Immigration [Archive] - Access World Forums

jsanders

03-28-2006, 06:16 PM

This thread is just down right silly.

Unfortunately illegal immigration is not.

This problem crosses both parties and is not being considered wisely by either.

Fact; the economy of the United States is dependent on cheap labor.

Fact; the ancillary cost to obtain this labor is being absorbed by the middle class.

Fact; there are too many wealthy and connected Americans making huge profits on the backs of illegal immigrants to warrant any significant changes to the system.

The current administration in an attempt to mask its massive failings in foreign policy, has brought this to the forefront of American debate. What you’re not hearing is that the way to make this problem disappear is to put the responsibility on the companies that hire them.

The problem could be solved by making it completely legal to work here no mater what the circumstances. Then apply a tax to both the company and the worker to pay for education and medical expenses. The permit to work should be temporary, would require renewal, and would be administered by employees paid by the tax.

This system would effect the economy in two major aspects: 1. It would level the playing field for American workers and 2. It would put the bourdon of supporting this system on the people that benefit most.

The tax should be stiff enough to make hiring citizens more attractive and at the same time provide English classes and medical expenses for the immigrant workers.

America has too long ignored the plight of its working poor and is now creating a permanent underclass too poor and too ignorant to have any chance of bettering themselves, even in multi -generational families. Unlike what the republicans would have you believe, it is not in our best interest to create this permanent servitude. One of the most paramount ethoses of American life, and one of the most ardent factors in American success, has been that hard working people come here, save money and get their children a better education, so they can contribute to the overall welfare of the nation.

This model has been virtually destroyed by this unprecedented wave of illegal immigration. So the very people coming here to better themselves are contributing to the creation of a system that will enslave them.

Pat Hartman

03-28-2006, 10:23 PM

1. The Republicans want cheap foreign labor either in the guise of illegal immigration or by the use of H1b visas because they're completely in the pocket of big business who are only interested in driving down labor costs - but they don't want amnesty - see why below.

2. The Democrats want illegal aliens (they don't care about H1b visas except as they help their big business sponsors) and more disastrously, they want amnesty because traditionally, new immigrants have voted democratic.

3. The Catholic Church wants the current illegal immigrants because they come from largely Catholic countries and they represent new church membership.

4. The Chamber of Commerce wants cheap foreign labor either illegal or legal (H1b visas) because even small businesses want to drive down labor costs.

5. The labor unions want the illegal immigrants because of declining membership. They understand how the illegals are being exploited and think that they can organize them.

The common justification is that the illegals only take jobs that citizens won’t do. That of course is bullshit. Who used to wash dishes? Who used to mow lawns? Who used to make beds in hotels? Who used to pick lettuce. Once these jobs stopped paying a reasonable wage, citizens could no longer take them. Citizens expect to be able to buy food, pay rent, and even raise a family. That is the American way. They are not interested in living in communal dwellings and sending all their money to their home country.

So where does that leave John Q Public? Screwed - that's where.

I believe that more legal immigrants would come out against illegal immigration if their leaders explained to them the detrimental effect that illegals have on the economy. Caesar Chavez railed against illegal immigration as he was trying to organize farm labor. He understood how illegal immigrants undermined the wage base at the lowest levels. But again we have a conflict of interest. The leaders want to lead a larger group rather than a smaller group, so they want the illegals. That means that they play the race card and instill fear in their followers. Of course if the legal immigrants from south of our border ever bothered to learn English, they would be able to make informed decisions by reading and watching the general news rather than news in Spanish directed just at them.

We certainly can’t send 20 million people home tomorrow or even 11 million depending on whose statistics you believe. We can fine companies who hire illegal labor. We can make it more expensive for companies to break the law than to hire citizens. We can secure our border and we don’t need a wall to do that. A wall sends a bad message and I am absolutely against it. Somehow the Soviets managed to secure their borders with a lot less technology than we have available. We simply need the will to do it. We can change our law conferring citizenship on anyone born in the US. A simple change saying that the mother must be in the country legally will do. Any kind of visa will do, even a transit visa. We can put more pressure on Mexico to stop the northern migration. If the thousands of people who protested this weekend to convince our congress to let them come by the millions illegally and stay here simply went home and staged the same protests in their home countries, maybe they could have some impact on fixing the reasons that they feel they need to leave in the first place. Whatever sympathy I had for their plight took flight with their waving flags. If they want to be Mexicans let them stay home! How dare they waive Mexican flags in a demonstration designed to let them stay in America!!!!! If you want to be a Mexican, waive a Mexican flag. If you want to be an American, waive an American flag.

I have always been offended by the hyphenated-American people. I don’t care what your country of origin is, you are an American or you are not. OK, on St. Patrick’s day, you can be Irish but then everyone is because they like green beer and corned beef and cabbage. Just like we’re all Italians on Columbus day and Mexicans on Cinco d’Mayo at least in bars. We have no room for divided allegiance. You don’t need to forget your roots, you just need to live in the present. This is a letter from Teddy Roosevelt to the American Defense Society 10 years after he left office.
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
--Theodore Roosevelt, 1919

PS, I also hate the way threads get hijacked by silly one-liners. If anyone wants me to delete the meaningless contributions to this thread, let me know.

Rich

03-28-2006, 10:30 PM

PS, I also hate the way threads get hijacked by silly one-liners. If anyone wants me to delete the meaningless contributions to this thread, let me know.
I thought your country championed free speech, sounds like it's only applicable when it suits! :mad:

NJudson

03-29-2006, 11:24 AM

Pat and JSanders, I like the statements you've made. Have you two read anything specific that you've based the information on because I'd like to check this out and learn a little more for myself.

selenau837

03-29-2006, 11:31 AM

PS, I also hate the way threads get hijacked by silly one-liners. If anyone wants me to delete the meaningless contributions to this thread, let me know.

No, you are very well spoken. If anyone should delete their contributions it should be mine, since they were silly. I was just trying to keep it light since all that anyone does is bicker. My apologies Pat, truely sorry!

jsanders

03-29-2006, 11:48 AM

No, you are very well spoken. If anyone should delete their contributions it should be mine, since they were silly. I was just trying to keep it light since all that anyone does is bicker. My apologies Pat, truely sorry!

this is the politcal room we are allowed to argue here

pbaldy

03-29-2006, 01:11 PM

Kraj

03-29-2006, 02:04 PM

Great post, Pat. Personally I'd love the off-topic one liners deleted. I rarely contribute to this forum, mainly because it seems you can't have a serious discussion of an issue here without it devolving into meaningless babble.
I whole-heartedly agree. In the 'Cooler, there's nothing wrong with hijacked threads, off-topic comments, and other silliness; but the politics forum was created for the express purpose of giving people a place to hold serious and earnest discussions. Forcing threads to stay on topic would never be detrimental to that purpose.

jsanders

03-29-2006, 02:19 PM

I whole-heartedly agree. In the 'Cooler, there's nothing wrong with hijacked threads, off-topic comments, and other silliness; but the politics forum was created for the express purpose of giving people a place to hold serious and earnest discussions. Forcing threads to stay on topic would never be detrimental to that purpose.

................yup

jeremie_ingram

03-29-2006, 02:56 PM

Well, for once I full agree with you Pat. You have stated the case very well. What I feel everyone is overlooking is the whole of the statement "Illegal Alien". The first of the two words says it all. These individuals are here illegally and are no better that any other person who has violated federal law. Seems many forget that fact in lieu of the sympathetic view of how they are searching for a better life. It is truly at the cost of the legal citizens, and I fully agree that they only have unwanted jobs because of the reasons stated. If we magically eliminated all illegal immigration overnight, several companies would go out of business but would the need for those services disappear? Granted the costs for those services would increase exponentially, but this would level the playing field completely. Those who profit from the illegal immigrants would be the one to first suffer the loss, but eventually it would benefit the overall society. Once those jobs are filled with citizens of this country, the unemployment rate would drop and tax revenue would increase. Sounds like a win win situation.
I say to those who champion the cause of the illegal immigrants, fight the good fight for them in their country. Don’t attempt to sway the population into ponying up everything here that they should have a born right to in their own country.
I have nothing against anyone who enters this country via legal channels. My family at one time (1701) came to these shores in hopes of a brighter future. I feel that anyone can come and try their best. I have seen the American dream through the eyes of friends that have come to this country, and it really makes you see the opportunity that exists. It is odd how we who have it are the last to see it.
Will this problem be eliminated? Never, because it is too profitable to those who make the decisions. If you ever look to politicians to solve problems, you are looking to the wrong people. They are there to deal with problems, and if they were to solve them all they would no longer have purpose.

selenau837

03-29-2006, 08:30 PM

this is the politcal room we are allowed to argue here

Yes, I see that now J. I didn't pay attention to where it was at. My deepest apologies. I have made my amends by deleting my post in this thread.

Ok, here is my serious take on the immigration problem.

I personally tired of people coming into our country who instantly get on welfare and food stamps and medicaid and what ever else free stuff they can get on. However I as a single mom stuggling to take care of her family can't get a damn dime for anything. I've been working since I was 16 and have put in more money into the system they those how crossed the boarded and instantly recieved help. I find that VERY unfair. I feel if you decide to come into our country, you are doing it of your on free will and you outa take care of yourself. Not expect OUR government to take care of YOU! This is not 'Mama's' house for you to come in and be treated as a guest. And have everything given to you. Once you cross that boarder you are 'Family' and you are to take care of yourself.

Bitter I am, but I can't help it. I've seen it happening more and more here in SC. I am being the minority in my state. No I am not raciest, I am just jaded.

I shall stop now before I stick my foot in my mouth and I unable to get it out.

FoFa

03-30-2006, 06:41 AM

Selena is right. It seems to be the fact that they come here and then expect the USA taxpayer to support them. Or they come here just to have a baby so it is an American Citizen. I understand they want more money, etc. I heard just today one of the reason of all the protests is because one of the changes on the table is to make it a FEDRAL offense to be an illegal alien (not sure what that means exactly, and I thought it was fedral). I don't have that big of an issue with them working here, just illegally. Maybe we need a special work visa, say renewable every 3 months, that lets them work and stay here. But I think they should also learn English in the process.

NJudson

03-30-2006, 09:41 AM

Selena is right. It seems to be the fact that they come here and then expect the USA taxpayer to support them. Or they come here just to have a baby so it is an American Citizen.

So if an illegal woman had her baby in the U.S. would it be U.S. citizen or not? :confused:

Maybe we need a special work visa, say renewable every 3 months, that lets them work and stay here.

Well, isn't that part of the problem though? Aren't the temporary work visa's being abused and companies and such found loopholes to exploit them? seems to me that virtually no matter what would get established people would figure out a way to abuse the program.

But I think they should also learn English in the process.

Agreed. I don't know that the answer is, but I think the government should mandate a certain level of English to be learned after a certain period of time has expired since arriving in the U.S.

FoFa

03-30-2006, 09:47 AM

So if an illegal woman had her baby in the U.S. would it be U.S. citizen or not?
As I understand it, the baby would be an American citizen. This also alows the parents to get a green card so they can "stay" in country with their American child.

NJudson

03-30-2006, 11:10 AM

As I understand it, the baby would be an American citizen. This also alows the parents to get a green card so they can "stay" in country with their American child.

Hmmmm. Some how a part of me feels really uneasy about that. Could this be yet another one of those little loopholes in the system or was this deliberate? My guess is this is a loophole. It makes me wonder if the scenario is reciprocal if an American woman would be illegal in another country, would the situation be the same?

Pat Hartman

04-03-2006, 10:02 PM

Different countries have different rules but I think that the US is in the minority. Most countries do not automatically confer citizenship on children born to foreign nationals regardless of their legal status. My suggestion is to not change the spirit of our generous law but only to prevent some misuse of it. By requiring the mother to be in the country legally at least, you eliminate the urge to instantly get pregnant that comes across many illegal women or to get on a plane and come for a “short” visit. I would really like to make the law even more restrictive so that the mother needs to be at least a permanent resident already or married to an American. The problem with these ANCHOR babies as they are called, is that entire extended families gain residency because of them. So, with one baby, we get the mother, father, other siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren as well. Once the grandparents are here, it is now easier to get their other children visas so we now have aunts, uncles, their children, etc.

I am somewhat familiar with the Arab view on citizenship having lived in Kuwait. I have discussed it in other posts where I mention it because I consider the Arab view on nationality to be one of the major contributors to the unrest in the Middle East. Only children born of Kuwaiti FATHERS are citizens of Kuwait. It doesn't matter where they are born, only that their acknowledged father is Kuwaiti. A child of a Kuwaiti woman and a non-Kuwaiti man would not be a Kuwaiti citizen.

Rich - it's funny that you should be offended by my comment on hijacking threads. Are you feeling guilty? I thought your country championed free speech, sounds like it's only applicable when it suits!Free speech is certainly welcome. I would even love to hear your opinion on the topic because your country is having similar problems. They're not as severe because, it's a lttle harder to cross the Channel than the Rio Grande or a few miles of desert, but if you want to engage in meaningless drivel, please do it elsewhere.
Originally Posted by FoFa
Maybe we need a special work visa, say renewable every 3 months, that lets them work and stay here.Without enforcement, no one goes home. We already have similar programs. We have countless students who have over-stayed their visas. That's an easy way for people to enter the US legally. They just need to apply to and get accepted by an American college. No one even checks to see if they attend.

Back in 1986 (I think), our congress gave amnesty to almost 3 million people who had entered the country illegally. The American public really doesn't have the heart to send these poor people back to where they came from and the Congress promised to enforce immigration laws and that this would be the end of the problem. Well, here we are 20 years later and we see what rewarding those lawbreakers got us. DO NOT let your representatives do it again. Now we have 20 million people that no one has the heart to send home but the numbers have gotten so large that they are affecting the very fabric of American life. That’s why they are so much in the news these days. NAFTA was supposed to fix Mexico's problems so that Mexicans wouldn't cross our border illegally because they'd have living wage jobs at home. Well, NAFTA actually depressed wages in Mexico - what a surprise. So now we have CAFTA which will allow us to do the same thing in Central America, and the free trade bills for South America - I don't remember their names but they all have the same elements of NAFTA and CAFTA and they won't work any better.

I don’t have all the answers but we need to get our priorities in order and start enforcing our existing laws. Congress keeps scrambling to make new laws but I don’t understand why they can’t force enforcement of those we already have. I am absolutely against ANY guest worker program. We have to enforce our borders. We have to fine people who hire illegal aliens. In some cities they build day labor centers to make it easy for illegals to find work!! The IRS needs to identify illegal uses of SSNs. Identity theft should be a felony. But, I would not make illegally crossing the border a felony as one of the present bills suggests. I would rather make hiring illegal aliens a felony. If there are no jobs to be found here, they will go home and do what they should have done in the first place. Fix their own country. Don’t try to usurp ours just because we’re nice people.

If you don't want to be an American - Go home. If you want to be an American, you should be waiving an American flag, not a Mexican one!!

ColinEssex

04-04-2006, 01:04 AM

We have to enforce our borders.
Its interesting you say this. My brother-in-law had to stopover in LA airport en route to Costa Rica. Even though he (and wife) were not leaving the airport, they had masses of forms to fill in and were photographed and searched. He said he was made to feel a criminal by the US customs / immigration. Apparently many other UK citizens with him vowed never to set foot on US soil again.

I appreciate the need for security to a degree, but tell me - why on earth would a "baddie terrorist" go via LA airport with all that security when it appears one can stroll over the Mexican or Canadian border with ease.

If you don't want to be an American - Go home. If you want to be an American, you should be waiving an American flag, not a Mexican one!!

Pat - are your anti immigation feelings the same for non Mexicans? and how do you feel about people with dual citizenship.

If you lived in the UK and became a British citizen, would you cast aside all things American? would you congregate where other Americans are? like a themed pub or club?

In the UK even though (say) an Italian may have British citizenship, we would think it odd that they would try to be "British". We would accept the fact they are still Italian and always will be.

Col

NJudson

04-04-2006, 07:57 AM

If you lived in the UK and became a British citizen, would you cast aside all things American? would you congregate where other Americans are? like a themed pub or club?

While I can't speak for Pat, I think you're taking her words out of context. I don't think she's suggesting immigrants give up their heritage, but rather if they choose to become an American citizen then they need to assimilate to the American culture and laws. They can still be proud of whereever they came from and celebrate this and that for all I care, but when they refuse or fail to abide by these rules then this disrupts the American economy and so on and so forth.

ColinEssex

04-04-2006, 08:15 AM

Yes thanks NJ. I misinterpreted it maybe.

We have "British" citizens here who were originally from (for example) India and they make no effort to learn English and they effectively live an Indian life in an Indian community whilst accepting the benefits of British nationality - free health care, social security benefits etc etc.

However, I think I'm still confused over the extremely strict security at US airports and the apparent ease of travel over the US land borders. Thats just the way it looks anyway from an outside view - I may be missing something. For example, our borders are small, I would imagine the US / Mexican one is very difficult to police in its entirity???

Col

jamesmor

04-04-2006, 08:32 AM

I'm not a fan of illegal immigrants for two reasons.

1. They expect us to give them EVERYTHING and do nothing in return.

2. They don't respect the U.S.A.

I've worked with illegal immigrants on various occasions (they redily admitted they were illegal). They treat U.S. citizens like complete and total crap, even those who have immigrated the correct way.

I've got an uncle who's from Cozumel Mexico, and he says that we have too much illegal immigration (he came over the right way). Now he still celebrates some of the Hispanic holiday's but he's the first one to say that since he moved to the U.S. he should embrace our culture too.

I'd go into what I'd do to stop illegal immigration, but I don't have a flame retardent suit and would rather not be banned from the forums.

NJudson

04-04-2006, 08:40 AM

[QUOTE=ColinEssex]However, I think I'm still confused over the extremely strict security at US airports and the apparent ease of travel over the US land borders. Thats just the way it looks anyway from an outside view - I may be missing something. For example, our borders are small, I would imagine the US / Mexican one is very difficult to police in its entirity???/QUOTE]

Well, you're not alone on that one. I think after Sept 11, 2001 we put forth more aggressive screening measures in airports and such and this was something that could be done with relative ease since we have a pretty firm control over the airports. The U.S.-Mexican border on the other hand is so vast an area we simply do not have the resources (or at least aren't putting forth the resources) to control this area. That is partly why there is such a disparity between airport security and border security.

NJudson

04-04-2006, 08:44 AM

1. They expect us to give them EVERYTHING and do nothing in return.

2. They don't respect the U.S.A.

I've worked with illegal immigrants on various occasions (they redily admitted they were illegal). They treat U.S. citizens like complete and total crap, even those who have immigrated the correct way.

I know a few police officers and some of them will go on to say that the worst criminals they have to deal with are hispanics. Like Jamesmor said, many of them simply do not respect Americans and many will play it off like they don't speak english when some of them do. I realize that is a big generalization and I'm not implying all hispanics are illegal or all are bad, but from what I'm told the hispanic ethnicity tends to be "more difficult" to deal with statistically.

selenau837

04-04-2006, 09:23 AM

Another problem I have is that alot of the jobs are requiring their employees to speak spanish.

There are several jobs I was more than qualified for, but because I couldn't speak spanish I was denied the job. That reason alone is why I got out of customer service. I shouldn't be required to learn their language to accodate them. I am an American, I speak English. When you come out my country you should learn my language, not me learn yours just to accomodate you.

It's just getting more and more frustrating becuase even my youngest child is forced to take spanish in elementry school. I wasn't required to take a forgien language until High School and then there was a choice.

I just find it a problem that one day my child will be able to speak a language that I can't understand and I didn't teach it to her.

This is just my gripe for the day.

MrsGorilla

04-04-2006, 01:19 PM

It's just getting more and more frustrating becuase even my youngest child is forced to take spanish in elementry school.I just find it a problem that one day my child will be able to speak a language that I can't understand and I didn't teach it to her.

My mother-in-law is Mexican and is teaching my daughter to speak Spanish. By the way, my m-i-l's parents came to this country legally, even though they didn't speak any English but my m-i-l and all of her siblings were all bilingual of course.

Anyhoo, I worry the same thing about wondering if Emily will learn to speak Spanish and I won't understand her. So I'm considering dusting off the old Spanish book myself. :D

Kraj

04-04-2006, 01:28 PM

I agree with the gripe, but on the other hand being introduced to another language when she's young will give her a huge advantage later on. Most countries with decent education systems teach multiple languages. It's a good thing.

Rich

04-04-2006, 01:52 PM

I agree with the gripe,.

Which one, there are many on this thread?

but on the other hand being introduced to another language when she's young will give her a huge advantage later on.
Again though, which one ?

Pat Hartman

04-04-2006, 03:32 PM

Pat - are your anti immigration feelings the same for non Mexicans? and how do you feel about people with dual citizenship.

If you lived in the UK and became a British citizen, would you cast aside all things American? would you congregate where other Americans are? like a themed pub or club?

In the UK even though (say) an Italian may have British citizenship, we would think it odd that they would try to be "British". We would accept the fact they are still Italian and always will be. Col
Airports have gotten so annoying that I don't fly unless I absolutely have to. I don't blame foreign tourists for complaining. I'm sure it is worse for them and I sympathize. Unfortunately airports have taken the brunt of our security awareness since the 9/11 bad guys entered the US that way and they hijacked planes. As long as there are people in this world who will hijack planes, we are stuck with airport security.

