PDA

View Full Version : This is just Heartbreaking



okie52
10/9/2011, 02:30 PM
Illegal immigrants make plans for kids' care if they are arrested, deported under new Ala. law

http://ww2.cox.com/myconnection/oklahomacity/today/news/national/article.cox?articleId=D9Q8Q0S80&moduleType=apNews

MR2-Sooner86
10/9/2011, 07:44 PM
My heart bleeds profusely for them.

btk108
10/9/2011, 07:51 PM
You lost me at ILLEGAL.

SanJoaquinSooner
10/9/2011, 10:15 PM
I recall that when my youngest sister-in-law got her V visa to come to the U.S. at 16 years old, I put her in school under some caregiver document I found on the internet. But the long-term solution was to go to court and become her legal guardian. I bought a how-to book and it was easy. That way the school district was satisfied that her actual residence was in the school district and also she then qualified to be included under my health, dental, and vision insurance. Not sure if becoming a legal guardian is as easy in Alabama as it is in California.


Okie, thank you for starting this thread instead of hijacking another thread to harp on your obsession.

Zin
10/10/2011, 12:45 AM
If they only put as much effort into changing their dirthole of a country as they do in getting to the U.S. they wouldn't have these types of problems.

okie52
10/10/2011, 09:21 AM
I recall that when my youngest sister-in-law got her V visa to come to the U.S. at 16 years old, I put her in school under some caregiver document I found on the internet. But the long-term solution was to go to court and become her legal guardian. I bought a how-to book and it was easy. That way the school district was satisfied that her actual residence was in the school district and also she then qualified to be included under my health, dental, and vision insurance. Not sure if becoming a legal guardian is as easy in Alabama as it is in California.


Okie, thank you for starting this thread instead of hijacking another thread to harp on your obsession.

You are quite welcome. BTW, have you gotten the whole family here yet? Have they had kids?

cleller
10/10/2011, 10:04 AM
Nothing to worry about. These states can pass all the laws they want to, just like Oklahoma did. The city and state police are not going to put illegals in jail when there is no plan or money to send them back home. Purely political window dressing to look like you are battling the immigration problem, when you're not.
Passing laws is cheap. Enforcing them costs money they haven't got.

okie52
10/10/2011, 10:12 AM
Nothing to worry about. These states can pass all the laws they want to, just like Oklahoma did. The city and state police are not going to put illegals in jail when there is no plan or money to send them back home. Purely political window dressing to look like you are battling the immigration problem, when you're not.
Passing laws is cheap. Enforcing them costs money they haven't got.

Usually that is true. Obama did lose his battle in the SC to overturn an AZ law that punished employers for hiring illegals. I am sure he was very disappointed.

TUSooner
10/10/2011, 10:39 AM
I love it when people suffer, especially children who suffer because their parents foolishly tried to make a better life for them without getting proper authorization. Serves 'em right. Now if we could only find a way to void these guardianship deals and send the kids back, too, the country would once agains be safe for right-thinking decent people.

okie52
10/10/2011, 11:12 AM
There's no doubt we owe these people since they went through so many perils to break our laws. They are living in the shadows and so afraid of deportation that they allow their names to be published in the newspapers and they give interviews on TV. They even have the courage to publicly demand their rights as illegals. Who wouldn't want to help these fine people.

I have always heard so many attorneys state "we are a nation of laws". Enforcement, however, is evidently a very selective process.

okie52
10/10/2011, 11:26 AM
Will other states follow Alabama’s lead on school immigration checks?


About 2,300 Hispanic students--7 percent of the entire Latino school population--were absent on Monday. According to Alabama Education Department Spokeswoman Malissa Valdes, absences Tuesday and Wednesday fell to around 1,500 each day, which is still nearly twice the normal rate

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/other-states-alabama-lead-school-immigration-checks-204603884.html

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/hsipaniccrying.jpg

pphilfran
10/10/2011, 11:35 AM
Is it time for me to start building a full size Air Okie?

pphilfran
10/10/2011, 11:38 AM
I currently have three illegal families living in my backyard...once I move the doghouse I have room for two more...

It is also an eco friendly stance...since they started picking through my trash the trash volume has been reduced 75%!

No chit....not kidding...

okie52
10/10/2011, 11:39 AM
Is it time for me to start building a full size Air Okie?

Absolutely. May have to bait it, though, maybe with a sign that has "free citizenship papers here ".

I've still got the prototype if you need it.

TUSooner
10/10/2011, 11:42 AM
There's no doubt we owe these people since they went through so many perils to break our laws. They are living in the shadows and so afraid of deportation that they allow their names to be published in the newspapers and they give interviews on TV. They even have the courage to publicly demand their rights as illegals. Who wouldn't want to help these fine people.

I have always heard so many attorneys state "we are a nation of laws". Enforcement, however, is evidently a very selective process.

Your professed devotion to the sacred rule of law is well documented. But your shameless delight in the breakup of families tells your true story.

okie52
10/10/2011, 11:57 AM
Your professed devotion to the sacred rule of law is well documented. But your shameless delight in the breakup of families tells your true story.

An attorney that doesn't want to enforce the law...shocking.

Why would this breakup families? They can go with their parents. Now Mexico has much tougher immigration laws (and enforcement) than the US so maybe the anchor babies won't be as readily accepted as illegals as they are here in the states. They should petition Calderon for their "rights". He seemed to agree when it was his people flooding the US.

Perhaps they can get benefits in Mexico after peacefully demanding their rights. You should join them.

TUSooner
10/10/2011, 12:28 PM
An attorney that doesn't want to enforce the law...shocking.

