks and die of suffocation, load up on rafts and drown when it overturns... and keep believing that I'm the bad guy and you are the true humanitarian because you see these people as people. Good luck with that.

ubertuber 04-05-2007 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
...Ban me if you want...

Now we're just being theatrical. Where does this comment come from?? You can see your warning rating as clearly as I can, and we both know that people don't get banned for voicing their opinions unless they are over the line.

Willravel 04-05-2007 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber
Now we're just being theatrical. Where does this comment come from?? You can see your warning rating as clearly as I can, and we both know that people don't get banned for voicing their opinions unless they are over the line.

I take it back. At the time I was pretty pissed and I thought there was a chance I might have crossed a line. If that's not the case, then I don't have any worry about being banned because the moderation on TFP is fair.

So you go from this:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I don't assume I know anything, in fact, I'm the first to admit I know nothing. I've not made any assumptions in this thread but speak from my FIRST HAND experience however that comes.

To this:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
It is YOU who speaks on a soap box preaching you know how it is because you housed and fed them once in your past. YOU preaching how bad it is in Mexico with high unemployment and poor educational system. YOU preaching how altruistic you are.

No my friend, I think you need to see where your feet are standing, it seems to look like a soap box to me.

I've kept people in my home for months at a time, helping them find work, helping them study for the test, just helping them in general. You assume I may have done it once in the past. The reality is that I do it a lot. I have someone who stays at my home on and off right now, in fact. Unfortunately, I have no way to control the education system in my friends' home country. All I can do is help them into ESL classes here and into night classes that teach them marketable skills that not only help our economy but help them feed their family. Just fyi, I don't just do this for illegal immigrants. There are other homeless people that I've helped who are not illegal immigrants. I still donate my time to homeless shelters. Thanksgiving for me means going to homeless shelters and making turkey for less fortunate people.

Cynthetiq 04-05-2007 11:31 AM

I'm not going to sit and parse out your previous statements people can look for themselves for where you stated that you did it before but could no longer, yet now you claim that you are still doing it.

Again, if you are doing it and it helps you sleep better at night to help out your friendly illegal immigrant, great, more power to you. Continue to give his/her friends reasons to come here since there are so many other people here willing to open their homes and businesses to them. If there are more people like you housing illegal aliens, IMO you are aiding and abetting a criminal. I would hope that if they toughen the laws for employers that they also toughen laws for people who aid and abet illegals from securing documents to housing and feeding them if they are not registered non profit organizations.

You may say that it's about altruism and sympathy for those less fortunate. Great. Wonderful for you. If that's what gets you through the night if what you've listed in your past is really your past, wonderful if that's how you need to make amends to the world great.

However, I'm not interested in it and I'm not interested in comforting someone who came over here illegally. In fact, I'd be happy to help them arrange a free trip back to their homeland if they are homesick.

Willravel 04-05-2007 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I'm not going to sit and parse out your previous statements people can look for themselves for where you stated that you did it before but could no longer, yet now you claim that you are still doing it.

Legally, I cannot allow illegal immigrants to stay in my home anymore. If I don't ask them, I won't know, though. It gives me plausible deniability. So let me be clear, to my knowledge I am no longer allowing illegal immigrants to stay in my home.

I never would provide anyone with illegal documents or anything of the sort. As for the non-profit thing, you don't need to be a non-profit organization to allow someone to sleep at your house and eat your food. Aiding and abetting a criminal? Not really. That'd be like blaming someone for giving a homeless guy who happens to have broken the law a dollar. Also, I support non-violent civil disobedience in order to bring about positive political change.

Were you serious when you said that you think homeless people want to be homeless?

Bill O'Rights 04-05-2007 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Were you serious when you said that you think homeless people want to be homeless?

Ummm...Many (meaning more than just a few) actually do prefer the lifestyle, and are completely comfortable with it.

I thought that you volunteered, in the soup kitchen, helping to feed the homeless. You would know that...not?

mixedmedia 04-05-2007 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
Ummm...Many (meaning more than just a few) actually do prefer the lifestyle, and are completely comfortable with it.

I thought that you volunteered, in the soup kitchen, helping to feed the homeless. You would know that...not?

This is actually quite true. Many homeless people could be more accurately labeled as "transients." Still, I never begrudge a buck or two going their way. *shrug* It's not as if they are living a lifestyle that I would ever envy. Yet, in many cases it is their conscious choice.

end threadjack.

Cynthetiq 04-05-2007 12:27 PM

will yes, I am serious. there are homeless people out there who would rather be homeless. did you not read the NYtime article I posted?

Quote:

BUT even with all that help, most people dropped out along the way. Fewer than 100 made it into halfway houses or permanent homes. Of the many reasons for the others' failure, one was undoubtedly the easy money available back on the streets.

''What can I do when a guy tells me he's making $300 a day panhandling?'' Mr. McNamara said as he approached Times Square and spotted a man on the corner they had been trying for years to entice to the center. They invited him again, explaining that they had a coat and shoes waiting, but he waved them off. ''I remember another gentleman,'' Mr. McNamara said, ''that I managed to get in for a shower and a meal. We were working on getting him into detox, but he said, 'No, I'm going back on the street to smoke crack.' Well, that was his right. The next week I saw him on the subway with a cup pretending to be crippled. He said he needed money for an operation to straighten his leg.''
Quote:

So let me be clear, to my knowledge I am no longer allowing illegal immigrants to stay in my home.
If that's what you have to say to look at yourself in the mirror, or keep yourself out of jail. John Lennon has a song that comes to mind, "Whatever get's you through the night." But I can tell you that if you were my neighbor and continued to have transient people coming in and out of your domicile, I'd not like you at all. I would feel unsafe in my own neighborhood suddenly. Not for xenophobic reasons, but just because strangers seem to come and go from your house. If I was your child I'd be annoyed that my father spent time and energy with other people than with me. Again, these feelings are based on my own experience firsthand.

If you believe what you are doing is great. Wonderful! Keep doing it. Just don't ask me for help for it because I don't choose that lifestyle for myself. My parents came here to give me a better life than they had and persue the "American Dream." No where have I read nor seen anything that states my part of the American dream is to hold out my hand and help someone else who came here illegally.

mixedmedia 04-05-2007 12:42 PM

On my last dramatic note on this thread, I'd just like to state that the blackened cynic in me who thinks big, scary thoughts believes that mankind sealed its fate when it developed concepts like religion and national borders in order to separate and keep us apart. This is where my thinking on this issue stems from. I'm not of the mind that everyone on this thread taking a stand against illegal immigration is a racist or a xenophobe. (Although, I am hedging my bets with some.) I'm just a person with a very low tolerance for "us and them" thinking. I think it's a bad habit that has led to some of the worst atrocities ever committed by man. Granted, this time and place and this discussion may not be ideal for exercising these reactions, these tendencies I have, to keep people identifying positively with each other. Having compassion and understanding for each other. Then again, it may be. I don't know.

Just wanted to say all that...

John Lennon also has a song, and you might of heard it before, Pan, that goes...

Quote:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

roachboy 04-05-2007 03:03 PM

i looked in one more time---positions have differentiated somewhat, and i suppose that is a good thing in itself--i dont agree with cyn, for example, but i wouldn't argue against him in the same way that i was arguing against the main positions that obtained in here earlier. maybe in another thread a different discussion will be possible.

i wanted to make one thing clear in this context:

pan:

if your last two or three posts have been referencing what i have put in this thread, i would suggest that you re-read what i wrote with a more level head than you appear to have---i made it quite clear--as clear as i could manage--that the problem i have with your posts in particular follows from the LOGIC THAT YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO ADOPT--i do not impute any position to you as a human being--the false, misleading, unsubstanitated and unsubstantiatable categories that you use, the qualities that you impute to this fiction "ILLEGAL immigrant" that you substitute for undocumented workers, or migrant workers, and the way you combine these categories and qualities--THOSE ELEMENTS are what lead you straight into neofascist territory.

if i thought you WERE a neofascist, i wouldn't waste my time interacting with you at all. trust me on this one.

your posts demonstrate the argument that i was making that the POLITICAL FRAMEWORK itself is dangerous, that it can lead people who in other areas are NOT likely to espouse front national-style positions straight into that sort of territory.
and that is not a good place.

that's all i have to say.
i am not going to return to this corpse of a thread.

dc_dux 04-05-2007 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
There's only one solution and it is not amnesty to the ILLEGALS, again they committed a crime and they are slapping everyone who sacrificed, worked and did what they had to to become citizens.

The solution is for enough people to vote for politicians that will change the immigration laws.

Until then, I expect and want a government that will take this seriously, fine those that hire them, deport those they catch and tighten our borders so that it makes it harder to come in ILLEGALLY.

Pan....the problem with your scenario is that most Americans only agree with two thirds of it...fine those who hire them and tighen the borders. According to most polls, an overwhelming majority believe in provding a path to citizenship for those already here.

The rest of your latest comments are a bit too emotional for any futher response.

The BEST solution I have seen is the new bi-partisan "Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy (STRIVE) Act" introduced in the House last month (better than last year's bills).

It provides for comprehensive border security, more funding and support for state/local law enforcement across the country to get the real criminals (gang members, drug dealers, money launderers...) among the illegals, a new employment verification program, guest worker program for jobs,primarily agricultural (with the jobs first offered to citizens but the workforce needs not met)... and most of all..