I would like to clear up one point though - I am NOT anti-immigration. We are all immigrants here or the descendents of immigrants. The problem is the latest wave of immigrants is largely illegal. That means that they simply crossed the border without authorization. Think of it as someone entering your house without permission just because your door was unlocked. Unfortunately, the illegals come largely from the same place so it seems like racism. We have had very good relations with both our northern and southern neighbors so in the past there has never been a need to secure the borders. Our border with Mexico is over 2,000 miles long and our border with Canada is over 3,000 miles long. There were token checkpoints at major roads but people pretty much came and went as they pleased. In fact there is at least one small town that straddles the northern border. On one side of the street, you are in Canada and on the other you are in the US. That worked well for hundreds of years. The problem now is the economic problems in Mexico have gotten so bad along with the corruption that the poor Mexicans have all decided to move north. A large country such as the US can absorb a number of immigrants of all types each year but we are being overwhelmed with uneducated, poverty stricken people with large numbers of children. They are disrupting our school systems because they don't want to learn English. They expect to be taught in Spanish. They expect the government to deal with them in Spanish also and because of their huge numbers, they've pretty much succeeded in making the southern border states at least, bilingual. I'll bet your Italian immigrant example doesn't expect you to speak Italian or to have tax forms printed in Italian so he can read them. We also have large numbers of illegal immigrants from China. These immigrants don’t demand to have government forms printed in Mandarin. They don’t demand that school principals learn Mandarin so they can speak to the parents about their children. They are much more interested in assimilating.

I don't expect immigrants to cast aside their heritage. Where would I get Mexican food? I love walking around the Chinatowns in large cities. The odors are wonderful and the architecture is exotic. The general pattern for immigrants is that the immigrants themselves learn enough English to get by but their children go to American schools and are taught in English and so become fluent. The second generation is usually bilingual because they communicate with their parents in the language of their home country and communicate with every one else in English. I have a cute story about this. One of my best friends was from Liege Belgium and her native language was French. We had children about the same time and when they were about 2 I was babysitting one day and I heard the bedroom door opening and closing. I went to investigate and Celine was standing there saying "Open the door" - "Ferme la Port". Hope I spelled that properly. Celine spoke French to Lucy (her mother) and English to everyone else. Children are very adept at picking up language and I think it is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to teach regular subjects in Spanish in American public schools. I have no problem with developing strong English as a second language programs for both children and adults. Learning the language will help people assimilate and enable them to get better jobs.

and how do you feel about people with dual citizenship.I was under the impression that when you take American citizenship you had to renounce your allegiance to your birth country. The only people with actual dual citizenship were children under the age of majority and when they reached their majority they were expected to make a choice. But I’m not so sure that this is still the case. I don’t think that there can be room for divided allegiance. In any event, no one forces you to become a citizen. You can be a permanent resident for ever. It’s a little like marriage. When you get married, you give up your old boyfriends/girlfriends. So, if you want to become an American citizen, that’s what you are. You’re not Australian-American or Mexican-American. Canadians who have become US citizens don’t call themselves Canadian-American, nor do the Brits.
If you lived in the UK and became a British citizen, would you cast aside all things American? would you congregate where other Americans are? like a themed pub or club?I am thinking of giving up my American citizenship. Would Britain have me? I might have to go to Micky-D’s every once in a while to get my French-fry fix but otherwise I wouldn’t feel the need to join an “American-British” club to be with my former countrymen. I am very susceptible to accents and when I lived in Kuwait for a year, almost everyone I associated with spoke with an English accent. The Kuwaitis and Indians and other Arabs were all taught English by British teachers and so they spoke English with a British accent. By the time I came home, I spoke English with a British accent I had the same problem when I lived in Tennessee. I spoke English with a southern accent. I am so susceptible to the southern accent, every time I spend more than a few hours with my friend Sue, I end up with a drawl.
I’m watching Lou Dobbs on CNN as I’m writing this and they just reported that we have 40,000 illegal Chinese immigrants in custody and don’t seem to be able to convince Beijing to take them back. What should we do with them? The Chinese have a worse trip than the Mexicans because usually the Chinese come by sea, hidden in shipping containers and a large number of them get caught when the ship is unloaded and a large number die en route.
Someone asked where I get my information – well a lot of it comes from the Lou Dobbs show on CNN. You can read transcripts about 4 hours after the 6PM evening (Eastern Daylight Savings Time) broadcast if you miss the show.

Len Boorman

04-04-2006, 11:52 PM

Have been reading this thread and finally decided to join in.

Now I am not against Immigration as such but to my way of thinking if I decided to move to another country then I would expect
1) To learn the language. I may also decide that my children become multi lingual since that would be advantageous

2) Understand and accept the new culture. How much I immerse into this culture may vary.

3) Undertand and abide by the laws and regulation of the country.

Okay so I am getting on a bit now and these may seem old fashioned views but I think it is precisely these points where immigrants both legal and otherwise generally fail.

Immigration in my view is simple to define from the legal point of view.

Did you enter the country via a recognised point of entry.
Did you (at the point of entry) apply for political asylem if applicable.

Answer No to either question and you are defined as illegal and immediate removal from the country will follow.

All legal immigrants are subject to British law. Any serious law breaking within 10 years of entry and status is revoked and eportation follows.

Support for immigrants will be given for a period of time but self sufficiency will be expected within a reasonable period, Failure to do so again revokes status.

This determines that the immigrant must have something to offer to the country as well as vice versa.

Len

Edit
Got interrupted

So what is the problem

Many nationals see the benefits for which they have contributed handed out to those who have no intention of contributing or integrating, They see crime rising and in a large number of cases these crimes are committed by immigrants. The UK goals have a far greater population of "immigrant" nationalities than natives brits.
This all leads to racial discontent and civil unrest and here we are in the circle again.

Until Governments actually do the job of Governing for the people (to coin a phrase) there will be no change.

Government individuals are concerned with themselves and their job prospects and will therefore do what assists their career, The same happens in business in a way but in that situation you have to clearly achieve results that are to the benefit of the company.

Successful companies will at times impose unpleasant and unpopular measures. Governments do not really do what is wanted because they would become unpopular and next election they fear they will be out of office.

The world is changing and we are becomming a namby pamby bunch of countries that are too concerned with the likes of an individual rather than the bigger picture of the Country

If it is not good for this country then we ain't doing it would very much be my policy.

L

NJudson

04-05-2006, 06:15 AM

I received the latest issue of Time magazine and the main article is on the immigration issue. Although I haven't had time to read it yet I did skim through and look at some of the polls that they had. I find it quite baffling that the vast majority of Americans feel that we have a serious problem with immigration right now, but the majority of Americans also feel that temporary visas and the guest program is a good thing. Am I missing something or is the general public completely misinformed? From what I can tell I don't see any good coming from the guest program. :confused:

I guess this may not be any different than a typical poll during election time when half the results seem to contradict each other. Goes to show you just how reliable they are. :rolleyes:

Kraj

04-05-2006, 08:00 AM

Am I missing something or is the general public completely misinformed?
Call me a cynic, but I'd say the general public being mis/uninformed is pretty much the rule of thumb.

So here's a thought. I pretty much agree with everyone's thoughts on illegal immigration at this point, but it occurred to me ... how might an illegal immigrant respond to the statements we've made? Might an illegal immigrant say something like, "I really don't know about economics, all I know is I can barely feed my family and the hospital is the last place I want to go if I get sick. I didn't choose where I was born or what language I learned. It's not my fault that my homeland can't provide for the basic needs of its people. Why should I have to wait years and learn a new language for someone to say my family is allowed to eat and get medicine?"

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a bleeding-heart (to quote South Park) "aging, liberal, hippie, douche" and I agree that illegal immigration is a big problem that needs to be dealt with in a practical way. I also think it's easy, though, to pass judgement and say how we'd behaive differently were we to immigrate when we really have no idea what it's like to be in their shoes.

Len Boorman

04-05-2006, 08:14 AM

Call me a cynic, but I'd say the general public being mis/uninformed is pretty much the rule of thumb..

Not cynical ....realistic

Might an illegal immigrant say something like, "I really don't know about economics, all I know is I can barely feed my family and the hospital is the last place I want to go if I get sick. I didn't choose where I was born or what language I learned. It's not my fault that my homeland can't provide for the basic needs of its people. Why should I have to wait years and learn a new language for someone to say my family is allowed to eat and get medicine?"

Kraj not directed at you in any way just a possible response if I was asked to respond to the statement above from any immigrant

So why should I, who have contributed to various schemes in my country pay for you and your families keep when you are not prepared to even learn the language and accept the culture. After all it appears the culture you have come from has not done you any favours. Sounds as if you want my cake as well as your own. What are you prepared to do to feed yourself and your family ?.

Len.

Kraj

04-05-2006, 08:27 AM

Kraj not directed at you in any way just a possible response if I was asked to respond to the statement above from any immigrant.
Are we roleplaying now? Selena will be jealous. ;)

selenau837

04-05-2006, 08:37 AM

Are we roleplaying now? Selena will be jealous. ;)

Jealous of who, what, when, where. ;) Umm, no Kraj's mine so back off. *pfft, pfftt, hiss hiss* :eek: :D

I don't mind her learning a language, but my problem is they are only teaching that one. Why not German, French, etc?

I just hate losing jobs because I didn't speak spanish. Being Bilingual is almost a requirment now becuase people are coming here and REFUSING to learn English. Therefore we have to change our packaging, advertising, phone systems, ATM's, EVERYTHING, to include spanish. That is simply my Gripe. Before long the language of America will be Spanish, no longer Americanised English.

Len Boorman

04-05-2006, 08:39 AM

Are we roleplaying now? Selena will be jealous. ;)

Love a jealous woman :D :D :D :D :D

Len Boorman

04-05-2006, 08:42 AM

the language of America .....Americanised English.

Ahhhhhhhhh That explains a lot :D :D :D

L

selenau837

04-05-2006, 08:43 AM

Ahhhhhhhhh That explains a lot :D :D :D

L

That's what Col keeps telling me I speak. He is trying to teach me the Queens English. :D

Rich

04-05-2006, 09:28 AM

That's what Col keeps telling me I speak. He is trying to teach me the Queens English. :D
Well he's starting to have a positive influence, "ised" is part of the British language and is of course the correct spelling of said suffix:cool:

selenau837

04-05-2006, 09:36 AM

Well he's starting to have a positive influence, "ised" is part of the British language and is of course the correct spelling of said suffix:cool:

Well, didn't I spell it correctly? *dumb blonde look*

Back to the subject at hand.

I almost wish schools would teach sign language as a second language. There really is a need for hearing impaired interpreters. I think that should be a choice. Allow the kids to choose which one they want to learn, not force one language on them.

I personally enjoyed taking french. My heritage is Cajiun. My grandfathers parents spoke french. He knew it but didn't pass it down to his children. :(

I can't say I know any of it anymore other than maybe this. I can say it, but not sure if I am spelling it correctly anymore. Je n' parle pa Francises! I can't speak french. At least that is what I am hoping it spells.

I have no problem with immigrants as long as they are legal and assimilate to our culture and language and not try and force us to learn their languge and assimilate us to their ways of life. Keep your culture when you come here, but if you are going to be American, be American.

Rich

04-05-2006, 09:47 AM

.

I have no problem with immigrants as long as they are legal and assimilate to our culture and language and not try and force us to learn their languge and assimilate us to their ways of life. Keep your culture when you come here, but if you are going to be American, be American.

Define what American is, because if I'm not mistaken your country lays great claim on the fact that it's a multicultural society.
As far as not speaking the language you should try visiting the middle of Wales, not only do they make their dislike of the English well known they also talk about you in a foreign language, oddly enough officialdom over here wants to promote the Welsh language, I've no bloody intention of learning it:mad:

Those who profit from the illegal immigrants would be the one to first suffer the loss, but eventually it would benefit the overall society. Once those jobs are filled with citizens of this country, the unemployment rate would drop and tax revenue would increase. Sounds like a win win situation.

This is a myth, there are appr. 1,000,000 unemployed in this country, the government despite its best efforts cannot fill those low paid jobs from the unemployed, they either simply wont take the jobs or don't have the skills required. Only immigrants from poorer areas of the world will take them, I suspect your country is no different.

As far as denying illegals basic health care, food etc., would you want to see them dying on the streets for lack of the above, I wouldn't
As for writing and complaining, who in any power is going to listen. politicians, I don't think so, they've always had their own agenda and always will.

We are but pawns in a system dominated by big business.

jsanders

04-05-2006, 06:07 PM

We are but pawns in a system dominated by big business.

Finally...you have retired your rhetoric and spoken true wisdom..

Pat Hartman

04-05-2006, 08:54 PM

I'm going to report from Lou Dobbs (CNN - you can see transcripts at www.cnn.com/lou) again today. I can't take credit for this report but I did send him an email two weeks ago suggesting it:)

The average farm worker earns $9,570 per year.
The average american family spends $370 on fresh fruits and veggies per year. Of that, $65 goes to the farmer and the rest goes to distribution, wholesalers, and retailers. Of the $65, $22 goes to farm worker wages.
The cost of raising the wages of farm workers by 40% is only $10 per family per year. So, we essentially are being fed a bunch of bull regarding the true savings of using illegal alien labor.

For any of you who never worked on a local farm as a child during the summer to earn money, it is brutal, backbreaking work.

ColinEssex

04-06-2006, 12:55 AM

I don't mind her learning a language, but my problem is they are only teaching that one. Why not German, French, etc?

Spanish is I believe the 2nd or 3rd most spoken language on the planet. If you can speak Spanish you have immediate rapport with many countries and people. German and French are very restricted in their geographical area (comparatively) - obviously the Frogs would like everyone to speak French and are well pi**ed off because English is the "international" language.

I learned Spanish because I spend some time each year in the non-English speaking parts of Spain, I'm not good at it but I get by and people appreciate you trying rather than shouting at them in English.

I just hate losing jobs because I didn't speak spanish.
There are many good teach yourself cassettes or CD's you can shove in the car stereo and learn a little each day as you drive to work.

Being Bilingual is almost a requirment now
Yes, when I go to Devon or Cornwall I have to speak a different language. They're a weird lot:D ;)
Therefore we have to change our packaging, advertising, phone systems, ATM's, EVERYTHING, to include spanish.
I don't see why that is a problem. Many of our official leaflets include various Indian / European dialects. The ATM's in Europe have many languages to chose from.

Col

ColinEssex

04-06-2006, 01:01 AM

Define what American is,
Isn't a true American being a descendant of the original indiginous people?:confused:

Col

Rich

04-06-2006, 01:02 AM

Yes, when I go to Devon or Cornwall I have to speak a different language. They're a weird lot:D ;)

Col

It's language and culture are Celtic in origin, unlike the Cockaknee tribe whos language and culture are derived from the black hackneys :cool:

ColinEssex

04-06-2006, 02:59 AM

It's language and culture are Celtic in origin, unlike the Cockaknee tribe whos language and culture are derived from the black hackneys :cool:
You'd think that coming from Bristol (city) I'd understand these Devon folk and their cute little ways:D

Col

Len Boorman

04-06-2006, 03:36 AM

I heard on the news today that the IPCC (Independant Police Complaints Commission) are starting an advertising campaign to encourage people to make complaints about the police.

Nearly forgot. It is being directed specifically at the Asian community somewhere or other (forgot) because there is a tight knit Asian Community there.

So as an original Ango Saxon is this not a clear case of discrimination against me.

Could say more but do not want to a) offend b) get arrested c) thrown off forum

Len

selenau837

04-06-2006, 05:24 AM

Spanish is I believe the 2nd or 3rd most spoken language on the planet. If you can speak Spanish you have immediate rapport with many countries and people. German and French are very restricted in their geographical area (comparatively) - obviously the Frogs would like everyone to speak French and are well pi**ed off because English is the "international" language.
Yeah, yeah I know, but that isn't the point.

I learned Spanish because I spend some time each year in the non-English speaking parts of Spain, I'm not good at it but I get by and people appreciate you trying rather than shouting at them in English. See you learned THEIR language so you can speak with them. They didn't learn your so they could speak with YOU. That is my point exactly. You did what YOU had to do to fit in with THEIR country. That is what I wish others would do here. Learn the language of the country they are going too.

There are many good teach yourself cassettes or CD's you can shove in the car stereo and learn a little each day as you drive to work.
Nope, not gonna do it. I do know pig latin though. :D :p

I don't see why that is a problem. Many of our official leaflets include various Indian / European dialects. The ATM's in Europe have many languages to chose from.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Rich

04-06-2006, 05:31 AM

ColinEssex

04-06-2006, 05:48 AM

See you learned THEIR language so you can speak with them. They didn't learn your so they could speak with YOU. That is my point exactly. You did what YOU had to do to fit in with THEIR country. That is what I wish others would do here. Learn the language of the country they are going too.

Many Europeans learn English and are highly fluent. In fact it puts us to shame when we almost "expect" foreigners to speak English to us even in their own country.
For example, Rak is Dutch yet his English is superb, I doubt thats his first language.

I can't see why you (Americans) are against learning a language - surely its also for personal development and enjoyment- the same as learning anything. If you went to Spain or Mexico on holiday (vacation) wouldn't it be nice to speak Spanish?

Col

Rich

04-06-2006, 05:49 AM

selenau837

04-06-2006, 06:06 AM

So I have to ask, which native Indian language did the immigrants to the US decide to learn, after all English is not the native language of the US and wasn't Spanish the original language in Texas etc.?

I can't help the past, as well as it is Native American, not Native Indian :p .

I can't see why you (Americans) are against learning a language - surely its also for personal development and enjoyment- the same as learning anything. If you went to Spain or Mexico on holiday (vacation) wouldn't it be nice to speak Spanish?
I do enjoy learning other languages for enjoyment, not because I have too. Perhaps that is just my stuborn streak, but I don't want to learn spanish now. I would like to relearn french simply becuase that is my heritage. My dad's family is French Cajiun. :D from Louisiana. ;)

ColinEssex

04-06-2006, 06:16 AM

My dad's family is French Cajiun. :D from Louisiana. ;)
"Deep down Louisiana close to New Orleans
Way back up in the woods among the evergreens
There stood a log cabin made of earth and wood
Where lived a country boy named Johnny B. Goode
Who never ever learned to read or write so well
But he could play the guitar just like a ringing a bell

Go Go - Go Johnny Go"

One of the best rock n roll songs ever:D ;)

Col

Len Boorman

04-06-2006, 07:29 AM

I do enjoy learning other languages for enjoyment, not because I have too. Perhaps that is just my stuborn streak, but I don't want to learn spanish now. I would like to relearn french simply becuase that is my heritage. My dad's family is French Cajiun. :D from Louisiana. ;)

Why French and not Cajiun :confused: :confused:

or is Cajuin not widely spoken :cool:

Queen's English is good to know

English Queen's are a different matter

L

selenau837

04-06-2006, 07:46 AM

Why French and not Cajiun :confused: :confused:

or is Cajuin not widely spoken :cool:

Queen's English is good to know

English Queen's are a different matter

L

French is what my great grand parents spoke, and cajiun is more of a dialect if I am remebering correctly. Kind of like southern, but way thicker and harder to understand.

selenau837

04-06-2006, 07:54 AM

"Deep down Louisiana close to New Orleans
Way back up in the woods among the evergreens
There stood a log cabin made of earth and wood
Where lived a country boy named Johnny B. Goode
Who never ever learned to read or write so well
But he could play the guitar just like a ringing a bell

Go Go - Go Johnny Go"

One of the best rock n roll songs ever:D ;)

Col
Yes, it is quit a good song.

You know my heritage could explain why I'm so sassy. Lol

However, back on immigration. As stated before America is a melting pot, comprised of many different nationalities, but we all speak Engilsh. The Native Americans are the only true Americans.

My main gripe is the refusal to learn English and the expectation of government help.

Matty

04-06-2006, 08:36 AM

The Native Americans are the only true Americans.

It could be argued that Native Americans migrated via the Bering Strait. :D

jsanders

04-06-2006, 08:50 AM

Part of the price we have to pay for our colonial past I'm afraid, I'm not bothered by immigrants, legal or illegal, I just wish they'd leave some of their unsavory customs behind when they come here:mad:

That is part of the problem here.

Due to the extremely robust Northern Virginia economy (That $1,200,000,000 cost of homeland security has to go somewhere) we are building tens of thousands of new homes. As a result of that, we have had an explosion of illegal workers. Now aside from all of the economic issues, we also have to contend with the inferior cultural ones as well.

Mexicans live in dirtier conditions and are much less apt to follow generally excepted rules of society. Such as NOT leaving your empty beer bottle in the middle of a parking lot, or in the street. You would not believe the trash these people have left everywhere. Northern VA used to be a place of cleanliness and beauty, until the Mexicans started taking over.

Another cultural norm for them, which causes many American women some stress, is their habit of staring at women, and making comments to them on the street. Both my daughter and my girl friend complain of this regularly.

selenau837

04-06-2006, 09:03 AM

That is part of the problem here.
Mexicans live in dirtier conditions and are much less apt to follow generally excepted rules of society. Such as NOT leaving your empty beer bottle in the middle of a parking lot, or in the street. You would not believe the trash these people have left everywhere. Northern VA used to be a place of cleanliness and beauty, until the Mexicans started taking over.
I agree with you on this one. They generally will take a nice house, 3 bed room, 2 bath, and fit about 15 people into it. The yard gets bad and the house gets destroyed.