Why would this breakup families? They can go with their parents. Now Mexico has much tougher immigration laws (and enforcement) than the US so maybe the anchor babies won't be as readily accepted as illegals as they are here in the states. They should petition Calderon for their "rights". He seemed to agree when it was his people flooding the US.

Perhaps they can get benefits in Mexico after peacefully demanding their rights. You should join them.

Who said don't enforce the law? I condemn you personally for rejoicing in the sadness of others.
Judges often sentence people to long prison terms that cause hardship to innocents. They have to do it and are right to do it. But they are decent and gracious enough not to jump up and down and clap their hands with glee over the hardships caused by what's necessary and unpleasant. You are not. It's just that simple. Rather, you just keep justifying your crass hate by disguising it as respect for the law. And before you protest that it's not about hate, read your first post.

pphilfran
10/10/2011, 12:43 PM
Who said don't enforce the law? I condemn you personally for rejoicing in the sadness of others.
Judges often sentence people to long prison terms that cause hardship to innocents. They have to do it and are right to do it. But they are decent and gracious enough not to jump up and down and clap their hands with glee over the hardships caused by what's necessary and unpleasant. You are not. It's just that simple. Rather, you just keep justifying your crass hate by disguising it as respect for the law. And before you protest that it's not about hate, read your first post.

It is a message board...

okie52
10/10/2011, 12:43 PM
Who said don't enforce the law? I condemn you personally for rejoicing in the sadness of others.
Judges often sentence people to long prison terms that cause hardship to innocents. They have to do it and are right to do it. But they are decent and gracious enough not to jump up and down and clap their hands with glee over the hardships caused by what's necessary and unpleasant. You are not. It's just that simple. Rather, you just keep justifying your crass hate by disguising it as respect for the law. And before you protest that it's not about hate, read your first post.

You are for selective enforcement of the law or do I need to bring up your previous posts?

Your condemnation disturbs me to no end but I will somehow make it through the day.

There is no attempt to disguise my hate for illegals being in this country and for those that seek to perpetuate their stay here. I am quite happy when the pendelum swings in the other direction that causes illegals and their saviors to rethink the wisdom behind their illicit behavior.

Your adherence to some PC dogma that has you dancing around your support of illegal immigration has been comical. Whether it is being ill informed or the excuse of semantical laziness it still reflects your parroting positions you know little about.

SouthCarolinaSooner
10/10/2011, 01:14 PM
There is no attempt to disguise my hate for illegals being in this country and for those that seek to perpetuate their stay here. I am quite happy when the pendelum swings in the other direction that causes illegals and their saviors to rethink the wisdom behind their illicit behavior.

Your adherence to some PC dogma that has you dancing around your support of illegal immigration has been comical. Whether it is being ill informed or the excuse of semantical laziness it still reflects your parroting positions you know little about.
Your adherence to some hateful dogma that has you dancing around your denial of what are essentially refugees is comical. Whether you are just ill informed, racist or both it reflects positions you know little about. We have the ability, obligation and most importantly the room to allow large amounts of refugees from the current drug war to escape and build a better life.

Because they're brown, or because they don't speak English or because they're poor a lot of morons think it would be better to hike up giant fences because "its quick and easy" to gain citizenship the legal way. If it was so quick and easy, people would be doing it. But they can't wait months or years for paperwork and background checks to go through, while 35 bodies are dumped on a freeway (http://digitaljournal.com/article/311788). How can you expect these people NOT to flee? Wouldn't you take your family to Canada if the bloods or crips started doing **** like this every day? Let them in, put them on a fast track to citizenship so they're paying taxes, and let them try to build a life away from a war.

Midtowner
10/10/2011, 01:27 PM
An attorney that doesn't want to enforce the law...shocking.

Why would this breakup families? They can go with their parents. Now Mexico has much tougher immigration laws (and enforcement) than the US so maybe the anchor babies won't be as readily accepted as illegals as they are here in the states. They should petition Calderon for their "rights". He seemed to agree when it was his people flooding the US.

Perhaps they can get benefits in Mexico after peacefully demanding their rights. You should join them.

WWJD?

Employ drone aircraft to blow up illegals as they cross the border? Maybe deploy landmines? Break up families? Refuse an education to children brought here illegally by their parents?

okie52
10/10/2011, 01:30 PM
Your adherence to some hateful dogma that has you dancing around your denial of what are essentially refugees is comical. Whether you are just ill informed, racist or both it reflects positions you know little about. We have the ability, obligation and most importantly the room to allow large amounts of refugees from the current drug war to escape and build a better life.

Because they're brown, or because they don't speak English or because they're poor a lot of morons think it would be better to hike up giant fences because "its quick and easy" to gain citizenship the legal way. If it was so quick and easy, people would be doing it. But they can't wait months or years for paperwork and background checks to go through, while 35 bodies are dumped on a freeway (http://digitaljournal.com/article/311788). How can you expect these people NOT to flee? Wouldn't you take your family to Canada if the bloods or crips started doing **** like this every day? Let them in, put them on a fast track to citizenship so they're paying taxes, and let them try to build a life away from a war.

I will be glad to compare notes on such an informed source as yourself about illegals and from your posts you know doubt adhere to a comical lefty position. Were you able to make it through your post without crying. Fastrack to citizenship would just compound the problem rather than alleviate it.

We do not have the room nor the obligation to take in all of the world's refugees. He11, you would probably advocate taking in 750,000,000 people from China and/or INdia because it is our duty rather than have those countries address their own overpopulation issues. We need to be heading to 150,000,000 people instead of 1 billion. You double the life of your resources by doing that and the world should be doing it too. I am sure you are aware that the illegals have by far the highest birthrates in America.

Do you scream racist loudly every time someone criticizes Obama? Does 12-30,000,000 people here illegally even cause you to pause about our immigration issue or do you think its great and want more to come?

pphilfran
10/10/2011, 01:31 PM
WWJD?

