Immigration law
 

There's been a recent court ruling that upholds the rights of states to punish businesses for hiring illegal immigrants. In Arizona, if a business knowingly hires illegals, the first time there's a 10 day penalty against them, and the next time the business loses their license. This law was signed by Napolitano and upheld by the 9th Circuit (the most liberal of all the circuit courts).

Obama actually has a problem with this and wants the Supreme Court to overrule this decision. Why? Someone please explain this to me.

There's also the ongoing uproar over Arizona's new law, which is almost word for word the same as an already existing federal law. What is the problem? Why the uproar for enforcing laws that already exist?

Obama is trying to count on winning as many Mexican votes as he possibly can...That's why the uproar.

But do I agree? Absolutely not. I would have NO PROBLEM fining a business $10,000 per illegal worker that they are caught hiring. If we could make it impossible for illegals to find work here we'd go a long way towards stopping the illegal tide of immigrants.

Illegal Immigration has been a problem since before Reagan, and turning the Arizona Police into Gestapo Goons isn't the solution.

I often hear that legal Mexican immigrants are p.o.'d that there are so many illegals here since they worked so hard doing it the right way to get here legally. The illegals can't vote so there's no reason to try and get their vote unless you're planning on amnesty to suddenly turn them all into citizens.

Exactly! Which is how the vast majority of the American public feels. So you're a politician. You see one group consisting of maybe 10s of millions (the pro-illegal alien crowd), and you another group consisting of 100s of millions (the anti-illegal alien crowd). Politicians consistently try and woo the 10s of millions crowd. I still don't get it.

There isn't a viable solution right now. Especially when everyone up to the president is giving illegal aliens every free pass they can. Faced with this Arizona has no other choice. And it also serves to tell the US government that they aren't doing their job. Because if they don't like what Arizona is doing then they should take the burden off Arizona. And what part of the Arizona law is turning police into Gestapo Goons?

You forget that groups like ACORN have been wheeling illegals, bums etc. over to their local branches and fudging their names and numbers so that they can get them to vote for whoever best serves thier interests.

Politician. Rope. Lamppost. Some assembly required.

It may not be a viable solution but it is a damn good deterrent and I for one support Jan Brewer for looking out for the residents of her state. This is the opposite of what you posted above. Now the focus is on the majority of the people who are seriously concerned about their well being and security rather than the usual tactic of catering and kissing ass to a minority of people.

70%
 

I hear that 70% of Arizona supports their law.

Laws?
 

The city council of my local community (Hemet) has voted to support Arizona.
In California is illegal to employ illegals yet the law is not enforced. Why? Agriculture is a major part of California's economy. Most of the field workers are illegals, many with fake documents. Many farming operations simply could not stay in business without the hardworking illegals. I know from personal experience that people who have grown up in our affluent society are incapable of doing farm work. Putting in nine hours a day six days a week is beyond them.
We need a work permit system that is viable and encourages workers to come here temporarily and leave their families back home. This would take the pressure off the schools, the hospitals and the infrastructure. Will it happen? I doubt it, this country is too fucked up with politics.:frown:

Amen for that.

I am for a world without borders.

Go ahead, flame the crap out of me.

(I'm proud that this is my 3,000th post!)

Congratulations. I wont flame you just post an exotic little tid bit.
Trannys without borders, sounds good to me. :yes:

borders
 

[QUOTE=smc;148377]I am for a world without borders.

Go ahead, flame the crap out of me.

(I'm proud that this is my 3,000th post!)[/QUO

I suppose no one in Boston has a home with door locks?

I never said anything about individual homes. My point is a serious one. If someone wants to disagree with the point, that's fine, but mocking my point should not be okay.

Of course, I realize that my position is far from the mainstream, even for those who disagree with the Arizona law. I will explain why I believe a world without borders is the best alternative.

Borders exist primarily for economic purposes. They have always been made by the rich and powerful, who traditionally have created borders to establish areas of control for markets and taxation as a means of avoiding competition or at least giving themselves an arena over which they have some means of control other than the "anarchy" of simple supply and demand. Corporations move across borders at will, whether physically or virtually.The borders, though, are primarily used to control buying and selling by us, regular people, and to manipulate the pool of workers.

The U.S. economy depends on a large pool of immigrant workers, especially to fill the lowest-paid jobs. One way to keep the wages low for immigrant workers is to marginalize them to the greatest degree possible. If you create borders and harsh conditions for crossing those borders -- terror, difficulty, susceptibility to arrest and deportation -- these workers are highly unlikely to stand up for themselves against the very exploitation that the rest of us would never accept. Then the politicians try to scapegoat them: they are the ones taking our jobs and costing us so much that we can't afford good social services, when in fact our jobs are being taken to low-paying countries by corporations, without government interference (because for them, the borders essentially don't exist) and the money for social services are being spent, well, in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's notable that an immigrant crossing into the United States "illegally" in the hope of making a better life -- and that is the very reason most people do so -- will be detained by the authorities if caught and, before deportation, be offered a path to citizenship by joining the Armed Forces and going to Iraq or Afghanistan. Do you need any more indication of whose interests borders serve than that, which happens each and every day?

Actually, according to figures, areas with large numbers of illegal immigrants have lower crime rates. Go figure. :confused:

Interesting. Have you got a source for this information or a link to the source?

Can you speak for all countries or only for your own ?
 

The general perception in the United Kingdom with its unchecked European, Indian and African immigration of the past eight years is that crime syndicates, particularly from Eastern Europe, Nigeria and the horn of Africa, have prospered and expanded their spheres of operation, particularly in the child sex-trade.
Governments, almost without exception, will invariably deny that there is a problem, but it is the police and general public who have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity.

It would be interesting to have figures to show if rises in levels of immigration across Western Europe, and North America have occurred in the past ten years, and if so, what the percentages are. Prison figures might also show a correspondence, if one exists.

An article in pe.com (Riverside Ca.) by Ruben Navarrette (member of Washington Post Writers Group) pointed out that cities with large populations of illegal immigrants have lower crime rates. This is probably the result of illegals keeping a low profile to avoid getting arrested and deported. There are other references to the studies, done in the 1990s, on the internet.
Here in California, things are getting much tougher for illegals. One I know who has been here for ten years, working hard, getting married to a US citizen and having two children is getting deported. Another who has a lawn care business is getting deported.
People come to this country because there are jobs here. We need some kind of a work permit system that lets them do the work but keeps their families back home. This would help the schools and the health care services. Its a sad situation, these are people just trying to make a living. Thanks to NAFTA destroying the small farmer economy of Mexico these people had to find work somewhere.

The general perception of who exactly? Some out-of-touch bloke in the public bar reading a copy of the daily express? Don't tar everybody in this country with your clueless, racist views.

Sorry I had to stop lurking and finally post something but lazy crap like this makes my :censored: blood boil.

This is a racist view, pure and simple, painting with a broad brush immigrants as generally linked to crime syndicates. Racism, racism, racism.

That's actually a good point. And people scoff at my desire to see the "New World Order" come to fruition . . .

In all seriousness, when people speak of a global economy, it really means something. Corporations ignore borders, and rightly so. Nationalism and patriotism are a hold-over from the past, which should blur more and more as time goes by. The economic unification of Europe seems to be working out pretty well, and I believe is just another step in the on-going unification of the world as a whole. Go back through history and you'll see movement towards that goal for as long as people have been writing.