Another cultural norm for them, which causes many American women some stress, is their habit of staring at women, and making comments to them on the street. Both my daughter and my girl friend complain of this regularly.
I mean, I don't mind being admired while walking down the street. That is very flattering, but what they do is beyond admiration. It is ogeling, defilement, haressment. I will tend to avoid that situation. If I see a group of them, I will go WAY around to avoid that situation.

selenau837

04-06-2006, 09:04 AM

It could be argued that Native Americans migrated via the Bering Strait. :D

Do you have a myth to destroy for that deary?

Matty

04-06-2006, 09:13 AM

Do you have a myth to destroy for that deary?

I guess the myth would be that Native Americans aren't immigrants, but you could say they are indeed immigrants. There is a widely accepted theory that when the ocean levels were much lower, there was a sort of "land bridge" between Siberia and Alaska and that's where the migration happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_migration_to_the_New_World

jsanders

04-06-2006, 09:17 AM

selenau837

04-06-2006, 09:18 AM

I guess the myth would be that Native Americans aren't immigrants, but you could say they are indeed immigrants. There is a widely accepted theory that when the ocean levels were much lower, there was a sort of "land bridge" between Siberia and Alaska and that's where the migration happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_migration_to_the_New_World

I wouldn't call them immigrants, I would call them nomads. They went back and forth, but one day they got stuck. Therefor they couldn't go back. So officially they weren't immigrants because they didn't have a central place to live. They moved all over the place.

BTW, Matty i'll take my name back if you start trying to use your myth busting on me. ;) *snicker*

Matty

04-06-2006, 09:20 AM

I wouldn't call them immigrants, I would call them nomads. They went back and forth, but one day they got stuck. Therefor they couldn't go back. So officially they weren't immigrants because they didn't have a central place to live. They moved all over the place.

BTW, Matty i'll take my name back if you start trying to use your myth busting on me. ;) *snicker*

Hey, I'm just throwing that out there. It obviously can be extrapolated to the very beginning of human existence but I just figued I'd raise the point.

Okay, back to the actual discussion... Sorry for the hijack. :o

selenau837

04-06-2006, 09:23 AM

Hey, I'm just throwing that out there. It obviously can be extrapolated to the very beginning of human existence but I just figued I'd raise the point.

Okay, back to the actual discussion... Sorry for the hijack. :o

You didn't hijack it. You did your job as forum Myth buster. Keep up the good work, making us thing. :eek: :D For some it may be harder than others, but keep it up.

Matty

04-06-2006, 09:45 AM

You didn't hijack it. You did your job as forum Myth buster. Keep up the good work, making us thing. :eek: :D For some it may be harder than others, but keep it up.

Thanks for the ego-boost.

I guess I'd say we don't really have a huge illegal immigration problem here in Canada, but we do have the bilingual issues. But that mostly just stems from the fact that this country has two official languages. I'm used to seeing French and English on pretty much everything I buy so it's actually quite odd to me to see american products with only English.

When I was in school, we were actually required to take French from 4th to 7th grade. Once you got to 8th grade, you could choose whether you wanted to take it or not. I took it the whole way, but dropped it for a computer class in 12th grade. My French instructor was not happy with me (I was getting 95s in that class and I dropped it). I sometimes wish I would have kept on with my French studies, because now I've basically ruled out my chances of getting a gov't job.

Now thinking about it, where I grew up there are a LOT of mennonite immigrants and when they go out in public they refuse to speak anything other than Low German (well, the Mennonite dialect). Even in the emergency room, my mother (who was a nurse) had to come in to translate for them because they just won't speak English. That kinda irks me.

Rich

04-06-2006, 10:43 AM

Another cultural norm for them, which causes many American women some stress, is their habit of staring at women, and making comments to them on the street.

I thought the Italians had the same trait, plus one or two other cultures as well

Rich

04-06-2006, 11:01 AM

I can't help the past, as well as it is Native American, not Native Indian :p .

I see, so who decided they were Americans and not Indians ?:confused:

and I see you guys have now sorted the problem out anyway so you can all sleep better tonight

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12184299/

KenHigg

04-06-2006, 11:07 AM

Getting back on topic...

This was interesting: Link (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/)

Ref S.1438 (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1438:)

Pat Hartman

04-06-2006, 06:21 PM

I studied both French and Spanish in school. I am certainly not fluent in either but I can read a little and I can bid (remember I play bridge) in French. When I go to areas where they speak French or Spanish (I’m better with Spanish) I make an attempt at the local language as far as I can go. It isn't that Americans are not interested in learning other languages it is the resentment that these people come here illegally and then DEMAND that WE learn Spanish to service them. The Chinese illegals don't DEMAND that WE learn Mandarin to service them. The Chinese illegals don't march in the streets and don't waive Chinese flags. They understand that if they want to live here they have to make the most basic of efforts to not be a burden on society.

The Mexican illegals would garner a lot more sympathy if they made a small effort to adopt American customs and mores. When I lived in Kuwait, I didn't expect to wear shorts or halters in public or swim on a beach within 50 miles of the city. I always covered my arms and legs when I went out even when the temperature was 115F. My husband took care to not cross his legs and show his shoe bottoms to our guests (Arabs find this offensive. I don't know why). We observed Ramadan, in public at least, even though we are not Muslem. We didn't insist that our Indian maid cook us dishes that contained beef. She claimed to be a Catholic but I think she was covering all the bases:) There are simply things you do as a guest or visitor in a country (even a long term visitor) to fit in. I never threw trash in the streets of Kuwait even though the locals did, nor would I do it in a country like Germany where I felt I could eat off the streets, everything was so clean. The US is somewhere in the middle as far as cleanliness goes thanks to Lady Bird Johnson.

FYI - American Indians are called Indians because when Columbus landed in the islands of the Caribbean, he thought he had landed in the West Indies so he called the indigent people Indians.

Does anyone have any comments on the farm worker wages stats that I posted earlier? It certainly wouldn’t be a burden for me to pay even $100 more per year to guarantee that migrant farm workers were paid living wages, had healthcare, and reasonable living quarters. But just $10 more from each family could increase their wages by 40% - assuming that the farmer and middlemen didn’t snatch it away as profit first:(

ColinEssex

04-07-2006, 12:59 AM

Another cultural norm for them, which causes many American women some stress, is their habit of staring at women, and making comments to them on the street. Both my daughter and my girl friend complain of this regularly.
As Rich said, this is normal in Italy and Italian men and the ladies accept it as normal.

Pat has highlighted her Kuwait/Muslim experiences. We travelled extensively in Iran / Afghanistan and other Muslim countries and my wife had to be covered, even the females hair can't be shown. In fact, my wife had long hair and some fell down over her face whilst we were out - she was stopped by an Afghani lady and told to cover it in no uncertain terms! If a bare ankle is accidentally shown, the men are extremely uncomfortable. As for staring, they did this all the time as we were "westerners".

Isn't it odd - the differences I mean - in Spain for example, its acceptable for females to stroll round in a bikini top and "hotpants" should they wish. (and many do:D ;) )

Col

Len Boorman

04-07-2006, 02:24 AM

Does anyone have any comments on the farm worker wages stats that I posted earlier? It certainly wouldn’t be a burden for me to pay even $100 more per year to guarantee that migrant farm workers were paid living wages, had healthcare, and reasonable living quarters. But just $10 more from each family could increase their wages by 40% - assuming that the farmer and middlemen didn’t snatch it away as profit first:(

Pat

Okay I am in UK but $100 would not be a problem for me as then those persons would not be being kept by the state but would actually be contibutors. So I could expect the benefits and services I get from the state to improve.

Except of course we have Blair and Brown

Len

Pat Hartman

04-07-2006, 11:58 AM

Isn't it odd - the differences I mean - in Spain for example, its acceptable for females to stroll round in a bikini top and "hotpants" should they wish. (and many do )On our first visit to Spain, I was unpacking our bags and noticed my husband and our 13 year old daughter standing riveted on the balcony. I went to see what they were watching. It was the topless sun bathers by the pool.

While the Taliban still had control of Afganistan, they would stone a woman for wearing bobby socks because they were too sexy? The Kuwaitis were much more moderate. Only the kuwaiti women wore abas, black single piece scarves that covered them from head to toe. I tried one once. I think you have to be born to it. I couldn't keep an aba on if my life depended on it without stapling it to my head. And they rarely wore veils. Foreign women didn't cover their heads but did dress modestly.

dan-cat

04-08-2006, 09:02 PM

The Mexican illegals would garner a lot more sympathy if they made a small effort to adopt American customs and mores. When I lived in Kuwait, I didn't expect to wear shorts or halters in public or swim on a beach within 50 miles of the city.

I'm sorry - but this just grates me. Singling out Mexicans as the only harmful type of immigrant is just absurd.

What about the NIFC? The American Irish organisation that supports the politicial wing of the IRA. Yep the organisation that blows to pieces women and children in Ireland. They're really conforming to the American ideal aren't they? What a wonderful diplomatic message Mr Clinton sent out when he shook hands with Gerry 'terrorism is alright with me' Adams. They speak English.

What about the organised crime mentality of some of the Italian immigrants. The ones who organise mass importation of drugs and guns into the USA just to make a buck? The ones who don't think twice about chopping somebody to pieces just to make a point about 'respect'. They speak English.

What about the original American immigrants from Europe who branded the natives 'savages' and proceeded to decimate their people and strip their lands from them? Then trafficked slaves in from Africa - treated then as sub-humans until only decades ago until some psychotic let off a bomb in a church and killed some children and they started to actually wake up and realise they were the savages. They spoke English.

What about the 'white' people who live in my neighbourhood who live in trailers surrounded by junked out cars and coke cans, take meth-amphetamines, don't work and live off the state? They speak English.

What about the ones who think wearing a pointy hat is a good idea and somehow think that their souls have been saved by a Jew and yet a Jew's life is worthless at the same time? They speak English.

Then we have the wonderful historical record of the more 'civilised' nations.

The Nazi holocaust.
The Spanish Conquistadors who decimated the Aztec (Mexican, yes MEXICAN) and Inca (Peruvian) populations and gave them the choice between the Catholic church or being garrotted.
The Japanese atrocities in the 2nd World War.
Stalin's red 'Cheka'
The medieval Crusades
The Chinese government that runs students over with tanks and censors google.

etc etc etc...

Have the Mexicans ever attempted genocide, dropped an atomic bomb in anger, murdered millions of its own or foreign population under political/religious motivation, used chemical weapons?

Then you try to paint a picture of the 'Mexicans' being dirty, lecherous and ungrateful and if only they'd learn English - everything would be peachy. Give me a break. :mad:

Pat Hartman

04-09-2006, 12:24 PM

I didn't say Mexican immigrants. I said Mexican Illegals. They are not the same. People who respect the law and come here legally generally make pretty good citizens; often better than the native born. They appreciate what they are getting. The Mexican and other Central American Illegals who are marching in the streets of AMERICA waiving flags of their native country - should go home. They should go home to their own countries where such things are not allowed. Perhaps that would make them appreciate what we have here.

I don't condone the IRA; I don't condone the Mafia; I don't condone the Tongs. They are all problems brought on us by IMMIGRANTS but I'm not saying that we should send home the Irish, the Italians, or the Chinese just because some of their countrymen are bad people. Nor do I believe that all the Mexicans should go home - only the ones who broke the law to get here. By the way, of all the major immigrant groups, only the English actually speak English. The rest spoke something else.

Have the Mexicans ever attempted genocide, dropped an atomic bomb in anger, murdered millions of its own or foreign population under political/religious motivation, used chemical weapons?Just because Mexicans have never done these things does not mean that I will sit back and let them invade my country. That is what they are doing.

BTW, if you think that we dropped an atomic bomb in anger, you should go back and study your American history. War is hell. By sugar coating it, you let it go on for ever. The bomb was an attempt to stop it in its tracks, and it worked. Yes it was spectacular. Yes it killed a lot of people but no more than would have been killed if the war continued for another year. The first Star Trek series did a great episode on this where Kirk had to destroy the computers that calculated the casualties in order to force the warring planets to make peace.

dan-cat

04-09-2006, 04:45 PM

Just because Mexicans have never done these things does not mean that I will sit back and let them invade my country. That is what they are doing.

Wrong. Mexican illegals are about as illegal and invasive as my left toe.
They are condoned by the US government and they are condoned by US citizens.
We want cheap fruit, vegetables and meat products. The exploitation of cheap labor enables that. The local chicken processing plant is full of illegals. Does the owner get prosecuted, do the INS do a raid and deport them all. Do they hell, otherwise the price of a chicken in Wal-mart would go up and we can't have that can we? Here is an excellent microcosm of this sordid practice and what is actually going on behind the scenes...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/4851194.stm

They are encouraged by big business America to come over and work for peanuts and they duly oblige. Why would they stay if they weren't given a living?
They have no working rights, no health and safety checks and no health insurance. They work from hand to mouth and it is all condoned and encouraged by the US government.

Then after years of this human trafficking they start to exercise their right to freedom of speech and want to be treated as a human being and promptly get cut down as lecherous and dirty scum-bag criminals.
We moan about how poor and squalid they are yet overlook the fact that profiteering so and so's pay them squat for 12 hours + back-breaking work in the baking sun.
Well I'm afraid that's just too bad. 11 million illegals didn't arrive into the US overnight - it's been caused by greedy so and so's chasing profits for years and US citizens turning their back on the issue in favor of cheap products. Well now there are 11 million of them who want to voice an opinion and I'm afraid we're going to have to listen to what they have to say.

BTW, if you think that we dropped an atomic bomb in anger, you should go back and study your American history.

I'm not really prepared to consider a comparision of wiping out 100,000 citizens in an instant with an episode of Star Trek. But you've exposed your poor frame of reference nicely. Any weapon that is used in the theater of war is made in anger. Regardless of its intent. It was not an act of mercy it was an act of war. Here is why.
The Japanese fire bombings were also acts of war - and were also mass indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations.
These fire bombings occured BEFORE the 2 atomic drops and had brought Japan to its knees so don't start claiming that Truman was some kind of Sister of Mercy.
. Here is a nice little quote from a certain General Eisenhower:

"Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb
was completely unnecessary. ... I thought our country
should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a
weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer
mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was
my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking
some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face".
The secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude,
almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick
conclusions."

Perhaps you should brush up on your American History, it is actually accepted that Hiroshima was used as a stark warning to the USSR not as a necessary evil to break a dangerous enemy. The Japanese supply lines had been cut and even Gen. Curtis LeMay said that he had run out of targets to bomb.

How do you explain that no chance of Japanese surrender was given between the 2 bombings? The Japanese Prime Minister said this before the bombing of Nagasaki:

"Under the present circumstances I have concluded that our only alternative
is to accept the Potsdam Proclamation and terminate the war."

I guess you know more than General Eisenhower or the Japanese Prime Minister huh? McNamara said in the documentary "Fog of War" that if the US had lost the war then we would have been justly accused of war crimes. You still think I need to study my history? I'm not the one relying on Captain Kirk to qualify my argument.

Anyway I digress.

I'd also like to address this fallacy that 'Mexicans' reproduce profusely with malicious intent. This is just bull. They reproduce profusely because they don't use contraception.
They don't use contraception because they are catholic. They are catholic because back in the 1700's the Spanish decided to invade their lands, strip all their wealth and force them to join the catholic church.
The ones who didn't join up were garrotted or burned alive. Hundreds of years later they practically get invited over the border to work for peanuts and get this thrown back into their faces. Why do they have to leave their homeland to search out a better life - because the greedy european colonists stripped out all of its assets some hundred or so years back.
Perhaps you should read up on some Mexican history as well. I'll give you a hint - google 'Cortez', 'Aztec', or 'conquistador'.

I know there is an immigration problem, but when people start trying to bolster their arguments by branding a group of people who can't stand up for themselves with derogatory labels, it just irks me. It's a bad form of argument and it ... irks me.

P.S I never suggested that you condone any terrorist or organised criminal activity. My point was simple. That criminal behaviour is not exclusive to a single group of people. Indeed, the mexican population have actually been on the receiving end of such activity since the arrival of the Spanish.

Rich

04-10-2006, 02:37 AM

. Here is a nice little quote from a certain General Eisenhower:

"Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb
was completely unnecessary. ... I thought our country
should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a
weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer
mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was
my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking
some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face".
The secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude,
almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick
conclusions."

Rubbish, Japan was nothing like defeated at this point, have you never read anything about Okinawa, have you never read or heard about the kamikaze attacks on US ships and men?
Have you never seen pictures of civilians hurling their children and themselves over the cliffs at Okinawa because they'd been brainwashed into thinking that the Americans were evil people who'd rape and bayonet their children?
Had Japan been invaded the losses on both side would have been horrific.
The Japanese military government at the time had no intention of accepting unconditional surrender; it was the shock value of the damage inflicted by just two bombs that forced the Emperor to intervene.
The myth about using the A bomb to frighten the Russians is speculative nonsense, but hell it sells books :rolleyes:

The Japanese Prime Minister said this before the bombing of Nagasaki:

Under the present circumstances I have concluded that our only alternative
is to accept the Potsdam Proclamation and terminate the war

You've totally overlooked the fact that he was overuled by the Army, in fact even after the surrender pockets of the Japanese army ignored the Emperor and tried to continue the struggle. The Japanese leadership did not respond to the ultimatum issued at Potsdam, they had every opportunity to surrender.

dan-cat

04-10-2006, 05:32 AM

You've totally overlooked the fact that he was overuled by the Army, in fact even after the surrender pockets of the Japanese army ignored the Emperor and tried to continue the struggle. The Japanese leadership did not respond to the ultimatum issued at Potsdam, they had every opportunity to surrender.

...and you have ignored the fact that the War Secretary, Stimson, himself said this in his memoirs:

"no effort was made, and none was
seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to
have to use the bomb".

In July, 1945 Japan said this:

"with the sincerity of our desire to
end the war [and] have them understand that we are trying to end
hostilities by asking for very reasonable terms in order to secure
and maintain our national existence and honor". This was a coded message to the Soviets which the US had decoded and yet Truman never followed up on it.

Anyway, you are still unaware that the go-ahead for the a-bomb had been issued BEFORE the Potsdam declaration had been issued, so your argument is baseless and you never addressed the issue of why there was no sue for peace between the 2 bombs attacks.

As for the myth regarding the show-piece for the Soviets, Churchill said this:

"Here then was a speedy end to
the Second World War, and perhaps to much
else besides. ... We now had something in our hands which would
redress the balance with the Russians."

He knew full well the global relevance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki even if you do not.

Rich

04-10-2006, 06:32 AM

...and you have ignored the fact that the War Secretary, Stimson, himself said this in his memoirs:

"no effort was made, and none was
seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to
have to use the bomb".

.

Yeah, nothing like controversy to sell a book eh:rolleyes:

In July, 1945 Japan said this:

"with the sincerity of our desire to
end the war [and] have them understand that we are trying to end
hostilities by asking for very reasonable terms in order to secure
and maintain our national existence and honor". This was a coded message to the Soviets which the US had decoded and yet Truman never followed up on it.

Anyway, you are still unaware that the go-ahead for the a-bomb had been issued BEFORE the Potsdam declaration had been issued, so your argument is baseless and you never addressed the issue of why there was no sue for peace between the 2 bombs attacks.

I've already told you, the Japanese army chiefs had no intention of surrendering

As for the myth regarding the show-piece for the Soviets, Churchill said this:

"Here then was a speedy end to
the Second World War, and perhaps to much
else besides. ... We now had something in our hands which would
redress the balance with the Russians."

He knew full well the global relevance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki even if you do not

The key word here is perhaps and in any case it was an added bonus, if you can call it that, the prime aim was to end the war a soon as possible, in any event you've totally overlooked the fact that one firestorm raid on Tokyo killed and maimed more than both the A bombs, those raids did not end the war.

dan-cat

04-10-2006, 06:59 AM

Yeah, nothing like controversy to sell a book eh:rolleyes:

If you're not actually going to believe the word of the main protagonists to this event then there is little point arguing with you.

I've already told you, the Japanese army chiefs had no intention of surrendering

This is complete conjecture. Since Okinawa, Japan had been decimated by months of fire-bombings. The US had gained complete air superiority by July 1945 and could bomb targets at will. I've posted quotes to back-up my claims that the Japaense were looking for a way out of the war - you have just posted your opinion.

The key word here is perhaps and in any case it was an added bonus, if you can call it that, the prime aim was to end the war a soon as possible, in any event you've totally overlooked the fact that one firestorm raid on Tokyo killed and maimed more than both the A bombs, those raids did not end the war.

No I haven't. The original point brought up by Pat was that the a-bomb attacks were not used in anger. This is bull. The attacks were confirmed BEFORE the Potsdam declaration was made. No sue for peace was made by the US before or in between the a-bomb attacks. The Potsdam declaration demanded unconditional surrender AFTER the use of the atomic bombs. This means that they were used in anger to batter the enemy into submission. No quarter was given, this is the definition of using something in anger.

PS: Do you really think Churchill made this comment without trying to make a point?

Len Boorman

04-10-2006, 08:01 AM

Puting history aside for a moment has anybody considered that

At some time some bugger was going to use an Atomic Bomb. The lesson learned was that this is a hugely destructive weapon even in its crude state of 1945 and that it should never be used again.

The progress made in the destructive potential of the weapons available today is to awesome to even consider using, except of course to some total nutter.