Employ drone aircraft to blow up illegals as they cross the border? Maybe deploy landmines? Break up families? Refuse an education to children brought here illegally by their parents?

All of those have been discussed in the past...you forgot about tiger pits...all were deemed appropriate...

okie52
10/10/2011, 01:32 PM
WWJD?

Employ drone aircraft to blow up illegals as they cross the border? Maybe deploy landmines? Break up families? Refuse an education to children brought here illegally by their parents?

Correct on all counts.

Do you believe in territorial sovereignty? Do you belive the US has a right to protect its borders? Do you think the US owes 12-30,000,000 illegals the rights of citizenship?

SouthCarolinaSooner
10/10/2011, 01:44 PM
We do not have the room nor the obligation to take in all of the world's refugees. He11, you would probably advocate taking in 750,000,000 people from China and/or INdia because it is our duty rather than have those countries address their own overpopulation issues. We need to be heading to 150,000,000 people instead of 1 billion. You double the life of your resources by doing that and the world should be doing it too. I am sure you are aware that the illegals have by far the highest birthrates in America.

Do you scream racist loudly every time someone criticizes Obama? Does 12-30,000,000 people here illegally even cause you to pause about our immigration issue or do you think its great and want more to come?
US population density is at 83 people/square mile, thats 179th in the world. The jungle that is Madagascar is more heavily populated than the united states. In terms of "real" population density based off arable land, we're 205th in the world. We have plenty of room and basic resources avaliable. Its not about an overpopulation issue in Mexico anyways, its about a war thats killed 35,000-40,000 people the last five years. A war that our policies and laws purvey and antagonize, rather then alleviate. I think more should come, immigrants tend to be very hardworking and gracious people. "Real" Americans should take notes, because this country was built on immigrants. Although mainly white immigrants so this new wave probably doesn't count.

Correct on all counts.

Do you believe in territorial sovereignty? Do you belive the US has a right to protect its borders? Do you think the US owes 12-30,000,000 illegals the rights of citizenship?
Territorial sovereignty and border protection do not grant excuses to ignore and abuse human rights. Illegal immigrants and aliens still have human rights, as much as you may hate that.

pphilfran
10/10/2011, 01:46 PM
Human rights? They can't get a job in Mexico? No benefits?

Sounds like that is Mexico's problem to resolve....

Midtowner
10/10/2011, 02:01 PM
Correct on all counts.

Do you believe in territorial sovereignty? Do you belive the US has a right to protect its borders? Do you think the US owes 12-30,000,000 illegals the rights of citizenship?

Absolutely not, we should secure the border.

Now, does that mean that I flow directly to the polar extremes of xenophobia? Absolutely not. At some point, we do have to talk about crazy things like human rights and what constitutes good policy, etc. The DREAM Act is a fine law. It has in mind what is probably going to ultimately happen within the next 20 years or so--amnesty or the creation of some reasonable path to citizenship. It's in all of our best interests to have as many workers going to college as possible.

All people in this country have rights, even non-citizens. Using the citizenship issue as a tool to oppress a quick going minority has a strong likelihood of backfiring.

I'd love to be able to be as cavalier as pphilfran about this issue and think that Mexico has the ability or inclination to resolve their internal issues. My ability is that neither the ability or inclination to resolve those issues exists in Mexico, thus, as their neighbor, those problems become our problems. Our choice? Bury our heads in the sand and pretend (as Mexico does) that these problems don't exist until the problems become too big for us to handle, or we could actually deal with the issue to work out some deal which tries to do as much good as possible.

Sooner98
10/10/2011, 02:03 PM
Wouldn't you take your family to Canada if the bloods or crips started doing **** like this every day?

I would probably move my family to a safer town or city in the USA (you know, the country that I am an acutal legal resident of), rather than break another country's laws and risk being prosecuted there. But hey that's just me, a rational, law-abiding citizen.

Midtowner
10/10/2011, 02:05 PM
I would probably move my family to a safer town or city in the USA (you know, the country that I am an acutal legal resident of), rather than break another country's laws and risk being prosecuted there. But hey that's just me, a rational, law-abiding citizen.

What is it that the supporters of Jerome Ersland were saying.... "You wouldn't know until you were in that situation yourself."

--something like that, right?

cleller
10/10/2011, 02:08 PM
You can debate all day why Mexico is a cesspool and who's fault it is. No matter how much they look like victims, it was their country that fell into ruin. As Mexico descended into violence and chaos, did the population rise up, support law and order, and refuse to let it happen? No. When part of your town is mostly Mexican will they refuse to let it happen there? No.
Sorry, don't want that mindset taking hold in the United States.

If a parent WERE to get sent back - and a slim chance that is - they've got plenty of cash to arrange transport for the kids back to Mexico. If they can lay down thousands of dollars in cash for a Tahoe, they can by a bus ticket. If its all too sad for you to stand, you can donate money to the families to have then reunited, or help them in their home countries.

SouthCarolinaSooner
10/10/2011, 02:10 PM
I would probably move my family to a safer town or city in the USA (you know, the country that I am an acutal legal resident of), rather than break another country's laws and risk being prosecuted there. But hey that's just me, a rational, law-abiding citizen.There's not really a "safe zone" in Mexico, of course some areas are worse than others but the killing (15,000 just in the last year) is everywhere. Chiapas may be a "safe zone", but its a 3rd world state controlled by EZLN, not Mexico.