After all, in the end, it's really about allocation of resources. Cooperative effort benefits the species, and, in fact, it seems that our brains are hard-wired for precisely that goal. Once the population reaches a certain threshold, we will be FORCED to consolidate under one controlling mechanism (whatever that might be) to support and sustain said population. I think the Agricultural Revolution is a good example of this principle in action, causing the creation of city-states and jump-starting the centralization of populations.

I served in the military myself, and live in Arizona. While it's my opinion that the average Joe in this country is both apathetic and ignorant (sorry, but we're dumber as a whole than we have been since before WWII), I myself am somewhat conflicted. I'm the progeny of immigrants, after all, a first-generation American, so I tend to have a very hard-nosed attitude towards people who bypass the system.

Having said that, to ignore the vast numbers of illegals is simply silly. White Elephant in the living room anyone? Building a wall is also silly, and historically speaking, has never worked. Look to the Great Wall for an example. Chest-beating rhetoric and brandished weapons only compound the problem, without addressing the underlying issue.

I don't see any way to REALLY solve the problem without addressing the economic state of our neighbors. Why do people come to this country, after all? If our southern neighbors had economic and social parity it wouldn't be an issue at all, as there would be no incentive to relocate.

Until the Mexican government is stable, including laws which protect their citizenry and workforce, and economically healthy, I see no real solution to illegal immigration.

As for the recent law itself? If I understand it correctly, it's just the Federal law coupled with the ADDITION of Miranda rights (there must be probable cause to justify requesting ID, much like the seatbelt law, and I don't think the feds need to worry about that). I don't have a problem with this at all.

Just my two cents.

The uproar is not targeted at the whole thing, but this part:

Officers have to interrogate everybody who looks like an illegal immigrant. Or anyone could sue him or her of not doing their job.

In short, this is a new version of "pull off every car with American-American in it, cus they all look suspicious".

Some police stations are against it because it puts them into a lose-lose situation. If you interrogate someone who looks "illegal", the victim can sue the police for "racial profiling". Now if the officer don't use racial profile, they will be sued for not doing their job.

It's not like some of the right-wing media described, "they wanna open the border". Nobody said let the illegals get in, but this part of the law put police in a really bad position.

I don't find this to be racist at all. Racism implies a superiority of ability due to racial factors. He said nothing of the sort. He simply noted that there is a correlation between the demographics of a certain region and a higher incidence of crime.

Lest we forget, this whole thing was enacted because the drug cartels were killing Americans on American soil so that they could move unimpeded through the area. I believe the figure was something like 10,000- 30,000 people yearly killed by cartel members. Juarez is another good example. The cartels will routinely kidnap Mexicans and Americans, bring them into Mexico and absolutely torture and/or dismember the victims. I've seen videos that they release of the torturing of their victims and one of them showed a guy being fed into a meat grinder feet first. This is a regular occurence in Juarez and Tijuana and most of the cities in Mexico.

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article...ancun/19506105

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...oviolence.html

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2...nt_9908870.htm

http://www.39online.com/news/local/k...,2298734.story

http://reproductiverights.org/es/node/283

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/mex...n_victims.html

This is a daily occurence, not sporadic outbreaks of violence. They started coming over here, kidnappping or killing American citizens and think there will be no backlash or retaliation? In the words of Judas Priest, "You've got another thing comin'."

You can cry racism, but the fact of the matter is that Mexicans specifically are the ones perpetrating these heinous crimes and will continue to do so unless someone puts a boot in their ass.

Racism is about more than a "superiority of ability." It is belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and that racial differences produce some inherent superiority or inferiority of particular races. Hence, drawing a link between race and crime so generally is a form of racism.

You are correct that it is Mexicans that are perpetrating the crimes to which you refer. Let me use an analogy to make my point, though, and forgive me for its imperfection. I think the point will still come across. If the government decided that Wall Street bankers such as Lloyd Bankfein had committed heinous crimes by destroying the economy and that as a group the perpetrators of such crimes need to be rounded up so that they cannot do so anymore, would you support New York City giving police the right to stop anyone who looks Jewish and is wearing a very expensive suit? Of course not. The problem with the law in Arizona is two-fold. The first is that an immigration law is not the way to deal with this criminal behavior by drug cartels. The second is that if your explanation is the logic behind the law, then it is based on the concept of collective guilt of all "Mexicans."

I do not believe that anyone seriously believes this law is a way to stop the drug cartels. I do believe that the proponents of the law do believe that all Mexicans (including Mexican-Americans) are guilty of something: not being white, and becoming a larger part of the population than whites. People are terrified that "their America" is disappearing, and the Arizona law is just one of their reactionary responses.

No. It is simply stating that there is a higher propensity for crime from certain immigrant groups and more often than not, these groups fail to assimilate into the local culture. Is it any wonder that there are less occurences of violence from legal immigrants than illegals and why legal immigrants are pissed at illegals for ruining things for them? Legal immigrants(Like me) adapt to the local customs and cultures and abide by the laws of the land and cultural norms. Those who don't, tend to bring their problems with them and just perpetuate the cycle. Is it racist? No. It is just a fact of the disparity between legal and illegal immigrants.


This law is the exact thing that will help Arizonans. It simply reasserts and reinforces the current laws on illegal immigration in the book. The local PD are now acting as a suppliment to the Border Patrol and Customs. The more people you have patrolling an area and the tougher the enforcement, the less the likelyhood of occurence. The bill does NOT give the police the right to stop anyone that "looks" like they might by an illegal alien.

I don't know if you've read the bill, but it clearly states that a person has to have legal contact with a police officer first. If you get pulled over for rolling a stop sign, stopped for loitering or get arrested, they are going to check your ID and verify whether or not you are here legally. What you are repeating is the bullshit spouted by idiots. Also, if you have a *valid* driver's license you are assumed to be here legally. So let me see here, if you get a traffic stop, the cops are now going to call in your driver's license to see if you have warrants, are wanted or are in the country illegally?

There is no "collective guilt" in my reasoning. The cartels come over here and kill US citizens. These people are in fear for their life and trying to paint this as xenophobia is ludicrous. People are tired of the crap and are standing against the crimes perpetrated by these bastards and guess what? It is working!http://www.azcentral.com/community/p...w-schools.html

You think that our immigration policy is bad, you should see Mexicos stance on illegal immigration. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/lillpop022707.htm And from what I have heard from El Salvadorian and Guatemalan immigrants, their immigration officials are not as nice as ours and more often than not either beat or shoot illegal immigrants coming in through Mexico.

Ahhhhh, the old "white guilt" defense. No cigar this time buddy. Jan Brewer sent letters to Lord Zero stating her concerns and requesting support for the Border agents. Here it is: http://www.azcentral.com/news/electi...bama07-ON.html

I think this law has to do with concern and safety for the public rather than bigotry.

Postman, I'm glad we can have a reasoned discourse about this, where we have profound disagreements -- even on the definition of terms -- without resorting to personal attacks. It's quite a step up from the crap that goes for discussion on some other parts of this site, and which I, as a moderator, often have to deal with in a different sort of way.

So, that being said, I will treat your "white guilt" comment as a reference to others.

I stand by my definition of racism. I stand by my analysis of the law, which I have read. To believe that there will be none of the kinds of police actions that you say the law does not allow is, in my view, tremendously naive about the history of how the forces of authority deal with minorities when we are on the cusp of historic changes in how society is ordered.