L

dan-cat

04-10-2006, 08:15 AM

At some time some bugger was going to use an Atomic Bomb. The lesson learned was that this is a hugely destructive weapon even in its crude state of 1945 and that it should never be used again.

Yes I agree. I know this has nothing to do with Mexican illegals, I just don't like being told that my knowledge of American history is inadequate. The 'bugger' you refer to was Stimson the war secretary at the time. The inclusion of the term 'unconditional' was completely intentional in the Potsdam declaration. There was no room for negotiation. Stimson knew this and knew it would be rejected thus clearing the way to show off his multi-billion dollar project. Several of his high-ranking officers disagreed with his policy. The fact that he gave the the go-ahead for its use before they even released the declaration confirms this. He admitted the facts later on himself.

Brianwarnock

04-10-2006, 08:38 AM

ColinEssex

04-10-2006, 08:40 AM

Why not invade Mexico and have it as the 52nd state (after the UK) then there'll be no need for Mexicans to move north because they'll be in the USA anyway.

Col

dan-cat

04-10-2006, 08:50 AM

Has anybody ever considered that these "illegal" Mexican immigrants are part of a cunning plan for Mexico to recover the lands lost to America during America's expansion from "Sea to shining sea" to fulfill its "Manifest Destiny" ?

Brian

No Bri, remember they're not that smart. They're a lecherous, unclean people unworthy of anything but picking the 'maters for my lunchtime sub. :rolleyes:

Rich

04-10-2006, 09:18 AM

If you're not actually going to believe the word of the main protagonists to this event then there is little point arguing with you.

You've only quoted a couple of opinions, and one of them was a weak general.

This is complete conjecture. Since Okinawa, Japan had been decimated by months of fire-bombings. The US had gained complete air superiority by July 1945 and could bomb targets at will. I've posted quotes to back-up my claims that the Japaense were looking for a way out of the war - you have just posted your opinion.

It's no more conjecture than yours, you've just conjured up a couple of opinions to support your own opinion, try doing some actual unbiased reading on the events.
I've based my statements on history books, try reading some of them yourself.

The Potsdam declaration demanded unconditional surrender AFTER the use of the atomic bombs. This means that they were used in anger to batter the enemy into submission. No quarter was given, this is the definition of using something in anger.

That's not true, the demand for uncontional surrender was made at Potsdam, although no mention was made of the A bombs Japan was left in no doubt that it would suffer prompt and utter destruction unless it accepted unconditional surrender.

dan-cat

04-10-2006, 09:46 AM

You've only quoted a couple of opinions, and one of them was a weak general.

McNamara, Eisenhower and Stimson. You have quoted nothing. Would you like more?

It's no more conjecture than yours, you've just conjured up a couple of opinions to support your own opinion, try doing some actual unbiased reading on the events.
I've based my statements on history books, try reading some of them yourself.

Is there anything I have said that didn't happen? Have I misquoted anybody?
By the way Okinawa occurred in April 1945. Three months before the US had finished burning Japan to the ground. Perhaps it is you would needs to hit the history books and get your timelines straight.

That's not true, the demand for uncontional surrender was made at Potsdam, although no mention was made of the A bombs Japan was left in no doubt that it would suffer prompt and utter destruction unless it accepted unconditional surrender.

The order had been confirmed BEFORE the declaration. The Potsdam declaraton had nothing to do with the use of atomic weaponry. The weapons were to be used anyway. Demanding complete surrender is not a negotiation that the Japanese were going to accept immediately. The US knew this. That is why the use of the a-bombs were a foregone conclusion. That is why the order was confirmed before the declaration. That is why the US didn't detail what was to come.

They could have left out the term 'unconditional' to spark diplomacy.
They could have detailed what an a-bomb actually was.
They could have sued for peace in between Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
They could have delayed the order until after the Japanese response to the declaration.

The US did none of these things. This isn't conjecture - this is fact.

Rich

04-10-2006, 12:09 PM

McNamara, Eisenhower and Stimson. You have quoted nothing. Would you like more?
.
Yep, where's Trumans version, where's Churchills version, where's Stalins?
and in any event I've already told you Eisenhowers opinion is irrelevant, the guys ineptitude prolonged the war against Germany.

By the way Okinawa occurred in April 1945. Three months before the US had finished burning Japan to the ground. Perhaps it is you would needs to hit the history books and get your timelines straight.

What are you babbling on about, Okinawa was cited to demonstrate Japans fanatic resistance, as for burning Japan to the ground you've totally overlooked the fact that Britain couldn't be brought to its knees by aerial bombardment, neither could Germany, neither could Japan

Demanding complete surrender is not a negotiation that the Japanese were going to accept immediately. The US knew this. That is why the use of the a-bombs were a foregone conclusion. That is why the order was confirmed before the declaration. That is why the US didn't detail what was to come.

Again you're missing the point and I'll ask you again, what's the difference between the one nights firestorm raid on Tokyo and two A bombs?
The Japanese could not be brought to their knees by conventional bombing despite Le-Mays claims to the contrary.

They could have left out the term 'unconditional' to spark diplomacy.
They could have detailed what an a-bomb actually was.
They could have sued for peace in between Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
They could have delayed the order until after the Japanese response to the declaration.

Why should they have, they didn't offer the Germans anything different and in any case the terms of surrender were drawn up by the Allies, not just the U.S.

dan-cat

04-10-2006, 12:52 PM

and in any event I've already told you Eisenhowers opinion is irrelevant, the guys ineptitude prolonged the war against Germany.

You thinking that Eisenhower's opinion is irrelevant doesn't mean that it is.
I guess Gen. Hap Arnold, Adm. Ernest King, Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Adm. William Leahy's opinions all don't matter either. Each one of these officers disagreed with Stimson's policy at the time.

What are you babbling on about, Okinawa was cited to demonstrate Japans fanatic resistance, as for burning Japan to the ground you've totally overlooked the fact that Britain couldn't be brought to its knees by aerial bombardment, neither could Germany, neither could Japan

Unlike the UK or Germany, Japan was made out of wood. From April 1945 to July 1945 the fire bombings broke most resistance. The allies had gained complete air superiority and had broken all supply links with its naval blockade.
It was simply a matter of time before Japan would fold.

Again you're missing the point and I'll ask you again, what's the difference between the one nights firestorm raid on Tokyo and two A bombs?
The Japanese could not be brought to their knees by conventional bombing despite Le-Mays claims to the contrary.

Nothing. They were acts of war. I was arguing the point that Pat raised that the atomic bombs were not used in anger. However as you have so nicely illustrated - they were. I guess we'll add Le-Mays to the long list of protagonists who you think have worthless opinions. You're quite the war strategist aren't you?

Why should they have, they didn't offer the Germans anything different and in any case the terms of surrender were drawn up by the Allies, not just the U.S.

The US was the sole administration who decided the use of the atomic bomb. The Russians didn't even know of its existance. They weren't even signatories of the Potsdam declaration! Have you ever considered why an atomic bomb was not dropped on Berlin? Hmmm - the close proximity of allied countries perhaps?

Rich

04-10-2006, 01:08 PM

[Nothing. They were acts of war.

I see so you're saying the entire bombing campaign of bombing Germany and Japan were acts of anger

The Russians didn't even know of its existance.
How do you know this? Stalin was totally unmoved when informed of the existence of the bomb.

Have you ever considered why an atomic bomb was not dropped on Berlin? Hmmm - the close proximity of allied countries perhaps
Well even an idiot could work that out, the bomb wasn't ready in time:rolleyes:

Pat Hartman

04-10-2006, 01:53 PM

I know there is an immigration problem, but when people start trying to bolster their arguments by branding a group of people who can't stand up for themselves with derogatory labels, it just irks me. It's a bad form of argument and it ... irks me.Please tell me where I said anything derogatory.

So, are you saying that we should reward lawbreakers with amnesty? That's what a guest-worker program that includes existing illegals is. Exactly which laws of the United States should we ignore and which should we enforce? My brother was one of the workers at a chicken processing plant who was laid off so the owner could hire illegal immigrants. How should I feel about that? I'm taking it personally because I am sending him money to keep him from starving. At the other end of the financial spectrum, several of my good friends were laid off last year by a large corporation so they could be replaced with low paid H1b visa holders. To add insult to injury, they were forced to train their replacements. Should we enforce the provision in the visa law that specifically prohibits this? Or is this just another law that we should ignore?

I agree that we cannot simply send 11-20 million people home - wherever that might be. On the other hand, letting them stay rewards them for illegal behavior and sets a very bad precedent. I would not approve punitive measures against the illegals except to make it impossible for them to apply for citizenship from within the US but I do think that the only way to solve the problem is to make it so expensive for the employers of illegals that they may just as well hire citizens or legal residents.

BTW, statistics shown on CNN indicate that increasing farm worker pay by 40% would only increase the average family's grocery bill by $10 a year.

dan-cat

04-11-2006, 05:41 AM

I see so you're saying the entire bombing campaign of bombing Germany and Japan were acts of anger

You've already quoted the final clause of the Potsdam declaration. Do I need to quote it again? You tell me how complete and utter destruction of an entire nation can be deemed as not an act of anger and I'll concede the point. The allies had embarked on a course of complete annihilation of the Japanese. Like I said over and over again, the a-bomb attacks were to go ahead regardless of the Potsdam declaration - regardless of any diplomatic process. Stimson said this himself. I know you don't believe him but there it is. I can't make you believe him. What I will do is add the War Secretary to the list of people who you think opinions are worthless.

Anyway this has nothing to do with Mexican illegals, so I'll let you have the last word and we'll call it quits.

dan-cat

04-11-2006, 06:20 AM

Please tell me where I said anything derogatory.

Well you suggested that my American history was inadequate which kind of riled me up, however reading back on my posts it does seem that I've been overly aggressive so for that I apologise.

I think what I latched on to was this:

Mexicans live in dirtier conditions and are much less apt to follow generally excepted rules of society. Such as NOT leaving your empty beer bottle in the middle of a parking lot, or in the street. You would not believe the trash these people have left everywhere. Northern VA used to be a place of cleanliness and beauty, until the Mexicans started taking over.

which I understand is not something which you posted. However this is the kind of claptrap that springs out of immigration arguments. We have an immigration problem, fine, what irks me is that people have to resort to dehumanising people to improve their own standing. When the 'Mexicans' start garrotting the local population and decimating the US with smallpox come back to me (not you Pat) and we'll discuss it further.

So, are you saying that we should reward lawbreakers with amnesty? That's what a guest-worker program that includes existing illegals is. Exactly which laws of the United States should we ignore and which should we enforce?

This is my point. My point is that illegal immigrants have not been treated by the US as lawbreakers at all. If you ignore their legal status for years in favor of the benefits you reap from their cheap labor - don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to start citing the law when they start exercising their right to freedom of speech? This is a self-made problem. It's not the illegal immigrants fault. They've been simply living by the rules that we have applied to them for years.

So then they start marching the streets waving a few flags trying to make people aware that they actually exist and everybody starts citing the law that they're illegal and they don't have the right. Well I'm afraid they do have the right. We have permitted them to settle, given them jobs and housing, everything but the right to stand up for oneself. As soon as they ask for this, they become ungrateful, invasive, lecherous scumbags. Well I'm afraid that just doesn't cut the mustard with me. We have created this problem and we're going to have to sort it out. Starting with the acceptance of the fact that these illegals are actually human beings whom we have exploited for years. The situation is a mess but its a mess that we have created.

I'm sorry that your brother is suffering but its not the Mexicans fault, its big business. The boss decided that profits were more important than your brother's welfare. He didn't care that your brother was a US citizen and his replacements weren't. I know it's an emotive subject but in reality you should be sticking it to the plant boss. He doesn't give a damn about illegals and he doesn't give a damn about people like your brother. The illegals have been offered a subsistant living and they took it. It's supply and demand in human trafficking and it's despicable.

So with all due respect, please don't try and suggest that I don't respect the law. It's the failure of the upholding of the law that has caused this problem, not a bunch of PEOPLE waving flags in the street.

FoFa

04-11-2006, 06:52 AM

I'm sorry that your brother is suffering but its not the Mexicans fault, its big business.
Sorry, typically NOT big business. Mostly small business. Big business has too many rules to follow as far as hiring is concerned, and are audited. Not the same for small business.
But you are correct in that the wages are lower, and that what makes a difference for the small businesses. In order to compete, they have to. Once one does it, it becomes impossible to compete with them as they can lower their cost. That does not make it everones fault because they want lower prices however. Given a choice you would take the lower offer for the same service/item, human nature.
The boss decided that profits were more important than your brother's welfare.
I disagree with you on this in that you are personalizing a thing that is not personal in this instance. Maybe for this one guy, but I highly doubt "the boss" singled him out. How ever profits are important. That is what keeps a company in business, and employing people. What happens when profits drop? Layoffs, and even go out of business. Who does that help? Companies are not in business to help the general population. They are in business to make money. To make money they have to employ people. The more money they make, the more people can be employed.

jsanders

04-11-2006, 06:54 AM

Dan,

Up until now I thought to ignore your rather emotional slant on this as being just another’s ravings.

Now you’re quoting me and comparing it to a plague. Mostly your writing on the subject is an emotional diatribe of what I had previously posted; only I said it more succinctly.

There are two thing wrong with your writings, other than the absolute lack of logic.

First: behavior doesn’t have to be murderous to be considered undesirable.

And second: if you have had any experience with south of the border people you would know that they are content to live in unclean conditions and happy to bring that culture with them wherever they go.

You trying to be politically correct doesn’t make it right to usurp our culture with an inferior one.

If you want to blame the large corporations and the lack of will on our part fine, but don’t confuse the issues.

Why they’re here has nothing to do with the way they act when they’re here.

jsanders

04-11-2006, 07:07 AM

Fofa,

Actually American big business does reap benefits from illegal immigration in many ways.

My business is in the new homes industry and I can tell you that the nation’s largest builders are getting very fat on the backs of illegal aliens.
.
80% of new homes in America are built by 20 builders; these builders hire subcontractors which in turn hire illegal aliens. The competition at that level is so intense that the subs have to use illegal immigrants. The subs make an upper middle class living, the large corporations make exorbitant profits, and the illegal aliens, well they make the same hourly wage that American workers made in the 80s.

By the way when I say exorbitant; here’s and example. Average new home in Northern Virginia is about $650,000, average profit is somewhere around $300,000, so you do the math on who is benefiting from the slavery of illegal immigrants.

dan-cat

04-11-2006, 07:23 AM

Up until now I thought to ignore your rather emotional slant on this as being just another’s ravings.

Labelling me as a lunatic won't help your case I'm afraid. The fact that you place this at the beginning of your argument just broadcasts bad logic. Argumentum ad hominem. Try again.

Now you’re quoting me and comparing it to a plague. Mostly your writing on the subject is an emotional diatribe of what I had previously posted; only I said it more succinctly.

Sorry but I never started labelling 'Mexicans' with derogatory characteristics. So you can remove the patronising tone too please.

First: behavior doesn’t have to be murderous to be considered undesirable.

Completely missed the point didn't you? The point was that undesirable behaviour is not exclusive to a single culture. I wasn't trying to justify dirty living conditions, I was illustrating the point that being anti-social is a human characteristic not a Mexican one.

And second: if you have had any experience with south of the border people you would know that they are content to live in unclean conditions and happy to bring that culture with them wherever they go.

Argument from authority too huh? Yep your logic is real sound. We have a large Mexican population in our town. Some live in squalid conditions, others live in poor but tidy accomodation. Same goes for the white population in my town. However according to your impeccable logic , we have no illegal Mexicans in Kentucky.

You trying to be politically correct doesn’t make it right to usurp our culture with an inferior one.

Another piece of sound logic. This is called a Strawman argument by the way. Creating an argument to knock down which I never supported. Where did I say that the current culture should be usurped?

If you want to blame the large corporations and the lack of will on our part fine, but don’t confuse the issues.

What by refusing to agree with your principle that Mexicans are inferior? Well excuse me for debating the point. More bad logic I'm afraid - this one is called poisoning the well.

So far my knowledge on American History has been attacked, my argumentative skills have been derided and I have been suggested to be 'raving'. Would anybody actually care to logically debate against my point of view?

dan-cat

04-11-2006, 07:33 AM

That does not make it everones fault because they want lower prices however. Given a choice you would take the lower offer for the same service/item, human nature.

Agreed. Just like you'd take a lower wage to get a job to feed your family. It's a 2 way relationship between the employer and the employed.

I disagree with you on this in that you are personalizing a thing that is not personal in this instance. Maybe for this one guy, but I highly doubt "the boss" singled him out.

But Fofa, I wasn't personalizing it. That was my point. The boss ignores the personal and legal issues in this case. Layoffs occur because of financial reasons not personal ones. Illegals are employed instead of legals for the exact same reason, however this is an illegal act in itself. The boss doesn't care about the welfare or the status of his employees. He cares solely about the profit.

Anyway thanks for disagreeing with me in a respectful manner.

Kraj

04-11-2006, 07:40 AM

Well you suggested that my American history was inadequate which kind of riled me up, however reading back on my posts it does seem that I've been overly aggressive so for that I apologise.
That's why I like you. And while Pat's comment was a bit uncalled for, I think it's fair to say you were presenting a position that was as equally one-sided. My knowledge on the subject is not absolute, but it appears to me the circumstances behind dropping the atomic bomb and the ultimate judgement on what the motivations were is mostly a matter of opinion. Some people believed the war would have ended without it; some believe it was necessary to force an unconditional surrender from Japan. Both sides have plenty of evidence to support the claim, and suggesting one side is factual while claiming the opposite is false is fallacious enough to create the appearance of ignorance.

We have an immigration problem, fine, what irks me is that people have to resort to dehumanising people to improve their own standing.
While I think most people would agree it's wrong to draw conclusions about and entire population based on a small subgroup of that population, you can't really blame someone for forming an opinion based on their experiences. If Joe has repeatedly had poor experiences with Mexican immigrants leaving large amounts of garbage in the streets of his community, it may not be right to assume that all Mexicans behave the same way but his experiences says they do. Again, it may not be right, but it's hardly "dehumanizing".

When the 'Mexicans' start garrotting the local population and decimating the US with smallpox come back to me (not you Pat) and we'll discuss it further.
You know darn well this is a false argument. Pointing out one group is behaving or has behaved badly is not an excuse for another group to behave badly.

If you ignore their legal status for years in favor of the benefits you reap from their cheap labor - don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to start citing the law when they start exercising their right to freedom of speech?
Quite possibly. However, as it stands the Constitution only protects citizens of this country. People residing in the United States illegally have no right to free speech. Maybe they should, but that's a whole 'nuther can of worms.

This is a self-made problem. It's not the illegal immigrants fault. They've been simply living by the rules that we have applied to them for years.
This is where my disagreement with you motivated me to post. Believe me, I certainly see your point of view and this is not a black and white issue, but you're blaming the victim here. The illegal immigrants came here knowing darn well what they were doing was wrong (at least from our point of view; I've already made a discussion about their possible point of view). Getting away with illegal behavior does not make it legal at any point in time, nor does it shift the blame. Does a person who speeds down the same road past the same cop every day have the right to complain when he gets pulled over? No.

dan-cat

04-11-2006, 08:18 AM

That's why I like you. And while Pat's comment was a bit uncalled for, I think it's fair to say you were presenting a position that was as equally one-sided.

The arguments were motivated by the claim of my ignorance and for some weird reason I got a bit riled. Agreed though, it is a not a fore-gone conclusion that either side is right. There are good arguments for either side and I hope I supported my side soundly.

While I think most people would agree it's wrong to draw conclusions about and entire population based on a small subgroup of that population, you can't really blame someone for forming an opinion based on their experiences. If Joe has repeatedly had poor experiences with Mexican immigrants leaving large amounts of garbage in the streets of his community, it may not be right to assume that all Mexicans behave the same way but his experiences says they do. Again, it may not be right, but it's hardly "dehumanizing".

I'm sorry Kraj, but I'm a little less flexible on this as you. For me its just a bit too patronising to say that people who scape-goat just 'don't get out enough'. If an individual wants to be regarded as intelligent then one needs to display some common sense. The inferior culture argument is one that I abhor. I know the Aztec link was a bit extreme but it was an attempt to place the inferior culture argument into some kind of context. MAybe I'm a little touchy on the subject - I'll elaborate further on.

You know darn well this is a false argument. Pointing out one group is behaving or has behaved badly is not an excuse for another group to behave badly.

This was emotive I know and was in direct retaliation for the 'inferior culture' argument. However my point was this, anti-social behaviour is not exclusive to a culture. Wielding this argument to debase a culture is fallacious. It is critical that these people retain their dignity whilst we sort the problem out.

Quite possibly. However, as it stands the Constitution only protects citizens of this country. People residing in the United States illegally have no right to free speech. Maybe they should, but that's a whole 'nuther can of worms.

Should they actually be gagged whilst picking our 'maters?;) Sorry for the Rich-like one-liner but I couldn't resist:D

Does a person who speeds down the same road past the same cop every day have the right to complain when he gets pulled over? No.

Sorry Kraj, this doesn't hold water. The cop didn't buy the car for the driver. The US institution has been positively encouraging the illegality of these immigrants. Why? because they hold complete dominion on them. You've actually exposed the ace-card that the institution can play once these illegals get too bothersome. You're right they are illegal, gagged and vulnerable. The cop ignores the driver, the institution does no such thing. They tell the driver to get in the car and hit the gas, blindfolded.