I'll be honest, I don't want them here because I think they are a net negative for our country. The US has historically been more stable, more prosperous, better educated, more economically rewarding, and a lot darn safer than Mexico.
You can debate all day why Mexico is a cesspool and who's fault it is. I don't want the people from that country coming here. No matter how much they look like victims, it was their country that fell into ruin. As Mexico descended into violence and chaos, did the population rise up, support law and order, and refused to let it happen? No. When part of your town is mostly Mexican will they refuse to let it happen there? No.

Its not as easy as you might think to "rise up and support law and order" when law and order is either
A The cartels
B Paid off by the cartels
C Killed off by the cartels

History has shown that a previously stable country can be destabilized by a neighboring unstable country. This will happen to us unless we recognize the severity of the situation in Mexico and make drastic policy changes.

TUSooner
10/10/2011, 02:17 PM
You are for selective enforcement of the law or do I need to bring up your previous posts?

Your condemnation disturbs me to no end but I will somehow make it through the day.

There is no attempt to disguise my hate for illegals being in this country and for those that seek to perpetuate their stay here. I am quite happy when the pendelum swings in the other direction that causes illegals and their saviors to rethink the wisdom behind their illicit behavior.

Your adherence to some PC dogma that has you dancing around your support of illegal immigration has been comical. Whether it is being ill informed or the excuse of semantical laziness it still reflects your parroting positions you know little about.

I apply the law professionally every day, and not selectively. That includes immigration law. One can pity some illegal immigrants without supporting illegal immigration. So you may fairly accuse me of having views you think are silly, but you may not fairly accuse me of not doing my duty of being faithful to the law.

My only "PC Dogma" (which you attribute to me but don't define) is based on my simple idea of Christianity, with no dogma other than a certain degree of compassion for people who suffer, regardless of whether they "deserve" it. You know, "Do unto others"; and "The measure you give...." &c. ? I may indeed "parrot" those positions, but I think I know something about them. I also believe that our country is at its best when it is most generous in honoring the liberty and freedom of as many people as possible.

But we all get that you are a fanatic about illegal immigration. You can't change your mind and won't change the subject (apologies to Churchill).

Let's consider this before I call down fire from heaven on your unworthy head: Nobody's mind is going to change based on our screeds and invective, as amusing and informative as these might be. (Besides, I am too busy, even working on my day off, to make sure people get due process of law before they get jailed or deported.) And since we don't actually know each other well enough to hate each other properly, why not just leave it at that? That way, if we meet at a tailgate, we can talk football and drink beer like civilized men without knocking over tables while arguing over something neither one of us can really do very much about. After hating your stupid lying misrable rotten guts for a few hours, that's the most decent and Christian thing I can come up with.

TUSooner
10/10/2011, 02:21 PM
It's easy to despise people we don't know. The worst way to protect your prejudices is to leave your castle and meet the people you despise.

NormanPride
10/10/2011, 02:39 PM
No, TU. That's how you catch the gay.

TUSooner
10/10/2011, 02:44 PM
No, TU. That's how you catch the gay.

It turns you brown, also.

pphilfran
10/10/2011, 03:07 PM
Absolutely not, we should secure the border.

Now, does that mean that I flow directly to the polar extremes of xenophobia? Absolutely not. At some point, we do have to talk about crazy things like human rights and what constitutes good policy, etc. The DREAM Act is a fine law. It has in mind what is probably going to ultimately happen within the next 20 years or so--amnesty or the creation of some reasonable path to citizenship. It's in all of our best interests to have as many workers going to college as possible.

All people in this country have rights, even non-citizens. Using the citizenship issue as a tool to oppress a quick going minority has a strong likelihood of backfiring.

I'd love to be able to be as cavalier as pphilfran about this issue and think that Mexico has the ability or inclination to resolve their internal issues. My ability is that neither the ability or inclination to resolve those issues exists in Mexico, thus, as their neighbor, those problems become our problems. Our choice? Bury our heads in the sand and pretend (as Mexico does) that these problems don't exist until the problems become too big for us to handle, or we could actually deal with the issue to work out some deal which tries to do as much good as possible.

I am not from Virginia...

okie52
10/10/2011, 03:22 PM
US population density is at 83 people/square mile, thats 179th in the world. The jungle that is Madagascar is more heavily populated than the united states. In terms of "real" population density based off arable land, we're 205th in the world. We have plenty of room and basic resources avaliable. Its not about an overpopulation issue in Mexico anyways, its about a war thats killed 35,000-40,000 people the last five years. A war that our policies and laws purvey and antagonize, rather then alleviate. I think more should come, immigrants tend to be very hardworking and gracious people. "Real" Americans should take notes, because this country was built on immigrants. Although mainly white immigrants so this new wave probably doesn't count.

Territorial sovereignty and border protection do not grant excuses to ignore and abuse human rights. Illegal immigrants and aliens still have human rights, as much as you may hate that.

You are surely ignorant of the fact that the US had immigration laws restricting Europeans from immigrating to the US from 1921-1965. Oversaturation and that was when the US was 150,000,000 people or less. There were no restrictions on Latinos during that time nor have there been since. WE were bountiful in resources then. We were an oil exporting country.
The country was over 90% white during that time. Now was that law "racist" or a necessary restriction?

Who the He11 cares about our current population density being less than most of the worlds? That is a good thing and we should endeavor to create an even lower population density.
Sheet, do you want to look like China or India in the future? Europe, although very belatedly, has close to zero population growth. Are they having immigration problems?
How is our energy situation? Got enough for everyone?

Basic human rights are what? The right to invade another country if it looks better to you? Demand your rights as an illegal? Seek benefits that are for the citizens of this country?

We owe the illegals nothing. It doesn't matter if they are from Europe, China, India, or south of the border.

Midtowner
10/10/2011, 03:27 PM
International treaties, which your own country is a party to, disagree.

okie52
10/10/2011, 03:31 PM
Absolutely not, we should secure the border.