A two-step process towards EARNED LEGALIZATION FOR QUALIFIED, HARDWORKING INDIVIDUALS:
THe first step is to request Conditional Nonimmigrant Status that would last for 6 years, while the person would go to the "back of the line" for permanent status. :

To qualify, the illegal immigrant must:
* Establish continuous presence in the U.S. on or before June 1, 2006;
* Attest to employment in the U.S. before June 1, 2006 and employment since that date (and submit related documentation);
* Complete criminal and security background checks; and
* Pay a $500 fine plus necessary application fees (fine exemption for children).

Then after 6 years and waiting in line, they can apply for Earned Citizenship:
* Meet employment requirements during the six-year period immediately preceding the application for adjustment;
* Pay a $1,500 fine plus application fees;
* Complete criminal and security background checks;
* Establish registration under the selective service (if applicable);
* Meet English and civic requirements;
* Undergo a medical examination;
* Pay all taxes;
and
* Meet a “Legal Reentry” requirement during the six-year period in conditional nonimmigrant status
This is in line with what a majortiy of Americans want. More from the Republican co-sponsor from the border state of Ariz (link)

archetypal fool 04-05-2007 03:17 PM

I don't think this thread can go any further either. At this point, we're delving into irreconcilable fundamental differences in individual personalities. If we continue now, it will just become a flame war. In the end of the day, everyone's points have been laid down, and it's up to who ever's reading to make up their mind on the issue.

Much like religion, this isn't the kind of topic which will foster anything except angst for the other side, and if internet debates have taught us anything, it's that most people already have their views locked into them, and will defend them vehemently.

Anyways...yeah...Gingrich sucks. :)

mixedmedia 04-05-2007 03:22 PM

I'm so glad you found your way here to TFP, arch. You done good. :wave:

And I don't say that just because I happen to agree with you, lol.

dc_dux 04-05-2007 03:26 PM

We can still STRIVE for better :)

Willravel 04-05-2007 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool
I don't think this thread can go any further either. At this point, we're delving into irreconcilable fundamental differences in individual personalities.

I have no problem pulling out for the good of the thread or getting back on track. I don't mean to threadjack, and I apologize if I did.

Are you more interested in perusing Gingrch or bilingual education?

archetypal fool 04-05-2007 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
I have no problem pulling out for the good of the thread or getting back on track. I don't mean to threadjack, and I apologize if I did.

Are you more interested in perusing Gingrch or bilingual education?


Oh, I don't mean anyone in particular. It's just that, really, what more can be said? At this point, it's our core values which are on the table. I've been somewhat offended by some posts, and I'm sure our opponents have been offended by our apparent justification for breaking this law. There's nothing I, or Willravel, or dc_dux, or mixedmedia, ubertuber, or anyone else with our sentiments can do to make Cynthetiq, pan6467, djtestudo, or people of their ilk understand our stance. Like-wise, they can't make us understand their stances, when our core values are so fundamentally incompatible.

If the debate hasn't been resolved, then, by all means, let's continues, but, as I said above, I don't know if anything productive will come of it (but then again, what do I know? I'm new here...).

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
We can still STRIVE for better :)

Now that's some good stuff right there.

pan6467 04-05-2007 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
Pan....the problem with your scenario is that most Americans only agree with two thirds of it...fine those who hire them and tighen the borders. According to most polls, an overwhelming majority believe in provding a path to citizenship for those already here.

The rest of your latest comments are a bit too emotional for any futher response.

The BEST solution I have seen is the new bi-partisan "Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy (STRIVE) Act" introduced in the House last month (better than last year's bills).

It provides for comprehensive border security, more funding and support for state/local law enforcement across the country to get the real criminals (gang members, drug dealers, money launderers...) among the illegals, a new employment verification program, guest worker program for jobs,primarily agricultural (with the jobs first offered to citizens but the workforce needs not met)... and most of all..

A two-step process towards EARNED LEGALIZATION FOR QUALIFIED, HARDWORKING INDIVIDUALS:
THe first step is to request Conditional Nonimmigrant Status that would last for 6 years, while the person would go to the "back of the line" for permanent status. :

To qualify, the illegal immigrant must:
* Establish continuous presence in the U.S. on or before June 1, 2006;
* Attest to employment in the U.S. before June 1, 2006 and employment since that date (and submit related documentation);
* Complete criminal and security background checks; and
* Pay a $500 fine plus necessary application fees (fine exemption for children).

Then after 6 years and waiting in line, they can apply for Earned Citizenship:
* Meet employment requirements during the six-year period immediately preceding the application for adjustment;
* Pay a $1,500 fine plus application fees;
* Complete criminal and security background checks;
* Establish registration under the selective service (if applicable);
* Meet English and civic requirements;
* Undergo a medical examination;
* Pay all taxes;
and
* Meet a “Legal Reentry” requirement during the six-year period in conditional nonimmigrant status
This is in line with what a majortiy of Americans want. More from the Republican co-sponsor from the border state of Ariz (link)


Good post, but like I said, until the laws change, illegals are still illegals.

And people seem to miss the point where I stated illegals having to get into trucks with little or no ventilation, paying people to bring them and not knowing if they will truly make it....

That's really humane and supporting ILLEGALS supports that humane life and the parasites that feast off the people that feel they have no choice but to pay that price.

ILLEGAL = ILLEGAL..... change the laws and then see who is still against immigration before you wrongly accuse people of racism, neo-nazistic, KKK, white supremicist behaviors or beliefs.

As for Lennon.... good point, Ms. Mixed.... But Lennon and Jesus also taught and lived that you shouldn't break laws, you should protest and change laws before you break them.

Protest the laws, change the laws but don't break the laws or condone or turn your back on those breaking them.

(I'm sure someone will still bring into the fold petty traffic laws.... yes speeding through a city or school zone should be punished doing 70 in a 65 on the highway is called survival in some cases and comparing it to illegal immigration is idiotic.)


PS: RB my previous post was not addressed to you, it was addressed to the attacks in general.... if you read over the entire thread, those names and labels were tossed around quite liberally.

archetypal fool 04-05-2007 09:50 PM

Awww, man...Just when I though this thread had died a peaceful death...:rolleyes:

Willravel 04-05-2007 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
Good post, but like I said, until the laws change, illegals are still illegals.

So if it were legal, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

From this I see two answers, yes or no. Yes, you would still have a problem with it, would let us examine why specifically you are against illegal immigrants beyond the simple "it's illegal" argument, which doesn't tell us much about your reasoning. No, you wouldn't have a problem, might make your position a lot weaker. I'm just curious. Since you and I get a long, but disagree on this issue, I see an opportunity for common ground.

pan6467 04-05-2007 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool
Awww, man...Just when I though this thread had died a peaceful death...:rolleyes:


Excuse me??????? I think I have the right to answer something addressed to me without getting this response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
So if it were legal, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

From this I see two answers, yes or no. Yes, you would still have a problem with it, would let us examine why specifically you are against illegal immigrants beyond the simple "it's illegal" argument, which doesn't tell us much about your reasoning. No, you wouldn't have a problem, might make your position a lot weaker. I'm just curious. Since you and I get a long, but disagree on this issue, I see an opportunity for common ground.


NO Will, I have stated all along.... change the laws and I have no problem. Believe it or not....

Read my last few threads..... I would rather change the laws than to have people riding in trucks with no ventilation.

Sometimes one must take their stance to an extreme they may not even agree with in order to be heard and to reach true compromise.

Ask yourself and please feel free to point it out and call me on it..... Did I attack anyone? Did I call anyone names or reply with negative smilies?

Now is the reverse true? Were people labelling me, calling me names, (either outright or thinly disguised?)

One cannot have true discussion if the responses are not of equal respect.

archetypal fool 04-05-2007 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
Excuse me??????? I think I have the right to answer something addressed to me without getting this response.

Fine. I apologies. The humor was kind of subtle...

No hard feelings, Pan?

pan6467 04-05-2007 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool
Fine. I apologies. The humor was kind of subtle...

No hard feelings, Pan?

It's cool man... no hard feelings.

archetypal fool 04-05-2007 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
Good post, but like I said, until the laws change, illegals are still illegals.

And people seem to miss the point where I stated illegals having to get into trucks with little or no ventilation, paying people to bring them and not knowing if they will truly make it....

That's really humane and supporting ILLEGALS supports that humane life and the parasites that feast off the people that feel they have no choice but to pay that price.

It's nice to see we're finally seeing them as humans. I'm sorry if you've felt this way all along, but in our defense, your earlier posts didn't quite reflect that sentiment...

By the way, how do you feel about the STRIVE Act dc_dux showed us earlier?

Willravel 04-05-2007 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
NO Will, I have stated all along.... change the laws and I have no problem. Believe it or not....

I believe it completely. You're a damned reasonable person. In all honesty, I've been more busy this week, so I didn't have time to read all your posts. This was a horribly weak way for me to get the entire gist of your position in one shot.
Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
I would rather change the laws than to have people riding in trucks with no ventilation.

I couldn't agree more. The thing is, if there are less illegals coming into, living in, and working in the US, the less likely things are to change. If they went home, that would mean the system works. The result would be fatality and crime rates tripling in Mexico, and severe damage to our economy. I can't get behind that.
Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
Sometimes one must take their stance to an extreme they may not even agree with in order to be heard and to reach true compromise.