You can't hold a group of people like this in limbo, indefinitely. It was illegal for a black man to use the same bathroom as a white man a few decades agoi. The illegals aren't slaves but can't you see the similarities? A group of people being given a subsistant living, with no rights and being branded as an inferior culture. Am I raving? Am I imagining it? Maybe I should go see a shrink. However I just have a gut feeling about this.

FoFa

04-11-2006, 08:28 AM

Actually American big business does reap benefits from illegal immigration in many ways. 80% of new homes in America are built by 20 builders; these builders hire subcontractors which in turn hire illegal aliens. The competition at that level is so intense that the subs have to use illegal immigrants.
I never said big business doesn't reap any benefit, they typically don't hire illegals because of laws, and audits. Our large corp. has a lawn service, I would bet not all are legal either, however when push comes to shove, the corp is contracting with a firm that has the illegals. Just as you said, the big builders are not hiring the illegals themself, but contracting with subs (smaller businesses) that handle their own employment. Now I am not going to say "turning a blind eye" is proper, but I also don't think the large corp. who are contracting should monitor the smaller businesses employment practices either. Our contracts state they are not to use illegal immagrants, but we really don't know.

FoFa

04-11-2006, 08:43 AM

But Fofa, I wasn't personalizing it. That was my point. The boss ignores the personal and legal issues in this case. Layoffs occur because of financial reasons not personal ones. Illegals are employed instead of legals for the exact same reason, however this is an illegal act in itself. The boss doesn't care about the welfare or the status of his employees. He cares solely about the profit.

OK, see here is where I get confused, you say ignores the personal issues, dosn't care about the welfare or status of emlpoyees, just profit. But I think you are wrong in a majority of cases. I know some lawn care people, and they , ahem, have , ahem, without their knowledge, ahem, hired illegals in the past. They do care about those that do good work and are not "drifters". Yes they care about profit, but because they have families to feed, and they want to keep their employees, employed, who also have families in a lot of cases. To compete in that business you have to keep your prices low, and do good work. Since it is more about labor (maybe gas shortly :rolleyes: ) it becomes important to keep labor prices low. If they have good workers, they can do more lawns with less people, and still give them a decent wage. They are not "slave" labor. At least from the 4 or 5 I have meet/know that seems to be the norm. But I am sure there are as many different also.

dan-cat

04-11-2006, 08:58 AM

They are not "slave" labor. At least from the 4 or 5 I have meet/know that seems to be the norm. But I am sure there are as many different also.

I'm intrigued by this point. If what you say is true, why are the labor-intensive roles dominated by the illegals? What makes the boss pick them above a US citizen? What makes the employment of an illegal a more profitable option? I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm interested in your opinion of a business man's mentality.

FoFa

04-11-2006, 09:49 AM

I'm intrigued by this point. If what you say is true, why are the labor-intensive roles dominated by the illegals? What makes the boss pick them above a US citizen? What makes the employment of an illegal a more profitable option? I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm interested in your opinion of a business man's mentality.
Not being in this business, I would have to give you second hand information. But most of them have legals working for them, who have "a friend" that needs a job. This friend will work for cash, under the table. No questions asked. Less taxes and associated business related expenses since they are not on the books. They can pay them almost the same, but come out ahead. If they are mistreated, most will leave for another job (not a real lack of jobs for them). That is about all I can tell you from my dealings with those in the business. I have not had contact with any for a few years now either, doubt it has changed any.

Rich

04-11-2006, 10:25 AM

You've already quoted the final clause of the Potsdam declaration. Do I need to quote it again? You tell me how complete and utter destruction of an entire nation can be deemed as not an act of anger and I'll concede the point. The allies had embarked on a course of complete annihilation of the Japanese. Like I said over and over again, the a-bomb attacks were to go ahead regardless of the Potsdam declaration - regardless of any diplomatic process. Stimson said this himself. I know you don't believe him but there it is. I can't make you believe him. What I will do is add the War Secretary to the list of people who you think opinions are worthless.

.

Leave Stimson aside for the minute, do you not see that all the others you listed had their own agendas, do you not see that they all wanted to claim their own glory by leading their men into battle, do you not see that countless thousands of fine decent American lives were spared simply by dropping two bombs, do you think the navy would have just sat offshore and waited for the Japanese to surrender, whilst they were subjected to the entire Japanese airforce engaging in Kamikaze attacks on them?
All of what you have listed is nothing more than conjecture, what is irrefutable is that the war was brought to an immediate end with just two bombs.

dan-cat

04-11-2006, 10:27 AM

So the only real difference between an illegal and a non-illegal worker is a mutual 'unofficial' understanding between the employer and employee. The quality of work is the same and both cut out the tax man. The relationship seems quite cordial. Don't you think this is going to spread bad feeling amongst the legal workers considering they pay their taxes and the illegals don't and that their boss actually encourages this?

Kraj

04-11-2006, 10:41 AM

For me its just a bit too patronising to say that people who scape-goat just 'don't get out enough'.
I see what you're saying, but I don't see it as scapegoating. Scapegoating would be observing a.) my neighborhood is getting visibly delapidated and b.) there are a lot of Mexians moving into my neighborhood and then concluding that c.) Mexicans are responsible for the delapidation of my neighborhood. That's quite different from observing a large portion of Mexicans in the neighborhood repeatedly throwing garbage everywhere.

Yes, it's quite silly to blame illegal immigrants for all the nation's problems; but it is quite appropriate to partially blame them for the problems they are partially causing.

However my point was this, anti-social behaviour is not exclusive to a culture. Wielding this argument to debase a culture is fallacious. It is critical that these people retain their dignity whilst we sort the problem out.
I certainly agree. Illegal immigrants cause a problem that needs to be dealt with and technically they are even criminals, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve basic human rights.

Should they actually be gagged whilst picking our 'maters?;) Sorry for the Rich-like one-liner but I couldn't resist:D
No prob. And the answer is "no". The point is not that illegal immigrants should be prevented from excercising basic human rights, but that they shouldn't refuse to abide by the law and then expect to be protected by it.

The US institution has been positively encouraging the illegality of these immigrants.
This is where my knowledge of the topic fails. If you are correct, it certainly proves a reasonable compromise is needed. It's not exactly entrapment, but it would certainly be unjust to punish people for behavior that was encouraged. However, to the best of my knowledge the law has simply failed to adequately discourage illegal immigration and punish the business that do encourage it. If you have any links to an unbaised dicussion of the topic, I'd be interested in reading them.

You can't hold a group of people like this in limbo, indefinitely.
I just don't see it as these people are being "held" in limbo; they've chosen it. It may be stupidly hard to become a legal immigrant these days, but the process is there. It may be broken, but's that not an excuse to ignore it.

dan-cat

04-11-2006, 10:41 AM

Leave Stimson aside for the minute, do you not see that all the others you listed had their own agendas, do you not see that they all wanted to claim their own glory by leading their men into battle, do you not see that countless thousands of fine decent American lives were spared simply by dropping two bombs, do you think the navy would have just sat offshore and waited for the Japanese to surrender, whilst they were subjected to the entire Japanese airforce engaging in Kamikaze attacks on them?
All of what you have listed is nothing more than conjecture, what is irrefutable is that the war was brought to an immediate end with just two bombs.

Countless number of American lives were spared by the policy epitomized in the Potsdam declaration.

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed
forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

You can't isolate the atomic bomb usage from the rest of the militiary campaign. You said yourself there was little difference between the firestorm of Tokyo and Hiroshima. The entire military campaign was in line with the policy defined by the term 'utter destruction'. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were part and parcel of this policy.

Kraj

04-11-2006, 10:56 AM

do you not see that countless thousands of fine decent American lives were spared simply by dropping two bombs, ...?
Not that I agree 100% with either side of this issue, but... surely you realize that the 150,000 (give or take 50,000) Japanese civilians who were killed "simply by dropping two bombs" were just as fine and decent as the Americans who were spared?

Rich

04-11-2006, 10:58 AM

Countless number of American lives were spared by the policy epitomized in the Potsdam declaration.

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed
forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

You can't isolate the atomic bomb usage from the rest of the militiary campaign. You said yourself there was little difference between the firestorm of Tokyo and Hiroshima. The entire military campaign was in line with the policy defined by the term 'utter destruction'. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were part and parcel of this policy.

I don't understand your argument, Japan was spared utter destruction by Hiroshima and Nagasaki :confused:

Pat Hartman

04-11-2006, 02:09 PM

I never said big business doesn't reap any benefit, they typically don't hire illegals because of laws, and audits.Correct. Big business uses the H1b and L1 visa programs to get their cheap foreign labor with which they replace citizen and legal resident labor.

I think the presence of so many illegal aliens in our midst simply crept up on the general population. The Border States have had problems for a number of years because of the increased social services such as schooling and healthcare that they have been providing, but the total number of illegals seems to have reached critical mass and now they are on everyone's radar; even in places where their numbers are not overwhelming.

If you have been following the news lately, you will have seen that for the demonstrations this weekend, the illegals carried American flags for the most part. That was of course due to the outcry caused by all the Mexican flags at the last demonstration but I am not fooled:) They still think of themselves as Mexicans or at best Mexican-American. Also, notice the growing divide in our political representatives. The Democrats want amnesty because new immigrants typically vote Democratic and the Republicans don't want amnesty for exactly that reason plus, once you make the illegal aliens legal, they now have rights. That means that they aren't going to put up with their current working conditions and that means that wages will go up and benefits costs will go up and businesses will scream that they can't get any workers (leaving out of course - "at the price they're willing to pay") and we have to increase our visa program so we can import cheaper labor. It is a vicious cycle.

I think that it is absolutely necessary to penalize companies that hire illegal aliens. Unfortunately, that poses somewhat of a problem given that we don’t have a national identification card. There doesn’t seem to be any way to verify SSNs to ensure that they are valid and belong to the person using them. But I do wonder what the IRS does when they discover a person’s reported wages doesn’t match his return because an illegal has been using an SSN belonging to another person.

I also think that we need to examine what went wrong with NAFTA. NAFTA was supposed to help Mexico so that its economy could support its population. At least that's how it was sold to the American population who was pretty much against the bill. Instead, it depressed wages and pushed poor family farms out of business causing much of the impetus to emigrate to El Norte.

dan-cat

04-12-2006, 05:38 AM

I see what you're saying, but I don't see it as scapegoating. Scapegoating would be observing a.) my neighborhood is getting visibly delapidated and b.) there are a lot of Mexians moving into my neighborhood and then concluding that c.) Mexicans are responsible for the delapidation of my neighborhood. That's quite different from observing a large portion of Mexicans in the neighborhood repeatedly throwing garbage everywhere.

I don't agree. You say it was simply an observance. I say it was an argument used to support the opinion that Mexicans are part of an inferior culture. If you read back on it I'm sure you'll agree that this was the obvious context. I won't give the quote for fear of provoking another personal attack on me.

Yes, it's quite silly to blame illegal immigrants for all the nation's problems; but it is quite appropriate to partially blame them for the problems they are partially causing.

Yes, it is quite appropriate to take all the contributing factors into account and whilst doing this cast aside the argument that the problem involves an inferior people as fallacious. I brought Aztecs into it to bludgeon this argument into submission. The Aztec culture was the most advanced culture in both the Northern and Southern American continent combined until the arrival of the Spanish. Yes they performed human sacrifice but then you could argue that so did the Spanish. They killed thousands in the name of their religion. That's all I wanted, for this argument to be cast aside and until I spoke up nobody was willing to reject it. That upset me a little. What would have happened if Jews had been marked as inferior, or Blacks or Homosexuals. There would have been uproar. However there was no reaction at all. I'll get marked as being politically correct but I don't care about labels. I'm allowed to react if I want to even if I get described as 'raving'.

I certainly agree. Illegal immigrants cause a problem that needs to be dealt with and technically they are even criminals, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve basic human rights.

Yes technically. I'll expand on this further on

No prob. And the answer is "no". The point is not that illegal immigrants should be prevented from excercising basic human rights, but that they shouldn't refuse to abide by the law and then expect to be protected by it.

Kraj, Kraj... what are you saying? Since when have we not protected convicted criminals with the law? The law is there to uphold humanity. Of course criminals are protected by the law otherwise I could walk into any jail and execute anybody I chose. I'm not saying that people shouldn't obey the law but saying that the law should abandon them because they are illegal is completely false. People should always expect to be protected by the law. This is a critical factor to a civilised society.

This is where my knowledge of the topic fails. If you are correct, it certainly proves a reasonable compromise is needed. It's not exactly entrapment, but it would certainly be unjust to punish people for behavior that was encouraged. However, to the best of my knowledge the law has simply failed to adequately discourage illegal immigration and punish the business that do encourage it. If you have any links to an unbaised dicussion of the topic, I'd be interested in reading them.

This is the encouragement in itself. If you are an impoverished family who is aware that people north of the border are handing out money for a day's work and the authorities are turning a blind eye - then this is the encouragement. It's like offering a glass of water to a man in a desert. Mexicans send a huge amount of money back to their families. This is not a coincidence - they are feeding their starving families. Who would do anything different in the same situation?

I just don't see it as these people are being "held" in limbo; they've chosen it. It may be stupidly hard to become a legal immigrant these days, but the process is there. It may be broken, but's that not an excuse to ignore it.

I know I likened the situation to the black slave trade but I did clarify that they weren't actually slaves. When you say that these people are illegal then technically you are 100% correct. They are illegal on paper but not actually in practice. Perhaps 'held' was too strong a word. What I meant was that this situation cannot be maintained indefinitely. Why? because people don't want to exist in an illegal state indefinitely. Some would say well they can always go home if they don't like it but this opinion completely ignores the reality of the situation. The fact that they have been allowed to settle and raise families here. They have become dependant on the wages provided to them. You can't have it both ways. You have to do one of two things.
a) Enforce the law to the letter and start imposing appropriate legal penalties to the offenders.
b) Start to officially accept these illegals as members of our society. Which unofficially has actually been happening for years

You can't expect a vast group of people to exist somewhere in between and for the situation not to become unstable. Following on from this, it should come as little surprise when these people start voicing their opinion. Let them do it as far as I'm concerned. They are the ones who know most about the situation, we could all probably learn alot about the real situation from them. In any case, what's the alternative, running them over with tanks?

If there was really 11 million+ illegals in the US how can anyone be surprised that they start hearing their opinion in the streets? My suspicion is that most considered them a little stupid but this isn't turning out to be the case is it?

dan-cat

04-12-2006, 05:56 AM

If you have been following the news lately, you will have seen that for the demonstrations this weekend, the illegals carried American flags for the most part. That was of course due to the outcry caused by all the Mexican flags at the last demonstration but I am not fooled:) They still think of themselves as Mexicans or at best Mexican-American.

They can't win can they? Now they are actually showing intelligence and respect by being sensitive to general opinion and this is still not good enough.
I put to you that you'd prefer they didn't voice an opinion at all. If so, why you think this is realistic with 11 million+ individuals all in the same situation baffles me.

By the way, I agreed with everything else you said.

FoFa

04-12-2006, 07:06 AM

Don't you think this is going to spread bad feeling amongst the legal workers considering they pay their taxes and the illegals don't and that their boss actually encourages this?
Has already, for more than just that reason.
This guy is working and not paying taxes, has his wife and kid (in a house with 3 other familes). Kid gets sick, he dosn't have the means to pay or a doctor, so they get free medical care. Guess who pays for that also. There are many issue that go along those lines.

dan-cat

04-12-2006, 07:21 AM

Has already, for more than just that reason.

I'm struggling to see how this can be construed as good business practice.

Doesn't this conform to my point earlier that the boss isn't actually considering the feelings of its legal workers? Aren't you risking hacking off all your legal workers and relying on illegal workers who you can't hold under any sort of contract just for the sake of short-term cash flow?

FoFa

04-12-2006, 07:28 AM

I'm struggling to see how this can be construed as good business practice. Doesn't this conform to my point earlier that the boss isn't actually considering the feelings of its legal workers? Aren't you risking hacking off all your legal workers and relying on illegal workers who you can't hold under any sort of contract just for the sake of short-term cash flow?
As with anything, this is a YES and NO answer. The legals put up with the illegals because they are of the same ilk, or friends, or whatever (this is not a negative statement, just a statement). This can be seen by the demonstrations which are being held (as I understand) mostly of legals. Also as I understand it from interviews with those demonstrating (via the news channels) it surrounds the fact that a lot of them have relatives who are illegals, and this could cause legal repercussions against them (if caught associating with the illegals), basically. So the legal workers are typically not hacked off because of some of these reasons. Plus the legals are needed, and make a little more than the illegals. If they were all legals, they could not make as much because of the labor cost, (nasty circle if you follow).

Kraj

04-12-2006, 07:32 AM

I don't agree. You say it was simply an observance. I say it was an argument used to support the opinion that Mexicans are part of an inferior culture. If you read back on it I'm sure you'll agree that this was the obvious context.
You're right. I hadn't read the post in question carefully; the opinion that Mexicans are part of an inferior culture wasn't the obvious context, it was flat-out stated.

*Ahem*

Joe, I understand where you're coming from and why you think what you think, but you're taking it way too far.

That's all I wanted, for this argument to be cast aside and until I spoke up nobody was willing to reject it. That upset me a little.
Fair enough.

Kraj, Kraj... what are you saying? Since when have we not protected convicted criminals with the law?
My bad, I worded that poorly. I did not mean to suggest a person's status as an illegal immigrant should mean they are not protected by the law, especially when it comes to things like due process. What I intended to express is that it is extraordinarily hypocritical to march in protest of the American government while waiving a Mexican flag. It is unreasonable to demand rights and freedoms in America that they wouldn't have in Mexico when they don't really have the right to be here in the first place.

Who would do anything different in the same situation?
I expect I'd do the same. I also expect I'd steal to feed my starving family, but just because I had a good reason doesn't make it any less illegal or even less wrong.

What I meant was that this situation cannot be maintained indefinitely.
I agree. Something certianly has to give, but precisely what has been the whole point of this discussion.

You have to do one of two things.
a) Enforce the law to the letter and start imposing appropriate legal penalties to the offenders.
b) Start to officially accept these illegals as members of our society. Which unofficially has actually been happening for years
Well, you've argued quite a bit that a) is wrong, but b) does nothing to solve the problem. Accepting illegals as members of society (ie., making them citizens) will do nothing to stem the flow of immigrants into the country and money out of the country. What do you suggest be done about this?

FoFa

04-12-2006, 07:37 AM

What do you suggest be done about this?
Legalize all of the current ones, and make them live in Chicago and the surrounding area.
Train hungry tigers to partol the borders.
:p

dan-cat

04-12-2006, 08:03 AM

Fair enough.

Thanks for taking the time to understand where I was coming from. I knew you wouldn't let me down :)

My bad, I worded that poorly. I did not mean to suggest a person's status as an illegal immigrant should mean they are not protected by the law, especially when it comes to things like due process.

Fair dinkum.

What I intended to express is that it is extraordinarily hypocritical to march in protest of the American government while waiving a Mexican flag. It is unreasonable to demand rights and freedoms in America that they wouldn't have in Mexico when they don't really have the right to be here in the first place.

Now, I'm not saying that an illegal immigrant waving a Mexican flag isn't controversial but isn't that the point of a demonstration. The Mexican flag waving did actually serve a purpose. It made people sit up and take notice of the situation. They're not riots they're peaceful demonstrations and with a little care and consideration from the general public we could actually listen to what these people have to say. Now when all is said and done the law may need to be STARTED to be enforced but whatever we do, we musn't tell 11 million people to shut up. This would be an extremely dangerous policy to follow because of the inflammatory implications.

If you would allow me to dramatize the situation a little. One of my favourite films is Spartacus. The crux of the entire film is when the gladiator trainer tells Spartacus "no talking in the kitchen slave!" and slaps him in the face. This one statement triggered the Roman slave revolt. This is drama obviously but it illustrates my point perfectly. When you have a huge group of people who are unhappy about something, you need to tread with extreme caution.

I expect I'd do the same. I also expect I'd steal to feed my starving family, but just because I had a good reason doesn't make it any less illegal or even less wrong.

I'm completely confused by this logic. I'm not sure how one can have a good reason to do something and for the action to be classed as wrong. Doesn't one cancel out the other?

What do you suggest be done about this?

I admit that up until this point I've been concentrating on the things that we musn't do, so my contributions have been so far limited to this. You're going to have to give me a little time to think this one through. :)

Kraj

04-12-2006, 09:42 AM

Thanks for taking the time to understand where I was coming from. I knew you wouldn't let me down :)
:)

Now, I'm not saying that an illegal immigrant waving a Mexican flag isn't controversial but isn't that the point of a demonstration. The Mexican flag waving did actually serve a purpose. It made people sit up and take notice of the situation. They're not riots they're peaceful demonstrations and with a little care and consideration from the general public we could actually listen to what these people have to say.
Fair enough.

Now when all is said and done the law may need to be STARTED to be enforced but whatever we do, we musn't tell 11 million people to shut up.
Isn't the law being enforced precisely what is being protested? Granted there are new, thougher laws being passed (including some retarded ideas like building a wall. Hello? Perhaps we could hire contractors from Berlin or China. :rolleyes: ), but the protests are basically against treating illegal immigrants like they're breaking that law.