Now, does that mean that I flow directly to the polar extremes of xenophobia? Absolutely not. At some point, we do have to talk about crazy things like human rights and what constitutes good policy, etc. The DREAM Act is a fine law. It has in mind what is probably going to ultimately happen within the next 20 years or so--amnesty or the creation of some reasonable path to citizenship. It's in all of our best interests to have as many workers going to college as possible.

All people in this country have rights, even non-citizens. Using the citizenship issue as a tool to oppress a quick going minority has a strong likelihood of backfiring.

I'd love to be able to be as cavalier as pphilfran about this issue and think that Mexico has the ability or inclination to resolve their internal issues. My ability is that neither the ability or inclination to resolve those issues exists in Mexico, thus, as their neighbor, those problems become our problems. Our choice? Bury our heads in the sand and pretend (as Mexico does) that these problems don't exist until the problems become too big for us to handle, or we could actually deal with the issue to work out some deal which tries to do as much good as possible.

And the deal is to reward these illegals with citizenship with the admonition don't do it again. REagan did it for 3,000,000 illegals in the 80's. Bush/Obama wants to do it for 12-30,000,000 illegals. I could certainly see where the anyone south of the border would be afraid to come to the US. They receive health, education, benefits and a "pathway to citizenship". Well that certainly is a scary deterrent.

Now if their jobs and benefits were gone many would hopefully leave. It wouldn't be that hard to do if we ever had an administration that really cared about it. Now that might pizz ole Calderon off and he might lambast congress again about laws that are unfair to his people (even though his country has much tougher immigration laws) but when illegals see that they are actually worse off in the US than they were at home they might get the message to stay out. Which is as it should be.

okie52
10/10/2011, 03:34 PM
International treaties, which your own country is a party to, disagree.

Giving what rights? The right to citizenship, benefits, health, education, etc...

Is it against international treaties to mine YOUR BORDER? To deny immigration?

okie52
10/10/2011, 03:35 PM
I am not from Virginia...

Yeah, but if you aren't crying about illegals plight you might as well be.

sappstuf
10/10/2011, 03:43 PM
International treaties, which your own country is a party to, disagree.

What?

okie52
10/10/2011, 03:47 PM
I apply the law professionally every day, and not selectively. That includes immigration law. One can pity some illegal immigrants without supporting illegal immigration. So you may fairly accuse me of having views you think are silly, but you may not fairly accuse me of not doing my duty of being faithful to the law.

My only "PC Dogma" (which you attribute to me but don't define) is based on my simple idea of Christianity, with no dogma other than a certain degree of compassion for people who suffer, regardless of whether they "deserve" it. You know, "Do unto others"; and "The measure you give...." &c. ? I may indeed "parrot" those positions, but I think I know something about them. I also believe that our country is at its best when it is most generous in honoring the liberty and freedom of as many people as possible.

But we all get that you are a fanatic about illegal immigration. You can't change your mind and won't change the subject (apologies to Churchill).

Let's consider this before I call down fire from heaven on your unworthy head: Nobody's mind is going to change based on our screeds and invective, as amusing and informative as these might be. (Besides, I am too busy, even working on my day off, to make sure people get due process of law before they get jailed or deported.) And since we don't actually know each other well enough to hate each other properly, why not just leave it at that? That way, if we meet at a tailgate, we can talk football and drink beer like civilized men without knocking over tables while arguing over something neither one of us can really do very much about. After hating your stupid lying misrable rotten guts for a few hours, that's the most decent and Christian thing I can come up with.

I certainly appreciate your Christian gesture. I don't even hate your guts for selling out the country. I realize you are just ill informed and misguided.

And I get you are compassionate regardless of the expense to the country. Great. It doesn't mean you have to be stupid about it. PM me your address and I'll get a lawn crew from my neighborhood to come stay at your house. Maybe you can get them Driver licenses if Obama doesn't beat you to it.

Other than that a beer at a tailgate will be fine. I may get Pablo to serve the beers and cocktails. Pablo already gave me a 1099 with a social security number so we have got that area covered.

okie52
10/10/2011, 04:04 PM
What?

He certainly can't be talking about this treaty:


United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families


State of Ratifications and Signatures

The Convention required a minimum of 20 ratifications before it could enter into force. When El Salvador and Guatemala ratified it on 14 March 2003, this threshold was reached.

The following countries have ratified the Convention as of January 2011: Albania, Argentina, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Guinea, Honduras, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uganda and Uruguay.

In addition, several countries have signed the Convention. This means that their government has expressed the intention of adhering to the Convention. These are: Bangladesh (in 1998), Comoros, Guinea-Bissau, Paraguay, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone (in 2000), Togo (in 2001), Cambodia, Gabon, Indonesia, Liberia, and Serbia and Montenegro (in 2004).

So far, countries that have ratified the Convention are primarily countries of origin of migrants (such as Mexico, Morocco and the Philippines). For these countries, the Convention is an important vehicle to protect their citizens living abroad. In the Philippines, for example, ratification of the Convention took place in a context characterized by several cases of Filipino workers being mistreated abroad: such cases hurt the Filipino population and prompted the ratification of the Convention. However, these countries are also transit and destination countries, and the Convention delineates their responsibility to protect the rights of migrants on their territory.

No migrant-receiving State in Western Europe or North America has ratified the Convention. Other important receiving countries, such as Australia, Arab states of the Persian Gulf, India and South Africa have not ratified the Convention either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Protection_of_the _Rights_of_All_Migrant_Workers_and_Members_of_Thei r_Families

pphilfran
10/10/2011, 04:20 PM
I keep a light hearted attitude so I can match the intensity of the enforcement of our immigration policy...