I agree, so long as you don't go too far. For example, I think Bush should be impeached and imprisoned. I would never say I want him dead or tortured.
Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
Ask yourself and please feel free to point it out and call me on it..... Did I attack anyone? Did I call anyone names or reply with negative smilies?

Not that I can see.
Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
Now is the reverse true? Were people labelling me, calling me names, (either outright or thinly disguised?)

Unless you're a member of the Minutemen, I don't recall calling you anything. I'll go back and see if others did. You used a lot of caps, which got my attention (which I'm sure was your intention).
Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
One cannot have true discussion if the responses are not of equal respect.

And it would take quite a bit to lose the respect you've earned from me here.

I, personally, see bilingual education as a step in the right direction. It'd be nice if Canada, the US and Mexico could be chummy like the EU some day. I think all three nations could benefit greatly from it, and it would help to stabilize the economy of Central America. Newt, on the other hand, is an antique. He's leftover casserole from the 90s, no longer decent enough to stomach. It wouldn't be a waste to simple toss his impotent opinions out with the trash. I'll bet he smells like cheap single malt and cheese.

ubertuber 04-06-2007 03:21 AM

Hey Pan:

I've got a question for you - something I'm a little fuzzy on that you've hinted at in your posts. Is it your contention that illegal immigrants receive more social benefits (medical care, etc.) than poor citizens?

Cynthetiq 04-06-2007 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
I couldn't agree more. The thing is, if there are less illegals coming into, living in, and working in the US, the less likely things are to change. If they went home, that would mean the system works. The result would be fatality and crime rates tripling in Mexico, and severe damage to our economy. I can't get behind that.

I, personally, see bilingual education as a step in the right direction. It'd be nice if Canada, the US and Mexico could be chummy like the EU some day. I think all three nations could benefit greatly from it, and it would help to stabilize the economy of Central America.

Are you implying then that illegals coming in are "protesting" or "civil disobedience" to change things? That's the implication I read from your statement above.

Fatality and crime rates tripling???? I'm sorry did you just pull that number outta your ass? Because that also implies that crime rates would DECREASE here if Illegals did not exist within our borders. And again, why is it my problem? There are enough problems here WITHIN America to fix before I worry about somewhere else. There are enough poor Americans that need our help before helping someone who is here illegally, or even back at their homeland before they come here.

Have you seen the effect of NAFTA on industries? I've seen it first hand. I've seen 3rd and 4th generation garment manufacturer owners, close their business because it competed against cheaper labor pools. People who employed 150-300 people having to either invest in moving their company into NAFTA zones outside of the US borders. Some had to uproot or split the family to live outside of US borders. Into countries and areas that have high crime rates.

Vibrant sections of the garment industry here in NYC completely wiped out. Even the Chinese sweatshops were impacted because they had a symbiotic relationship with the garment manufacturers. It used to be that if you walked around the garment district you'd see it bustling with workers, fabrics, and fashion. It hasn't been that way since the mid to late 90s.

uber, I'm of the belief that Illegals get more benefits than poor americans because they have learned how to exploit the system. Maybe it's media driven but I have heard of people who come here from Santo Domingo just to get welfare checks, figure out some exploit within the system and collect monies even though they have returned back to Santo Domingo.

As far as healthcare goes, again, it's what I hear from the media, illegals get healthcare coverage that uninsured americans do not.

dc_dux 04-06-2007 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
Good post, but like I said, until the laws change, illegals are still illegals.

And people seem to miss the point where I stated illegals having to get into trucks with little or no ventilation, paying people to bring them and not knowing if they will truly make it....

That's really humane and supporting ILLEGALS supports that humane life and the parasites that feast off the people that feel they have no choice but to pay that price.

ILLEGAL = ILLEGAL..... change the laws and then see who is still against immigration before you wrongly accuse people of racism, neo-nazistic, KKK, white supremicist behaviors or beliefs.

I NEVER, in any post here, made such accusations. I suggested that IMO, some of your comments were ugly (shoot to kill at the border, illegals are parasitic leaches - a gross generalization) and ignorant (illegal immigration is a felony, illegals dont pay taxes).

I agree with you that we should also absolutely prosecute, to the full extent of the law, those who engage in transporting persons across the border for profit.

.
Quote:

Protest the laws, change the laws but don't break the laws or condone or turn your back on those breaking them.

(I'm sure someone will still bring into the fold petty traffic laws.... yes speeding through a city or school zone should be punished doing 70 in a 65 on the highway is called survival in some cases and comparing it to illegal immigration is idiotic.)
In our system of justice, we have plea bargaining (for far more serious and deadly crimes), serving less than a full sentence for good behavior, etc.

I want illegal immigration stopped as much as you, but for those already here and contributing in a positve way, I am just not as rigid as you in my interpretation of justice. I believe in tempering justice with fairness and compassion for those who are not hardened criminals. That is the American way!

pig 04-06-2007 04:13 AM

I also fail to see how the legal or illegal status of immigrants, specifically from mexico, will do jack shit about the increase in spanish-speaking united states citizens / dwellers, the parading of other cultures flags or celebrations, the change of "traditional" american culture. certainly at present, the two issues are linked. however, if all the laws were changed so that will and pan could go skipping down the street singing duets of mixed english/spanish lyrics, all the issues with people speaking spanish (or whatever other language) still remain.

secondly, i'm not going to exhaustively review and cite from the thread, but come on pan, lets not play the 'i'm so innocent, where is all this coming from?' card here bro. you made some pretty strong statements, amongst them the shoot on site statement, and some people said "hmmm...that certainly sounds xenophobic to me and might border on some racism" and all of a sudden you're pulling this big-eyed "all you people calling me a xenophobic nazi pigfucking KKK loving babyeating dragon!!" shit so people would back down from some of the claims / questions. no one here called you explicitly racist, but it was either stated or implied that you might have some xenophobic tendencies on this one. maybe no one else will, but i'll stand by that part of the claim. and its not just you, as roach pointed out, its the position and the logic behind it.

as far as the side discussion with cyn and will, i'll save the homeless for another thread, but as far as legal immigrants looking down on illegal immigrants, i would tend to think that would also be something that would need to be evaluated on individual merit, no? i mean, i can understand where you're coming from cyn, but shit it seems like you've just got a dried up compassion well. on some of these issues it seems you seem to implicitly take the position that your shit doesn't stink. i know you state that you know it does, but i think you're assuming that all people who illegally have migrated here have been in the same situation that your family was; both in terms of living situation as well as proximity to the states or other large industrialized nation. am i missing something? that just seems rather 1-dimensional on these types of political discussions.

Willravel 04-06-2007 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Are you implying then that illegals coming in are "protesting" or "civil disobedience" to change things? That's the implication I read from your statement above.

Whether they know it or not, that's what they're doing. The idea behind civil disobedience would be that people don't obey the laws they don't believe in to change the law. I'm sure that Mexicans would like to make getting in to and working in the US safer.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Fatality and crime rates tripling???? I'm sorry did you just pull that number outta your ass?

I've calmed down. It's your turn. No, I didn't pull that number out of my ass. Statistics show that every time the INS has tightened down across the board, crime rates have shot up close to the border on the Mexican side.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Because that also implies that crime rates would DECREASE here if Illegals did not exist within our borders. And again, why is it my problem? There are enough problems here WITHIN America to fix before I worry about somewhere else. There are enough poor Americans that need our help before helping someone who is here illegally, or even back at their homeland before they come here.

I'm afraid your assumption about the implications of my guesswork would be flawed. Imagine this: a family, out of work and starving, needs to get across the border into the US in order to work. Imagine there are a thousand of these families. Imagine they all try to cross the boarder with their belongings over the time span of a week. Now imagine that there is no more immigration anymore. Suddenly you have an influx of poor families into small border communities. They are desperate, and they make good prey from former coyotes who now find themselves out of work. Not only that but the families are now starving and need to start stealing themselves in order to eat. It's a damn dangerous situation.

The alternative is that many of the families make it to the US and get work. Once they have work, they have some security. They're not likely to need to steal to eat if they can afford food. They also send a little home, which keeps their family in Mexico more safe and less likely to need to turn to crime.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Have you seen the effect of NAFTA on industries? I've seen it first hand. I've seen 3rd and 4th generation garment manufacturer owners, close their business because it competed against cheaper labor pools. People who employed 150-300 people having to either invest in moving their company into NAFTA zones outside of the US borders. Some had to uproot or split the family to live outside of US borders. Into countries and areas that have high crime rates.

NAFTA is just another way for the US government to give a free ride to US corporations to move in to Central America and exploit them freely. I'd like to see NAFTA destroyed. The free trade thing only works when corporations can be held responsible for their actions. If they can't, then free trade is a weapon.

Cynthetiq 04-06-2007 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigglet
as far as the side discussion with cyn and will, i'll save the homeless for another thread, but as far as legal immigrants looking down on illegal immigrants, i would tend to think that would also be something that would need to be evaluated on individual merit, no? i mean, i can understand where you're coming from cyn, but shit it seems like you've just got a dried up compassion well. on some of these issues it seems you seem to implicitly take the position that your shit doesn't stink. i know you state that you know it does, but i think you're assuming that all people who illegally have migrated here have been in the same situation that your family was; both in terms of living situation as well as proximity to the states or other large industrialized nation. am i missing something? that just seems rather 1-dimensional on these types of political discussions.