I'm completely confused by this logic. I'm not sure how one can have a good reason to do something and for the action to be classed as wrong. Doesn't one cancel out the other?
Of course not. If my family is starving and so I break into your house and steal all your valuables, wouldn't you say that was wrong of me? I may have done the right thing for my family, but I certainly wronged you.

I admit that up until this point I've been concentrating on the things that we musn't do, so my contributions have been so far limited to this. You're going to have to give me a little time to think this one through. :)
I look forward to hearing your ideas.

dan-cat

04-12-2006, 10:13 AM

Isn't the law being enforced precisely what is being protested? Granted there are new, thougher laws being passed (including some retarded ideas like building a wall. Hello? Perhaps we could hire contractors from Berlin or China. :rolleyes: ), but the protests are basically against treating illegal immigrants like they're breaking that law.

This was one of the points of debate. Like you said, it's not a black and white situation. They are illegal 'technically' but one could argue that this law no longer applies to them because, in reality, they have been accepted as legal. The law has not been applied for years. This is why your speeding driver example didn't work. It's not a one-off. One could argue that it has become policy to not only tolerate but support the speeding driver. There is an element of hypocrisy to it but it is present on both sides. A bunch of people think they have a right to legal residence well let's hear what they have to say and hopefully we can come up with a just response to their request.

Of course not. If my family is starving and so I break into your house and steal all your valuables, wouldn't you say that was wrong of me? I may have done the right thing for my family, but I certainly wronged you.

This is an ethical point which will probably lead to a side-track but what the hay. I was speaking objectively. Can an action be right and wrong at the same time? The house owner feels he is wronged but the thief feels it is wrong for him to have lots of possessions whilst he starves. So his requirements took precedence. One feels he is right the other wrong. Does the action have an objective yes/no moral value. My opinion is yes but this is the beginning of a huge philosophical question.

Pat Hartman

04-12-2006, 11:44 AM

b) Start to officially accept these illegals as members of our society. Which unofficially has actually been happening for yearsThis should not even be considered unless we can stop the inflow IMMEDIATELY. Every time the topic of amnesty comes up, border crossings increase because everyone wants to be on this side of the border when the amnesty happens.

I see the priorities as:
1. Impose fines and other sanctions on the employers of illegals. The existing laws are too weak and are not enforced anyway.
2. Secure our ports and borders. This will take some years of building the proper infrastructure and a 700 mile wall isn't the answer.
3. Since they want equality, impose the same sanctions on the illegals who didn't pay their taxes as would have been imposed on citizens.
4. Change our laws so that children born in the US don't automatically acquire citizenship unless their mother is here legally.
5. Lastly, we can consider increasing immigration limits.

I am dead set against rewarding people who have entered the country illegally regardless of their need.

Isn't the law being enforced precisely what is being protested? Granted there are new, thougher laws being passed (including some retarded ideas like building a wall. Hello? Perhaps we could hire contractors from Berlin or China. ), Actually, hiring Mexicans to build the wall goes a long way toward solving everyones problem:)

They can't win can they? Now they are actually showing intelligence and respect by being sensitive to general opinion and this is still not good enough.No because they haven't changed their way of thinking. They only listened to the bad press caused by waiving what they consider to be their own flags. They didn't change their signs and they carried far too many US flags upside down which is downright disrespectful.

When you listen to the speaches of the protest leaders, they are filled with "feeling". The illegals are poor. They have no opportunities in their home countries. They just come here so they can earn money to send to their families. They endure great hardship and danger to come here. They only take jobs that Americans won't take. That last statement really irks me since it is totally untrue. Americans would be happy to take the jobs if they paid a reasonable wage. Americans simply aren't willing to live 15 people to a 2-bedroom house because that's all they can afford on the miniscule wages being offered.

The question that is never raised is why do these particular immigrants deserve special treatment? There are many people in the world who are much worse off. They simply have the misfortune of not sharing a border with the US. Should we reach out to the rest of the world and say send us your poor, your uneducated masses by the millions every year. Just where do you draw the line between charity and self preservation. There is a limited number of uneducated, untrained people any industrialized economy can absorb in any given time period. We have reached the saturation point. The masses already here have had a negative impact on real wages. I just don't think we have the capacity to absorb more.

jsanders

04-12-2006, 08:56 PM

On Inferior Culture and Language.

There have been basically two topics discussed on this thread:

1. What to do about the illegal alien problem and its economic impact on Middle Class America.
2. The denigration of American society by the infestation of a culture that is not as advanced as ours.

On the first topic I feel the same way I did in my first post. This problem will never go away as long as we don’t enforce existing laws that penalize the people that benefit the most: Namely Employers.

Henry Ford, one of the great American visionaries broke out of the mode of the complete ownership of employees, and helped create the Great Middle Class; his philosophy was that employees of Ford should be able to afford the cars they built.

This flew in the face of previous industrialist like Rockefeller and Carnegie, who believed that workers were to be treated like slaves and that they should buy their goods from the company store.

Unfortunately for middle class America the last 27 years have seen a return to this ethos, in that we are seeing an unprecedented redistribution of wealth, back to the riches one percent; with the company store being Wal-Mart. Owned by the way by the same institutional investors that owns the insurance companies and the oil companies.

So Fofa when you say that the big companies are not benefiting from this illegal alien problem, you are discounting the affect that an excess of artificially low wages (afforded by illegal immigrants) has on the overall low end job market. It allows Wal-Mart to have more leverage with uneducated American workers.

This is just part of the problem.

The other; more insidious, but equally damaging to the American Dream, is the culture from which these workers are derived.

I have to stop here to qualify some of my opinions with a little back ground info.

I grew up in Texas and have had a life time to discern the issues with South of the Border culture. I have traveled fairly extensively in both Mexico and Central America.

The most predominate characteristic of South of the Border countries is the extreme separation of wealth. There the richest one or two percent own virtually everything. The rest live in squalor.

So how does that have any bearing on the North American problem?
Here’s how.

The problem goes all the way back to the days if Imperialism. Countries colonized by the British were provided with systems of government and commerce that were far superior to all of the other ones. Couple this, with them speaking English; which has evolved to be the most advanced language spoken by humans, ever.

Entire books could be written on the differences that the British made to the colonies in those days. And it didn’t end with just government or commerce it included infrastructure and education as well.

So the very foundation of English speaking countries was more advanced than that of the Spanish; who’s only real desire was to rape, pillage and convert.

So go forward to the beginning of the industrial revolution. Mexico had oil reserves greater than that of the United States. Yet with all that wealth their inferior culture didn’t capitalize on it, innovation was stifled by the rape and pillage mentality and the peasants were kept poor; sometime at the end of a sword or gun.

So now after 500 years of being in abject poverty, they are bringing this ethos here. And American business is handing out invitations as if to a fiesta.

So when I say their culture is inferior I meant it in measurable ways: in health care, in education, in wealth distribution, in opportunity, and many other ways equally as measurable.

There is an assault, in the United States, on the middle class, and it is fueled by cheep imports from China and aided by labor that is artificially low. If this trend continues we will succeed in creating a society that is inferior to the one our parents had. Unfortunately the lower part will be populated by Spanish speaking people.

So the very nature of their protest and behavior is insuring they will live the same way here; as they did there.

Pat Hartman

04-12-2006, 09:29 PM

So the very foundation of English speaking countries was more advanced than that of the Spanish who’s only real desire was to rape, pillage and convert.Speaking of converting, I just finished reading the Constant Princess which is a historical novel based on the life of Katherine of Aragon. Katherine was the youngest daughter of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile and was married off to the heir to the English throne which originally was Arthur. When Arthur died shortly after the marriage, Katherine was forced to wait in England living in gentile poverty while Henry came of age. Katherine ultimately became Queen of England as the first wife of Henry the VIII. Anyway, the book spends a lot of time talking about Isabella's conviction that god spoke to her and it was her duty to expel the Moors and Jews from Spain and convert those who remained to Catholicism. Before Isabella, Andalusia was an enlightened, advanced, country with great universities and hospitals where ALL people of the book lived in peace and prosperity. Isabella and the Inquisition ended all that and Europe suffered for centuries because of it.

Couple this with them speaking English; which has evolved to be the most advanced language spoken by humans, ever.Please don't tell the French that. They already hate us for usurping the place of French in the world of diplomacy.

So the very nature of their protest and behavior is insuring they will live the same way here as they did there.I guess that's what bothers me the most about the recent demonstrations. If they expended that energy back in their homelands, they might be able to change things for the better and not need to come here at all.

dan-cat

04-13-2006, 09:59 AM

I guess that's what bothers me the most about the recent demonstrations. If they expended that energy back in their homelands, they might be able to change things for the better and not need to come here at all.

What bothers me the most is combining the situations of employing a huge group of people, afford them no rights and class them as inferior. These three situations COMBINED are completely unacceptable, IMHO. If a society 'unoffically' accepts a culture of people by employing them, then that society has no right whatsoever to mark them as 'inferior'.
So let's say they are an "inferior" culture. (The phrase just sticks in my throat) What has this got to do with anything? The issue is one of law. Are they made more illegal because they are inferior? Of course not. All one is doing is stamping prejudice on the case. It's a completely worthless argument. Since when has a prosecution used an argument that the defendant is inherently inferior?

"He did it your honor because as well all know, that's what most people of his kind do".

I mean c'mon look at the language being used: "infestation", "insidious". Please don't make me quote propoganda that used similar rhetoric.

They are illegal because they are residing without citizenship or a visa. That is their status. If they tend to whistle at girls or drop trash in the street, this makes no difference to their status. If they didn't throw trash the street would they be excused by the law? Would the law become void?

dan-cat

04-13-2006, 10:28 AM

The problem goes all the way back to the days if Imperialism. Countries colonized by the British were provided with systems of government and commerce that were far superior to all of the other ones.

Do you have any idea what would happen if Condoleezza Rice said something like this at the UN? Thank God you don't work for the State Department.

Rich

04-13-2006, 11:18 AM

Do you have any idea what would happen if Condoleezza Rice said something like this at the UN? Thank God you don't work for the State Department.

Well it would make a refreshing change from all the lies currently issued by your state department :rolleyes:

Brianwarnock

04-13-2006, 12:39 PM

I find this a very confusing thread for me personally as my head and my heart are in conflict.
My heart is annoyed at the hypocrisy of a people whose nation is a colonial state whose every inch was stolen from other people, who say stay at home and make your own land better, like the original immigrants? like the mass of Irish fleeing the potato famine? I could go on but my head says Jsanders and Pat make very valid points, and one has to take a pragmatic view, you cannot turn back time, but you do have to look for a just solution, and making criminals out of people you have been encouraged to break the law is wrong. I don't have a solution, but agree with Dan that the rhetoric on this thread is wrong.

Brian

Rich

04-13-2006, 12:43 PM

What I don't understand is that it's ok for American companies to set up shop in Mexico and use the Mexicans as cheap labour and yet it's somehow immoral for them to come to America as cheap labour for American firms. :confused:

dan-cat

04-13-2006, 02:09 PM

My heart is annoyed at the hypocrisy of a people whose nation is a colonial state whose every inch was stolen from other people, who say stay at home and make your own land better, like the original immigrants? like the mass of Irish fleeing the potato famine?

Some would argue that this is different because the original immigrants were English-speaking and thus justified in the act of migration. Unfortunately this 'superior' culture virtually wiped out the original American population in the process. Just like the Spanish did south of the border. Then we have the audacity to describe other people as an 'infestation'. If Mexicans are an infestation what the hell does that make us?

dan-cat

04-13-2006, 02:10 PM

Well it would make a refreshing change from all the lies currently issued by your state department :rolleyes:

Come, come surely you can bring yourself to agree with me on one point.:eek: :p

Pat Hartman

04-13-2006, 04:52 PM

All I can say about the last few threads is you guys keep loosing sight of the illegal entry aspect of the issue. Why people emigrate is not an issue here. They emigrate because they hope to find a better life. Various waves of immigrants have come here over the years for various reasons - they want religious freedom, they want to escape a totalitarian regime, they want economic opportunity, and the list goes on. I would like nothing better than to make life better for every downtrodden individual in the entire world. Can I do that? Is it even a reasonable expectation? Should it be the goal of my country? Should my country be expected by the rest of the world to accept everyone else’s problems? Should we destroy our middle class to accomplish that? Why should some group of people choose themselves for preferential treatment by breaking into my country?

Do I feel sorry for them? Yes. Should they be allowed to stay? No. Is it reasonable to expel them en mass? Of course not. Do I have an alternative solution? Let them go home the way they came, one at a time as their jobs dry up. Let them apply for citizenship as others before them have. They should not get priority just because they snuck in under the fence. In fact if they go home en mass, marching across the border, carrying Mexican flags, it would scare the bejesus out of the Mexican government because they would see their biggest single form of foreign exchange drying up before their eyes.

Brianwarnock

04-16-2006, 09:49 AM

All I can say about the last few threads is you guys keep loosing sight of the illegal entry aspect of the issue. .

I was not loosing sight of it , I was ignoring it as an argument against the peasants, however please use it as an argument against those encouraging them to enter your country. Maybe any solution should be paid for by those organisations. I'm sure that your concern regarding these people is not just a legal one as i doubt you would be pleased for the law to be changed to allow any and every Tom Dick or Harry to enter your country.

I believe that your main objections are as follows

1 You object to firms being able to hire these people for a pittance that no American could possibly survive on.

2 You object to the huge numbers that are altering the American culture. No country no matter how large , generous, or welcoming can absorb too many people in a short time without its culture being affected. You need time to Americanise them, and as you quite rightly say, and have on a previous thread where I agreed with you, your people should be Americans pure and simple, not hyphenated with another nationality.

" Hello I'm an English-Creole-Italian- American, this is my wife she is an Irish-Costa Rican-Mexican- American, which makes our kids " ?? well you work it out.

Brian

jsanders

04-16-2006, 10:16 AM

I was not loosing sight of it , I was ignoring it as an argument against the peasants, however please use it as an argument against those encouraging them to enter your country. Maybe any solution should be paid for by those organisations. I'm sure that your concern regarding these people is not just a legal one as i doubt you would be pleased for the law to be changed to allow any and every Tom Dick or Harry to enter your country.

I believe that your main objections are as follows

1 You object to firms being able to hire these people for a pittance that no American could possibly survive on.

2 You object to the huge numbers that are altering the American culture. No country no matter how large , generous, or welcoming can absorb too many people in a short time without its culture being affected. You need time to Americanise them, and as you quite rightly say, and have on a previous thread where I agreed with you, your people should be Americans pure and simple, not hyphenated with another nationality.

" Hello I'm an English-Creole-Italian- American, this is my wife she is an Irish-Costa Rican-Mexican- American, which makes our kids " ?? well you work it out.

Brian

Heine’s 57

jsanders

04-16-2006, 10:40 AM

Up until this post you might have gotten the impressions that I don’t believe the South of the Border folks should be here at all.

This is simply not true. If my daughter was not getting food, medicine, or education, I would go wherever and do whatever it took.

I rave, not because they are coming, but that the system is promoting a new peasant class in America that threatens to bring her to her knees. In every way we are creating a divide that is growing wider by the year. If this trend continues we will not recognize our own country, and the young people growing up will never understand the greatness that was once, America.

When we broke away from Great Britain is was to end living in a monarchy that made it impossible to grow above a certain class, no mater what your capabilities. Later, as the industrial revolution grew American industrialist created the fastest growing economy in the world usurping Great Britain, Germany and Japan in industrial output.

But at a cost.

The division of wealth was then the greatest ever in American history, leaving the Italian, Irish, and Chinese immigrants dying in the mills, mines, and rail roads. After the defeat of the steel mill workers union at the Homestead Steel Works plant in Pittsburgh PA (the largest owned by Carnegie) it took 40 years before the next union appeared in the steel industry, and the workers that participated in the strike were black balled and never worked in steel again.

We are seeing a return to this mantra and we will be distraught if this ends the great middle class, as it evolved from those violent and destitute times.

So when the Spanish (American Spanish) come here and refuse to learn English, nay are encouraged by their own people to retain their culture and language, they are aiding the ultra rich in capturing yet another portion of the middle class and making it part of the working poor.

It seams we are not content with transferring all those middle class American factory jobs to China, we need to transfer as many more of the rest of them to the working poor illegal immigrants.

But hey why should I care? My daughter and all of her cousins are either in collage or heading that way. Certainly they will do well.

Huh. Maybe they can get their homes cleaned by a working poor Spanish mom with 2 kids.

Pat Hartman

04-16-2006, 01:01 PM

But hey why should I care? My daughter and all of her cousins are either in collage or heading that way. Certainly they will do well.I wouldn't bet on it. Unless they are headed into a field where they actually need to "touch" something such as your car's engine or your hamburger, there won't be any high-paying jobs left for them to take. Not only is the middle class being squeezed from the bottom, they are also being squeezed from the top by the H1b and L1 visa holders while the middle is being sucked out through outsourcing.

Maybe "We the People" will make our displeasure known come November. Incumbents beware!!

FoFa

04-17-2006, 07:20 AM

OK, what about this (remember nothing is 100%) but a lot of the (non politically blessed with a visa) come basically from squalor in their home country. So they live in poor conditions (by the "normal" native standards) either by many familys to a house, or many to a room, etc. This is not a bother to them. Now the pittance they make in this country is a vast amount compared to what they can make in their country. They almost all send money home to family. So could it not be said they are undercutting the local population by keeping jobs salary low, while not paying taxes, and still benefiting from the tax payers of that country? Those who move families also, have their kids in school (usually at tax payers expense) and still undercutting the job market for the local people. Yet on one hand you have give them credit for trying to help their family. So who's fault is it?
Not big business (I never said they did not benefit), but the thousands of small businesses that employ them? Should we put thousands of small businesses out of business by stripping them of the labor force that keeps them solvent? I don't see and easy answer to this problem. Might as well turn a blind eye like the last hundred years :rolleyes:

Pat Hartman

04-17-2006, 08:42 AM

jsanders

04-17-2006, 09:07 AM

The only reason that small businesses would have a problem is that some of them would continue to break the law and hire illegals so they could undercut their competitors. That would become less of a problem if we tighten up enforcement.

Some people are never going to admit that the middle class is disappearing. Unfortunately that dominated by the republican older voters.

By the time the young people get to vote it will be too late, and they won’t know any better.

Pat Hartman

04-17-2006, 09:20 AM

I wouldn't blame this on just the Republicans. The Democrats had a big hand in it also. The outsourcing/importing issue picked up serious speed under Clinton. With all the really bad trade agreements the the presure from big business to increase the H1b visa limits I'm not sure how we can stem the tide.

FoFa

04-17-2006, 11:07 AM

Of course with any current events, we have the required Email stuff being circulated.

jsanders

04-17-2006, 06:12 PM

Of course with any current events, we have the required Email stuff being circulated.

Thank yopu Fofa

He has always been one of my heros.

ColinEssex

04-18-2006, 03:42 AM

I've been re-reading through this thread and have a couple of thoughts.

Firstly this is not a knock at the USA. . . . . ok?:rolleyes: Its just an observation.

Now, the USA has an illegal immigrant problem. What I can't understand is this - the US government is in the process of converting a whole country's dictatorship to a democracy - they are also concerned about another country creating a nuclear weapon. In fact the last concern is so great that oil prices have rocketed in the last week or so for fear of a US air strike.

Anyway, if the US government is able to spend hundreds of billions on the above. Why can't they spend money and sort out their home issues like immigration?, because from what I've read here, this is a worsening situation.

Or to put it another way - is there anything being done to sort this - or is there likely to be too much resistance from US big businesses who fund the party in power - therefore, just token things are done to make it look like they (government) are addressing it. Aiding illegals into the UK is big business, there must be many such illegal organisations aiding the US illegal people over the border.

Just to get our Ken going :D - in fact I know there is because the A Team broke up one such organisation mis-treating Mexican illegal immigrants - so it must be true:rolleyes: ;) :D

Incidentally, most "western" countries have an illegal immigrant problem, its not just a US issue.
Australia has "boat people" from Hong Kong / Vietnam etc. Europe has the former "Iron Curtain" country and Mid Asian immigrants. In fact, they try to sneak onto the channel tunnel freight trains or hide in the back of lorries (trucks) to get in the UK. Or they try to get over the North Sea or the channel in flimsy boats.

Col

Len Boorman

04-19-2006, 05:43 AM

In fact the last concern is so great that oil prices have rocketed in the last week or so for fear of a US air strike.

Col

Done my oil shares a power of good :D :D :D

but that is just one way of looking at the situation. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Now I believe I have said this earlier or on another thread.

Until Governments govern for the good of the country and not just to please people so that they stay employed a lot of these problems will not be solved.

I have offered to become the UK Sole Head Of State for a period of 5 years. During this time I cannot promise to solve everything however unpleasant but necessary changes will be made.

Immigration, Law and Order, Health will be major areas tackled.

The EU also but that should not take long at all. Brussels just need to be told a few things.

Len

ColinEssex

04-19-2006, 07:56 AM

Immigration, Law and Order, Health will be major areas tackled.

I could help on the health issue. Working in the NHS, I know very well where the millions are wasted:mad: patient care doesn't enter into it

Col

Len Boorman

04-19-2006, 08:05 AM

I could help on the health issue. Working in the NHS, I know very well where the millions are wasted:mad: patient care doesn't enter into it

Col
Fancy a job in the Cabinet ?.

L

ColinEssex

04-19-2006, 08:19 AM

Fancy a job in the Cabinet ?.

