Asian DramaWiki Forum

Prince of Moles wrote:While I am sympathetic to this line of argument, I also don't buy it completely. We ought to consider the possibility that the law itself might be wrong.

Well, we might as well get the following idea out of the way: There are people who will argue that the only laws they will obey are the laws that was put down by their God - probably because only God has control over them in the afterlife. In other words, any laws created by anyone other than a supreme being like God are invalid, and no man can enforce a man-made law. Although this is a belief, I think all of us here will agree that we do have to live by laws created by ordinary human beings. So the following is the assumption that we do follow laws.

Borders were developed through the centuries via various warring periods and colonization activities. And the borders were finalized via various treaties between the two territories. For example, the existing border as we know it separating the United States and Canada was settled via the Treaty of Paris in 1783, and is currently maintained by the Internationl Boundary Commission. Texas gained its independance from Mexico in 1836, and created the Republic of Texas. Texas was later added to the United States union in 1845 by agreement with the Republic. And the United States/Mexico border was settled by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, and has been maintained by the International Boundary and Water Commission since 1889. So that's how we established the borders that separate the United States from everyone else.

There are hundreds of arguments today claiming that simply capturing land does not make the capture a valid claim. Some of them off the top of my head:

- The Palastinians claim that Isreal illegallly stole land from them in the 1967 war, now called the Gaza Strip.

- The feud between Japan and Korea over a collection of islands that sits between the two countries.

- The feud between Japan and Russia over the Kuril Islands

- The feud between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands.

Although it isn't etched into law, it is an "understanding" on Planet Earth that colonization and treaties do hold up in any international court system if they were ever challenged. And that is why none of the claims I mentioned have been overturned by an international law body.

Now that I've established the legality of the borders, the next question is: Do the owners of these territories have the right by international law to maintain the borders as they see fit? Again, history demonstrates that it is an internationally-agreed upon understanding that you can simply stick a KEEP OUT sign on your property and protect it using whatever means you have. So once again, can you make a law out of this? My answer is that, once again, it is an understanding that not only are borders legal, but protecting the borders is also legal. Some activists claim that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights give people the freedom to enter any territory. However, the catch is that the person must be running from persecution, such as your religion or your race.

Therefore, the argument that the legality of protecting borders being invalid is basically bullshit in my opinion. If millions of people can get together and invalidate a law, billions of people can get together and validate law as well, with border control being one of them.

--- groink

I'm not saying that borders are invalid.

I'm just pointing out that the system we use today, of getting visas and passports to go from one country to another is a very recent system (basically after WW2, 1945).

Borders have been around for ages, but requiring everyone to get visas and passports is only like 60 years old.

Why can't we take a look again at this system if it's not working as intended?

To wave the magic wand and instantly grant illegal aliens citizenship is utterly ludicrous. Should they do that, hypothetically speaking, what about the millions of legal aliens that is awaiting their citizenships? Do they also get a free pass and become a United States citizen overnight? This suggests that if you’re on American soil, you’re a citizen. Now, not only will America have to defend the borders, they will have to be on even more alert in their U.S. territories. If illegals wash up ashore on say, Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, do they, too, become citizens?

My assumption is that the number of legal aliens would far outnumber that of the illegals. I’m certain that these people would be upset as to the time and costs that accompanies that painstaking process. This would in essence kill the INS. A whole state agency reduced to nothing. The people that worked at the INS throughout America would then become jobless. Add a few more million good honest working American citizens to the unemployed list. Displaced from work, they will now probably be fighting the very same illegals that cost them their jobs for work. Yeah, give America another reason to hate the illegals. Again, this is all hypothetical.

what we need to do is arrest them and make them serve in the military for 18 years then they can apply for citizenship. if that doesnt work, make them dig ditches in iraq for a year or two then ship them backto their motherland.

scott12199 wrote:what we need to do is arrest them and make them serve in the military for 18 years then they can apply for citizenship. if that doesnt work, make them dig ditches in iraq for a year or two then ship them backto their motherland.

The harder the punishment the less likely they were try to cross the border... even better, if caught harboring illegals you lose your right to be american citizen and kick out of the united states. There, i solved your problems with border control.

Maybe the US should hold a referendum and put the question to the American public:

Do we legalize already existing Illegal immigrants ?

If yes, Do you support the additional cost to process them all and the additional
burden of allowing them to things such a medicare.

If no,Do you support the the cost of tracking them all down and deportation.


Whether it's yes or no.. It's the legal AMERICAN PUBLIC that will in the end be paying
the price to deal with the issue.

Maybe the reason it's been left unchecked for soo long is that any administration
who does tackle it is more or less committing political suicide. Maybe, that's the other
reason Bush is doing it...Knowing that Iraq and the economic situation has competely
eroded away support for his administration and the republican party that if they
were able to do something...it would be one hell of a nightmare for the Democrats
to deal with.

Also, if there was some blanket legalization of them all, it would be one hell of kick in the
teeth to the millions of LEGAL aliens who enter legally.played by the rules and spend years jumping through burocratic red tape to get citizenship...when a illegal brakes the
law,sneaks in and POOF to be told "Oh it's ok you broke our laws...here instant citizenship" I know my dad moved to Florida 13 years ago and it took him 10 years
before he got his citizenship. I know he's prbably pissed off at this notion being floted
by the Bush administeration.

mieko wrote:Maybe the US should hold a referendum and put the question to the American public:

Do we legalize already existing Illegal immigrants ?

If yes, Do you support the additional cost to process them all and the additional
burden of allowing them to things such a medicare.

If no,Do you support the the cost of tracking them all down and deportation.


Whether it's yes or no.. It's the legal AMERICAN PUBLIC that will in the end be paying
the price to deal with the issue.

Maybe the reason it's been left unchecked for soo long is that any administration
who does tackle it is more or less committing political suicide. Maybe, that's the other
reason Bush is doing it...Knowing that Iraq and the economic situation has competely
eroded away support for his administration and the republican party that if they
were able to do something...it would be one hell of a nightmare for the Democrats
to deal with.

Also, if there was some blanket legalization of them all, it would be one hell of kick in the
teeth to the millions of LEGAL aliens who enter legally.played by the rules and spend years jumping through burocratic red tape to get citizenship...when a illegal brakes the
law,sneaks in and POOF to be told "Oh it's ok you broke our laws...here instant citizenship" I know my dad moved to Florida 13 years ago and it took him 10 years
before he got his citizenship. I know he's prbably pissed off at this notion being floted
by the Bush administeration.

I'm sick of this. We do not need to kick them out; we just need to leave them alone. Majority of them are not hurting anyone plus their children will pay back the tax their parents take it. Imagine the ten kids they pop out(legal because they were born on US soil) paying taxes for several decades. Imagine their grand children's children paying taxes as well. That should be enough to cover for their two parents plus 100s of other illegals. If you do the math in the near freaking future everything should even out.

scott12199 wrote:

mieko wrote:Maybe the US should hold a referendum and put the question to the American public:

Do we legalize already existing Illegal immigrants ?

If yes, Do you support the additional cost to process them all and the additional
burden of allowing them to things such a medicare.

If no,Do you support the the cost of tracking them all down and deportation.


Whether it's yes or no.. It's the legal AMERICAN PUBLIC that will in the end be paying
the price to deal with the issue.

Maybe the reason it's been left unchecked for soo long is that any administration
who does tackle it is more or less committing political suicide. Maybe, that's the other
reason Bush is doing it...Knowing that Iraq and the economic situation has competely
eroded away support for his administration and the republican party that if they
were able to do something...it would be one hell of a nightmare for the Democrats
to deal with.