This may seem one dimensional but this is a simplistic view for me. I'm not speaking of this from anything but personal experience and reiterating my feelings on that. If you look at all my posts, there is only one time that I've addressed anything to engage in a solution or discuss this differently than how I feel about the issue.

I guess when you stand on line for something and multiple people cut in front of you, it's fine for you. They shouldn't have to wait, they don't need to wait, it's fair for you to have prepared, gotten there early to secure your place in line you abided by the rules established and followed them and they didn't. It doesn't upset you in the least?

I cannot speak for anyone else and how they feel about their family emigrating to the US. I know people who were refugees, people who sought political asylum, poor, rich, connected, but they all followed the processes established to secure being here.

Now the implication that "my shit don't stink" is unjustified. The difference is that I accept responsibility for the indiscretions and transgressions commited that are either against another person, government, animal, thing. I do not excuse the idea that "because they have it hard" or any other kind of mitigating excuse. You may call it a dried up compassion well, but I believe I have enough compassion without having to be either a person who tramples over everyone else or gets trampled over. I am a firm believer of don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If you do something right or wrong, be ready for the consequences good or bad that come from that action.

pig 04-06-2007 09:18 AM

cyn,

i thought about the shit not stinking analogy when i posted it; i agree it doesn't express exactly what i want to say, but i'm having trouble putting the thoughts into words. perhaps it rolled up in the waiting in line analogy; as i said before, it seems to me that when you lump all illegals into a category and assign them a blanket sentence, it starts to head in that direction of unsmelly shit to me. if i was waiting in line at the bank, and someone just like me cut in, yeah, i'd be pissed. but what if they're elderly, or if they don't look well, or if they have kids with them, or if (somehow i know) that they are more desparate than i? i can wait a bit because i've got an hour lunch break, and a few minutes won't kill me.

i'm not trying to trivialize your family's previous predictaments...how could i? i don't know their situations...but in answer to the question, as i said: i can't say across the boards that illegal immigrants are always just a bunch of immoral rule breakers fuckers. sometimes rules are broken, but as has been pointed out that's a different consideration from fundamental morality, in my opinion. incidentally, i agree that you shouldn't do the crime if you can't do the time, but that doesn't mean i look down on someone who does the crime necessarily. it also means i don't look down on them if they do the crime and don't get caught. in situations like illegal immigration, if they are a good person, etc, i tend to think more along the lines of "hats off the them." as has been previously stated, its not like they're taking the easy way out. they're taking on a lot of risk and danger to try to make things better for themselves and their loved ones. not always, but in a lot of cases.

pan6467 04-06-2007 09:20 AM

In answer to some's questions....

I did say shoot on sight..... but would you rather be shot and killed on sight or die of suffocation in a truck?

No, not everyone called or implied names.

Pigglet, where do I mention anything about LEGAL immigrants or LEGAL immigration needing to be cut?

If I were xenophobic as you stated here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pigglet
called you explicitly racist, but it was either stated or implied that you might have some xenophobic tendencies on this one. maybe no one else will, but i'll stand by that part of the claim

Then I would be against ALL immigration, I believe, not just ILLEGAL. And I believe, if I were the Xenophobe, I would not say "change the laws and I'll accept them." All I kept repeating was that I was against Illegal Immigration and felt that those doing so were criminals (breaking a law = criminal). And notice I CAPITALIZED ILLEGALS so noone could say I was going after all immigrants (which are necessary to keep this country growing as we as a nation are having fewer children).

As for the cost of ILLEGALS there are several websites that discuss them and break them down.

This website is straight 1996 money and they try to show the cost in 2003 dollars:

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServe...suecentersf134

Here's one in favor of a guest worker program that talks about the environmental impact:

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServe...suecentersf134

Here's a CNN report on the cost of ILLEGALS to America: (A very good report and informative):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY6t2ckpb5g

There are plenty more just do a Yahoo search on the cost of iilegal immigration and you'll see and can do your own research.

flstf 04-06-2007 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool
By the way, how do you feel about the STRIVE Act dc_dux showed us earlier?

I have no legal training so this act H.R.1645 was very hard for me to understand. From what I have read they are granting amnesty to illegals by giving them "Conditional Nonimmigrant" status. This is totally unfair to those who follow the rules (our law) and therefore I am against this section of the bill.

The section under "Encouraging aliens to depart voluntarily" may be a way to reduce the number of illegals without having to resort to legal proceedings. Perhaps giving illegals 60 days or so to leave voluntarily before being charged with a crime could be the way for most to depart. Also those who do so could possibly be allowed to get in line to immigrate legally without having their past illegal status held against them. Perhaps most deportation proceedings could be avoided this way.

pig 04-06-2007 09:29 AM

pan,

i don't want to get sidetracked too much on this, as will stated i have a lot of respect for you and i know you're a good guy, so to speak. but what about the posts concerning flying a blahblah flag and sitting on an american one? or not assimilating into our culture, but forcing us to accomodate them? i guess i just see america as a place where you don't have to assimilate. that's your right. you can speak in any language you want to. shit, make one up. that's your right as well. if you want to form an enclave and sit around and speak in piglatin and use clothing made of american flag, or toilet paper with american flags printed on it; while i may not like it or want to be part of it, you can do it. that's why america is so great. or at least my concept of america. that's the part where i see the xenophobia.

the part, strictly separated, about illegal immigrants, i see as just being overly simplified. yes, they're breaking the law. but i just can't bring myself to blame every single one of them, on that basis alone. you're right, they are definitely involved in illegal conduct, which is why i, back in post blabidyblahblah, brought up traffic violations. its not just breaking the law that's pissing you off, it some violation of the concept of "america" and laws that preserve "america." i mean, fuck look at your sig: imagine all the people living in peace. love is the answer. to extend love towards these people means seeing them as humans with real life situations. if they're caught, sure send 'em back if you want to. but that doesn't mean i have to be happy about it, or that i think that our current laws reflect reality.

pan6467 04-06-2007 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigglet
pan,

i don't want to get sidetracked too much on this, as will stated i have a lot of respect for you and i know you're a good guy, so to speak. but what about the posts concerning flying a blahblah flag and sitting on an american one? or not assimilating into our culture, but forcing us to accomodate them? i guess i just see america as a place where you don't have to assimilate. that's your right. you can speak in any language you want to. shit, make one up. that's your right as well. if you want to form an enclave and sit around and speak in piglatin and use clothing made of american flag, or toilet paper with american flags printed on it; while i may not like it or want to be part of it, you can do it. that's why america is so great. or at least my concept of america. that's the part where i see the xenophobia.

the part, strictly separated, about illegal immigrants, i see as just being overly simplified. yes, they're breaking the law. but i just can't bring myself to blame every single one of them, on that basis alone. you're right, they are definitely involved in illegal conduct, which is why i, back in post blabidyblahblah, brought up traffic violations. its not just breaking the law that's pissing you off, it some violation of the concept of "america" and laws that preserve "america." i mean, fuck look at your sig: imagine all the people living in peace. love is the answer. to extend love towards these people means seeing them as humans with real life situations. if they're caught, sure send 'em back if you want to. but that doesn't mean i have to be happy about it, or that i think that our current laws reflect reality.


I have personally seen ILLEGALS do that (as well as legals). Is it all of them? No.

I do believe that you come into this country you need to assimilate with our society not expect us to assimilate to you. I am not saying you need to give up your beliefs and become "American".

I am simply statiing you do not come into my house and make demands from me. I will respect you and help you but if you come in making demands that I change my house to suit your needs.... my respect ends and my bitterness and anger will get the best of me.

And I will firmly admit I am prejudiced against the ILLEGALS and legals that come demanding we change our language, we cater to them and so on. But it is a vast majority ILLEGAL that do this (by vast majority I mean of the immigrants demanding we change to suit them... not the vast majority of ILLEGALS).

You can love someone, but if they slap you in the face (which I consider ILLEGAL immigration to be) and continue to slap you, you turn the cheek so many times and then you just turn your back on the person doing the slapping and show them the respect they are showing you... so that they may learn and realize they made their own bed.

If you have a child or sibling and they keep stealing your property and making demands on you, no matter how much you love them you eventually will say enough and do some tough love until they learn respect. Has nothing to do with sex, color, religion, ethnicity, etc....

I still have issues with how I am the bad guy for stating my beliefs and offering to change with the laws.... while others continue to talk about how they are humans but by condoning the ILLEGAL you condone the trucks with poor ventilation, the shit waged job with substandard working conditions, the rafts that turn over and people drowning.

By sheer association you say you approve of the above, by not demanding change, by not making it harder for them to come here until laws change, by allowing the employers to hire these workers.