L
On £250,000 a year?. . . . . . . .I'll think about it

ok then:D

KenHigg

04-19-2006, 08:22 AM

Rich

04-19-2006, 11:27 AM

I could help on the health issue. Working in the NHS, I know very well where the millions are wasted:mad: patient care doesn't enter into it

Col
Is it true then that some GP's are now on £250,000 a year ?:eek:

ColinEssex

04-20-2006, 02:13 AM

Is it true then that some GP's are now on £250,000 a year ?:eek:
That's true. The new contracts can boost a GP's salary if they fulfill all the criteria. Some senior administrators in the NHS are approaching that figure if you include "perks"

£250,000?? thats 3 to 4 weeks wages for a premiership footballer.

Or 13 correct answers on "Who wants to be a Millionaire".

Or £250,000 is what the Iraq war is costing the USA every 5 minutes (or $100,000 per minute)
Ref (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002780385_spending03.html)

Or £250,000 represents 20 years work for a clerical officer in the NHS (based on a 12K salary)

Col

ColinEssex

04-20-2006, 03:18 AM

If I may shift focus of the thread a little...

1. At what level of income per year would/could a household consider private health care instead of the NHS?

2. Do some 'Better' companies offer private health care benefits or do most all of them make you go with the NHS?
Some private companies do offer private health care as part of the "salary package" to higher paid people.

Anyone can buy healthcare privately. There are different levels that provide different things - some may be just outpatients, others just inpatients. I understand it can be a bit pricey for say a family of 4.
BUPA is the main private provider of private healthcare. They have their own hospitals etc. BUPA's current advertising tack is to offer infection free hospital care. (thats because the NHS is riddled with MRSA and there's a chance of getting an infection if you have surgery)

The main advantage of Private Healthcare is that you avoid waiting Lists. On the NHS you currently wait 13 weeks for an outpatient appointment and about 9 to 12 months for inpatient treatment. You also get the Consultant (Specialist) dealing with you, not just a junior doctor. My wife was in hospital last year for 2 months and never saw the Consultant she was under.

The government has pumped billions extra cash into the NHS over the last few years, yet we have hospitals closing and staff being made redundant. The NHS was £700 million in debt last year.

Col

Rich

04-20-2006, 03:30 AM

The main advantage of Private Healthcare is that you avoid waiting Lists. Col
Except that you can't get cover for an existing or previous illness and the costs are high and you don't get a rebate or reduction on your NI contributions from the government:mad:

ColinEssex

04-20-2006, 03:34 AM

Except that you can't get cover for an existing or previous illness and the costs are high and you don't get a rebate or reduction on your NI contributions from the government:mad:
Well yes - its a standard insurance thing isn't it. You only get cover if you are super healthy. Any hint of an illness and you've got no chance, you then slum it in the NHS.

Col

Rich

04-20-2006, 03:40 AM

Well yes - its a standard insurance thing isn't it. You only get cover if you are super healthy. Any hint of an illness and you've got no chance, you then slum it in the NHS.

Col
and of course if anything goes wrong whilst being treated privately it's the NHS that has to pick up the pieces

ColinEssex

04-20-2006, 03:45 AM

and of course if anything goes wrong whilst being treated privately it's the NHS that has to pick up the pieces
Private hospitals don't have Casualty departments. If you need emergency treatment you have to wait your 4 hours + to be seen in an NHS Casualty like everyone else.

Col

Rich

04-20-2006, 03:50 AM

Private hospitals don't have Casualty departments. If you need emergency treatment you have to wait your 4 hours + to be seen in an NHS Casualty like everyone else.

Col
Yes and they won't discriminate based on wealth, creed, colour or legal status. I note that as an aside 1 in 8 immigrants into Europe now head for the UK :eek:

Len Boorman

04-20-2006, 04:08 AM

So while we are talking about the NHS I see that we are now going to get "Dignity" staff to look after the dignity of patients.

Well Col what do you think of that.

Seems to me that the NHS seems to have plenty of Admin type people and very few actual Nursing /Treatment people.

Like in industry when you have lots of Office bods and few people actually producing invoiceable output. Normally company goes bust....Is that what we are seeing with the NHS.

By golly have I detected the problem that Blair and his bunch of wallies have failed to see.

I must be a leader then with that sort of sharp incisive vision or is Blair and his cronies and even bigger bunch of wallies than I thought

L

ColinEssex

04-20-2006, 05:14 AM

So while we are talking about the NHS I see that we are now going to get "Dignity" staff to look after the dignity of patients.

Well Col what do you think of that.

I haven't seen that. But its the role of nursing staff and medical staff to make sure patients are treated with dignity.

Seems to me that the NHS seems to have plenty of Admin type people and very few actual Nursing /Treatment people.

Oh Len, don't get me started:rolleyes: or I'll never shut up - I could quote a thousand examples. I have been in it since 1967:rolleyes:

Like in industry when you have lots of Office bods and few people actually producing invoiceable output. Normally company goes bust....Is that what we are seeing with the NHS.
Sort of - its a little more complex but essentially thats about it.
For example a hospital trust (not in Essex) is £3m overspent at 31/3/06. They have to pay that back out of the new money for the new year AND they get £3m less funding as a penalty for overspending. So they pay twice and start the new year £6m less than last year.

By golly have I detected the problem that Blair and his bunch of wallies have failed to see. They hear only what they want to hear.

I must be a leader then with that sort of sharp incisive vision or is Blair and his cronies and even bigger bunch of wallies than I thought

The former is the more accurate

Col

FoFa

04-20-2006, 07:45 AM

Well yesterday the US Gov. went after illegals at a palate mfg. company, and are talking about enforcing regulation on those companies that hire the illegals. Of course they had to release the illegals (in the USA of course) they caught because the holding facility that processes them was over capacity.

jsanders

04-24-2006, 05:00 AM

If you want to look at everything ugly in the US today, all you have to do is look to America’s biggest businesses (the Fortune 500, accounted for about 1/3 of the entire US economy). They and their lap dog republican politicians.

Pay Fight in Tech's Trenches
Day Laborers for a Verizon Subcontractor Say They Were Cheated
By Elissa Silverman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 16, 2006; D01
Nerbin Rodriguez spent weeks digging ditches near Chantilly last summer for the benefit of Verizon Communications Inc., part of the estimated $20 billion fiber-optic cable system the company is building to bring its next-generation phone, television and Internet service to American homes.
All that shoveling by hand cost him $2,000 in unpaid wages, Rodriguez now alleges. Yet he and 22 other ditch-digging colleagues who sometimes seek work at a Fairfax County day-laborer site can't look to the telecommunications giant for their money. They must try to get it from a subcontractor three layers removed that hired Rodriguez for $100 a day with no contract or paperwork.

ColinEssex

04-24-2006, 06:39 AM

They must try to get it from a subcontractor three layers removed that hired Rodriguez for $100 a day with no contract or paperwork.

No contract? In US law, is that legal?

Col

jsanders

04-24-2006, 07:52 AM

No contract? In US law, is that legal?

Col

Legal but stupid. Easy to pull one over the ilegals.

No Habla English, no green card, no contract.

Not only do the companies hire them illegally, pay no taxes, they also cheat them. Got to love this market driven economy.

dan-cat

04-24-2006, 08:35 AM

Not only do the companies hire them illegally, pay no taxes, they also cheat them. Got to love this market driven economy.

...and why are they treated in this way? What is the mentality behind this behaviour towards the common man?

You have encapsulated my entire beef on the subject with this paragraph.

They are illegal but they have still been cheated. Why? because they are human beings. Their illegal status does not alter this one jot. The immigrants legal status does not excuse the businesses' behaviour or their callous attitude to the human individual. This is why I reject words like 'infestation','insidious' and 'inferior' when describing groups of people.

They have been cheated because they worked and got not nothing. They were made a verbal promise and it was not kept. Why do these things matter if the worker was illegal? Simple. The liberal use of another human being as a beast of burden.

People excuse themselves from such behaviour by labelling their victim's with such terms. They excuse themselves from any moral responsibility by not affording the objects of their actions with human qualities.

This is one of the underlying reasons why we have thousands of demonstrators on our streets today demanding rights. They are starting to untie the harnesses that big business put on them and that we have ignored for years.

jsanders

04-24-2006, 08:44 AM

...and why are they treated in this way? What is the mentality behind this behaviour towards the common man?

You have encapsulated my entire beef on the subject with this paragraph.

They are illegal but they have still been cheated. Why? because they are human beings. Their illegal status does not alter this one jot. The immigrants legal status does not excuse the businesses' behaviour or their callous attitude to the human individual. This is why I reject words like 'infestation','insidious' and 'inferior' when describing groups of people.

They have been cheated because they worked and got not nothing. They were made a verbal promise and it was not kept. Why do these things matter if the worker was illegal? Simple. The liberal use of another human being as a beast of burden.

People excuse themselves from such behaviour by labelling their victim's with such terms. They excuse themselves from any moral responsibility by not affording the objects of their actions with human qualities.

This is one of the underlying reasons why we have thousands of demonstrators on our streets today demanding rights. They are starting to untie the harnesses that big business put on them and that we have ignored for years.

Do you thgink I'm disagreeing with you Dan, cause it sounds like you're raving again.

What are we going to do about it?

dan-cat

04-24-2006, 09:18 AM

Do you thgink I'm disagreeing with you Dan

No I was actually looking for you to admit that your use of such terms was wrong.

Doing so would also invalidate your following statement...

,cause it sounds like you're raving again.

We don't agree until you have done so and until you stop suggesting that I'm a nut job. It's a sticking point because the CAUSE of the entire problem is the exploitation of the common man. The treatment of them as inferiors.

What are we going to do about it?

Clarify the cause and dismiss the attitude that fuelled it.

jsanders

04-24-2006, 09:46 AM

...and why are they treated in this way? What is the mentality behind this behaviour towards the common man?

.

Greed Dan Greed, corporate greed and politicians on the pay role.

... You have encapsulated my entire beef on the subject with this paragraph.

.

Yes, it’s true, I do tend to make very profound and succinct statements, but thank you for noticing.

...

They are illegal but they have still been cheated. Why? because they are human beings. Their illegal status does not alter this one jot. The immigrants legal status does not excuse the businesses' behaviour or their callous attitude to the human individual. This is why I reject words like 'infestation','insidious' and 'inferior' when describing groups of people.

They have been cheated because they worked and got not nothing. They were made a verbal promise and it was not kept. Why do these things matter if the worker was illegal? Simple. The liberal use of another human being as a beast of burden.

People excuse themselves from such behaviour by labelling their victim's with such terms. They excuse themselves from any moral responsibility by not affording the objects of their actions with human qualities.

This is one of the underlying reasons why we have thousands of demonstrators on our streets today demanding rights. They are starting to untie the harnesses that big business put on them and that we have ignored for years.

Lunatic Raving, in so much as you’re agreeing with me, a simple yes would suffice.

My point against all this illegal immigration has not been that’s it’s their fault that they’re here. It’s that the very things they are doing is insuring they will continue to be enslaved.

KenHigg

04-24-2006, 10:07 AM

...It’s that the very things they are doing is insuring they will continue to be enslaved.

Bottom line is that if something isn't done about it we will all be living like they do in Mexico...

dan-cat

04-24-2006, 10:12 AM

Lunatic Raving, in so much as you’re agreeing with me, a simple yes would suffice.

But I don't agree with you. Re-read...

People excuse themselves from such behaviour by labelling their victim's with such terms. They excuse themselves from any moral responsibility by not affording the objects of their actions with human qualities.

I'm using your statement to expose your contradictory views on the subject. You seemed to have missed this point.

My point against all this illegal immigration has not been that’s it’s their fault that they’re here. It’s that the very things they are doing is insuring they will continue to be enslaved.

My point is your duplicity on the subject. You accept that big business treats these individuals as 'inferiors' because of 'greed', and yet you fail to see the hypocrisy of this stand when combined with your own use of terms when describing these illegals. You yourself described them as 'inferior', 'insidious' and as an 'infestation'. This is the attitude that fuelled the growth of the problem in the first place. ie. Exploit these people and it's ok because they are inferior anyway.

You attempt to ignore this duplicity by labelling me as a 'lunatic' but this makes no difference. The argument stands whether I'm nuts or not.

I say you were wrong to use such terms to bolster your arguments. You have yet to give me any sound argument to reject this.

Rich

04-24-2006, 10:14 AM

Bottom line is that if something isn't done about it we will all be living like they do in Mexico...
How do you know this for a fact? Our government tells us that immigrants to our country (legal or otherwise) have brought enormous economic benefits.
Who's telling the truth, the government or the extreme right who want to evict everybody with coloured skin? :confused:

jsanders

04-24-2006, 10:30 AM

How do you know this for a fact? Our government tells us that immigrants to our country (legal or otherwise) have brought enormous economic benefits.
Who's telling the truth, the government or the extreme right who want to evict everybody with coloured skin? :confused:

The Extreme right want them here to create wage compitions at the bottem.

Rich

04-24-2006, 10:33 AM

The Extreem right want them here to create wage compitions at the bottem.
Well as a nation it's true that you can no longer afford the huge salaries and pension benefits trade unionism inflicted on companies

FoFa

04-24-2006, 11:28 AM

Pay Fight in Tech's Trenches
Day Laborers for a Verizon Subcontractor Say They Were Cheated
By Elissa Silverman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 16, 2006; D01
Nerbin Rodriguez spent weeks digging ditches near Chantilly last summer for the benefit of Verizon Communications Inc., part of the estimated $20 billion fiber-optic cable system the company is building to bring its next-generation phone, television and Internet service to American homes.
All that shoveling by hand cost him $2,000 in unpaid wages, Rodriguez now alleges. Yet he and 22 other ditch-digging colleagues who sometimes seek work at a Fairfax County day-laborer site can't look to the telecommunications giant for their money. They must try to get it from a subcontractor three layers removed that hired Rodriguez for $100 a day with no contract or paperwork.
Humm, looks some what like the liberal presses class envy reporting.
OK, first I am not saying these guys were not cheated. I tend to agree they were, even if they were illegal. But looking deeper into the story, it shines a light on Verizon right up front, grabs you and makes you blam big business. But they are suppose to report truth, so a casual mention at the bottom states, "They must try to get it from a subcontractor three layers removed". So that is telling me Verizon contracted something out. Is that abnormal? That contractor subcontracted pieces to others, still pretty normal. One of those subcontracted the actual digging out, where Rodriguez comes into play. In reality seems a large stretch to Verizon from there. After all it is the subcontractor's responsability to hire legals, and pay them. I bet Verizon didn't even know about this until the articule came out! If someone was legally liable for this pay, it should be, would be the contractor that hired him. Cause I bet they charged the contractor that hired them the full amount, etc. up the chain. I'll bet Verizone didn't really get a "cut" at all, nor maybe even benefited as the story says.

FoFa

04-24-2006, 11:35 AM

You have encapsulated my entire beef on the subject with this paragraph.
They are illegal but they have still been cheated. Why? because they are human beings. Their illegal status does not alter this one jot. The immigrants legal status does not excuse the businesses' behaviour or their callous attitude to the human individual.
But the flip side is, then why not just let them all in? I mean why stop any? Give them welfare, food stamps, medical care, all at the workers expense. That is the human thing to do.
There appears to be no middle ground on this. So what is to be done? Seems like we either need to get more hardcore and enforce better, or just let them all in. The middlish ground has been tried before, and appears to have failed.

jsanders

04-24-2006, 01:31 PM

Humm, looks some what like the liberal presses class envy reporting.
OK, first I am not saying these guys were not cheated. I tend to agree they were, even if they were illegal. But looking deeper into the story, it shines a light on Verizon right up front, grabs you and makes you blam big business. But they are suppose to report truth, so a casual mention at the bottom states, "They must try to get it from a subcontractor three layers removed". So that is telling me Verizon contracted something out. Is that abnormal? That contractor subcontracted pieces to others, still pretty normal. One of those subcontracted the actual digging out, where Rodriguez comes into play. In reality seems a large stretch to Verizon from there. After all it is the subcontractor's responsability to hire legals, and pay them. I bet Verizon didn't even know about this until the articule came out! If someone was legally liable for this pay, it should be, would be the contractor that hired him. Cause I bet they charged the contractor that hired them the full amount, etc. up the chain. I'll bet Verizone didn't really get a "cut" at all, nor maybe even benefited as the story says.

Why is it that when anyone now days is looking out for the working man he's labeled liberal.

I'll tell you why, because the fascist republicans have framed the debate to make any one not on the right, a liberal.

Try to use some other term besides liberal. Not all people trying to keep this country from being owned by the ultra rich or the mega-corps are liberals.

That’s going to back fire on the fascist leadership, soon when the country wakes and sees that the fascist have taken control maybe then the word fascist will become the national dirty word.

Verizon uses that system to provide a corporate shield. They are insulated from the evils they promote. Don’t be so naive. You don’t think there was a supervisor from Verizon was on that job site?

FoFa

04-24-2006, 01:45 PM

Why is it that when anyone now days is looking out for the working man he's labeled liberal. I'll tell you why, because the fascist republicans have framed the debate to make any one not on the right, a liberal.
Well so you are calling the republicans Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist) basically.
First off, if the articule was meant to provide the plight of the working class, than why was that not up front? Why did the story first mislead you to Verizon, by basically placing that thought in your head before getting to the ripped off part? Seems to be the same misdirection, class envy tatics the liberals have used for years. Was there a Verizon rep. on sight during the digging, maybe, so what? Was there one during the paying portion, not their responsability, that is the subcontractors. I would liken it to, you buy some apples from a store (contractor), who bought them from a supplier (subcontractor) who got them from the grower (sub-subcontractor). Now just because the grower didn't pay the guys he hired to pick the apples, is that your fault in any way? Lets say you even took a tour of the orchard during harvest season. You saw the workers picking the apples. Are you at fault now?

Rich

04-24-2006, 02:35 PM

Well so you are calling the republicans Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist) basically.

Don't be silly, Hitler started a war and lied about the reason for it:rolleyes:

jsanders

04-24-2006, 04:50 PM

Don't be silly, Hitler started a war and lied about the reason for it:rolleyes:
Good Job Rich.

ColinEssex

04-25-2006, 01:10 AM

I reckon that mankind has been exploiting mankind for the sake of profit for thousands of years. Egyptian slaves, The Romans, The Greeks, The British, The Americans, Pimps exploit vulnerable runaways / immigrants for sex, as do Philipino mothers sell their children for sex - we (various contries) are all guilty of it [exploitation] to some degree.
Its not an "American" thing its a worldwide thing, its just that in some places - like America - it can be more of a problem, and this is compounded by the "backhanders" passed to the many corrupt politicians to turn a blind eye.

I also suspect the exploitation of immigrants will continue in many countries for many years yet. In fact, as long as "money talks":rolleyes:

Col

dan-cat

04-25-2006, 06:01 AM

Why is it that when anyone now days is looking out for the working man he's labeled liberal.

Quite right labels are bad...

I'll tell you why, because the fascist republicans have framed the debate to make any one not on the right, a liberal.

...and yet you indulge in the same practice yourself.

dan-cat

04-25-2006, 06:11 AM

Well so you are calling the republicans Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist) basically.

I wouldn't get bogged down with the name-calling if I were you. It's a tactic to discredit the opponent's argument by discrediting the opponent's character itself.

I've pointed this out several times on this thread and have received no satisfactory answer either to my request for it to stop happening or to the arguments that this tactic has been used against.

dan-cat

04-25-2006, 06:13 AM

I also suspect the exploitation of immigrants will continue in many countries for many years yet. In fact, as long as "money talks":rolleyes:

Col

Oh yes indeed and also as long as others view their fellow man as inferior.

jsanders

04-25-2006, 07:30 AM

Oh yes indeed and also as long as others view their fellow man as inferior.
Dan,

You are refusing to actually comprehend what I have been saying.

1. A culture can be inferior and not have any thing to do with the people being inferior. All culture evolves. Take for instance Mississippi, they were the last hold out of the old Clan, yet they have begrudgingly excepted integration. Was there culture inferior to say Kentucky or Texas? Both “Southern States” but considerably more enlightened.
2. The Spanish people bring many positive elements to the Great Melting Pot, like all of the immigrants before them. The big difference, here is their complete unwillingness, of a large percentage of them, to adopt English and the American culture, and are actually forcing American governments (local, State, and Federal) to adapt to them. This has never happened on this scale before.
3. The cause of the immigration should not be confused with the damage being done by them. You cannot hold them blameless for action inspite of the reasons they are here.

I get the feeling you are rather intelligent. But it seems your emotions are more in control of your actions; or at least your words.

dan-cat

04-25-2006, 08:53 AM

Dan,

You are refusing to actually comprehend what I have been saying.

No, I understand you perfectly, I'm pulling you up on your rhetoric. You seem to think your language is acceptable, I disagree.

1. A culture can be inferior and not have any thing to do with the people being inferior. All culture evolves. Take for instance Mississippi, they were the last hold out of the old Clan, yet they have begrudgingly excepted integration. Was there culture inferior to say Kentucky or Texas? Both “Southern States” but considerably more enlightened.

Unfortunately you tossed in the terms 'insidious' and 'infestation' when describing this culture. To whom or what were you referring with these terms?
How would you react if I referred to the Texan culture as 'insidious' and 'inferior'? Would you find it offensive? Would you think that it might possibly be a slur to Texans? I say yes, what do you say?