Also, if there was some blanket legalization of them all, it would be one hell of kick in the
teeth to the millions of LEGAL aliens who enter legally.played by the rules and spend years jumping through burocratic red tape to get citizenship...when a illegal brakes the
law,sneaks in and POOF to be told "Oh it's ok you broke our laws...here instant citizenship" I know my dad moved to Florida 13 years ago and it took him 10 years
before he got his citizenship. I know he's prbably pissed off at this notion being floted
by the Bush administeration.

I'm sick of this. We do not need to kick them out; we just need to leave them alone. Majority of them are not hurting anyone plus their children will pay back the tax their parents take it. Imagine the ten kids they pop out(legal because they were born on US soil) paying taxes for several decades. Imagine their grand children's children paying taxes as well. That should be enough to cover for their two parents plus 100s of other illegals. If you do the math in the near freaking future everything should even out.

You know I'm sick of it too. Yes, the children of illegals could get a job and pay taxes. But what if they don't. I shop around town and I go to many supermarkets and do you know what I see. Many people using food stamps. I don't know if they are illegals or tax payers but currently illegals get a lot of benefits even though they don't deserve it.
1. Free primary school education.
2. Medicare
3. Free hospital care
4. Higher crime rate
5. Over population of prison systems
etc.
Its just econnomics. Some may say that they do jobs that citizens don't want to do. They can argue that but the way I see it if they had higher education and came to the country LEGALLY, they too can get higher paying just. Look in the early 20th century. During the depression, people did all kind of job. Worse than farming. If the job market and the economy tanks and the only jobs are that of jobs the illegals are doing, you know what I'll go do it so I won't starve. Because illegals don't pay income taxes they are draining the system in the country. Many county hospitals are bankrupt. Welfare system stressed out. I know there is not any easy solutions, but legalizing the illegals is not going to solve a thing. Its all politics. The people who wants to legalize it just wants more voters to voting for them.

You are obviously just shooting your mouth without knowing what's really going on. Illegals do not get majority of the benefits you talked about. You can't contribute the high crime rates to illegal immigrants. Illegals are only a fraction of the current population in America. Do the research and ill guarantee you that high crime rates are because of stupid White Americans.By the way, crime rates have been declining if you haven't notice. Do to the ever so increasing police force, crime rates have been the lowest in years. Illegals that commit crimes are sent back to their motherland; so, how can they be over crowding prisons? The problem with that is that they will just cross the border again but if we beef up the borders that wouldn't happen. Also, illegals don't qualify for medicare or welfare. In-order to qualify you need to have a real working SSN which is almost impossible for illegal immigrants to obtain. That leaves you with only free education and free health-care. Majority of illegals are of working age so they don't go to school. They are scared to even enroll their children in school for the fact that they might be found out and deported. That leaves only health-care. I understand what you're trying to say that hospitals are going bankrupt but that isn't the immigrants fault. Who the hell can pay these ridiculous hospital bills. Have you ever been admitted into a hospital before? Well, i have and it's not a joke. 1000 a day for a freaking little bed that isn't even comfortable is beyond my mind. anyway, they might get treated at the hospital but do you know how long they have to wait? i would guarantee you that majority of them will probably bleed to death before the doctor gets to them.

Man, here is for all those that think illegals are only taking tax payers money and not paying tax...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/busin ... tner=kmarx

http://langamp.com/borderblog/?p=29

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... -headlines

Illegals contribute to 7 billion tax a year which they cant even get back. What the hell is the government doing with that money? They are using it for medicare and retirement funds that these poor illegals will never see.

Now you can lay off their backs about only eating up the tax payers money. They pay tax too but unlike you they don't get it in return. Leave them alone as I've said many times over. They have not done anything to you.

I'm not saying legalize them but I'm not saying we should also kick them out. best cast scenario is to just leave them alone and build the great wall of America.

mieko wrote:Whether it's yes or no.. It's the legal AMERICAN PUBLIC that will in the end be paying
the price to deal with the issue....

Whether it is a referendum or an election it is a democratic choice of sorts. I'm detached from the situation so I don't have any anxieties, prejudices or first hand experience of the illegals but it certainly seems to upset a lot of people. I'd guess that much of the American public (as any other people) would not be having a discussion on the merits and demerits of legalisation like we are. Instead they might be thinking, "there are a lot more Mexicans about lately and I'm not comfortable about it. They are not the same as me - they dress funny and they talk funny and shouldnt be here. What happened to the good old days!" And so vote on that basis.

(The lizard brain is still dominant in much of our species so trust the public with care - they react emotionally. In Britain their are frequently calls for a referendum on the death penalty which was abolished 40 years ago. In their wisdom, all governments since then realise that if they hold a referendum that the public would vote to return the death penalty.)

Stealth96 wrote:You know I'm sick of it too. Yes, the children of illegals could get a job and pay taxes. But what if they don't. I shop around town and I go to many supermarkets and do you know what I see. Many people using food stamps. I don't know if they are illegals or tax payers but currently illegals get a lot of benefits even though they don't deserve it.
1. Free primary school education.
2. Medicare
3. Free hospital care
4. Higher crime rate
5. Over population of prison systems
etc.
Its just econnomics. Some may say that they do jobs that citizens don't want to do.

Many citizens also get benefits they dont deserve. If people are getting benefits they don't deserve then the systems are flawed. Many citizens commit crimes.
These are good reason to change and improve the systems but not a good reason to target a particular group exploiting those systems. If Illegal immigrants are found guilty of commiting a crime then I see no reason why they should not be deported (except in valid asylum cases)
I agree that it is just economics. When the economy is bad people have a hard time. They look around for simple causes - they don't study economics which is far too complicated. Sometimes when they look around the causes are attributed to a weak minority - scapegoats, in effect.
Unemployment and the pressure to lower wages comes at the moment from globalisation. Manufacturing is going to foreign lower paid workers. Direct local service industries are not affected by this. You don't call Calcutta if you want your sewer cleaned, for example. Citizens don't do some jobs because they have choices. Citizens with fewer skills have fewer choices. Illegals often have no choice.

@Flounder

You have to take in some facts that some jobs don’t really require any skills whatsoever. It is simply a crappy job will get a crappy pay with or without the illegal immigrants being around.

since there are illegal who are willing to work at any salary, why would the coporation not exploit them because of their immigration status and why would they hire the legal ppl in this country?

Business is strictly business. Cheap labor = Bigger Profit
In a business stand point I would do the same.

@scott12199
Good point!

scott12199 wrote:what we need to do is arrest them and make them serve in the military for 18 years then they can apply for citizenship. if that doesnt work, make them dig ditches in iraq for a year or two then ship them backto their motherland.

Woah. That caught me offguard... You know, a combination of the two sometimes happens. The kids of some of my friends got citizenship by joining the Marines and Army, and then got injured overseas (my population sample, if you want to call it that, goes back to the Panama invasion, and then right on up to the current Iraqi occupation) and found that their VA medical benefits would not cover things like resetting improperly set broken bones or physical therapy for severe ligament damage (VA benefits have been gutted under Bush), so they are going back to their homelands where they can get surgery and therapy at reasonable prices (and very good care, because they can afford to go to the hospitals where the national soccer stars get their treatment - pretty clever!). They usually come back, but sometimes they stay.

they all got injured because they said they had done construction work with their fathers, but they were just kids and their parents didn't let them do the harder jobs, and when they were sent overseas they were immediately set to work doing things they had no idea how to do, and got injured by the heavy equipment that they couldn't control adequately.