I'm sorry, I see the end result of ILLEGAL immigration as the above and it doesn't seem very humane or loving to me.

pig 04-06-2007 10:13 AM

pan,

you're not a bad guy, but you may have some xenophobic tendencies on this issue. that's my opinion, i could be wrong. i've been wrong before, i'll be wrong again.

the thing is, i (and i think many others) would agree that the situation sucks for the people who fall prey to coyotes pulling people across the border. they're fuckers! plain and simple. fuck them. i don't think anyone on the "other side" of this thread would say that's ok. it is predictable, but not ok.

but that doesn't mean, in my opinion, you can say "fuck all illegals." they're not all like that. so why not just say fuck people who want others to cater to them constantly, and who are inflexible themselves? legal, illegal, american by birth, whatever. its basically the same as silver spoon syndrome.

as usual, i think we agree on the basics of this situation; we just disagree on the application thereof.

Cynthetiq 04-06-2007 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Whether they know it or not, that's what they're doing. The idea behind civil disobedience would be that people don't obey the laws they don't believe in to change the law. I'm sure that Mexicans would like to make getting in to and working in the US safer.

I'm sorry but that only works for those who fall under the umbrella of the law. US Citizens fall under that, not illegal aliens. I cannot go to another country like Iraq, Iran, Germany, et. al. and expect to be civilly disobedient to change their laws. I'm sure that ALL nationalities would like to make getting into and working the the US safer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
I've calmed down. It's your turn. No, I didn't pull that number out of my ass. Statistics show that every time the INS has tightened down across the board, crime rates have shot up close to the border on the Mexican side.

Please provide something to show that evidence. I'll already state that correlation does not imply causation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
I'm afraid your assumption about the implications of my guesswork would be flawed. Imagine this: a family, out of work and starving, needs to get across the border into the US in order to work. Imagine there are a thousand of these families. Imagine they all try to cross the boarder with their belongings over the time span of a week. Now imagine that there is no more immigration anymore. Suddenly you have an influx of poor families into small border communities. They are desperate, and they make good prey from former coyotes who now find themselves out of work. Not only that but the families are now starving and need to start stealing themselves in order to eat. It's a damn dangerous situation.

The alternative is that many of the families make it to the US and get work. Once they have work, they have some security. They're not likely to need to steal to eat if they can afford food. They also send a little home, which keeps their family in Mexico more safe and less likely to need to turn to crime.

I guess you've not been to the Philippines, where those same things happen as well. Did you know that Filipinos come to the US legally sent home more than $10.7 billion in 2005, equal to about 12% of the gross domestic product. Has it changed the fact that there are millions of people still living in squalor and uneducated? Crime is still high, morbity rates are also quite high. There are other issues for their impact on society, but as you can see below they have organized their government to make it easier to emmigrate to any country. I don't see the Mexican government doing that at all. Yet a country thousands of miles away gears up and gets people going overseas legally.

Quote:

LATimes.com
The money they earn trickles into towns and villages, helping build houses, open restaurants and send children to school. But the absence of so many industrious and skilled people — mothers and fathers, engineers and entrepreneurs — exacts a heavy toll.

Across the Philippines, children are being raised by their grandparents. "Now children can buy a lot of computer games, but they don't have a mother or father, or both," Santo Tomas said.

For the sake of supporting their families, the overseas workers endure years of loneliness. Some, especially maids in the Middle East, suffer beatings and sexual abuse. In countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, they are jailed for running away. Yet the Philippines has grown so dependent on remittances that the thought of doing without them is frightening.

"Money from abroad is the only thing that keeps the economy in motion," said Ding Lichauco, former head of the country's economic planning office. "If you don't encourage the employees to go overseas, you will have revolution."

Providing sailors, maids, entertainers and other workers for a growing world market is a big business.

In this competitive arena, the Philippines has an advantage. Many Filipinos speak English. They are generally better educated than workers from countries such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Indonesia. And they have a reputation for being good-natured.

An entire bureaucracy has been created around them. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration helps find jobs in other countries, encourages workers to go abroad and processes some job applications.

The Technical Education and Skills Development Agency offers free training in welding, driving heavy trucks and other skills. The Overseas Workers Welfare Administration stations diplomats around the world to look after the Philippines' foreign workers.

Those who bring or send their earnings home pay no income taxes. And the government offers returning workers low-cost equipment and tools to help them start small businesses.

With that level of encouragement, an industry has developed to match workers and jobs.

There are more than 1,500 licensed recruiting agencies. Some provide training — six months for dancers, four months for seafarers, two weeks for housekeepers — in return for a cut of the worker's earnings.

A cook on a cargo ship can make more than Arroyo's official salary of $1,000 a month. A bar singer in Japan can earn more than a Philippine senator. But the fees can run into the thousands of dollars; the better the job, the greater the cost.

Dozens of agencies in Manila's Ermita district attract job seekers from all over the country. Applicants line up on the streets, luggage in hand, ready to go anywhere.

Notaries sit at small wooden desks on the sidewalk. Using manual typewriters, they help workers fill out the 14 documents they are required to submit. Large copy machines on the sidewalk crank out duplicates.

Laboratories conduct blood, tuberculosis and drug tests to certify the workers' health. Nearby are cellphone shops, money changers, cheap hotels and restaurants.


Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
NAFTA is just another way for the US government to give a free ride to US corporations to move in to Central America and exploit them freely. I'd like to see NAFTA destroyed. The free trade thing only works when corporations can be held responsible for their actions. If they can't, then free trade is a weapon.

so that fact that NAFTA created jobs for these impoverished groups doesn't mean anything. In your opinion they all need to come live in the United States.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigglet
cyn,

i thought about the shit not stinking analogy when i posted it; i agree it doesn't express exactly what i want to say, but i'm having trouble putting the thoughts into words. perhaps it rolled up in the waiting in line analogy; as i said before, it seems to me that when you lump all illegals into a category and assign them a blanket sentence, it starts to head in that direction of unsmelly shit to me. if i was waiting in line at the bank, and someone just like me cut in, yeah, i'd be pissed. but what if they're elderly, or if they don't look well, or if they have kids with them, or if (somehow i know) that they are more desparate than i? i can wait a bit because i've got an hour lunch break, and a few minutes won't kill me.

i'm not trying to trivialize your family's previous predictaments...how could i? i don't know their situations...but in answer to the question, as i said: i can't say across the boards that illegal immigrants are always just a bunch of immoral rule breakers fuckers. sometimes rules are broken, but as has been pointed out that's a different consideration from fundamental morality, in my opinion. incidentally, i agree that you shouldn't do the crime if you can't do the time, but that doesn't mean i look down on someone who does the crime necessarily. it also means i don't look down on them if they do the crime and don't get caught. in situations like illegal immigration, if they are a good person, etc, i tend to think more along the lines of "hats off the them." as has been previously stated, its not like they're taking the easy way out. they're taking on a lot of risk and danger to try to make things better for themselves and their loved ones. not always, but in a lot of cases.

Maybe that's the distinct difference of approach. You're willing to give them the opportunity of doubt first, whereas I'm of the opinion that they cheated from the beginning, now I'm giving them the opporutnity to prove themselves otherwise and convince me that they are different enough to warrant the compassion you are looking for.

I agree that there is something to being accommodating, but also there has to be a line where it stops. Should there always be mitigating circumstances that makes that situation okay? If there are, then enact laws that address that. Examples of this have been established like political and refugee asylum. But again, there are finite numbers of applicants.

Quote:

Asylum status and refugee status are closely related. They differ only in the place where a person asks for the status. Asylum is asked for in the United States; refugee status is asked for outside of the United States. However, all people who are granted asylum must meet the definition of a refugee.

A refugee is defined as a person outside of his or her country of nationality who is unable or unwilling to return because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinions.

The Refugee Act of 1980 regulates U.S. asylum policy as well as governing refugee procedures. The Act, for the first time, established a statutory basis for granting asylum in the United States consistent with the 1967 United Nations Protocol on Refugees.
I don't know how densely populated of an area you are, but I can tell you that if I didn't get to the cafeteria by 10AM there were no plain bagels left. Saying I woke up late, the bus was stuck in traffic, the baby was cranky, the dog needed to be walked, "the person in front of me ALWAYS gets a bagel why don't I get it this one time." None of that changes the fact that there just isn't enough to go around. It doesn't change the fact that there is a finite amount. It is just a fact of scarcity. There are finite amount of seats at the movie theater on a Friday or Saturday night, I may have to line up an hour before the show to make sure I have good seats. I may even have to purchase the ticket online an pay $1 extra so that I get it before it sells out. My point with this is that there is a finite amount of things. Scarecity is a reality. There are not enough goods and services for every human being on the planet. When the music stops not everyone will have a seat.

Willravel 04-06-2007 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I'm sorry but that only works for those who fall under the umbrella of the law. US Citizens fall under that, not illegal aliens. I cannot go to another and expect to be civilly disobedient to change their laws. I'm sure that ALL nationalities would like to make getting into and working the the US safer.

Do you understand the concept of civil disobedience? You break the law peacefully in order to bring about change. That means no one who acts in civil disobedience is under he umbrella of the law. You're just splitting hairs because this is a law you seem to like. If it were a sit in to end segregation, I'm sure you'd be behind it.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Please provide something to show that evidence. I'll already state that correlation does not imply causation.