I also stand by my use of the word "reactionary" in this context. Too often this word is misused to mean "right-wing." I don't mean it that way. Reaction is a tendency to revert to a former state. In this case, those who will one day (sooner rather than later) become the minority rather than maintain their majority status are reacting. There is no doubt in my mind.

I have yet to find a credible, unbiased analysis of this law that suggests it is the way to fight the cartels.

I have pretty much said everything I have to say on this issue, but I will continue to point out racism when I see it, so I may post again. And by that, I am not assigning racism to you, Postman. Just to be clear ...

Well the most effective way to fight the cartels would to be to take the fight to them. Unfortunately, that will never happen as the Mexican Gov. is in collusion with the cartels as well as other South American governments and most of our government officials are candyasses anyways. Neither of them have any interests in fighting the cartels as they have major influence in the region and it is too good of a gravy train to let go of.

This law is not about fighting the cartels or racial majority/minority fears. It is about the public safety of the citizens of Arizona. The fact of the matter is that people are being killed by illegal immigrants and nothing is being done about it. The actions AZ has taken are designed with its citizens in mind and yet so many Americans are quick to condemn them. The victims are blamed and the criminals are heralded. That is not justice. It may not be the best course of action but it is necessary.

May I have a word ?
 

Gentlemen

You are going from the General to the Particular in your assertions, although I cannot claim to be entirely General in my enquiry about possible links between immigration and criminal activity in countries other than the UK.

It is common in the UK for the PC brigade ( usually in National or Local Government ) to dismiss concerns over law and order involving one or more non-Caucasian social groups with an immediate accusation of Racism - a convenient and neat way of not having to address the concerns of a lot of joe-citizens. To see Racism in every criticism involving a mixed-race population is to be an obsessive witch-finder. Not that I am implying that this is illustrated in this thread, but PC and ' racism ' are fertile areas for the control of others by the
' Thought Police '.

Reading this thread I must admit that I am getting a little more understanding of some of the social concerns of North America, and I welcome this.

Meanwhile I shall settle down to reading Mein Kampf later when I log off this forum. ( Only joking, honestly - my gallows humour coming through to the fore ! )
:respect: and keep the thread rolling.

We seem to be dealing with several issues here and getting them confused.
1-The vicious drug cartels are the result of the demand for illegal drugs in this country. This is a rerun of the mobs in the 1920s fighting over the illegal alcohol trade. Take the profit out of drugs and the cartels would disappear.
2- We have a long history of racism as the blacks know full well. We also hated the Irish, Jews, Polish, German and all the other later immigrants that came to this country. At the time, they were blamed for all or our troubles and were considered lawless and stupid. We also took over the Indians land and kept Mexicans as second class citizens.
3- I strongly suspect that if you look at the non drug related crime in Arizona or any other state, that Hispanics, legal or illegal, do not contribute a greater amount of crime than any other part of society. They are being made scapegoats because they are easily targeted by aspiring politicians who prefer to avoid the real issues confronting our society.

If you legalize drugs do you think the cartels are just going to go away? Are they going to go register for a business license? Are they going to let Pfizer set up facilities to start providing cocaine to store fronts? Or is it more likely that they are going illegally take over a now legal industry? The last time I checked, drug cartels don't really go for whole free market capitalism model of multiple suppliers selling a product and competing on price, quality and other factors. They operate more on the "Hey that guy is dealing coke in our territory, let's go kill him and his family" model. The whole "legalize the problem to make the problem go away" is defective thinking that is driving this immigration debate in the first place.

Humans in general have had a long history of racial and ethnic predjudice. Some non-American examples include: Mexicans hate blacks, El Salvadorians and Puerto Ricans, the Brits hate the Irish, the Serbs hate the Albanians, the Africans hate Afrikaaners, the Vietnamese hate Filipinos, the Samoans hate the Tongans, the Hutu Africans hate the Tutsie Africans, the Arabs hate the Jews, the ancient Greeks hated the Persians, the Germans hated the Jews, the Berbers hated the Ethiopians and the list goes on and on of all the races and ethnicities who hated each other. To deny this and only focus on one demographic that suits an arguement is intellectually dishonest.

Politicians always pander to "minorities" to curry their favor and gain their vote. This is nothing new. The problem is the murder of American civilians on American soil. To say that this is just a cover of their "inherent racism" also ignores the main fact that there are people actually getting killed over there at the hand of these cartel members.

Hy I am new to this post but I love the fact that like minded individuals have a place to express themselves.
As a legal mexican imigrant I have seen first hand what the problems with the imigration laws are and I would say that they do need to be changed. Unlike the ilegal imigrants I do not get any help from the government if i need something. My family has gone through the residency process to get our green cards for the past 15 years and we still have no answere. We have been legal from day one. through the process my sister had to go to college but she had to change her visa so she could get accepted because of this she will not recive her green card. We have tried to see how we can get her paperwork started but the lawyers tell us that it is almout imposible for her to get her greencard. So for doing everything the right way we get screwd but the people that are here ilegaly can get help to fix their papers.
Also in the last few years the crime rate in Mexico has increased but that is because the government has finally decided to fight the cartels so they are using the cartels are fighting to keep the business going. In Mexico it is ilegal for the people to have any type of guns so the cartels are geting the guns from the US and in most cases the equipment that the cartels have surpases the militarey equipment. I am not against having guns in the US but I would like to see a change on how easy it is to get a gun.

No doubt. But I think it's high time Americans start working to produce their run society rather than relying on a group of people who will eventually guilt us into transforming our society and culture into something else.

Send the illegals back home. It will be tough for a while and the economy will take a hit. Preston and Penelope will have to get their hands dirty, but in the long run it will be worth it and we won't have to be ashamed of our history.

That's not what the law says. The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of “lawful contact” with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.

Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:

* A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver’s license or other form of federal or state identification.
* A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.
* A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.


Yeah, I know... There I go again bringing facts into the debate.

... unless that link can actually be shown to exist. I don't think the person making the link should be immediately accused of racism. Wouldn't that be another ism?

See that would be that ism again. Immediately accusing someone of racism without considering any other motives. Like.... hmmm is entering the US (or most any country) without going through the proper channels legal? Well what-do-ya know... it's not! Imagine that. That could be a reason right there.

What do people shout at me when I say I always speed? GO THE SPEED LIMIT! IT'S THE LAW!!!

As for being terrified that "their America" is disappearing, perhaps we should add this to our law books:
*Foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;
*Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken US laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy."

Those laws are good enough for Mexico, shouldn't it be good enough for the Mexicans that come here?

And no, I'm not seriously advocating laws like this. Just enforce the laws we do have.

Tracy, there has never been any direct link shown between race and the propensity to engage in criminal behavior. Even in the most dangerous U.S. cities, where crime runs rampant in black communities, sociologists across the political spectrum, law enforcement, scholars of jurisprudence, and so on, agree that it is the socio-economic conditions that create the conditions of crime. The fact that one particular race is committing the crimes under such circumstances is a function of those socio-economic conditions, which may very well be (and are likely) linked to racial discrimination of some sort at some time. But crime is a response by all races, to some degree, to their socio-economic conditions, be it the need to put food on the table or just the need to lash out in a life of desperation and a sense of nothing for which to live.

Therefore, I stand by my statement that drawing a link between race and crime so generally -- that is, brushing an entire race with the brush, explicitly or implicity, of being criminals -- is racism.

smc, while I agree with your contention that there is no direct link between race and criminal behavior, I don't take that conclusion as far as you. Because I believe there's such a thing as being racist and there's such a thing as being blind.