So, consider... "illegals" are fighting the war for us, playing by the rules to get their citizenship, and then getting shafted anyway (if it was "citizen white boy" who was fighting in the war do you think Bush could have got away with cutting VA benefits?!)

Sorry for polluting the high tone of this thread with anecdotal rubbish. I realise I am making a mockery of Robert's Rules of Order. Stop me before I kill again.

Some of the things people say are very high and mighty and so impratical. It reminds me of protestors sometimes. STOP THE WAR! DO THIS! DO THAT! No plan, just a slogan.

Saying SEND EVERYONE HOME! is a thought, but 100% totally impractical. It's also VERY mean spirited. There's no thought to it, just DO IT NOW!!!

What's going to be done is obviously more in the middle. People yelling SEND EVERYONE HOME or MAKE EVERYONE LEGAL NO MATTER WHAT are, IMO just very ignorant. Simple problems almost never work this way, why would a complex one affecting the whole country work that way?

This thread has passed 10 pages, so I guess it is ok to chime in.

I had an interesting conversation the other day with an aquaintance who is deeply involved in this issue. Actually it wasn't a conversation, but me listening to him ramble on about the plans he had layed out for after the amnesty. He detailed 28-29 people who would be fired and their jobs given to current illegal Mexican immigrants. I actually met a few of the people who would be fired; two part-time college students at the local community college, a single mother of two, and one black man. These aren't "jobs that no one wants", but they will be lower paying once amnesty rolls around. You see, there are dozens of business owners in this same business center anxiously waiting for cheaper labor. The only thing that has prevented them from hiring the Mexican workers is their immigration status. In this one business center alone about 200 legal residents will lose their jobs with the amnesty. The vast majority are like those examples I listed above. This is no over-exageration, this will happen. The plan my aquaintance was talking about was one he and the owner of the company he works for had worked out. Who would be fired, what excuse they would use, even the time table was all worked out already.

I voted no because amnesty is not the right way to fix the problem. However, if it passes then I will feel less guilty about seeing my aquaintance carry out the plan. I was born here but my parents are from Mexico. This fact alone doesn't make me feel I have a vested interest in seeing amnesty passed. Once it does though, I will be obligated to help these new immigrants advance, no matter the cost to others. They are "my people" after all, as I'm constantly reminded. But that's not a problem since that is what is being voted on, and so in effect a yes vote will give me your OK.

So, saigo_x, what you're saying is that making the illegals legal will result in the moral corruption of your acquaintance? He's worried about the legal implications of hiring illegals now, but not about the more serious legal implications of paying sub-minimum wage to legal employees (who he bizarrely thinks will accept sublegal pay just because they were formerly illegal aliens)? The mind boggles.

nikochanr3 wrote: Some of the things people say are very high and mighty and so impratical. It reminds me of protestors sometimes. STOP THE WAR! DO THIS! DO THAT! No plan, just a slogan.

Saying SEND EVERYONE HOME! is a thought, but 100% totally impractical. It's also VERY mean spirited. There's no thought to it, just DO IT NOW!!!

What's going to be done is obviously more in the middle. People yelling SEND EVERYONE HOME or MAKE EVERYONE LEGAL NO MATTER WHAT are, IMO just very ignorant. Simple problems almost never work this way, why would a complex one affecting the whole country work that way?

Lets face it the choices in the poll don't fully open up the complexity of the solution. Yes, No, Not decided/Neutral. We are doing our best to explore complexity of the matter. And nobody important is particularly interested in our opinions (especially mine as I've only visited there for about 6 days.)

saigo_x wrote:This thread has passed 10 pages, so I guess it is ok to chime in.

Is their a rule. I chimed in at page 9.

Prof Plum wrote:Lets face it the choices in the poll don't fully open up the complexity of the solution. Yes, No, Not decided/Neutral. We are doing our best to explore complexity of the matter. And nobody important is particuarly interested in our opinions (especially mine as I've only visited there for about 6 days.)

The beer here sucks, doesn't it?

pokute wrote:

Prof Plum wrote:Lets face it the choices in the poll don't fully open up the complexity of the solution. Yes, No, Not decided/Neutral. We are doing our best to explore complexity of the matter. And nobody important is particuarly interested in our opinions (especially mine as I've only visited there for about 6 days.)

The beer here sucks, doesn't it?

It does but it works for me!

pokute wrote:So, saigo_x, what you're saying is that making the illegals legal will result in the moral corruption of your acquaintance? He's worried about the legal implications of hiring illegals now, but not about the more serious legal implications of paying sub-minimum wage to legal employees (who he bizarrely thinks will accept sublegal pay just because they were formerly illegal aliens)? The mind boggles.

I'll mention this to him if I see him later today. I'm sure he'll get a good laugh. He might say something like "we are taking back what is rightfully ours" while cursing unions or something. You need to adjust your perspective and look from the bottom up. If you say that to someone who has spent the last five years cleaning toilets he'll laugh or tell you to..well you get the point. This is the prevailing wisdom among the Mexican communtiy from San Diego to the Central Valley. I won't speak for Northern California since I don't spend much time there.

Prof Plum wrote:Is their a rule. I chimed in at page 9.

Page nine is fine. I usaully wait about 10 pages to let all the opinions come out before bringing in a little reality.

"high crime rates are because of stupid White Americans"

Racism. Anyone?

Stealth96 wrote: You know I'm sick of it too. Yes, the children of illegals could get a job and pay taxes. But what if they don't.

So what if they don't? The children of the illegals born in USA are born Americans, they are born just as free as you. Why should they have an obligation to pay for what their parents have done? That makes no sence in a free state..

Or are you arguing that all people (legal or not) who aren't contributing to society should be deported?

There are a lot of people here who are not in Southern California, and consequently have very little perspective on employment here. The minimum wage in the state is $6.75. In Los Angeles, the real minimum liveable wage for an individual (because housing costs here are very high) is about $11.00. Illegal UNSKILLED workers are paid between $3.00 and $6.00, illegal SKILLED workers are paid at the going wage for their work but recieve no benefits. In Los Angeles there are a large number of illegal skilled workers in the construction trades. Interestingly, a licensed plumber bills $50-80/hr for himself plus $30-45/hr for his illegal skilled assistant, paying the assistant 1/2 of the amount billed for him, in spite of the fact that he provides no other benefits (other than lunch) for the assistant. As far as I know, only government agencies employ (indirectly through captive contractors) union construction workers. Union construction workers will refuse to do residential work, because they know that nobody will pay them union wage except the city/county/state/federal government. Union construction workers nevertheless complain that illegal workers are taking their jobs.

shiny plastic wrote:"high crime rates are because of stupid White Americans"

Racism. Anyone?

Sure, racism. It should have been phrased better to make it classism, which is, I think, what was intended. Something like "Stupid senile and ignorant elite ruling class".

Prince of Moles wrote:I'm not saying that borders are invalid.

I'm just pointing out that the system we use today, of getting visas and passports to go from one country to another is a very recent system (basically after WW2, 1945).

Borders have been around for ages, but requiring everyone to get visas and passports is only like 60 years old.

Why can't we take a look again at this system if it's not working as intended?

Passports and visas are actually much older than 60 years... More like over 120 years. Passports have been in use at least since 1887 (Montenegro). Standardization of the passport as we know it today was made in 1920, first by the League of Nations and the later the United Nations and the International Civil Aviation Organization.