Do you have any friends that work in the INS, FBI, or police forces on the boarder of Mexico? It's easy to sit at your computer and assume that correlation doesn't imply causation, but the fact of the matter is that any border cop, be they on the US or Mexico side, will corroborate my conclusions. Why don't you give them a call?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I guess you've not been to the Philippines, where those same things happen as well. Did you know that Filipinos come to the US legally sent home more than $10.7 billion in 2005, equal to about 12% of the gross domestic product[?] Has it changed the fact that there are millions of people still living in squalor and uneducated? Crime is still high, [morbidity] rates are also quite high. There are other issues for their impact on society, but as you can see below they have organized their government to make it easier to [immigrate] to any country. I don't see the Mexican government doing that at all. Yet a country thousands of miles away gears up and gets people going overseas legally.

I don't see the al Quaeda and other illegal organizations that resort to terrorism operating in Mexico, I do in the Philippines. I see drug lords, but they get a shitload more money from the US than they do from Mexico.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
so that fact that NAFTA created jobs for these impoverished groups doesn't mean anything. In your opinion they all need to come live in the United States.

What jobs? NAFTA destroyed hundreds of thousands of agricultural jobs in Mexico. The influx of imports from incorporated agricultural companies from the US ruined corn prices and clear subsidies to the tune of $10.1 billion.

Check this out for more info (pdf from oxfam).

Cynthetiq 04-06-2007 11:15 AM

[QUOTE=willravel]Do you understand the concept of civil disobedience? You break the law peacefully in order to bring about change. That means no one who acts in civil disobedience is under he umbrella of the law. You're just splitting hairs because this is a law you seem to like. If it were a sit in to end segregation, I'm sure you'd be behind it. [quote]
Funny because I don't think we'd sit on the same side of that either. See, I don't agree that Program housing on campuses for self segregation is a good thing. I don't think that colleges should have seperate graduation ceremonies in spanish, german, tagalog, chinese.

I'm sure you recall this happening in the early 90s:

Quote:

LINK
In growing numbers, ships from mainland China are sailing toward America, their holds packed with a frightened and seasick human cargo destined mostly for labor in the restaurants and sweatshops of New York's Chinatown.

Five ships carrying a total of about 600 people have been discovered since January and as many as nine more are being monitored now as they head for Los Angeles, said Bruce J. Nicholl, an official at the Immigration and Naturalization Service in Washington.

The new tactic represents a major expansion of the far-flung smuggling networks that for years have brought small groups of Chinese laborers to the United States through Canada and Central America.

International Chinese crime syndicates, many with roots in ancient secret societies called triads or tongs, have begun to add their resources and muscle to the enterprise of human smuggling, Mr. Nicholl said.

The immigration service is barely keeping pace, and even in cases where immigrants are caught here they often are released pending hearings, or for lack of detention centers, and simply disappear into an underworld of forced labor, drug dealing and crime.

"This is kind of 19th-century stuff now where the tongs are not just shipping illegals but trafficking in people as human slaves," said Peter Kwong, a professor of political science at the State University of New York College at Old Westbury.

For a price of $25,000 to $30,000, part of which goes to bribe Chinese officials, poor farmers and laborers from southern China are following earlier immigrants in search of prosperity in America. And like their predecessors who helped build the nation's railroads, most are destined for years of servitude as they labor to pay off the cost of their passage.

"Most of them end up in pretty squalid conditions as indentured servants in restaurants and packing houses and garment factories," said Mr. Nicholl, who is the immigration service's expert on Chinese smuggling. Others "can end up actually enslaved to the triads as prostitutes or enforcers or drug runners or pickpockets."

He said as many as 25,000 Chinese have entered the country illegally, mostly smuggled in by air, in the last three years; the ocean routes appeared to have been put into operation about a year ago.

Most of the new immigrants come from Fujian, a southern coastal Chinese province with a history of migration and human smuggling, and most are headed for the Fujianese enclave of New York's Chinatown, he said. Kidnapped and Beaten

There, Mr. Kwong said, they are subject to exploitation and to a growing wave of violence by the syndicates enforcing the repayment of their debts with torture, kidnapping and sometimes murder.

"Mostly they are handcuffed within an apartment and severely beaten with anything from claw hammers to sticks," said Lieut. Joseph Pollini of the New York City Police Department. "They are told they have to pay $10,000 or $15,000 above their original fee, and a lot of drastic things take place."

Just today, he said, the last of eight men was convicted of kidnapping in the first such incident to have been uncovered, in November 1990. Since then, arrests have been made in seven similar kidnappings.

Partly because of the violence surrounding the smuggling operations, the department is forming a new unit to deal with Asian organized crime.

"The tragic thing is that these illegals are so desperate to get money that they are willing to work at any price," Mr. Kwong said. "So the situation in Chinatown is that wages are getting lower and lower."

A Fujianese service economy has sprung up in New York, including "travel agencies" that help coordinate contacts and payoffs to the smugglers.

"I heard of one woman on East Broadway who emptied her village, which was about 2,000 people," Mr. Kwong said, "and she was not the only one doing that."

The Fujianese are known as tough and hard-working, he said, and those who have paid off their debts after several years of labor are beginning to enjoy the rewards of their rough passage by opening Chinese takeout restaurants, mainly in poor areas of New York City. Dreams of Success

Dreams of such success inspired the 84 men packed for 50 days into the fetid hold of the 150-foot Taiwan-registered trawler Jinn Yin No. 1, which was seized off the California coast last month.

"It was my goal and my dream to come to the United States," said G. Ling, a 22-year-old student who comes from a family of truck drivers and who is now being held at an immigration service detention center in Long Beach pending a hearing on his status. "But we suffered so much: so crowded, so cold in the ship, not enough food, no water to drink, no place to wash."

C. Chen, 31, a professional diver who, like Mr. Ling, declined to give his full name, said the terrified passengers wept, prayed and vomited as the rusting boat, with its crew of seven, struggled through a typhoon and survived two fires.

He said many people from his grandparents' village near the Fujianese city of Fuzhou had come to America and prospered and that some of these had returned home for visits, tempting others to follow with stories of prosperity.

"Since the day I was born I wanted to come to America," Mr. Chen said, speaking through an interpreter. "We wanted to apply to the United States government to come the legal way, but too many people want to come. With so many people in China how long would it take us? The rest of our lives?"

In 1990, the most recent year for which figures are available, 31,800 people succeeded in immigrating legally to the United States from mainland China, putting that country in sixth place as a source of legal immigration.

Gu Kechen, a 21-year-old carpenter, said he had made a $2,500 down payment in China and that relatives in New York had guaranteed the balance of his $25,000 passage. "I don't know how I will pay them back," he said. "The important thing was to get to America."

Though they are now subject to deportation, the men under detention here still stand a chance of completing their journey to New York. Many will be released on bond either because of overcrowding at detention centers or because they apply for political asylum, officials and immigration lawyers said. When that happens, the chances are that they will simply disappear.

The results are hundreds of millions of dollars in profits for the traffickers, who operate what Mr. Nicholl called "the most sophisticated and largest and most expensive smuggling operation that exists in the world today."

As of last year, he said, "We have identified as many as 30 different smuggling routes coming into the United States."

People who cannot pay the full price for passage, Mr. Kwong said, sometimes travel as couriers on a drug-smuggling run from Fujian through Burma and Thailand, with stops in Latin America.

"Every time we get a handle on what they are doing and how they are doing it, things change," Mr. Nicholl said. When the first shipload was captured off Los Angeles last September with 118 smuggled passengers, he said, "We were sort of in a state of shock."
"In 1990, the most recent year for which figures are available, 31,800 people succeeded in immigrating legally to the United States from mainland China, putting that country in sixth place as a source of legal immigration."

So what about the Chinese you are not speaking up for them. If you are saying that it's good for Mexicans, then it's good for Chinese, Somalians, Nigerians, Ethopians, et. al.

I'm sorry that there isn't enough for everyone, that is just a fact.

Quote:

Do you have any friends that work in the INS, FBI, or police forces on the boarder of Mexico? It's easy to sit at your computer and assume that correlation doesn't imply causation, but the fact of the matter is that any border cop, be they on the US or Mexico side, will corroborate my conclusions. Why don't you give them a call?
I'm asking you to back up your statement. You asking me to look it up or phone them makes it laughable. So far it's hearsay. So far that number still looks like you pulled it outta your ass.

Quote:

I don't see the al Quaeda and other illegal organizations that resort to terrorism operating in Mexico, I do in the Philippines. I see drug lords, but they get a shitload more money from the US than they do from Mexico.
I'm sorry WTF does terrorism have to do with this? I'm showing that governements in impoverished nation CAN asisst their people to get them to overseas jobs and helps them get them legally. You can't even say, "You know the MEXICAN government could learn from this."

You toss in terrorism???? Nowhere in ANTHING I've posted or linked to mentions terrorism. Yet the mention of Philippines and suddenly terrorism and al Qaeda come into play? If you searched history you'd find that Islam in the Philippines predates al Qaeda. You'd also should know that "Filipino Muslims form 5% of the country's population, while the rest of the general population are mostly Roman Catholic (84%) and Protestant (8%)." And the Filipino Muslims only occupy the areas closest to Indonesia/Malaysia which are Islamic nationstates. Manila where the Office of Overseas Workers is located, is Roman Catholic. But I guess, you are allowed to generalize and make blanket statements and others not.

Willravel 04-06-2007 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Funny because I don't think we'd sit on the same side of that either. See, I don't agree that Program housing on campuses for self segregation is a good thing. I don't think that colleges should have seperate graduation ceremonies in spanish, german, tagalog, chinese.