It would be racist for me to dislike or not trust a Mexican because of his race and nothing else. However, it would be BLIND of me to not notice that the majority of drugs being smuggled across our southwestern border are being done so by Mexican cartels. Does this observation make me racist? I think not. I realize that they're not engaging in the drug trade BECAUSE of their race, but I can draw observations that include race as a component.

Relative to your thoughts on a world without borders, I actually agree with you to some extent. However, we'd have to have a TRULY global economy where there would be no unfair tax advantages or social services to be derived from moving to one place or another. People would move purely for the scenery and weather. But when you have disparate economic incentives (such as free emergency room services, social welfare, higher wages, lower taxes, etc., etc.) it makes no sense to allow unrestricted free flow of people. In order to maintain the disparate economic incentives, you need borders. Now me, I'd just as soon take down all the incentives across every nation and let people move where they want. But we both know that won't be happening anytime soon.

As an example of a lesser known disparate economic advantage is the subsidy of grain like corn coupled with NAFTA. Because our government subsidizes corn (and the Mexican government does not), we are able to sell at prices below the fair market price. This put millions of Mexican farmers out of business and in search of work elsewhere (like across the border).

I would never call anyone a racist for pointing out the reality that "the majority of drugs being smuggled across our southwestern border are being done so by Mexican cartels." Racism would be saying that Mexicans, by the very nature of being Mexican (or Latino, or Hispanic, or whatever), are the type of people who would smuggle drugs. But explain to me, GRH, what purpose is served when you "draw observations that include race as a component" in this instance. None whatsoever. Think about it: race. None whatsoever. It is no different than when the newspaper reports a crime and mentions that the perpetrator was of a particular race and it has no bearing whatsoever on the story. This almost always happens with black people, because of predisposed racist tendencies that are so buried beneath the surface sometimes that the newspaper editors don't even realize what they're doing.

As for the "world without borders," you are correct that it won't be happening anytime soon. But your argument against it, as I read it, is essentially that it cannot be achieved. That's why nothing ever changes for the good! That's why so few in this country stop and think about, to take one example, how much healthcare could be provided if we simply built one less aircraft carrier. I could go on and on about this, but I'm sure you get the point.

I would actually agree with you in that VERY little (if anything) is achieved by pointing out race, except for matters such as statistics. I DO think the statistics are telling in some ways, if only to point out some FACTS, such as the fact that most of the southwestern border is suffering from drug smuggling from Mexicans. That said, it's VERY EASY to confuse statistics with facts...For instance, any apparent statistic that says that minorities commit a higher percentage of crimes is probably NOT taking into account the fact that more minorities live in poverty conditions. Some people will confuse statistics with fact, and might assume that people commit crimes because they are minorities, as opposed to the much more logical assumption that crime is committed because people are poor.

So I think we are largely in agreement, and I don't place a whole lot of weight with statistics. I just wasn't sure if you were claiming people to be "racist" because they made an observation based on racial lines. As I think we agree, the extent to which one can generalize based on racial observations is VERY, VERY limited, but just because a person makes a racial observation does not make them a de facto racist.

Yes, I certainly do get your point, and I admittedly am conceding some degree of defeatist attitude in this respect. Seeing as the practical implication of having a "border-free" world is far out of reach, I guess I'm just not an idealist about achieving it any time soon.

Wouldn't you agree that, first and foremost, the reason that "the southwestern border is suffering from drug smuggling from Mexicans" is because Mexico is the border country? In some parts of northern Sweden, there is a significant amount crime perpetrated by Finns who come across the border. It's Finns because of the proximity of Finland, not because Finns have a propensity to be criminals. Nor do Mexicans as a "race."

I'm glad for your other clarifications, GRH. This is a very productive and civil discussion thus far, among all participants, despite some tremendous disagreements and even some emotional overlooking of facts.

I could easily see it happening towards the end of this century. Y'know, I used to think that I was born a century too early, but anymore I couldn't imagine a more exciting time to be alive. I believe we are on the verge of an evolutionary change the likes of which hasn't been seen since the agricultural revolution, or the advent of writing.

Nanotechnology has the potential to eliminate disease and mitigate injury to an extent never thought possible. Scientists are working to eliminate the aging gene (it's something that actually turns on at some point, and is only a check-and-balance, it's not inherently needed).

We're already seeing a trend towards globalization in the economic sectors. We have the technology TODAY to farm astral bodies for resources (though it's not feasible yet).

I don't see the possibility of a "cyberpunk" reality in our lifetimes as unrealistic, at all!

I disagree that people commit crimes because they are poor. I grew up very poor. I didn't nor did any family members commit crimes. Rather crimes are committed because of free will. A person can choose to be law abiding or choose to be a criminal.

There is an almost irrefutable link between poverty and crime. It has been studied and so concluded by governments and academics across the political spectrum and in every part of the world.

That said, ila's point is well taken. Of course, a person "can choose to be law abiding or choose to be a criminal." But simplistic notions of "crime" and "criminal" serve no good purpose except to allow people to make grand pronouncements -- truisms, if you will -- such as that of ila, for whom I have the greatest respect. Let me explain.

There is a significant difference between, say, the man who steals some baby formula from the market for his infant at home because he has no job, no money, and no immediate prospects to reverse the situation, and the man who engages in a criminal enterprise with others to, say, extort the market from which the first man has stolen (such as the Mafia demanding "protection money" from the shopkeeper). I am not excusing the first man, nor saying that his theft is not a crime, but how are we to solve the big problems of society if we offer simplistic observations that reflect only our own experiences and fail to account for the complexities of the broader world.

Like ila, I grew up relatively poor. My family was fortunate in that there were friends and an extended family beyond my mother and father who helped out, but I know plenty of people who did not have these "safety nets." In the United States, most poor people have no safety net. The research suggests that the number of U.S. families that are one paycheck away from homelessness or desititution is staggering. In that context, and acknowledging free will, is it any wonder that a poor person might resort to a crime for survival. Again, I don't excuse it, but I do encourage all to note the difference between crimes and criminals.

I base my statement not just on my own experience, but from what I have seen. When I was young most of my friends were considered poor or at least low income. None of my friends turned to crime. We did, however, turn out to be independant, self reliant, and hardworking.

I have met many poor people in my travels and the majority did not turn to crime to survive. Naturally there are those that have turned to crime. I would say it's sloth that causes a person to turn to crime rather than being poor.

So far this discussion has focused on illegals, poor and crime. As it has moved away from illegals, I suggest that the most massive horrendous crimes in this country are committed by well educated white men on Wall Street and in Washington. Madoff among many others, Goldman, etc.
Greedy money grubbers rule this country and wealth continues to shift from the middle class to the ultra rich.
I was poopood in a previous post (Obama thread) that Obama was really not a socialist but a corporate suporter, just look what has happened. Who has been bailed out at our expense? The criminals are still in power.:coupling:

I never said there was a link between race and criminal behavior. Actually that thought is ridiculous to me. But immediately accusing someone of racism when other reasons for their remarks are possible is another form of prejudice.

Exactly. And in Mel Asher's post:
He never said the reason for this was because of race. Yet you immediately assumed that was his intention. Could it be that socio-economic conditions created problems with the immigrants in the UK as well? He was talking about the politics of the situation there and how, like in Arizona, the police have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity. Apparently because of this prejudice of people who holler RACIST at every chance he needed to clarify that the example he was using was a result of socio-economic conditions.