Midtowner
10/10/2011, 04:26 PM
Is it against international treaties to mine YOUR BORDER?

Actually, the U.S. is one of the only countries which are not members of the "axis of evil" to not sign this multilateral treaty.


To deny immigration?

And of course they can do this. But there are plenty of obligations we have both as international and domestic responsibilities to everyone involved. This doesn't mean that anyone, as of right, can cross the border, but it does mean that they have treaty protections such as a right to contact with their embassy and due process protections under the 5th and 14th Amendments.

They also have a right to a public education under our case law, pursuant to the equal protection clause.

btk108
10/10/2011, 04:27 PM
Am I the only one who is reading that the south American illegals are only here to make money? The money they make goes back to Mexico to their families or a bank account. They admittedly will return to Mexico when they feel they have enough to live "comfortably".

Where is their compassion for raping our economy?

Midtowner
10/10/2011, 04:28 PM
I certainly appreciate your Christian gesture. I don't even hate your guts for selling out the country. I realize you are just ill informed and misguided.

And I get you are compassionate regardless of the expense to the country. Great. It doesn't mean you have to be stupid about it. PM me your address and I'll get a lawn crew from my neighborhood to come stay at your house. Maybe you can get them Driver licenses if Obama doesn't beat you to it.

Other than that a beer at a tailgate will be fine. I may get Pablo to serve the beers and cocktails. Pablo already gave me a 1099 with a social security number so we have got that area covered.

Does your nationalism supersede your Christian obligations? Which comes first, God or country?

Midtowner
10/10/2011, 04:30 PM
Am I the only one who is reading that the south American illegals are only here to make money? The money they make goes back to Mexico to their families or a bank account. They admittedly will return to Mexico when they feel they have enough to live "comfortably".

Where is their compassion for raping our economy?

My brother makes a decent living in the Summer organizing crews to mow lawns. I'm sure many of them are of questionable immigration status. While these guys are here, they provide a valuable service at a low price, which allows businesses to exist, jobs to be created to service those businesses, etc. The benefits of illegal immigration to teh economy are the subject of many studies.

okie52
10/10/2011, 04:38 PM
Does your nationalism supersede your Christian obligations? Which comes first, God or country?

Oh, Lord. You aren't a Christian if you support immigration laws? I mean I already know some think you are a racist but now you are not a Christian?
Are these illegals being denied something that is rightfully theirs?

The Bible has enough places in it that would support either position so I am quite comfortable in telling them to get the He11 out. If I am wrong I will try to patch it up with the almighty.

As a lawyer which comes first, the law or God?

okie52
10/10/2011, 04:43 PM
I keep a light hearted attitude so I can match the intensity of the enforcement of our immigration policy...

:tickled_pink:

Now that is funny.

okie52
10/10/2011, 04:55 PM
Actually, the U.S. is one of the only countries which are not members of the "axis of evil" to not sign this multilateral treaty.



And of course they can do this. But there are plenty of obligations we have both as international and domestic responsibilities to everyone involved. This doesn't mean that anyone, as of right, can cross the border, but it does mean that they have treaty protections such as a right to contact with their embassy and due process protections under the 5th and 14th Amendments.

They also have a right to a public education under our case law, pursuant to the equal protection clause.

You don't have any obligations if they don't get in your country.

Midtowner
10/10/2011, 04:59 PM
Oh, Lord. You aren't a Christian if you support immigration laws?

That's a pretty fair proposition. Would Christ have argued in favor of expelling someone from his country by virtue of the location they were born?


I mean I already know some think you are a racist but now you are not a Christian?

You said it, not me.


Are these illegals being denied something that is rightfully theirs?

Is Christian charity rightfully everyone's? Is it Christlike of you to act like a giddy little school girl when a family is broken up and/or denied access to basic parts of society? When children who may not even speak Spanish are exiled to Mexico because of a decision of their parents?


The Bible has enough places in it that would support either position so I am quite comfortable in telling them to get the He11 out.

Such as?


If I am wrong I will try to patch it up with the almighty.

[quote]As a lawyer which comes first, the law or God?

Depends on my role. If I'm acting as an officer of the Court, then it's the law over God and really anything else, although I've never had a hard time reconciling the two. If I'm advocating policy and change in the law, WWJD is a pretty good principle to go by.

Midtowner
10/10/2011, 05:01 PM
You don't have any obligations if they don't get in your country.

I'm fine with tighter border controls. Nips the problem in the bud. If we can solve that issue, would you be in favor of amnesty? I probably would be. Reagan was...

okie52
10/10/2011, 05:07 PM
That's a pretty fair proposition. Would Christ have argued in favor of expelling someone from his country by virtue of the location they were born?

I'll go with give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

You said it, not me.

No, I merely repeated the dogma of some on this board.



Is Christian charity rightfully everyone's? Is it Christlike of you to act like a giddy little school girl when a family is broken up and/or denied access to basic parts of society? When children who may not even speak Spanish are exiled to Mexico because of a decision of their parents?

I'll try to refrain from my "giddiness" when those that try to subvert or ignore the law are punished or the "pain" it causes them and/or their supporters.

We have millions of children that can't even speak English living here so sending them south would be a natural fit for them.



Such as?

See above.

[quote]If I am wrong I will try to patch it up with the almighty.



Depends on my role. If I'm acting as an officer of the Court, then it's the law over God and really anything else, although I've never had a hard time reconciling the two. If I'm advocating policy and change in the law, WWJD is a pretty good principle to go by.

.

okie52
10/10/2011, 05:11 PM
I'm fine with tighter border controls. Nips the problem in the bud. If we can solve that issue, would you be in favor of amnesty? I probably would be. Reagan was...