2. The Spanish people bring many positive elements to the Great Melting Pot, like all of the immigrants before them. The big difference, here is their complete unwillingness, of a large percentage of them, to adopt English and the American culture, and are actually forcing American governments (local, State, and Federal) to adapt to them. This has never happened on this scale before.

Have you ever considered the reason why Wal-mart labels their aisles in Spanish as well as English? Because the dollar owned by a Spanish speaker is worth just as much as a dollar owned by an English speaker. That's why. Blaming the situation solely on the immigrants is just fallacious. Spanish speakers have money to spend - businesses will label aisles in Mongolian if there is a profit in it.

3. The cause of the immigration should not be confused with the damage being done by them. You cannot hold them blameless for action inspite of the reasons they are here.

Where did I ever argue that an individual must not be held responsible for their own actions? Who are 'them'? Are these the people that belong to the 'insidious' culture?

I get the feeling you are rather intelligent. But it seems your emotions are more in control of your actions; or at least your words.

The reason why I am sticking my toes in is really because of this kind of statement. What you actually need to do is forget about my character and read what I am saying. Saying that I am 'rather intelligent' simply suggests that you think you are superior. You claim logical superiority and yet I have pointed out on numeous occasions where you have fallen short.

You need to get off this inferior/superior horse you're on and actually start treating your peers as equals.

FoFa

04-25-2006, 09:46 AM

1. A culture can be inferior and not have any thing to do with the people being inferior. All culture evolves. Take for instance Mississippi, they were the last hold out of the old Clan, yet they have begrudgingly excepted integration. Was there culture inferior to say Kentucky or Texas? Both “Southern States” but considerably more enlightened.
In who's opinion?
Maybe not in Mississippi's opinion.
Were the native american's culture inferior? The early european settlers thought so, but were they?
What makes a culture inferior? Not the same as the one you are used too? I mean some of the older indian tribes (South America, Australia, Africa, etc.) spend their whole life in what I presume you would call an inferior culture, yet they live longer, and some say happier lives than we in your superior culture do. So I ask, who is it that decides what a inferior culture is?

FoFa

04-25-2006, 09:50 AM

2. The Spanish people bring many positive elements to the Great Melting Pot, like all of the immigrants before them. The big difference, here is their complete unwillingness, of a large percentage of them, to adopt English and the American culture, and are actually forcing American governments (local, State, and Federal) to adapt to them. This has never happened on this scale before.
I have a tendency to agree with you on this point. How ever it would appear the big problem is we do not have a national language defined by the government. Both parties seem to be at blame for this, since neither has addressed the issue. Most likely because of states like California, Florida, The Great State of Texas where a large voting population exist that does not want to speak english.

Kraj

04-25-2006, 10:22 AM

I think it is very dangerous to use a term like "inferior culture". Even if you set aside semantics, the word "culture" goes beyond issues like quality of life and civility. It also includes the arts, history, language, etc. It is quite absurd to claim any one of these is inferior to another. While I do no construe Joe's meaning as such and understand how complicated the language could become by being explicit and precise, the usage of the terms is still poorly chosen.

Furthermore, I think the word "inferior" is also poorly chosen as it imposes a blanket judgement. It is unfair to label an entire population's values - even if that population is technically composed of criminals - as inferior. I think it is fair, however, to examine whether the values of that poulation are damaging to our own. And in this case I believe it is true.

dan-cat

04-25-2006, 10:26 AM

So I ask, who is it that decides what a inferior culture is?

Good question is the dominant culture necessarily the morally superior one?

jsanders

04-25-2006, 10:52 AM

As usual Kraj understands my broken English better than most.

If you go back and actually read some of my earlier post you will see that I clearly outlined the aspects of South of the Border Societies that have visited generational poverty and ignorance on the people.

My entire rather disgustingly long dissertation about this subject has been about that.

One more time: They (South of the Border) are bringing aspects of their culture here that will ensure they are living in poverty in future generations. Then they march in protest to protect that culture.

Now if you don’t think that they are impoverished because of the way they have been living, then you should study their culture some more.

And if this infestation continues the United States will resemble those countries with poverty rates in 20 plus percentile.

Is that the culture, we should aspire to become?

dan-cat

04-25-2006, 11:13 AM

As usual Kraj understands my broken English better than most.

He's giving you the benefit of the doubt because you haven't suggested he's a lunatic.

One more time: They (South of the Border) are bringing aspects of their culture here that will ensure they are living in poverty in future generations. Then they march in protest to protect that culture.

I honestly think you should look up the valid meanings of the word 'insidious' and then attempt to reconcile this descriptive term with your opinion on 'South of the border' cultures.

Kraj

04-25-2006, 11:37 AM

He's giving you the benefit of the doubt because you haven't suggested he's a lunatic.
Lol! Well, not recently at least. :p :D

Rich

04-25-2006, 12:39 PM

And if this infestation continues the United States will resemble those countries with poverty rates in 20 plus percentile.

Is that the culture, we should aspire to become?

You know jj, you can't keep blaming the problems the US is facing at the minute on immigrants, they really are of your own making as a nation, you can't even tackle the Chinese on the massive deficit in trade with them because they are funding your absurd and unmanaged budget deficit.

jsanders

04-25-2006, 12:43 PM

You know jj, you can't keep blaming the problems the US is facing at the minute on immigrants, they really are of your own making as a nation, you can't even tackle the Chinese on the massive deficit in trade with them because they are funding your absurd and unmanaged budget deficit.

Actually it’s a bet I know more about that than you think I do Richard.

The immigration problem is a drop in the bucket compared to the war in Iraq and trade deficit.

I’m going to start a new thread soon on that very subject.

Its going to pretty much going to be a summation of ALL of my raving for the last year.

Rich

04-25-2006, 12:46 PM

Actually it’s a bet I know more about that than you think I do Richard.

The immigration problem is a drop in the bucket compared to the war in Iraq and trade deficit.

I’m going to start a new thread soon on that very subject.

Its going to pretty much going to be a summation of ALL of my raving for the last year.

Then why do you keep blaming immigrants for the US's current problems?:confused:

KenHigg

04-25-2006, 12:54 PM

Then why do you keep blaming immigrants for the US's current problems?:confused:

If anyone needs an 'Immigration Specialist' just click on one of the 'Sponsored Links'... :D :D :D

Edit: Darn, they went away...

jsanders

04-25-2006, 01:07 PM

Then why do you keep blaming immigrants for the US's current problems?:confused:
Thats what this thread is about
I try to stick to the subject.

jsanders

04-25-2006, 01:09 PM

And it is part of the problem.

Rich

04-25-2006, 01:22 PM

And it is part of the problem.
No it isn't

jsanders

04-25-2006, 01:26 PM

No it isn't

Once again Rich, you're speaking from ignorance.

How can 20 million or 30 million illegal immigrants working for slave wages, NOT make a difference?

Rich

04-25-2006, 01:32 PM

Once again Rich, you're speaking from ignorance.

How can 20 million or 30 million illegal immigrants working for slave wages, NOT make a difference?

What's that got to do with current demise of the US?
Would you rather more of your own firms switch production to China or India?
Are you suggesting protectionism, because that will hit you even harder?

jsanders

04-25-2006, 01:41 PM

What's that got to do with current demise of the US?
Would you rather more of your own firms switch production to China or India?
Are you suggesting protectionism, because that will hit you even harder?

That's what the fascist have been telling us for years, and during that same time period manufacturing went from 30% or our economy to 17% and still declining. And agricultural imports equaled exports for the first time in history.

You guys have some of the strongest protectionist laws in the world and during that same period your middle class has gotten stronger.

Rich

04-25-2006, 01:50 PM

You guys have some of the strongest protectionist laws in the world and during that same period your middle class has gotten stronger.

No we don't, our middle class has grown stronger because Thatcher came along and had the guts to tackle the basic roots of our problems.
It's true that a great many fine people suffered enormous hardship at the time, but her philosophy changed a nations perception, we are now a generation later reaping the benefits of those changes that she instilled, although of course left wingers wouldn't admit it.

Pat Hartman

05-01-2006, 07:37 PM

How can 20 million or 30 million illegal immigrants working for slave wages, NOT make a difference?Being a butcher is one of the most dangerous jobs a person can do. In 1980 the average wage was $19 per hour. Now, 26 years later, the meat cutters in the large packaging plants are for the most part hispanic (legal and illegal) and the average wage is $9 per hour. Consumers on the other hand are paying 300% higher prices for meat. Tell me that the availablity of illegal labor didn't make a difference. Similar wage drops are happing in the building industry and we all know what has happened to the price of housing. Somehow the labor savings end up in the pockets of those higher on the food chain than the end consumer.

ColinEssex

05-08-2006, 01:49 AM

It seems to me that the USA should build a wall between USA and Mexico. To save costs, you could use illegal immigrants from Mexico to build it;)

Col

Bodisathva

05-08-2006, 04:31 AM

ColinEssex

05-08-2006, 04:59 AM

But...if they stay on the Mexican side of the wall, you can't actually call it illegal immigrant labor...more like foreign employment subsidies and a US contribution to the lagging economy of Mexico:D

We could even make sure that they're still on the Mexican side of the wall when they finish it:cool:
No no, you're not thinking about this - you just do what you do now, and exploit the illegal immigrants for 16hrs a day building the wall. Then when its done send them back through one of the checkpoints (like checkpoint Charlie)

Never mind the Mexican economy - they make enough out of Americans on cruise ships to Mexico:D you can't just give it away - you've got wars to fund, remember?:rolleyes:

Col

Bodisathva

05-08-2006, 07:46 AM

No no, you're not thinking about this - you just do what you do now, and exploit the illegal immigrants for 16hrs a day
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's not like we have goon squads rounding them up and forcing them to come here.:cool:
Then when its done send them back through one of the checkpoints (like checkpoint Charlie) Yep...and they will be forced to relinquish...say...30% of whatever they have earned during their stay...we'll call it an "i-n-c-o-m-e t-a-x":eek: you can't just give it away - you've got wars to fund, remember?:rolleyes: ...not my war, friend... and I'm not the only one who finds it a complete tragedy but is not in a position to change the status quo.:(

Rich

05-08-2006, 07:55 AM

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's not like we have goon squads rounding them up and forcing them to come here.:cool:

No but I thought the minutemen were supposed to be rounding them up and sending them back:rolleyes:

Bodisathva

05-08-2006, 08:49 AM

I don't know about "rounding them up" but I have seen news pieces on our new volunteer border patrols :eek:

Pat Hartman

05-08-2006, 02:31 PM

The volunteers do not approach the migrants. They are not empowered to make arrests. They call the official border patrol. As I understand it, the volunteers are basically working as spotters.

GaryPanic

05-08-2006, 03:17 PM

Building walls , is not the answer - being a Brit and having lived in Europe the Berlin Wall made people more determined to get in whatever ,
maybe the answer is to make Mexico a better place,

Being a Brit , Also aren't we all migrants,probably 95% of Americans are ,and I can trace my routes back to Vikings days and god know where before that

I don't think there is an answer, Given that most countries belive in the "American Dream" - in England ,we have a similar problem with the Eastern Block countries who think that England is the Gem of Europe , its not-just as the American Dream is possible but for 99.9& turns out to be ral life - which ain't quite as flower as the films make out (oh and by the way I coming over in a couple of weeks on a week visit to see the other halfs family )

FoFa

05-09-2006, 11:06 AM

which ain't quite as flower as the films make out (oh and by the way I coming over in a couple of weeks on a week visit to see the other halfs family )
See, it's that dang Hollywood again. And yall' blame bush.
DOWN WITH HOLLYWOOD, DOWN WITH HOLLYWOOD

So where exactly are you coming too?

NJudson

05-15-2006, 02:23 PM

Being a Brit , Also aren't we all migrants,probably 95% of Americans are

Well, I guess that is true from a certain perspective, but how many generations do you have to go back to really consider that? For all intents and purposes we are just plain American (unless of course you are literally an immigrant).

FoFa

05-17-2006, 07:12 AM

Last week I purchased a burger and fries at McDonalds for $3.58.

The counter girl took my $4.00 and I pulled 8 cents
from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there
holding the nickel and 3 pennies. While looking at the
screen on her register, I sensed her discomfort and
tried to tell her to just give me two quarters, but
she hailed the manager for help. While he tried to
explain the transaction to her, she stood there and
cried.

Why do I tell you this?
Because of the evolution in teaching math since the
1950s:

Teaching Math In 1950
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His
cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his
profit?

Teaching Math In 1960
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His
cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What
is his profit?

Teaching Math In 1970
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His
cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

Teaching Math In 1980
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His
cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20 Your
assignment: Underline the number 20.

Teaching Math In 1990
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is
selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the
habitat of animals or the preservation of our
woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of
$20. What do you think of this way of making a living?
Topic for class participation after answering the
question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the
logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong
answers.)

Teaching Math In 2005
Un ranchero vende una carretera de madera para $100.
El cuesto de la produccion era $80. Cuantos tortillas
se puede comprar?

Kraj

05-17-2006, 07:25 AM

Cuantos tortillas se puede comprar?
How many tortillas can he buy? ... Nice.

MrsGorilla

05-17-2006, 07:42 AM

How many tortillas can he buy? ... Nice.

Kraj beat me to the punch. :D It's one thing to illustrate a point but we don't need to be degrading about it. :rolleyes:

First of all FoFa, what were you doing eating at McDonald's in the first place? ;)

Second, how dare you take out 8 extra cents and confuse the poor girl. That was really your fault now, wasn't it? :D :cool:

Kraj

05-17-2006, 07:48 AM

That was really your fault now, wasn't it? :D :cool:
Si. Ella es muy triste porque FoFa es muy antisimpatico. Mal, FoFa. Mal!

Bodisathva

05-17-2006, 07:57 AM

ROTFLMAO, FoFa :D

MrsGorilla

05-17-2006, 08:21 AM

Si. Ella es muy triste porque FoFa es muy antisimpatico. Mal, FoFa. Mal!

:D

The rest of FoFa's post was pretty funny. I must admit that I've been frustrated by the lack of math skills by more than one cashier in my time. Sometimes they can't even get it right when the register tells them what to do! :rolleyes:

jsanders

05-17-2006, 08:42 AM

:D

The rest of FoFa's post was pretty funny. I must admit that I've been frustrated by the lack of math skills by more than one cashier in my time. Sometimes they can't even get it right when the register tells them what to do! :rolleyes:

However, it is also up to parent to start early teaching math to their kids.

FoFa

05-17-2006, 08:54 AM

However, it is also up to parent to start early teaching math to their kids.
It should also be up to the parents to start teaching english early to their kids :rolleyes: :p
Wish we had one of those ROFL imoticons

Rich

05-17-2006, 09:41 AM

It should also be up to the parents to start teaching english early to their kids :rolleyes: :p

Even if they live in Peru? :confused:

Brianwarnock

05-17-2006, 09:49 AM

Even if they live in Peru? :confused:

Of course, it is the most useful language in the world, which is why foriegners speak it and the English don't learn foriegn languages:D

Brian

Rich

05-17-2006, 09:55 AM

Of course, it is the most useful language in the world, which is why foriegners speak it and the English don't learn foriegn languages:D

Brian
Yes it's true, I frequently have trouble understanding American:eek: :D

jsanders

05-17-2006, 10:09 AM

Yes it's true, I frequently have trouble understanding American:eek: :D

News flash boys, American English is the onty true English.

FoFa

05-17-2006, 10:22 AM

Yes it's true, I frequently have trouble understanding American:eek: :D
Back '94 I had a software install through the middle east, 6 weeks of pure bliss :) . My first stop was the UK, arriving at Gatwick, staying the day/night, leaving from Heathrow to the U.A.E. the next day. First time in Europe/Middle East for me (been in Asia). Figured, well at least I'll be able understand them in my first stop, since I was traveling alone. I had to catch some bus that went betwen Gatwick and Heathrow to get to my hotel for the night. So after clearing customes, I go up to the information/customer service or whatever it was called. Waiting in line I see a decent looking young girl giving instructions. Wait, Wait, Wait, MY TURN. So I ask where I can catch this bus, and she replies, well, hell if I know what she replied, cause I have never heard anything so foreign in my life. This was no British accent, it went far beyound that, I had not clue at all. She was pointing behind me off to my left. She got done making noise, and in my dumb founded state I said , Pardon? Would you repeat that please? Don't know what I was thinking, cause to the best of my knowledge, she did repeat it, word for word. And I still didn't understand any of them. I was thinking, Gee, can't wait to get to the middle east. She is pointing behind me and to my left again, and the noise stops. So I say Thank You, and trudge on off. I at least head behind and to my left (well in front and to my right now) but have no idea where I am going. So I stop and must have looked dumb founded (stupid). This guy walks up and asks if he could help. I explain my delima and he points to a door, says go out there, turn right on the walk, go to a sign that says (something, can't remember, but it was like Shuttle Bus or something easy). Said he was from Holland and was glad he could be of assistance.

Kraj

05-17-2006, 10:54 AM

News flash boys, American English is the onty true English.
http://www.rialtosquare.com/05-06_show_images/american_english.gif

Brianwarnock

05-17-2006, 10:55 AM

What's that saying, "Two great nations separated by a common language"
but seriously accents can cause problems to all, but the Dutch, well they speak better English than anybody, in my experience.

Brian

Kraj

05-17-2006, 11:00 AM

I'm suddenly reminded of Ralph Wiggum.

... Good grief it's hard to get a sound byte on a post. :p

Rich

05-17-2006, 11:37 AM

Wait, Wait, Wait, MY TURN. So I ask where I can catch this bus, and she replies, well, hell if I know what she replied, cause I have never heard anything so foreign in my life

She was either from the local Cockaknee tribe or a product of Comprehensive education:rolleyes: ;)

Bodisathva

06-01-2006, 07:10 AM

Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border...

Take the dirt and raise the levies in New Orleans...

Put the Florida alligators in the moat.

Any other problems you want me to solve?

Rich

06-01-2006, 07:36 AM

[LIST=1]
Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border...

Thought the Rio Grande was already there (or Rio Bravo, to give it its correct title)?:confused: :p

FoFa

06-01-2006, 09:36 AM

Thought the Rio Grande was already there (or Rio Bravo, to give it its correct title)?:confused: :p
Used to be. So many people are pulling water out for whatever, it is just a literal trickle by the time it hits most of Texas.
Plus taint nutt'n in New mexico, Arizona and California but desert in most places.

ColinEssex

06-02-2006, 03:29 AM

Wait, Wait, Wait, MY TURN.
The British love to queue for things. Two or three people can start a queue for no reason and other people will join it out of curiosity:rolleyes:

So I ask where I can catch this bus, and she replies, well, hell if I know what she replied, cause I have never heard anything so foreign in my life. This was no British accent,

She must have been from New York:D

Col

FoFa

06-02-2006, 06:25 AM

She must have been from New York:D Col
Actually I can have the same problem with a heavy BOSTON accent. New York not so much.

ColinEssex

06-02-2006, 06:28 AM

Actually I can have the same problem with a heavy BOSTON accent. New York not so much.
Boston - thats where "Cheers" was based and "Banacek" isn't it?

Col

FoFa

06-02-2006, 07:12 AM

Boston - thats where "Cheers" was based and "Banacek" isn't it? Col
Cheers for sure, but you don't really see the heavy accents on TV shows because outside of Boston, no one understand them :eek:

NJudson

06-25-2006, 05:36 AM

This is yet another wake up call that the immigration situation is exploding. US will hit 300 million population mark this fall and the article states that almost half of the population growth in the past year is due to Latinos (both born here and immigrants).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060625/ap_on_re_us/300_million_milestone

GMLWORLDCHAMP!

09-21-2006, 09:08 PM

Pat, please do delete these; one huge vote for it...regarding the thread, I've come across this issue time after time working in the public schools and believe me when I say, there is no hotter or more sensitive subject anywhere in the state...today, we learned that an Aurora Colorado police officer was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant and the whole community is terribly upset to lose any man working to protect us all, illegal or legal, but far worse to lose someone in this manner simply out of sheer stupidity because this was the kind of person that helped every AMERICAN, without regard to race, color, creed, or legal status because these people are what make our system work at it's best! He was shot point blank with no history at all between himself and his killer, just "something to do" because apparently escaping Mexico into the US in the first place and in itself, wasn't good enough...you're damn right I hope he fries because no country needs people like this!

SUCH A HUGE ISSUE, it's just frustrating that numerous governments and political factions can't come together sooner to truly address this for us all...FYI: The US and Colorado government had to cut a deal with the Mexican government this past summer for the extradition of a mexican national who killed a Denver Colorado officer and wounded another...his reasoning, he was sure that all police officers wore bullet proof vests so he shot at them just to "scare" them because he figured they were wearing their vests...we got him back here but because of the deal with Mexico, he will not be eligible for the death penalty. Now I ask, where the hell is the justice, on any scale, for that and the officers family for their loss having absolutely no value to anyone for his loss to his family, the community, his friends, coworkers, etc...?

So, Colorado alone just in the past few months this summer has lost forever two great men who supported their fellow man, no matter if they were actually legal or not by two people who simply refuse to be people, much less American or otherwise.

Among the really big issues of our day, this ranks right up there along with a better tolerance of all people, regardless of where they reside because no place is perfect. History and reality teaches that...

and Rich, "championing free speech" also includes the denial/elimination of frivolous commentary that simply gets old so peace, but lighten the hell up man!?#?$!