Or for pointing out the reality of crimes committed by immigrants in the UK. :rolleyes:

Tracy, with all due respect, you really should read more carefully. I did not ascribe to you the statement that there was a link between race and crime. I was very, very clear that I was responding to these words that you wrote: "... unless that link can actually be shown to exist."

I am not alone in being a person who does not appreciate words being put in his mouth.

Nor did I accuse Mel Asher of being a racist. Read my post again. I discussed the perception he reported. I did not assume it was his view, and I did not ascribe anything to him personally.

Nevertheless, despite the care I take in what I write, you decide to imply things about me and my motives that are simply not true. Go back and read the posts. You don't have to agree with my statements, but I defy you to prove that I did what you accuse me of. Yes, prove. It is possible to diagram writing in a way that shows the connotative and denotative links among the words and phrases.

That's right, because racism is not based on reality and real facts. It doesn't change anything I wrote.

I don't think I said you did, did I?

My apologies. When you said "This is a racist view" I thought you meant Mel Asher's interpretation of what was going on in the UK was Mel's racist view.

He wrote:
So, what specifically is the racist view? UK's perception that crime syndicates from Eastern Europe, Nigeria, and the horn of Africa is actually racism and no such crime syndicates exist? I still don't see how racism is the most likely thing going on here. Or maybe it's just really late and I'm confused.

I think it's the culture. Some cultures will teach that someone else is to blame for their predicament and that it's ok to do whatever is necessary to even the score and balance things out. Ila, it sounds like the culture you're from relies more on their selves to create their own destiny, which I find much more admirable.... unless of course you're a jew and hezbolah is lobbing rockets at you and then you might have a very good reason to believe that another group of people is to blame for your misery.

Mel's post is pretty clear. He is not reporting that people in the UK are simply aware that their are crime syndicates of immigrants from Eastern Europe, Nigeria, and the Horn of Africa. That almost goes without saying. The crux of his post is that in the UK there is a perception that there is a link between being from these places (or, in the context of our discussion in this thread, a link between being of these "races") and being engaged in criminal behavior. Hence my response.

I think this post requires some explanation, Tracy.

Please define "culture" as you mean it here.

Please clarify your point about Jews and Hezbollah. And I would advise strongly that you make a distinction between "Jews" and "Israelis" or, more accurately, "Zionists." Not all Jews are Zionists.

I have often noticed that very conservative people tend to equate "sloth" and lazyness as causing a person to turn to crime. Actually, I think there are basically two types of criminals, the ones that get caught and the ones that don't. The IQ of prison inmates is around 80, they are pretty stupid so they get caught. The bright ones are on Wall Street. Criminals are people that have no respect for laws and are willing to take much higher risks than the rest of us.

Ok, let's analyze....
The part in red is the part you say he is not reporting. The part in blue is what Mel Asher wants to see, and you've already said that you were not attributing racism to Mel's beliefs. So that leaves the part in black, which states that governments deny there's a problem. No racism there. But then also states that police and the general public have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity. Is that what lead to you saying

This is what you claim is the crux of his post, which is that in the UK there is a perception that there is a link between being from these places (or, in the context of our discussion in this thread, a link between being of these "races") and being engaged in criminal behavior. The interesting part here is the part that leads you to cry racism is the part being in the context of this forum. How can attitudes in the UK be shown by the context of this thread to be racist? The only part of Mel's post that is in the context of this thread are his personal observations cited in his posting.

"it is the police and general public who have to bear the brunt of political incompetence and laxity"
=
"a perception that there is a link between being from these places (or, in the context of our discussion in this thread, a link between being of these "races") and being engaged in criminal behavior"

:confused:


Culture: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time.

Like I said it was late. Like after 2am and I really just wanted to get on with downloading porn. Yes, I should have said Israelis, as they are the ones who are being littered with rockets. I would like to further specify which street adresses are most prone to bombing but that would further divert me from my daily dose of porn. I wouldn't use the term "Zionists" because not all Zionists live in Israel and are bombed by rockets.

Back to the subject of the thread. The Arizona law has police officers checking the citizenship of law breakers who exhibit signs of also being illegal aliens (such as driving without a valid drivers license among other things). These would already be law breakers, and if it turns out they are also illegal aliens they are by definition breaking even more laws. Regardless of what motivated them to breaking laws, what's wrong with booting them out of the country?

We have every right to boot them out. We need to figure out how to discourage them from coming here in the first place. A start would be to revise NAFTA so that peasant farmers in Mexico and Central America can make a decent living on their small farms. ADM and other big US subsidized farming corporations now flood NAFTA countries with cheap grains and powdered milk putting local farmers and dairies out of business.

Read carefully what I said he was "not reporting" again, and fully, and in the context of the subsequent sentence(s). I simply do not have the mental energy to continue our discussion until you become a more careful reader, so I don't have to keep writing over and over again to explain what I did not write but that you insist on attributing to me. Or perhaps you are a master sophist (you can look that up), in which case our discussion truly has nowhere to go.

That's exactly the point I made earlier in the thread. People often just assume that the grass is greener in America, but it is only because NAFTA and agricultural subsidies have destroyed the way of life of indigenous farmers. Modifying NAFTA and getting rid of subsidies would be a start in the right direction.

But what do we do with the millions of illegals already here? I propose we make it impossible for them to find gainful work by imposing such harsh penalties upon businesses that might hire them, that no business dares hire illegals. Further, those that perpetrate the trade of illegal/fake papers should be given prison sentences just shy of the death penalty.

I wonder why our politicians don't seem to recognize the fundamental issues involved in this immigration problem. :censored:
Well I suppose if we legalized drugs they could go back to their farms and grow the stuff that many in this country crave. :censored:

That's what the courts have said is legal. Obama wants the supreme court to rule that it's illegal though. What are his intentions? If we were to judge him (and several other politicians) based on his actions we would have to conclude that he wants this country to be crawling with illegals.

Borders
 

Havent been here in a while but thought I must throw my hat into the ring. First and foremost... How can we be a country if there are no borders? Look up immigration laws in Mexico. Everything is a Felony. We need a fence. A .50 cal fence every half mile.

Here's something Obama's news networks won't tell you. Due to our govenrment's negligence, and ultimately BO's negligence (when he canceled construction of the fence that Rachel mentioned) was the straw that broke the camel's back... Not only has our borders been breached, the US has actually lost 3500 acres of land, including an 80 mile section of the border, to Mexico.

This land, which is part of the US, is actually off limits to Americans! :censored:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/16...der-americans/

McCain and law enforcement there have requested 3000 troops to retake the land and secure the border there.

Again, just going by BO's actions, what is he trying to accomplish? Why would he cancel construction of the fence on what is recognized as the gateway for illegal aliens?

He's trying to change the demographics of the country, and if drug lords get through as well, who cares right?

How convenient it must be to forget history so you can make your points and support your positions. Who had that land taken from them in the first place?

If your point is that we should return the US to the Indians I don't think that discussion will go very far.

This is a severe breach of US sovereignty pure and simple.

Throughout history, lands have been occupied and overrun by invading populations. Modern humans displaced the Neanderthals in Europe. That's just the way things are. However, it is usually the result of weakness on the part of residents that allow the invaders to succeed.
The situation here is somewhat different but the the effects may be the same. A Latin culture will become predominant while the traditional northern European culture will fade away. Its happening already just look at the ethnic population in the schools. Here in S. Calif. its at least 80% Hispanic.