For 12-30,000,000 people? Absolutely not. REagan did it thinking it would end the problem but it only perputuated it (as some of his former cabinet members have stated).

Now that may the best I can hope for from the powers that be in Washington but it would certainly be no victory.

pphilfran
10/10/2011, 05:15 PM
I'm fine with tighter border controls. Nips the problem in the bud. If we can solve that issue, would you be in favor of amnesty? I probably would be. Reagan was...

I don't care how we handle the ones currently in the States....any path we take will be a major undertaking...

okie52
10/10/2011, 05:21 PM
I don't care how we handle the ones currently in the States....any path we take will be a major undertaking...

Have you started on the full scale catapult yet?

Midtowner
10/10/2011, 05:53 PM
I'll go with give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

Really? That's talking about taxes. Illegals pay payroll taxes for the most part.



l try to refrain from my "giddiness" when those that try to subvert or ignore the law are punished or the "pain" it causes them and/or their supporters.

And their children who have no say in what their parents do? How about their children born here, U.S. citizens who don't speak spanish? Is foster care better for them than their own parents?


]We have millions of children that can't even speak English living here so sending them south would be a natural fit for them.

How about a free education where they're taught English?

cleller
10/10/2011, 06:06 PM
So, once we get comfortable with them populating our country, do you think it would be best to align ourselves with the Zetas or the Sinaloas? No use waiting till the last minute.

Midtowner
10/10/2011, 06:08 PM
So, once we get comfortable with them populating our country, do you think it would be best to align ourselves with the Zetas or the Sinaloas? No use waiting till the last minute.

Do you think the cartels care whether their members are illegal or legal citizens? They are doing something illegal anyhow. If nothing else, people with nothing to fear from the police (like being deported) would feel more free to report crimes in their neighborhoods. I'm sure the last thing the Zetas would want is amnesty for current illegals.

--it'd also cut way into their human trafficking business

btk108
10/10/2011, 06:10 PM
Really? That's talking about taxes. Illegals pay payroll taxes for the most part.

How do I get in on this? How 'bout everyone just pay "for the most part"?

cleller
10/10/2011, 06:14 PM
Do you think the cartels care whether their members are illegal or legal citizens? They are doing something illegal anyhow. If nothing else, people with nothing to fear from the police (like being deported) would feel more free to report crimes in their neighborhoods. I'm sure the last thing the Zetas would want is amnesty for current illegals.

--it'd also cut way into their human trafficking business

No, I think the cartels will establish themselves in our country with all the influx of Mexicans. The more that are here, the more the cartels will spread.

TUSooner
10/10/2011, 06:18 PM
I certainly appreciate your Christian gesture. I don't even hate your guts for selling out the country. I realize you are just ill informed and misguided.

And I get you are compassionate regardless of the expense to the country. Great. It doesn't mean you have to be stupid about it. PM me your address and I'll get a lawn crew from my neighborhood to come stay at your house. Maybe you can get them Driver licenses if Obama doesn't beat you to it.

Other than that a beer at a tailgate will be fine. I may get Pablo to serve the beers and cocktails. Pablo already gave me a 1099 with a social security number so we have got that area covered.
That was even less that I expected: less gracious, less perceptive, less coherent, and less relevant....

sappstuf
10/10/2011, 06:32 PM
Really? That's talking about taxes. Illegals pay payroll taxes for the most part.




And their children who have no say in what their parents do? How about their children born here, U.S. citizens who don't speak spanish? Is foster care better for them than their own parents?



How about a free education where they're taught English?

Free to whom?

cleller
10/10/2011, 06:32 PM
This is all getting a little heavy. One thing is for sure, nobody is going to change anyone else's mind on the subject. Why don't we focus on something less controversial, like: How long until the first headless corpse hangs from a US overpass? Which state, etc?

SouthCarolinaSooner
10/10/2011, 06:35 PM
You are surely ignorant of the fact that the US had immigration laws restricting Europeans from immigrating to the US from 1921-1965. Oversaturation and that was when the US was 150,000,000 people or less. There were no restrictions on Latinos during that time nor have there been since. WE were bountiful in resources then. We were an oil exporting country.
The country was over 90% white during that time. Now was that law "racist" or a necessary restriction?

Who the He11 cares about our current population density being less than most of the worlds? That is a good thing and we should endeavor to create an even lower population density.
Sheet, do you want to look like China or India in the future? Europe, although very belatedly, has close to zero population growth. Are they having immigration problems?
How is our energy situation? Got enough for everyone?

Basic human rights are what? The right to invade another country if it looks better to you? Demand your rights as an illegal? Seek benefits that are for the citizens of this country?

We owe the illegals nothing. It doesn't matter if they are from Europe, China, India, or south of the border.
Good old Emergency Quota Act, well that racist piece of legislature lasted three years before it was replaced by the even more racist Immigration Act of 1924. Those acts were created to stem the flow from Southern and Eastern Europe and other "undesirable" areas like East Asia that were completely restricted from immigrating. You know at that time period the Naturalization Act of 1790 was still on the books, that limited naturalization to immigrants who were "free white persons" of "good moral character". Only areas we were prejudiced against had their quota numbers cut, "desirable" Western European countries kept immigration numbers similar to pre-1924.

An even lower population density? Christ, Madagascar is more heavily populated than we are. We have plenty of room to grow before we can even begin talking about overcrowding.

Basic human rights, like freedom from drone attacks at the border and freedom from having your limbs chopped off by drug cartels. But seriously, human rights that should be tenets in any free market society. Freedom of labor to move to different markets, freedom to seek a better lifestyle in general.