Name one post out of my thousands and thousands of posts on TFP that would lead you to believe that I'm pro-segregation. That's gotta be the biggest red herring/strawman in history. I am strongly anti-segregation and strongly pro integration, culturally, racially, genderly (not sure that's a word, but you know what I mean), and even based on sexual orientation.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
"In 1990, the most recent year for which figures are available, 31,800 people succeeded in immigrating legally to the United States from mainland China, putting that country in sixth place as a source of legal immigration."

So what about the Chinese[. Y]ou are not speaking up for them. If you are saying that it's good for Mexicans, then it's good for Chinese, Somalians, Nigerians, Ethopians, et. al.

I'm saying that no one benefits from the current system, and that it preys on immigrant families that have no choice but to come here illegally when all other options have been exhausted. That would include people from any country. My area and experience just happen to be saturated with Central Americans.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I'm sorry that there isn't enough for everyone, that is just a fact.

That's an issue of overpopulation, not immigration.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I'm asking you to back up your statement. You asking me to look it up or phone them makes it laughable. So far it's hearsay. So far that number still looks like you pulled it outta your ass.

It was an estimate based on statistics I've read in newspapers for a while. The fact that google doesn't come up with the statistics doesn't make them untrue. The fact of the matter is that you're too lazy to prove m wrong. Tell me, do you see a flaw in my logic about the hypothetical situation where the border is shut down and crime rises? If not, then you're saying my stuff is laughable is laughable, and we're just wasting out time laughing.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I'm sorry WTF does terrorism have to do with this? I'm showing that [governments] in impoverished nation CAN [assist] their people to get them to overseas jobs and helps them get them legally. You can't even say, "You know the MEXICAN government could learn from this."

In some ways, the Mexican government could learn from the Philippine government. Of course, you failed to mention how many Filipino people are in the US vs. Mexicans. I'll let you google that one yourself. If the Mexicans were only trying to get a fraction of what they're getting in now into the US, a comparable number to the Philippines, I doubt we'd have as much of a problem.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
You toss in terrorism???? Nowhere in ANTHING I've posted or linked to mentions terrorism. Yet the mention of Philippines and suddenly terrorism and al Qaeda come into play? If you searched history you'd find that Islam in the Philippines predates al Qaeda. You'd also should know that "Filipino Muslims form 5% of the country's population, while the rest of the general population are mostly Roman Catholic (84%) and Protestant (8%)." And the Filipino Muslims only occupy the areas closest to Indonesia/Malaysia which are Islamic nationstates. Manila where the Office of Overseas Workers is located, is Roman Catholic. But I guess, you are allowed to generalize and make blanket statements and others not.

What blanket statements? True or false: the al Qaeda works and has worked in the Philippines.

True? Then there were no blanket statements. I was comparing the security concerns from each place, which is basically the entire reason for closed borders.

dc_dux 04-06-2007 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf
I have no legal training so this act H.R.1645 was very hard for me to understand. From what I have read they are granting amnesty to illegals by giving them "Conditional Nonimmigrant" status. This is totally unfair to those who follow the rules (our law) and therefore I am against this section of the bill.

The section under "Encouraging aliens to depart voluntarily" may be a way to reduce the number of illegals without having to resort to legal proceedings. Perhaps giving illegals 60 days or so to leave voluntarily before being charged with a crime could be the way for most to depart. Also those who do so could possibly be allowed to get in line to immigrate legally without having their past illegal status held against them. Perhaps most deportation proceedings could be avoided this way.

flstf...I undertand how the section that provides Conditional Nonimmigrant status can be described as defacto amnesty but I just dont agree that it is for the vast majority who have otherwise commited no crimes.

I would describe it as alternative sentencing and far more pratical, reasonable, fair and less expensive than rounding up and deporting millions.

Cynthetiq 04-06-2007 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Name one post out of my thousands and thousands of posts on TFP that would lead you to believe that I'm pro-segregation. That's gotta be the biggest red herring/strawman in history. I am strongly anti-segregation and strongly pro integration, culturally, racially, genderly (not sure that's a word, but you know what I mean), and even based on sexual orientation.

No I'm saying we'd disagree on it in some fashion. I more than likely will no agree with your methodology for integration as you'll probably not like my version. Note that my examples are SELF SEGRGATION, Choices made by the individuals in the name of cultural pride or whatever.

Quote:

I'm saying that no one benefits from the current system, and that it preys on immigrant families that have no choice but to come here illegally when all other options have been exhausted. That would include people from any country. My area and experience just happen to be saturated with Central Americans.
According to my article, 31,800 Chinese people will beg to differ. That's 31,800 people who did not want to or were able to forgo the illegal boat container route.

According to the DHS, there are approximately 3 million people from 2004-2006 beg to differ that they benefitted from the current system.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...hetiq/imig.jpg

Quote:

That's an issue of overpopulation, not immigration.
So traffic on the 101 has not been impacted by illegal immigration? What illegal immigrants don't take up space and use resources both food, infrastructure, and government?

Quote:

It was an estimate based on statistics I've read in newspapers for a while. The fact that google doesn't come up with the statistics doesn't make them untrue. The fact of the matter is that you're too lazy to prove m wrong. Tell me, do you see a flaw in my logic about the hypothetical situation where the border is shut down and crime rises? If not, then you're saying my stuff is laughable is laughable, and we're just wasting out time laughing.
Again, I ask that you qualify it. Now you say that I'm too lazy to prove you wrong. Newpapers are for the most part available via google. Just admit you pulled the number out of your ass with no basis of fact.

Quote:

In some ways, the Mexican government could learn from the Philippine government. Of course, you failed to mention how many Filipino people are in the US vs. Mexicans. I'll let you google that one yourself. If the Mexicans were only trying to get a fraction of what they're getting in now into the US, a comparable number to the Philippines, I doubt we'd have as much of a problem.
Really? According to the Center for Immigration Studies Mexcian population is almost 4 times what the Filipino totals are. So that's fairer because of proximity that they can have more?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...iq/back101.gif

Quote:

What blanket statements? True or false: the al Qaeda works and has worked in the Philippines.

True? Then there were no blanket statements. I was comparing the security concerns from each place, which is basically the entire reason for closed borders.
I see, you didn't say ANYTHING about the security of the borders, it was completely out of left field.

edit:

I did just found this article from the NY Times

Quote:

The immigrants who remade New York in the 1990's are now indelibly shaping its future, according to new city figures showing that 6 in 10 babies born in the city since 2000 have at least one foreign-born parent. The foreign-born groups growing fastest through immigration, including Mexicans, Guyanese and Bangladeshis, also have among the highest birthrates, the figures show.

Even for a city with a storied immigrant past, the sheer size and diversity of the present foreign-born population is greater than ever before, according to the most detailed and sweeping portrait of immigrant New York ever to be issued by the City Planning Department. Demographers counted 2.9 million immigrant residents in 2000 and estimate the current number is at least 3.2 million, a record high.

The report, to be released today as a 265-page book called ''The Newest New Yorkers 2000: Immigrant New York in the New Millennium,'' offers a comprehensive look at the foreign-born residents who have transformed the city's neighborhoods, schools and businesses, bringing sari shops to Queens, halal pizza to Brooklyn and Ghanaian preachers to the Bronx. Unlike earlier city reports that dealt only with legal immigrants recorded by federal authorities, this analysis tries to capture legal, illegal and temporary residents alike, combining census information, city housing surveys and vital statistics to offer a fine-grained topography of a global resettlement unmatched by any other metropolis.

One result is the striking emergence of Mexicans as the fifth largest immigrant group in the city. Their census numbers quadrupled to 122,550 in the decade since 1990, when they ranked 17th with 32,689. City demographers said the true growth was still higher, possibly to a total of 200,000, and not expected to slow. Births to the city's Mexican-born mothers -- 6,408 in 2000 -- are second only to births to foreign-born Dominicans, who remained the most numerous of the city's foreign-born groups at 369,000 residents, followed by the Chinese, the Jamaicans, and the Guyanese.

The report did not try to calculate rates of illegal immigration for Mexicans or any other group, though Mr. Salvo acknowledged that the large increase in the Mexican-born population could not be accounted for by recorded legal immigration. Jeffrey Passel, a demographer with the Pew Hispanic Center who has studied the issue, said that nationally, 80 to 85 percent of all Mexican immigration since 1990 was undocumented, while among other immigrant groups, a great majority had entered legally.

''Any place that's getting a lot of new immigration from Mexico, virtually all of it is undocumented,'' Mr. Passel said, ''and that certainly includes New York.''

Still, the city is home to only 1 percent of Mexicans in the United States -- compared with 54 percent of the nation's Dominican-born immigrants and 45 percent of its Bangladeshis, who are the city's fastest-growing group. Too few to count in 1980, Bangladeshis surged to 17th place from 42nd in the 1990's, mainly through diversity visas issued by lottery. They now place 10th in the number of births, with Pakistanis right behind them. One reason is that nearly 80 percent of Bangladeshi households are married-couple families, as are more than 6 in 10 Indian, Chinese, and Pakistani homes, compared with only 31 percent of native-born New Yorkers' households.