Actually, my point was general and my specific reference was not to the Indians but to Texas having been part of Mexico. But my real question is whether you are willing and able to think beyond simplistic reaction to a broader picture of the reality of the world and how to solve vexing social problems.

This land that is now under the control of mexican gangs and drug lords is in Arizona, not Texas. Either way, the land is now supposed to be part of the US because of the Mexican American war of 1847 and the following Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo.

But your point that vexing social problems excuses gangs and drug lords from another country for running around free in America sounds fascinating. Please tell me more.

Once again, I must point out that you put words in my mouth. I defy you to show where I made the point that "vexing social problems excuses gangs and drug lords from another country for running around free in America."

This is not the first time in this thread that you put words in my mouth. It is a classic -- and wholly discredited approach in an argument: the logical fallacy of the "strawman attack." Put words in your opponent's mouth and then either attack the resulting position, while simultaneously evading the real point made by your opponent, or see if you can bait your opponent into continuing down the falsely created discussion path.

It's not an intentional strawman argument. I think my problem is I assumed you had a point to make in post 63. I assumed your remark was disagreement in what I had said which I took as agreement with the opposite of what I said. Then you brought up the vexing social problems, which I assumed you thought relevant to this thread and... I assumed, related to what I thought was your disagreement.

Back to your real question: Whether I am willing and able to think beyond simplistic reaction to a broader picture of the reality of the world and how to solve vexing social problems.

Tell me what the vexing social problem is and maybe I can answer your question.

Well, I guess the first paragraph of your quoted post above is the equivalent of "I'm sorry I put words in your mouth," so although those words don't appear, I'll assume you are practicing to run for office and this is the kind of apology that will be expected if you say something you wish you could take back afterwards.

The vexing social problems are poverty and immigration. The overwhelming majority of undocumented workers who come here from Mexico do so because they are dirt poor and there is so little hope and opportunity in their home country to lift themselves out of poverty. That is why there is so huge a business in individual sending of money from the United States to Mexico: undocumented workers here are supporting their families back home. In many other cases, entire families come here -- for the same reason. This primary motivating factor for crossing our southern border is undeniable, and anyone who denies it -- whatever her or his political perspective -- cannot be taken seriously.

I could write a long treatise on why Mexico is so poor, or -- more accurately -- why so many Mexicans are so poor (the nation itself is quite rich with natural resources). Suffice it to say here, in the interest of brevity, that the hand of the United States, over well more than a century of direct and indirect intervention, is all over today's Mexican reality.

The question of "illegal immigration" poses a question of whether the United States wants to remain the beacon to the world it has always purported to be. The voices of reaction simplistically speak of militarizing the border, throwing people out, breaking up families, and so on. Many of these immigrants are hardworking people who contribute to the economy in a number of ways. Again, anyone who denies this fact cannot be taken seriously.

The United States loses its purported moral authority whenever we paint a problem with so broad a brush as to equate, either implicitly or explicitly, everyone in a particular group with the heinous actions of a few. Tracy, you do this implictly with your multiple posts equating Mexican workers and Mexican drug runners, Mexican drug cartel members, Mexican criminals engaged in the drug wars.

The reaction that is inherent in ridiculous statements such as Obama is "trying to change the demographics of the country" and "if drug lords get through as well, who cares right?" is just plain unserious. Of course, I am not you, but I would be embarrassed to make such statements. They do not suggest that you want to have a thoughtful discussion about how to solve problems, but that you are a reactionary (and I mean that in the dictionary definition, not as a slur against conservatives). I mean, really, it is almost as ridiculous as the view that Obama wasn't born in the United States.

I saw this posted at another forum I visit. Personally, I'm a BIG fan of amending the Constitution so that citizenship is conferred by birth to citizens of America and not by birth on American soil.

These "anchor babies" allow many illegal immigrants to stay here illegally and suck at the welfare tit. If we can't amend the Constitution to do away with "birth by soil" than I propose that we make it VERY unattractive for these "citizen babies." In short, the legal citizen child of illegal immigrants shall be IMMEDIATELY confiscated as a ward of the state and treated as a ward until they reach 18. The illegal parents lose ALL custody rights and are immediately deported back to their country of origin.

Current efforts to abolish birthright citizenship in the United States are as much folly as they have been in the past. More important, they are yet another example of how quick so many are to jump to facile solutions that are based on emotional reactions to difficult issues, but that fail to address the fundamental, underlying issues behind complex social problems.

The most obvious problem with what GRH proposes is that it would punish children, for 18 years, for the actions of their parents. Think about it: independent of the merit of your proposal, children -- completely innocent in that they were not the perpetrators of the violation of the law -- would be turned into victims. You can argue that they are being victimized by their irresponsible parents, but do you want to have, on your hands, the responsibility for having taken them from mom and dad, having them be raised in the tenuous uncertainty of being a ward of the state (and thus subject to all the exigencies that affect state-run programs), and so on?

The rest of my argument, I want to make clear, is general about the proposal. I do not believe that GRH has specifically stated any of these things, only that the proposal -- and the movement against birthright citizenship provided by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- has these elements.

So, to begin, let's debunk any notion that this represents a "simple reform" -- as George Will claimed in a Washington Post op-ed some time ago on the subject. It is much, much more, and would have significant consequences for the United States. For instance, it would place a burden on every American, who would potentially have to document her or his own claim to citizenship. There is considerable research to suggest that it would, in fact, increase the number of stateless individuals without legal status who reside in the United States. Where would these people be deported to, if caught? What happens when countries of the world say that they are unwilling to accept deportees from the United States, because they are not citizens of the country to which the United States wants to send them? Prisons? Workhouses? Detention camps?

The idea that repealing the 14th Amendment is a cure to a broken immigration system is folly. It is yet another reaction, built on emotion by those who seem unwilling to have a complex discussion about a complex problem that transcends the relatively straightforward issue of citizenship. It ignores the root causes of our immigration problems (see my posts earlier). Doctors will tell you that treatment is infinitely more effective when you can treat the disease itself, not the symptoms. The plethora of undocumented immigrants in our country is a symptom, not the disease.

The calls for repeal of the 14th Amendment have a long history in nativism and racism. I am not accusing anyone on this forum who supports the repeal as nativists or racists. Nevertheless, it is instructive to look at the history of the arguments over the period since Reconstruction, when the 14th Amendment was enacted. Studying this history, and the arguments on both sides, is quite revealing. It is unfortunate when those who support repeal today fail to dissociate themselves explicitly from the tradition of this movement, which is a very ugly one indeed.

Ahh there's where I got confused. When I was talking about drug lords and gangs in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge you were talking about undocumented workers aka illegal immigrants. How silly of me, I should have known better. Yes, we all know that's why the every day run of the mill illegal immigrant are here. Not that that means we shouldn't try and keep illegal immigrants out. What does any of this have to do with closing down Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge to Americans?

Classic blame America rhetoric. With all of Mexico's abundant natural resources, the Mexican government had nothing to do with their poverty??

Yes, we have a system for bringing in LEGAL immigrants. And we would probably be able to bring in a lot more LEGAL immigrants if we weren't so overrun with illegal immigrants.