The only problem I see with visas and passports is the information from the person's country of origin. Not all countries have everyone of their citizens documented. Just about everything about an American (my earlier platform is tracking of all people) is recorded somewhere - crime records, birth records, tax records, etc. However, many other countries do not document as much - or at all for that matter. I can imagine, for example, people being born in the mountains of Afghanistan who were never registered, and were brought up to believe in the crap the Taliban were into. If that person traveled to America, there is absolutely no documentation the US could use to analyze the risk factor of that person. Actually, IMHO having no record DOES POSE a high risk, so I wouldn't allow an undocumented, unknown person to set foot in my country. BTW, Mexico keeps LOUSY records of their people *hint*hint*

So that's basically the weakness of the passport/visa system. But like I mentioned earlier, these systems are based on International law (the UN and ICAO). So it isn't just a problem in the US - it's a problem in all countries using this system. And it has to be reformed within those two bodies.

In the US, the problem with identification is that the federal government has given that power to the states. As a result, each state has its own standards - and it is a MESS, just like the mess they have with the election systems. Establishing a person's profile based on a relational database query doesn't work like what you see in CSI... In my line of work (US government, Dept of Navy), obtaining a top security clearance takes ONE YEAR of processing! They look at everything - bank records, previous employment, family interviews, previous residences, and much more.

Back in 2004, one of Bush's campaign ideas was for each US citizen to have a national ID card. This is a method of bringing the identification process back to the federal level so that every registered citizen has the exact same data profile. This way, you no longer have to use other methods of identification - especially the social security number which I NEVER give out except for tax and social security purposes. Linking this to immigration, in order for a federal ID system to work EVERY living human on US soil must be documented. If you have 9 million "undocumented" bodies (notice I didnt' use the word "illegal") in the US, to me that's a major security risk. Leaving out the good people, there ARE bad apples in the bunch - sex offenders, murderers, drug dealers, Al Qaeda sleeper cells... THAT is why a visa system is in place - the purpose is to track every single person who enters the US. Yes, we do lose track of thousands of them - but IMHO making the effort still has teeth.

So how about the reverse - a person from the United States entering YOUR country. With just a passport and visa, do you trust the American? Despite the information problem the US has, I would trust him. More than a person from some other countries? Definitely! From Mexico? You bet!

--- groink

Im gonna vote "yes" on that one. Im not from the U.S. My only argument for my "yes" is that your all immigrants, your history is like 400 years old? So give your fellow immigrants a chance to get a job, will ya ;)

Tscabo wrote:Im gonna vote "yes" on that one. Im not from the U.S. My only argument for my "No" is that your all immigrants, your history is like 400 years old? So give your fellow immigrants a chance to get a job, will ya ;)

400 years of history, and here's how it's taught:

Mayflower arrives
time passes...
Revolutionary War
time passes...
Civil War
time passes...
WW I and WW II - taught as if the U.S. was the main injured party...
time passes...
John Kennedy shot
time passes...
Britney Spears is pregant!

Schoolkids in Sweden know more U.S. history at any given age than we know here. There are NO decent history books targeting primary and secondary school audiences. In college, most people are now exposed to "The People's History of The United States" and are completely dumbfounded by it. History departments at many universities are being dismantled in the interest of postmodern purification (I am not kidding, a friend who was a professor of European history speacializing in the Italian Rennaissance was dismissed with the admonition that "nobody really wants to know the details anymore, it's just unneccesary").

pokute wrote:There are a lot of people here who are not in Southern California, and consequently have very little perspective on employment here.

I asume from this statement you are from SoCal. What a coincidence, so am I. Which part of SoCal do you think you have a better perspective on?

There are NO decent history books targeting primary and secondary school audiences. In college, most people are now exposed to "The People's History of The United States" and are completely dumbfounded by it.

It appears you are book-smart but not street-smart. The only professor who I knew used Howard Zinn's book in his course was formerly a P.E. coach. You might as well read the Da Vinci Code. Even my one professor who dedicated much time to Vietnam and Watergate found it lacking academically.

Oh and my cousin got a kick out of your reply to my earlier post hehe.

saigo_x wrote:

pokute wrote:There are a lot of people here who are not in Southern California, and consequently have very little perspective on employment here.

I asume from this statement you are from SoCal. What a coincidence, so am I. Which part of SoCal do you think you have a better perspective on?

There are NO decent history books targeting primary and secondary school audiences. In college, most people are now exposed to "The People's History of The United States" and are completely dumbfounded by it.

It appears you are book-smart but not street-smart. The only professor who I knew used Howard Zinn's book in his course was formerly a P.E. coach. You might as well read the Da Vinci Code. Even my one professor who dedicated much time to Vietnam and Watergate found it lacking academically.

Oh and my cousin got a kick out of your reply to my earlier post hehe.

pokute is probably from San Diego... I reside in the O.C.... ORANGE COUNTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

groink wrote:
Back in 2004, one of Bush's campaign ideas was for each US citizen to have a national ID card. This is a method of bringing the identification process back to the federal level so that every registered citizen has the exact same data profile. This way, you no longer have to use other methods of identification - especially the social security number which I NEVER give out except for tax and social security purposes.

--- groink

I always thought that in many ways a national ID card would be a good thing. I don't know how it is now, but when I went to college your student ID was your SS# so it was on everything. I am an licenced Airframe and power-plant technician. And what did the FAA use for your licence number that you have to write in the logs of every plane you work on and lots of other places...that's right your SS#. So I know mine is just hanging out there in the open.

Genmai_cha wrote:

tdkyo wrote:

Genmai_cha wrote:I'm all in for immigrant rights.
There are so many crappy jobs that I would never fill in and if they want them, let them have 'em.

Would you ever be an Adult Sanitation engineer?

I think not. Let them live the American Dream.

I would like to counter your view by stating the fact that most Americans are taking two or more part time jobs to get by daily. Most of the "secure" employment corporations (especially in the manufacturing industry) have been cutting off work force. Many recently educated graudate students are finding themselves without work. Although many illegal immigrants have been touting the idea that there are certain American jobs that Americans would not take because of the "degrading nature", we must realize that if the pay of those jobs are back to a reasonable standard, Americans will do it for the money. Remember that it was the hiring of illegal immigrants that alllowed many employers to lower wages on many job industries.

I am all for charging all business with a crime equivent of a felony and strong national border in the south. I am still pondering what we should do with the current illegal immigrants we have in this nation, but I am opposed to giving them any type of amnesty status in the future.

Any comments?

[/spoiler]

I don't think those type of jobs would ever raise their pay to standard and even if the dirty job pay you something decent I still wouldn't do it. If you want to get closer look to reality then you should apply for that job and see what the pay is. Should we have a wage guess here?

I would like to point out that there are many jobs still not tapped by the illegal immigrants that have high high pays. They might be dirty, dangerious, or both.

To give an example, please take a look at coal mining, one of the most dangerous jobs outhere. Americans still do it, because of great pay and health care coverage.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs004.htm

pokute wrote:

Tscabo wrote:Im gonna vote "yes" on that one. Im not from the U.S. My only argument for my "No" is that your all immigrants, your history is like 400 years old? So give your fellow immigrants a chance to get a job, will ya ;)

400 years of history, and here's how it's taught:

Mayflower arrives
time passes...
Revolutionary War
time passes...
Civil War
time passes...
WW I and WW II - taught as if the U.S. was the main injured party...
time passes...
John Kennedy shot
time passes...
Britney Spears is pregant!