At a time when a Congressional push for crackdowns on illegal immigrants is converging with backlogs in legal immigration, the report stresses the economic benefits that sheer numbers of newcomers brought the city in recent decades, replacing residents who died or moved out, filling housing vacancies, revitalizing small businesses, and now accounting for 43 percent of the city's work force. High rates of migration to other states are still offset only by a combination of foreign immigration and births increased by immigrant fertility, the demographers said.

''If we didn't have immigration, I don't know where we'd be,'' said Joseph Salvo, director of the department's population division and co-author of the report with Arun Peter Lobo. ''Immigrant flows have mitigated catastrophic population losses in the 1970's, stabilized the city's population in the 1980's, and helped the city reach a new population peak of over 8 million in 2000.''

In the new world limned by the report, ethnicity and race are moving categories. More than a third of the city's black population is now foreign-born, the demographers said, with Afro-Caribbeans, who represent 21 percent of the city's immigrants, tending to replace African-Americans moving outside the city and to southern states, and the African-born population more than doubling to 92,400, or more than 3 percent of the foreign born.

Though Europeans increased in numbers through a surge of refugees and the use of diversity visas, available to people with low rates of recent immigration, like Poland, they declined to 19 percent of the city's foreign-born population from 24 percent. Had the countries of the former Soviet Union been counted together, as in earlier reports, immigrants born there would have been the city's fourth largest group, with 164,000 residents. Instead, Russia placed 10th, with 81,408, with Ukraine, Belarus and others lower on the list.

Nearly a third of city immigrants are from Latin America. Yet they seem as much divided as united by their Hispanic origins, with Mexicans joining the Chinese in Sunset Park, Ecuadoreans in Jackson Heights beside Bangladeshis, and Salvadorans and Guatemalans showing up in Far Rockaway. In that seaside neighborhood, demographers also discovered Russians, Ukrainians, Haitians, Israelis, Nigerians and Jamaicans after Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, noticing its unusually high numbers of non-English speakers on a map of literacy needs recently, asked them, ''What's going on down there?''

In his 1997 book ''A Far Rockaway of the Heart,'' the Bronx-born poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti might have provided an answer:

Everything changes and nothing changes

Centuries end

and all goes on

as if nothing ever ends

And the fever of savage city life

still grips the streets

But I still hear singing

A century ago, when immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe poured through Ellis Island, the foreign-born made up more than 40 percent of the city's population -- 80 percent when their American-born children were counted, too. But the city's total population was then only 4.7 million. At 36 percent of today's 8 million New Yorkers -- up from a low of 18 percent in 1970 -- the size of today's foreign-born population is a record, and taken together, foreign-born residents and their offspring account for more than 55 percent of the city's population. More than 43 percent of the foreign-born arrived after 1990, and 80 percent after 1980.

The same dynamic that New York experienced then is now under way in the 31 counties of the metropolitan region, the report said, especially in Hudson, Passaic, Union, Middlesex, Bergen and Essex in New Jersey and Westchester in New York, which all count the foreign-born as more than one-fifth of their populations.

Increasingly, some immigrant groups, like Jamaicans and Haitians, are bypassing the city and settling directly in adjacent counties, drawn to housing vacated by aging European immigrants of earlier migrations and their children.

''New York City is as much a process as a place,'' the report said of these crosscurrents.

What Mr. Salvo called the report's ''wall-to-wall statistics'' conveyed a strikingly mixed bag of socioeconomic factors, with some large groups, like Dominicans and Mexicans, far below the city's median education and earnings, and others, like Filipinos and Indians, far above it. In many groups, high rates of homeownership coexist with high rates of overcrowding -- 42.2 percent of Chinese households are owner-occupied, for example, and 34.2 percent are overcrowded, compared with citywide rates of 30.3 and 14.6 percent respectively.

Just over one in four foreign-born Dominicans has completed high school, and only 30 percent speak English very well. Nearly a third are in poverty, compared with a citywide rate of 21 percent, and 18.6 percent of households are on public assistance, compared with 7.5 percent for all residents.

Though Mexicans had the city's lowest median earnings ($16,737 for women, $21,284 for men) and lowest levels of education (slightly more than a third graduated from high school), they managed to bring their household incomes to 85 percent of the city median of $37,700, by having multiple workers in overcrowded households.

That was a strategy used even by highly educated foreign-born groups like the city's 49,600 Filipinos, at the other end of the spectrum. Median female earning among Filipinos was $51,000, and median household income $70,500, both the highest of any immigrant group. Though there are only 60 Filipino men to every 100 Filipino women, the Filipino poverty rate is only 5.3 percent, a fourth the citywide rate of 21 percent; only 2 percent receive public assistance.

''There is no typical New York immigrant,'' Mr. Salvo said. The report assembles an intricate mosaic of facts to support that assertion, from the highest rates of homeownership (Italians, 64 percent) to the most skewed sex ratio (161 Pakistani men to every 100 Pakistani women). Its combination of maps and tables pinpoint the whereabouts of the top 40 immigrant groups, from the 90,336 Dominicans in Washington Heights, to the five French immigrants settled in the Great Kills Zip code on Staten Island.

''The level of complexity and diversity is beyond anything we've had in our history,'' Mr. Salvo said. ''We've evolved into a city that's just an unprecedented mix. And for the most part all these people get along -- it's a testament to the power of the city.''

[Photograph]
New Americans in Brooklyn in May, from left front, Guang Zhou, from China; Rahima Khatun, from Bangladesh; and Mario Leonardo Arzu, from Guatemala. (Photo by Librado Romero/The New York Times)

[Chart]
''An Ever-Evolving Population''
Immigrant groups in New York with the largest populations are not necessarily growing the fastest.
TEN LARGEST FOREIGN-BORN POPULATIONS, BY COUNTRY, 2000:
Dominican Republic: 369,186
China: 261,551
Jamaica: 178,922
Guyana: 130,647
Mexico: 122,550
Ecuador: 114,944
Haiti: 95,580
Trinidad, Tobago: 88,794
Colombia: 84,404
Russia: 81,408
TEN FASTEST-GROWING FOREIGN-BORN POPULATIONS, BY COUNTRY, 1990-2000:
Bangladesh: 393%%
Mexico: 274.9%
Pakistan: 162.7%
Ecuador: 90.1%
Honduras: 80.9%
Guyana: 71.7%
India: 68.9%
Dominican Republic: 64.1%
China: 63.1%
Trinidad, Tobago: 57.2%
(Source by New York City Department of City Planning, Population Division)(pg. B3)

Hmmm, seems to me that maybe Mexicans have lots more to learn that just a civics lesson of how to set up expatriated workers, but also that education is an important factor in increasing wages.

flstf 04-07-2007 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
flstf...I undertand how the section that provides Conditional Nonimmigrant status can be described as defacto amnesty but I just dont agree that it is for the vast majority who have otherwise commited no crimes.

I would describe it as alternative sentencing and far more pratical, reasonable, fair and less expensive than rounding up and deporting millions.

I agree that it would be difficult to deport so many, that is why I think the section of the bill dealing with incentives to get them to leave voluntarily may have some merit.

The last time we granted amnesty there were 2 or 3 million illegals, this time there are 12 to 15 million. If the percentages hold true the next time there could be 50 million or more. Is there any number that we should allow before trying to control it?

About 10 percent of the Mexican population currently resides in the U.S. illegally and with the population growing rapidly and conditions in Mexico so bad, the incentive to come here will only increase. Maybe we can handle them all but I suspect there will be problems with so many.

alansmithee 04-09-2007 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool
The sex offendor comited an act against a human...he raped someone. Furthormore, he chose to do so. He could've lived his life normally and been fine. What's his excuse? "You see, at the time, I was horney, and she was the only one around." ?

Maybe he has a psychological compulsion (like many sex offenders who target underage individuals, which causes the high recidivism rate).

Quote:

The guy living with his dog against the rules of the complex is doing so because he choose to. What's his excuse? "I need my dog to live with me, or else I'll be unhappy." ?
Possibly suffers from depression. Maybe had a companion animal suggested by a health care professional.

Quote:

The guy who sells drugs on the corner is as low as they come. He's choosing to sell drugs. What's his excuse for doing it? "Oh, well, yeah, I have every opportunity in this country to go to college, get a job, and become a great man, but I'd rather sell just sell some rocks." ?
Yes, every opportunity coming from a broken home, with a mother who works 3 jobs, and an environment where showing any interest in books is enough to get you bullied or robbed (at the minimum).

Quote:

The Mexican you see walking down the street choose to come here. What's his excuse for doing so? "There are no jobs or food in my country to raise my family, so I came here, where there is food and the opportunity for my children to have a future."

I'm sorry, but these cases don't match up at all.

Oh, and I didn't mean to say that "You can't..." because we're all entitled to our opinions. That's just mines, since I wouldn't just consider someone less than me unless they do something which would truly call for it. Bad choice of words on my part...
The only reason the cases don't match is because you choose not to see them as matching. Because you sympathize with the Mexican, you see his problem as somehow greater, and justify his crime more. But many drug sellers come from environments not much different from what would be faced in a Mexican slum. And the first two cases could easily be caused by psychological problems that an individual would have no conscious control of.

And even with your hypothetical case of the Mexican, you don't explain why the individual who chooses to commit the crime and enter illegally should gain the benefits of his crime over someone who has respect for the country he wants to live and fights through the burdensome process of legal immigration.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360