I hope that is a ridiculous statement. The fact that Obama wanted to move the US Census under control of the White House and have it run by Acorn workers shouldn't lead one to think that. The fact that Obama canceled construction of a fence in Arizona despite the millions of illegals coming in there shouldn't lead one to think he's trying to change the demographics. The fact that he is asking the supreme court to over turn a state's ability to punish businesses who hire illegals shouldn't lead one to think that either.

That's why I'm bringing these things up here in this thread. Because looking at only his actions without hearing any of his reasoning, without giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think the only logical conclusion of his actions alone, is that he's trying to change the demographics of America. But I'm not hearing his reasons. And it's getting harder and harder to give him the benefit of the doubt when he consistently comes down on the side of letting illegals live and work here. So enlighten me. Have you or anyone else heard his reasons?

Uh, was that mentioned in this thread?

Criminals
 

Darn Tracy beat me to all the good comebacks! lol But lets call a Spade a Spade shall we SMC? They arent "undocumented workers" or any of the other politically correct niceties. They are Illegal Aliens. They are criminals.They didnt immigrate here. They entered the Country illegally. And they are a drain to our society not contributors. From all the free charity healthcare they get to local cities building shelters in muster zones. They dont pay taxes yet their children attend our schools.

I am more afraid of living in an America where people who think as you write above -- reactionary, vitriolic, nativist, short-sighted, etc. -- are in charge than of living in a country overrun by the people you so easily belittle.

By the way, I use "undocumented worker" not as a PC nicety, but because I refuse to take the simplistic road of simply criminalizing behavior that has, at its root, the human yearning for a better life free of poverty and degradation.

It's so easy for we Americans to sit on our high horses, but I wonder what any of us would do were the tables turned. How about you, Rachel. I understand you have a gun. If your family was dirt poor, had no prospects for getting food, lived in rural Mexico and was subjected to all difficulties brought upon by gangs, murderers, and so on, might you pack them up and try to move somewhere safer and with more opportunity? Might you pick up that gun and use it (even "illegally)?

Many posts ago, Tracy, I suggested that you might be a "master sophist" and encouraged you to look up the word. I don't suspect you did.

In ancient Greece, there was a class of teachers who dealt with philosophy, rhetoric, and politics, and who mastered the "art" of using fallacious but plausible reasoning.

I grow exhausted by your sophistry. You either pretend not to understand how argument works or really do not, but in either case you keep ascribing either explicit or implicit statements or intents to your opponent. Any mention of anything in the argument by your opponent is subjected to the scrutiny of whether it was mentioned previously (this is only relevant if someone actually says you said something and then takes it on; otherwise, in argument one certainly has the right to raise analogous statements, references, etc., so long as it is done fairly). You change the goalposts of the discussion, and you bring in early referents as if they were the most recent subjects of the rhetoric.

I am so exhausted by having to spend time discussing how you argue, rather than only the substance of your points. Were you a student in my university rhetoric class, I would put you on "probation" and get you some tutoring, and that would be irrespective of your positions on any subject. It would be about how to argue.

You can read what I wrote just above and declare victory if you wish, but remember that there are many kinds of victories. If you simply exhaust your opponent with sophistry, as the early Sophists learned, yours may indeed be a Pyrrhic victory for your position in the end.

Tracy, you are absolutely right, they are illegal aliens. You are wrong about the taxes. They come up here to work to support their families. They obtain fake documentation and are hired as if they were legal. Income taxes and SS taxes are deducted from their paychecks. They do jobs that spoiled Americans are unwilling to do. They clean motel rooms, wash dishes, pick fruit, hoe weeds and raise our crops. These are essential services and alien workers do it cheaply and without complaining. The main problem is they bring their families up here. The wife and children put a strain on public services, health care, schools and housing.
My agricultural company could not have survived without these hardworking guys from Mexico and Guatemala willing to work nine hours a day six days a week for a modest wage.
We cannot stop them from coming up here. What needs to be done is once they have a job, give them a work permit that allows them to legally travel back and forth to Mexico so they can leave their families there where it is much cheaper for them to live.

Unfortunately, our political system is so fucked up, the situation will never be resolved.

LOL keep your red herrings to yourself. I believe the technical term for your type of response is a DODGE. You didn't answer any of my questions.

What does
have to do with closing down Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge to Americans?

Did the actions and policies of the Mexican government have nothing to do with the country's poverty??

And did anyone in this thread accuse Obama of not being born in the US?

I only ask because if you wouldn't want someone to you probably wouldn't want someone to refer to something that wasn't even said.


Thanks, but Rachel wrote that ;) Although I doubt income tax and SS is deducted from their pay checks. They don't have SS numbers and companies usually don't report their illegal workers.

I think the work permit is a slippery slop to amnesty or will lead to problems with 3rd class citizens.

Mexicans are hard workers. But if there weren't illegals here the hard work would still get done. It would have to or else we wouldn't be too good to do the work. Our society would fall apart. We would be poor, and then willing to do the hard work. I don't want this to come back and bite us in the butt like slavery did. People used the same arguments about slaves. "They do the work no one else will do".

Well it's time we all do the hard work.

Simplistic? I'm being real. Do we call car thieves autoless drivers? Let em do it the legal way as my grandparents did. And just WTF do my guns have to do with this conversation?

Rachel, I believe you are better than the answer "do we call car thieves autoless drivers?" I explained what I meant by "simplistic" in the full sentence, only a piece of which you respond to. It's about "criminalizing behavior" and the root of that behavior. At least reply to what I actually wrote. It's so easy to pull out a few words and pretend the rest are not there.

As for the "gun," I wrote quite specifically, using it as an analogy to the question of doing something "illegally." I refuse to believe you didn't see it, so I must assume that your question about what your "guns have to do with this conversation" is a rhetorical device. Unfortunately, it's the same as before: pull out a few words and pretend the rest are not there.

How convenient for you to have come up with the idea of the dodge. It allows you to avoid the issues of your fallacious way or arguing that I've raised. So, anyone who reads from the beginning might not realize that you are, in fact, the dodger.

Be that as it may, your questions:

Buenos Aires -- what does this have to do with anything? You raised it in a post recently with no connection to anything. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was a rhetorical device, inexplicable as it may be. Instead, should I point out that you are now guilty of bringing things up no one ever spoke of before in the thread (something you seem to feel is universally invalid)?

Mexican government -- if you had read my previous posts fully (complete reading does not seem to be part of your M.O. in this discussion), you would see that I already ascribed to the Mexican government blame. I also pinned the blame on the U.S. government for propping up a bad Mexican government.

Obama's birth -- here's where you illustrate that you don't fully read. I wrote: "I mean, really, it is almost as ridiculous as the view that Obama wasn't born in the United States." In other words, I used it to illustrate another point. I didn't ascribe the view to you. I didn't put words in your mouth. I didn't say anyone had said this. I used it to illustrate my point.

Hey, don't be hard on autoless drivers. They have vexing social problems to deal with.

I'm dodging because I didn't respond to your dodge? Just stay on the subject.

"if you had read my previous posts fully (complete reading does not seem to be part of your M.O. in this discussion)" I brought it up because it was news that broke that day relevant to illegal immigrants in Arizona. I posted a link to the news story as well.

I'm glad to see you give the Mexican govt the blame. I still don't see it above though.

And back to the other subject that you dodged with the fallacy of appeal to ridicule:

Tracy- "Thanks, but Rachel wrote that ;) Although I doubt income tax and SS is deducted from their pay checks. They don't have SS numbers and companies usually don't report their illegal workers."