Schoolkids in Sweden know more U.S. history at any given age than we know here. There are NO decent history books targeting primary and secondary school audiences. In college, most people are now exposed to "The People's History of The United States" and are completely dumbfounded by it. History departments at many universities are being dismantled in the interest of postmodern purification (I am not kidding, a friend who was a professor of European history speacializing in the Italian Rennaissance was dismissed with the admonition that "nobody really wants to know the details anymore, it's just unneccesary").

Hm. I have no idea what you're talking about, your english wnt up a notch, so I can't follow you anymore
What I meant ws that most americans seem to think that they have been in america for like 1242341232 years, and that theyve always been there. Your ancestors are european. Bush has swedish ancestors (Im SO not proud of that >_>) So I mean like.. Why shouldnt other immigrants get some job so? I mean, theyre like you, only that they arrived 400 years later And if I upset someone by this, dont feel offended. You can just pass me off as a stupid european

Tscabo wrote:So I mean like.. Why shouldnt other immigrants get some job so?

Please don't jump into the debate just by reading the last few posts. Start from the beginning, then you'll understand that no one in this debate is against immigration. The fact is that millions of people sneaked into the US without being processed, and is now living within the US without any documentation. And no US agency is aware of their whereabouts. All of this defines them under US law as illegal immigrants.

So the question up for debate is: Should these illegal immigrants be given legal status of some form?

Now, seeing you're from Sweden, it is fair to judge your country seeing you're judging the US. According to Swedish law, they highly recommend that a person with a valid work visa do not stay in their country for longer than 180 days in a year, so that the worker can avoid being taxed by "Sweden's very high tax rates." (1) If you do stay longer than 180 days, then you are required to obtain a residence permit, which you can get by visiting a Swedish embassy in your country of origin. You are then assigned a Swedish national registration number (Personnummer).

So basically Sweden's borders and immigration requirements are JUST AS STRICT as the US. And, if someone from Norway or Finland entered the country without any legal status (passport, visa, etc.), the authorities would do the exact same things we're doing in the US. According to one report, the Swedish government is attempting to slow the flow of asylum-seekers by raising the penalty for smuggling aliens from six months to two years in prison. And there's also a backlog of foreigners wanting to enter Sweden - a much as 500,000 foreigners seeking to enter Sweden legally. (2) And, the illegal immigrants are receiving the same treatment as those in the US, such as deniel of medical treatment (3). And as for Europe in large, the European Union is cracking down on illegal immigration by posing jail time to people who aid the illegals. (4)

So it isn't a happy-happy world for illegal immigrants in Sweden or in Europe for that matter.

--- groink

(1) http://www.workpermit.com/sweden/sweden.htm
(2) http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=369_0_4_0
(3) http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2 ... e=20051130
(4) http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/euro ... ed?related

if we were to shoot an immigrant by accident will we be accused of murder?

scott12199 wrote:if we were to shoot an immigrant by accident will we be accused of murder?

Dude, you're VERY CLOSE to being a troll of this forum.

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

Tscabo wrote: What I meant ws that most americans seem to think that they have been in america for like 1242341232 years, and that theyve always been there. Your ancestors are european. Bush has swedish ancestors (Im SO not proud of that >_>) So I mean like.. Why shouldnt other immigrants get some job so? I mean, theyre like you, only that they arrived 400 years later And if I upset someone by this, dont feel offended. You can just pass me off as a stupid european

actually, it made sense to me. i commend you!

groink wrote:

scott12199 wrote:if we were to shoot an immigrant by accident will we be accused of murder?

Dude, you're VERY CLOSE to being a troll of this forum.

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

I didn't make a remark. It was a question. I actually would like to know

Murder is Murder lol....

scott12199 wrote:

groink wrote:

scott12199 wrote:if we were to shoot an immigrant by accident will we be accused of murder?

Dude, you're VERY CLOSE to being a troll of this forum.

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

I didn't make a remark. It was a question. I actually would like to know

i considered it as a rhetorical question.

scott12199 wrote:if we were to shoot an immigrant by accident will we be accused of murder?

Only if we forget to wear our "God Bless America" hats when we do it.

Just for the sake of precission/fairness:

groink wrote:(3) http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2 ... e=20051130

Sweden places more restrictions on healthcare provision for illegal immigrants than almost any other country in the European Union, according to MSF. Countries including Spain, France and Italy provide free emergency healthcare to all immigrants.

groink wrote:The European Union is cracking down on illegal immigration by posing jail time to people who aid the illegals.(4) http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/euro ... ed?related

Those actions are not directed to punish those who help/aid the immigrants: In a measure aimed at not deterring people from aiding refugees or asylum seekers for humanitarian reasons, EU home affairs ministers agreed on a humanitarian clause allowing member states not to prosecute in those special cases. Nobody is arrested for giving aid. It is those who smuggle immigrants, earning huge sums of money from them, who are the target of these laws.

saigo_x wrote:

pokute wrote:There are a lot of people here who are not in Southern California, and consequently have very little perspective on employment here.

I asume from this statement you are from SoCal. What a coincidence, so am I. Which part of SoCal do you think you have a better perspective on?

Just WHY did you think I was talking about you? Most of the people here (D-Addicts) are in other countries.

It appears you are book-smart but not street-smart. The only professor who I knew used Howard Zinn's book in his course was formerly a P.E. coach. You might as well read the Da Vinci Code. Even my one professor who dedicated much time to Vietnam and Watergate found it lacking academically

.

What a coincidence, I know two P.E. coaches who were formerly university professors. I also know perhaps a dozen university professors who have read Zinn's book and who appove of it as an antidote to the history textbooks used in U.S. primary and secondary schools... A book that was written to be readable by teenagers and hence not written in academic style. What book would YOU recommend?

pokute wrote:

saigo_x wrote:

pokute wrote:There are a lot of people here who are not in Southern California, and consequently have very little perspective on employment here.

I asume from this statement you are from SoCal. What a coincidence, so am I. Which part of SoCal do you think you have a better perspective on?

Just WHY did you think I was talking about you? Most of the people here (D-Addicts) are in other countries.

It appears you are book-smart but not street-smart. The only professor who I knew used Howard Zinn's book in his course was formerly a P.E. coach. You might as well read the Da Vinci Code. Even my one professor who dedicated much time to Vietnam and Watergate found it lacking academically

.

What a coincidence, I know two P.E. coaches who were formerly university professors. I also know perhaps a dozen university professors who have read Zinn's book and who appove of it as an antidote to the history textbooks used in U.S. primary and secondary schools... A book that was written to be readable by teenagers and hence not written in academic style. What book would YOU recommend?

I thought Battle Royale was a really good book.

Ah, but that's about the Japanese educational system.

I haven't read any of the comments and I sure won't read all of'em, but the topic is enough.

Should the illegal immigrants of the U.S be legal?

wtf? I don't want to insult you, but what in the world did you smoke, dude? I don't feel like going into detail b/c this is absurd...
why don't we just abolish all the laws and live in anarchy? I think there are rational and legitimate reasons why any frickin' psycho can't enter the US...

Patxi wrote: In a measure aimed at not deterring people from aiding refugees or asylum seekers for humanitarian reasons, EU home affairs ministers agreed on a humanitarian clause allowing member states not to prosecute in those special cases. Nobody is arrested for giving aid. It is those who smuggle immigrants, earning huge sums of money from them, who are the target of these laws.