Sorry Tracy, you are wrong there. Most "illegals" have documents (possibly fake) that appear genuine. The employer has no available means to determine authenticity and is not required to investigate. The forms that are filled out when they are hired require several forms of ID. SS and IRS are deducted from their paychecks. I know because I signed the checks. The one case where SS Admin. questioned one of our employees SS, it turns out he was legal and some one had stolen his SS.
Since the funds, SS and IRS, deducted from "illegal" workers checks, end up not being "claimed" by the worker, the money is gravy for the government. Neither the SS Admin or the IRS ever checked the legality of our workers.

This thread has deteriorated into a ?he said, she said, they said, we said? discussion. It?s time to get it back on track.

Since the humans first appeared on Earth there has been a constant movement from one place to another. That is how the complete globe has become populated. And no, Randolph, there is no proof that Cro-Magnon man pushed the Neanderthals out of Europe or were even responsible for the extinction of Neanderthals.

The US is not the only country that has experienced a lot of immigration recently. All of the Americas were settled by migration, albeit a process that started during the last ice age. As well Oceania, Europe, and parts of Africa have experienced a lot of immigration.

Documentation of immigrants has only been required for within the last couple of hundred years. If one cares to go back in history the first European immigrants to the Americas did not require any kind of documentation. Nor were there any laws restricting immigration, no prerequisites, and no quotas. Illegal immigration is merely a bureaucratic invention designed to control what humans have been doing for a couple of hundred thousand years.

Now, take the discussion from this point and keep it civil.

Well that's lovely

I can't help but laugh at this ridiculous american border fence.


The Romans tried something similar in my country.
20 feet high.
10 feet wide.
75 miles long.
Built of stone.
Along the tops of cliffs for half its length.
Garrisoned by 9000 soldiers.


If THAT didn't manage to stop illegal immigrants, how's a cheap fence which can be circumvented in under 30 seconds supposed to?

This is from wikipedia.
Rapid extinction

Jared Diamond has suggested a scenario of violent conflict comparable to the genocides suffered by indigenous peoples in recent human history.[9] Another possibility raised by Diamond and others, paralleling colonialist history, would be a greater susceptibility on the part of the Neanderthals to pathogens introduced by Cro-Magnon man. Diamond argues that asymmetry in susceptibility to pathogens is a consequence of the difference in lifestyle.[citation needed]
[edit] Competitive replacement

Even a slight competitive advantage on the part of modern humans could account for Neanderthals' replacement by anatomically modern humans on a timescale of 10,000-20,000 years.[4]
The theory that early humans violently replaced Neanderthals was first proposed by French palaeontologist Marcellin Boule (the first person to publish an analysis of a Neanderthal) in 1912.[10]
Another supporter of competitive replacement is Jared Diamond who points out in his book The Third Chimpanzee that the genocidal replacement of Neanderthals by modern humans is similar to modern human patterns of behavior that occur whenever people with advanced technology invade the territory of less advanced people.[11]


You ignored the points I tried to make from my own experience and nit picked the Neanderthal issue. So much for staying on track.:frown:

I'm unemployed right now and I would GLADLY perform any of these duties without complaint, to support MY LEGAL family. My only stipulation would be to make the federal/state minimum wage...Which in MY experience, most immigrant workers demanded more than that (typically $10/hour). And I'd pay the taxes and SS too, without attributing it to a false set of papers. Why should some damn illegal get work that I'm willling to do first?


And my spouse and family pay our taxes, we have health insurance, etc., etc. We are not the drain on the system that the illegal family is. So once again, why should an illegal get my job?

Personally, I'd LOVE to make it utterly impossible for you to survive with them. If it were my call, we'd regularly screen companies for illegal workers (and we'd make it easier for employers to screen their workforce). If you were caught with just one illegal on your payroll, you'd be fined $10,000 and a subsequent fine of $10,000 for every other illegal caught on your audited payroll. Too many strikes, and just like a person, your corporate personhood would be sent away for life for breaking the law too many times. In short, your corporation would be dissolved and liquidated and sold to the highest bidder.

Wrong, we should make work IMPOSSIBLE for them to obtain, so they crawl their way back across the border and make due with what opportunities they can get from where they came from.

THIS, I completely agree with. I don't look for your solutions, mine, or ANYONE who has sensible solutions to ever have them actually implemented.

Believe me, I would have been delighted to hire someone like you. I tried the employment department, job retrainmnent agencies and even private employment agencies. Some would come to work for a week or two and then leave. I am very sorry for your predicament, so many are in it.

In California, unemployment could be mostly eliminated by a simple law, do what Oregon does, require a gas station attendant to fill the tank. This could tide many over until they found a better job.

fence
 

I called for the idea of the .50 cal fence one every half mile will cover the border. We are supposed to be at war arent we?

Simplistic?
 

SMC you should know me well enough by now that I dont go into lengthy diatribes. I like to keep my answers short and sweet and to the point. Yes I read every post, I can read very quickly. However I dont spend much time at the computer to compose a rambling manifesto. So I'll answer the point that I see most fit. Hey at least I'm participating no? Anyway back to the subject... Criminalizing behavior? Hmmm they want to immigrate but wont/cant do it the right way. Enter a country ILLEGALY=criminal behavior. Am I supposed to feel sorry for them that they were born in Mexico? And no, I'm not going to use my guns to commit criminal acts. I am not a criminal like every one of the illegal aliens is. Still dont see your point on that. I wouldnt call it a dodge I was going to say changing the subject. But once again, I'm not on here that often to make those quick replies.

When I become president I have positions for both of you. (Double entendre intentional)

You probably need to be governor of Arizona first. Lots of support there.
Mexican babies born here? Just through them across the border. Who cares, they would make good coyote bait.:(

illegals working
 

20 years ago there was a fish market/restaurant in town. the best ever. Was a family owned place that was there when my dad was a kid. All of a sudden he's closed up. Boarded up. He had 10 illegals working for him and they shut him down. My how times have changed. Now the problem is ignored and towns are bending over backward to appease this group of criminals. Wasting taxpayers money building shelters in muster zones. Hmm they built it 4 miles away in the industrial park where no one goes at a cost of 144 thousand. What a waste of the citizens money.

Obama's 2012 campaign strategy is starting to take shape and being the dirty politician he is I think we all expected this: If you can't count on your own citizens to re-elect you, just make new citizens!


Click here for text of the letter signed by Sens. Grassley, Hatch (R-Utah), Vitter (R-La.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Cochran (R-Miss.).

amnesty
 

Amnesty would be the last straw. My support for Obama has been eroding rapidly. He is sold out to corporate interests just like all the other politicians. The amnesty back in the early 1990s failed and this time would be no different. Unfortunately, the Repubs. provide no sane alternative.

If I could learn French I would move to Provence and take up painting.

Didn't Ronald Reagan sign the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 into law???? In case you were unaware, the Act contained the following:

* required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status, and granted amnesty to certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously
* made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants (immigrants who do not possess lawful work authorization)
* granted a path towards legalization to certain agricultural seasonal workers and immigrants who had been continuously and illegally present in the United States since January 1, 1982

Looks like Reagan was trying to create new citizens to vote for the Republicans.

Thank you for the best kind of retort to these farcical contentions that any of the actions being taken or considered by the government at present regarding immigration are designed to change the demographics of the country deliberately for electoral gain. :respect:

I think republicans and independents all agree Reagan's amnesty was a complete failure.