Here's how I interpreted the premise of the article... "Under a compromise reached on Tuesday, EU member states are to set maximum jail terms of between six and 10 years for people found guilty of smuggling or hiding illegal immigrants." In my interpretation, "hiding" can be any activity in which you in some form give the illegal immigrant assistance, such as:

1. Give the illegal immigrant shelter.
2. Give the illegal immigrant a job.
3. Give the illegal immigrant medical care.

Although I haven't seen it written in law (i.e. it doesn't mean it isn't written - I just can't find it), any form of assistance to the illegal immigrant without reporting him to the authorities, IMHO is a form of hiding. In a different situation, if a person (illegal or not) committed a crime, you knew about it, and law enforcement officials could prove that you did in fact know about it but didn't report it, you could be liable under some form of "aiding and abetting" clause. In the United States, aiding and abetting is:

FindLaw.com wrote:A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.

Such a clause may differ in either the EU or in Sweden in particular. But in the US, employers and other people providing aid to an illegal immigrant can possibly be subject to such a charge. That is why I mentioned earlier where Kerry's idea about providing amnesty based on a work record wouldn't work.

--- groink

groink wrote:

Tscabo wrote:So I mean like.. Why shouldnt other immigrants get some job so?

Please don't jump into the debate just by reading the last few posts. Start from the beginning, then you'll understand that no one in this debate is against immigration. The fact is that millions of people sneaked into the US without being processed, and is now living within the US without any documentation. And no US agency is aware of their whereabouts. All of this defines them under US law as illegal immigrants.

So the question up for debate is: Should these illegal immigrants be given legal status of some form?

Now, seeing you're from Sweden, it is fair to judge your country seeing you're judging the US. According to Swedish law, they highly recommend that a person with a valid work visa do not stay in their country for longer than 180 days in a year, so that the worker can avoid being taxed by "Sweden's very high tax rates." (1) If you do stay longer than 180 days, then you are required to obtain a residence permit, which you can get by visiting a Swedish embassy in your country of origin. You are then assigned a Swedish national registration number (Personnummer).

So basically Sweden's borders and immigration requirements are JUST AS STRICT as the US. And, if someone from Norway or Finland entered the country without any legal status (passport, visa, etc.), the authorities would do the exact same things we're doing in the US. According to one report, the Swedish government is attempting to slow the flow of asylum-seekers by raising the penalty for smuggling aliens from six months to two years in prison. And there's also a backlog of foreigners wanting to enter Sweden - a much as 500,000 foreigners seeking to enter Sweden legally. (2) And, the illegal immigrants are receiving the same treatment as those in the US, such as deniel of medical treatment (3). And as for Europe in large, the European Union is cracking down on illegal immigration by posing jail time to people who aid the illegals. (4)

So it isn't a happy-happy world for illegal immigrants in Sweden or in Europe for that matter.

--- groink

(1) http://www.workpermit.com/sweden/sweden.htm
(2) http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=369_0_4_0
(3) http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2 ... e=20051130
(4) http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/euro ... ed?related

Oh, please, I never said I liked Swedens policy on immigrants either. Ofcourse, judge Sweden, I sure dont mind. Im as harsh and judging about Sweden as any other country.
Um. Sorry if I made you angry? O_o
Its okay for _me_ if people sneaks in to sweden without papers and stuff. They probably have a reason. But thats just me.

bugsie wrote:

Tscabo wrote: What I meant ws that most americans seem to think that they have been in america for like 1242341232 years, and that theyve always been there. Your ancestors are european. Bush has swedish ancestors (Im SO not proud of that >_>) So I mean like.. Why shouldnt other immigrants get some job so? I mean, theyre like you, only that they arrived 400 years later And if I upset someone by this, dont feel offended. You can just pass me off as a stupid european

actually, it made sense to me. i commend you!

You shouldnt My english sucks and I always have a hard time to tell what I want and then people misunderstands and then all hell breakes loose. And this got all dubble-posted and OT. Sorry

Hmm... Hopping into this one late after perusing it here and there recently. A few of my thoughts on the issue:

1. NO, illegal immigrants should NOT be allowed to stay here. Now if they've been here a long time without being caught and can somehow document it, say in the time it takes to naturalize in this country legally, and can also provide evidence that they've been productive, law-abiding citizens with deep ties in the community, started a family on American soil, etc. then I can see them being allowed to to have their case reviewed individually to see about qualifying for residency and starting the citizenship process from there. Lotta bugs to work out, but possibly viable. Doesn't apply to coming over here 8 months pregnant, popping out a kid on American soil, and wanting to stay by virtue of the fact that anyone born in America is automatically granted citizenship, regardless of the status of the parents. Not sure how the law reads these days on that one, so I could be mistaken.

2. Way too many unscrupulous employers here hire illegals and pay them ****, with the threat of deportation used to keep them in line. Case in point recently, a woman and the father of her baby are facing imprisonment and deportation because she asserted her rights and sued her employer over wages well below the minimum. She won her case, but an "anonymous" phone call to INS with a bunch of trumped-up accusations has her facing deportation as well (the father is currently in jail for this). The above-mentioned law Groink questioned, while I don't know the content of it, could be modified so that anyone employing illegal immigrants should have similar punishments in place for the business operator as it seems to for private citizens. Not knocking folks giving a helping hand to undocumented workers, but I'd love to see the slave-labor assholes who prey on people who are afraid or unable to speak up held accountable for their shitty and unfair practices. That, in my opinion, is a much greater crime than someone sneaking across the border in search of a better life.

groink wrote:Here's how I interpreted the premise of the article... "Under a compromise reached on Tuesday, EU member states are to set maximum jail terms of between six and 10 years for people found guilty of smuggling or hiding illegal immigrants." In my interpretation, "hiding" can be any activity in which you in some form give the illegal immigrant assistance, such as:

1. Give the illegal immigrant shelter.
2. Give the illegal immigrant a job.
3. Give the illegal immigrant medical care.

Although I haven't seen it written in law (i.e. it doesn't mean it isn't written - I just can't find it), any form of assistance to the illegal immigrant without reporting him to the authorities, IMHO is a form of hiding. In a different situation, if a person (illegal or not) committed a crime, you knew about it, and law enforcement officials could prove that you did in fact know about it but didn't report it, you could be liable under some form of "aiding and abetting" clause. In the United States, aiding and abetting is:

FindLaw.com wrote:A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.

Such a clause may differ in either the EU or in Sweden in particular. But in the US, employers and other people providing aid to an illegal immigrant can possibly be subject to such a charge. That is why I mentioned earlier where Kerry's idea about providing amnesty based on a work record wouldn't work.

--- groink

In the very same article you posted is the answer:
Maj-Inger Klingvall, immigration minister of current EU president Sweden, told a news conference: "Only those who have done this for financial gain should be convicted."
"Aiding" and "getting profit" aren't synonymous, and the European Union isn't cracking down on illegal immigration by posing jail time to people who aid the illegals. Only smugglers go to jail.

pokute wrote:What a coincidence, I know two P.E. coaches who were formerly university professors. I also know perhaps a dozen university professors who have read Zinn's book and who appove of it as an antidote to the history textbooks used in U.S. primary and secondary schools... A book that was written to be readable by teenagers and hence not written in academic style. What book would YOU recommend?

This going way off-topic, so this will be my last post on this. Only a dozen university professors? I can think of more myself. But I'll take the word of one of the authors referrenced by Zinn over those professors any day. The phrases "misinterpretation of my conclusions" and "creative writing" come to mind hehe. Reading the primary source will result in discovering that what the author says is usually a biased (whether philosophical or structural) paraphrasing of the original account. Oh, and I never defended the textbooks used in our schools, nor would I ever want to.

Patxi wrote:In the very same article you posted is the answer:
Maj-Inger Klingvall, immigration minister of current EU president Sweden, told a news conference: "Only those who have done this for financial gain should be convicted."
"Aiding" and "getting profit" aren't synonymous, and the European Union isn't cracking down on illegal immigration by posing jail time to people who aid the illegals. Only smugglers go to jail.

According to the EU's FAQ to support their immigration policy:

European Union wrote:What happens if an employer is caught employing illegal immigrants? The penalties vary from one Member State to another. However, those who employ illegal workers and those who encourage, facilitate or promote illegal employment or illegal trafficking in labour should receive administrative and/or criminal penalties. These penalties should be effective so as to prevent employers from taking advantage of cheap labour and distorting competition.

I believe this is because the EU adopted the Schengen Agreement in 1985, where in the agreement countries who signed into it need to relax its borders and develop national ID card systems. But because many members of the EU find the Agreement lacking in today's world, they have implemented stricter policies because the EU's immigration policy is so relaxed.

Wikipedia wrote:In France, helping an illegal immigrant (providing shelter, for example) is prohibited by a law passed on December 27, 1994 under the cohabitation between socialist President François Mitterrand and right-wing Premier ministre Edouard Balladur [5]. The law was heavily criticized by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the CIMADE or the GISTI, left-wing political parties such as the Greens or the French Communist Party, and trade-unions such as the magistrates' Syndicat de la magistrature, who alleged that this brought France to the dark periods of Vichy France during World War II.

Migration News wrote:In Germany, workers receive an identification card showing the insurance number that each person is required to have to be employed. They must show the ID to their employer when they begin to work, and the employer must report the number to the local labor office within three days. In some industries, such as construction, janitorial services, and restaurants, workers must carry their ID cards with them at work. Workers must leave their ID cards at the labor office while drawing unemployment insurance benefits--and check in at the labor office frequently to prove that their availability for work.

There were about 78,000 inspections for illegal foreign workers in 1994, which resulted in 42,000 closed cases in which fines of an average of 550 DM were levied on employers. In 5,300 cases, criminal penalties were imposed.

Although the United Kingdom and Ireland are members of the EU, they did not sign onto the Schengen Agreement because the citizens of these two countries do not want a national ID system in place. But both countries have immigration policies that inflict criminal penalties to violators, very similar to the US and Canada.

--- groink

Sigh! You shouldn't rely so much on -some- online sources.

I mentioned earlier that I made notes and here they are:

- Newly arrived, LEGAL immigrants are doing the so called "low-wage, blue collar" work already; therefore, the argument that illegal aliens are the only ones willing to do these jobs are faulty.

- English is the official language of this country; therefore, all immigrants who come here should command some level of comprehension before admitted.

- The solution to the current illegal aliens already in this country is to deport them - no ifs, ands or buts. Negotiate with their countries and send them back.

- Illegal new-borns should inherently be illegal. There shouldn't be benefits for them even if they are born here. This is, in the long run, a bigger problem than the current illegals themselves. Illegals are reproducing at an alarming rate. The law should required hospitals to report illegal newborns so that they can be deported. I know the law says that if you are born here, then you are a citizen. But I think this law should be amended since the parents of these newborns are illegal to begin with. Logic says you wouldn't have been born here if your parents weren't here in the first place.

- Whoever says the law against illegal immigration is wrong is STUPID. Laws are created by the government, but they are ELECTED by the people. This is a democracy so you need to learn to get along with the majority. All laws were created by humans, including moral or religious laws. So don't try to say that laws are wrong or stupid just because you don't like them. It takes a majority to change or amend a law, so start gathering your friends and do something about it if you don't like it. Get out and vote for people who represent your views or run for office yourself.

- Someone said that early immigrants came here without visas or passports, but were admitted. It's true to a certain extent. They were legally processed, however, unlike the current illegals. Illegals didn't present themselves to be processed, but snuck in through illegal means. That is the difference.

- A lot of illegals come here legally but remain here after their visas expired and don't return to their countries.

- The government knows there are illegals, but they have turned a blind eye towards the problem. Politics/votes are culprits for this laissez-faire policy.

- Because America is made up of so many different cultures, we cannot agree on or lack a common framework. Each culture has its own way of dealing with issues that it's hard to reach a common agreement as to what should or should not be the norm. In countries where there is a homogenous population, there's a mores or hegemony that create common ground on which laws are passed or policy created. In america, everyone is out for their own good that whenever there is an easy way to advance your own cause, you take it. So if hiring ilegals make me more money, then why not? It's beyond just the rich taking advantage of the poor or disadvantaged; it's pushing the law beyond its limits - same as breaking the law. If noone stands up to say anything, the problem will continue indefinitely. I don't think America can ever agree to a common ideology. Only when this happens can America advance to the social, cultural and economic levels of countries like Japan or Sweden.

- Those who argue that illegals are helping the economy needs to take an economic course. Illegals only hurt the economy. They take aways jobs, prevent wages from getting higher, don't pay taxes but use services and infrastructures, send money they make back to their countries. They contribute to higher rent and higher cost of living. For example, if rent is $500 a month (I actually pay $1,200 a month for a 1-bedroom in Astoria, Queens) and I was making $10 an hour, I probably can just get by. Now what if rent is $500 a month and I'm making $15 an hour? But not only this, illegals occuppy rental properties, decreasing supply and raising prices. So it's a two-fold effect.

- You say companies will move overseas because of higher wage demand. But look at it this way: if they produce overseas, but people can't afford to consume, then what's the use? Companies know this but because people don't realize it, they are taking advantage of people's lack of thinking and cooperation. Society will always operate according to supply and demand, give and take regardless of governments or economic systems.

- There's a human/emotional side to everything so we tend to sympathize with the illegals/less fortunates, but the reality is that society can only operate optimally if it follows certain sets of rules or laws. This is a democracy so the majority rules, regardless of what people like or not like. I hate left-wing, politically correct people who aim for righteousness and ignoring rules and laws along the way.

- The past is the past. You learn from it and move on, but you cannot apply it to the present. If the past or history didn't unfold the way it did, you wouldn't be where you are today, literally. So don't say early settlers/immigrants/colonizers were wrong. Life is one of survival; the strongest will come out on top. It's a part of every countries and civilizations and not just in America.

- The world will thank Bush 20-30 years down the road. Those who hate Bush are people without an adequate brain. You left-wingers want to free the world, make society a good place to live, bring everyone to equal status, but are condemning Bush for doing just that. Isn't he freeing the people of Iraq from tyranny and opression? Perhaps if you were born into those circumstances you might understand and appreciate what has happened. Wouldn't it be nice if citizens of every country can enjoy the level of freedom that you currently enjoy here in America? Think about it. Wouldn't it be nice to get rid of communism and corruption so that people can freely reach their potential? Only those who have suffered can fight the cause. All others are just seeking redemption for their guilt or to make themselves feel good.

My solution: Create a national ID system. One with finger print, picture, ss# and blood type. And have a birth/family registration system like in other countries. That way, everyone is accounted for. If you don't have an ID, that mean you are not a citizen or not legal to be here. I am not saying the card is only for citizens. There will be denotations to indicate what category you belong to. I wouldn't dare to include DNA, but who knows what future policy might be like. And if I were to rule this earth, I would get rid of all borders and make everyone a citizen of the world and not just a particular country. But ideals like this are unrealistic since people are animals afterall and will fight each other for survival. Organization is the best solution right now. So countries exist to maintain some form of peace and coexistence.

they do pay tax just not all of them. seems like you didnt read all of the post here. you might want to start from the beginning again. Bush is an idiot. I'm guessing you're one of the 30% that still likes Bush as president, lol.

NO because it wouldn't be fair for other people who wants to come over here reall bad but couldn't. and I REALLY WANT BUSH AS A PRESIDENT.republic

I believe the word illegal in any dictionary mean: unlawful, contrary to law. If we let our life follow the illegal way if will become dishonest. They should go back to they country and come here in a legal ways. How would you like to stand in line and someone cut in front of you? If USA have jobs for them we should think about allow them to become American, but right now they is no jobs for them and our taxpayer is carry bear more duty. The older people are without any SS when they get old and who is caring them. Since lot of moneys is going to help those illegal immigrates. When we get old we have no more money left for us in SS and who is caring for us? As we continue paying so many taxes and no moneys left for saving for our retirement. I believe USA is reach our power to help other. Other country should help out. I think we stick our nose to too many thing.

I dont think so..If we do then all people who wants to come to US..then they'd all come here because of it..I wont suggest..but in other cases..it could help them out live their life..

if they became legal more and more problems are gana rise , its not only the matter of becoming a citizen and full stop , it means that the government is to be full responsible for them (that includes all the social security, etc....) and because the majority of them are either unemployed or live under the minimum wage that will put the government in a very sensitive political and economical situation it can cause huge damages to the nation as a hole. considering that all that is gana take time more immigrants are gana start to come hopping for citizenship.

well, the us isnt the only country dealing with this problem, most of powerful nations close to Third wolrd countries suffers from it.
it s impossible to legalize all the illegal immigrants, what d be the purpose of the immigration procedure, which isnt easy depending of the nation rules.
if that happens, that means the borders are open to everybody, everybody ll flee to the states to get more money, a better job and a "better" life(they arent well treated due to racism and violence).
if one of these nations shows once a bit of kindness by legalizing illegal immigrants, that would add more new illegal immigrants in the future and worsen the situation.
it s obvious there is inequality in the world between north/south countries (rich/poor countries), that s why the rich countries are helping poor countries to develop so they can reduce the illegal immigrants venues.
but there are not helping enough cause they want them to stay poor.
it s similar to each society in each country , there are rich families(rich countries) and poor families. yeah it s unfair, but rich needs poor to work for them and poor needs rich for the money.
who will do the worst/risky jobs if u want a fair and equal society where everybody has the same priviledges, salary, style of life?
that s how the world works and u cant change it. u may think that it s better than past cause there s a middle class people, but this middle class isnt that rich, there are full of debts nowadays and both of the parents must work to earn enough money to access some rich people activities and act a lil bit as them.

that s it, now i m gonna wath hyd2.

This is such a complex problem from a global standpoint and possiblity a moral one. But from the point of Americans and their desire to keep their lifestyle it's simple deport all the illegals. The laws we have in place exist for a reason and it should be expected that they are carried out.

You can't have a double standard where people from Nations outside of Mexico have to wait in line and go through the process of getting a green card, but any Mexican that crosses the border gets legalized automatically.

Take control of the borders, and then deport all the illegals. And any nonsense about how making them legal would in anyway help our economical situation is just idiotic. All one would have to do is look at the history of Southern California's hospitals and realize how many people going for medical aid are illegals and straining our economy. There's no point in making them legal citizens when they can't carry their own weight.

On the other hand there are always two ways to win. To either give in or to conquer. One could say surrending is another way to win but submitting to another's way or will is not what most people want.

But regardless one shouldn't be expected to FIX MEXICO. With a country thats literally controlled by the drug cartel there's not much we could possibly do, unless we invaded Mexico.

Boot the illegals and control the borders first. Then figure out what to do afterwards.

On another note it sucks that American corporations outsouce so many jobs to other countries, greed sucks.

Hmm.... So on the one hand, it's a "complex problem", yet on the other hand your answer is to simply "deport all the illegals" and "figure out what to do afterwards".

Oh yeah, you really thought that one through. Thank you so much for contributing such an original and well-planned response.


And yes, that's sarcasm you detect in the previous paragraph...

Americans are lazy, it's impossible to get a decent days work out of them. If all the other countries in the world had any sense, they wouldn't let Americans in... They just get sick drinking the water and then they fill up all the hospitals with their stupid retching and diarrhoea. What the hell kinda people can't even drink water without getting sick? Stupid Americans. Send them all back!

I have to laugh at that....

*searching for my Pepto-Bismol....*

Mmmm.. Pink stuff! Bismuth Subsalicylate gets me high! (Maybe this is just true for people in my country?)

Looks like you got a hole in yer chin there son.

I lost patience at reading somewhere around page 8, but I did want to mention that the argument about them paying taxes isn't as solid as it sounds at first. Too many of the current illegal aliens make below the poverty line. If they were legalized, rather than paying taxes they would be receiving welfare. A drain on government resources rather than finally paying their fair share.

Come in the legal way. Legal way may need to be revised for current standards, but it is a slap in the face for all who come here the right way.

As for the English/Spanish thing. They come here, they should expect to fully participate in our country and culture- meaning they should learn basic English. That doesnt mean they have to give up Spanish, but public schools should not have to hold classes in Spanish and English because the children never learned how to speak our common language. - Note, I mean regular classes. Special help sessions to get newcomers up to speed in English are welcomed in my oppinon, because it sucks to get left behind education-wise due to communication problems.

Thanks for the flame!

Get the sarcasm in that?!

Nice to know you can't tell that the "complex" referred to looking at this problem on a global level. The "simple" referred to the national level and in regards to our lifestyle. And the solution I presented is also in regard to our lifestyle.

Nice to know assholes like you are abound everywhere.

Suenaga wrote:Thanks for the flame!

Get the sarcasm in that?!

Nice to know you can't tell that the "complex" referred to looking at this problem on a global level. The "simple" referred to the national level and in regards to our lifestyle. And the solution I presented is also in regard to our lifestyle.

Nice to know assholes like you are abound everywhere.

And nice to know assholes like you trot out a "global" issue with no relevance to a "United States" issue, and pull the tired-ass "just kick 'em all out and we'll go from there" argument. Even one iota of common sense (or golly, maybe even a simple researching of the relevant facts?) would tell you that a dumb-ass solution like yours would throw the agricultural industry into complete disarray (and don't pull the "they shouldn't be using illegal workers anyway" thing, because they do, always have, and who knows whether or not they always will. Add to that the recent frost that destroyed the majority of the citrus crops this year, and oh yeah, your answer will work real well...

That wasn't an answer you gave, nitwit. It was an ill-thought, pissy little wannabe holier-than-thou BS response with no practical value whatsoever. I suppose you're also of the "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out" school of warfare as well?

Call back when you get a clue, twit-for-brains.

And no, there was absolutely 0% sarcasm in the above post, sparky. At least my ****'s not currently smoking. You might want to have that checked out.

Either bring it, or shut the hell up. Wuss.

Or at the very least, figure out who not to try calling out on your first day here...

[img]http://progressivemajoritywisconsin.org ... nfused.JPG[/img]