My proposal is that we kick all of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Cali and Nevada south of the 37th parallel out of the union to create a buffer state between us and Mexico. That gets rid of multiple wackos on all edges of the spectrum, the nanny government proponents (not to mention gays) in San Fransisco and fascist Texans like Lamar Smith (can anyone else see the National Texas Workers Party?) can fight it out in creating the new United ****states of America. Any issue with that?

btk108
10/10/2011, 06:41 PM
This is all getting a little heavy. One thing is for sure, nobody is going to change anyone else's mind on the subject. Why don't we focus on something less controversial, like: How long until the first headless corpse hangs from a US overpass? Which state, etc?


I'm not sure...but I'll probably just head to Canada and find a job.

cleller
10/11/2011, 07:47 AM
I'm not sure...but I'll probably just head to Canada and find a job.[/QUOTE]

That's against the rules.

okie52
10/11/2011, 08:44 AM
Really? That's talking about taxes. Illegals pay payroll taxes for the most part.

That wasn't about just taxes unless you are interpreting it in the strictest sense. It was about giving what was owed to Caesar and giving to God what is God's.
Illegals are paying income taxes?


And their children who have no say in what their parents do? How about their children born here, U.S. citizens who don't speak spanish? Is foster care better for them than their own parents?

Their parents are their legal guardians and have made the decision to cross the border illegally. These kids can go back to Mexico with their parents and learn their native language. The US shouldn't be blackmailed into allowing the parents to stay because they deliberately chose to ignore US laws.

[QUOTE]How about a free education where they're taught English?

Why do that? Let Mexico educate them at their expense.


.

okie52
10/11/2011, 08:59 AM
That was even less that I expected: less gracious, less perceptive, less coherent, and less relevant....

Lol. Sounds like your posts.

Is the beer summit off now?

okie52
10/11/2011, 09:07 AM
Good old Emergency Quota Act, well that racist piece of legislature lasted three years before it was replaced by the even more racist Immigration Act of 1924. Those acts were created to stem the flow from Southern and Eastern Europe and other "undesirable" areas like East Asia that were completely restricted from immigrating. You know at that time period the Naturalization Act of 1790 was still on the books, that limited naturalization to immigrants who were "free white persons" of "good moral character". Only areas we were prejudiced against had their quota numbers cut, "desirable" Western European countries kept immigration numbers similar to pre-1924.

An even lower population density? Christ, Madagascar is more heavily populated than we are. We have plenty of room to grow before we can even begin talking about overcrowding.

Basic human rights, like freedom from drone attacks at the border and freedom from having your limbs chopped off by drug cartels. But seriously, human rights that should be tenets in any free market society. Freedom of labor to move to different markets, freedom to seek a better lifestyle in general.


My proposal is that we kick all of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Cali and Nevada south of the 37th parallel out of the union to create a buffer state between us and Mexico. That gets rid of multiple wackos on all edges of the spectrum, the nanny government proponents (not to mention gays) in San Fransisco and fascist Texans like Lamar Smith (can anyone else see the National Texas Workers Party?) can fight it out in creating the new United ****states of America. Any issue with that?

Over 90% of the US population was white then and of European descent but they were racists against their own kind rather than reacting to a situation of being flooded by Europeans? No dogma in your blood.

We have no reason to be growing rather we should be seeking to drop our population in half in the next 50 years. How are our natural resources doing? Are we an oil exporting country now?
How is water faring in many part in many parts of the country?

Basic human rights include the right to go to any country you want and demand citizenship with all benefits? No territorial sovereignty, no borders, no laws that restrict immigration. If you are against that then you are a racist. Have I got your views summed up?

TUSooner
10/11/2011, 09:48 AM
Lol. Sounds like your posts.

Is the beer summit off now?

Certainly not! Beer covers a multitide of sins, and if I drink enough of it I might even start to think you're a decent human being -- provided I stop reading your ****. :rolleyes:

Midtowner
10/11/2011, 09:58 AM
Free to whom?

Compare the cost to the public of having a permanent underclass which doesn't speak the majority language versus having English speakers who are ready to enter the job force. One is likely to end up in prison, the other is much more likely to work.

Midtowner
10/11/2011, 10:02 AM
Illegals are paying income taxes?

It's actually a very well documented phenomenon. Illegals use fake SSNs to get jobs, they fill out W-4s and pay payroll taxes. Illegals actually contribute billions to social security that they'll never get back.


Their parents are their legal guardians and have made the decision to cross the border illegally. These kids can go back to Mexico with their parents and learn their native language. The US shouldn't be blackmailed into allowing the parents to stay because they deliberately chose to ignore US laws.

Your position is not based in reality. No one of importance has ever seriously talked about deporting every illegal. Some may have used it as political talking points, but they knew that they didn't stand a chance to pass that sort of legislation. It would be too devastating to our economy to do so.

sappstuf
10/11/2011, 10:07 AM
Compare the cost to the public of having a permanent underclass which doesn't speak the majority language versus having English speakers who are ready to enter the job force. One is likely to end up in prison, the other is much more likely to work.

Compare the cost to buying them a one way ticket on Greyhound...

A couple of things that would happen if 30 million illegals were gone tomorrow.

1. Unemployment would drop.
2. Wages would rise.
3. Federal revenues would rise.
4. Federal spending in the form of unemployment, ect would drop.

None of those consequences have me shaking in my boots.

okie52
10/11/2011, 10:14 AM
It's actually a very well documented phenomenon. Illegals use fake SSNs to get jobs, they fill out W-4s and pay payroll taxes. Illegals actually contribute billions to social security that they'll never get back.



Your position is not based in reality. No one of importance has ever seriously talked about deporting every illegal. Some may have used it as political talking points, but they knew that they didn't stand a chance to pass that sort of legislation. It would be too devastating to our economy to do so.

The illegals often pay SS but almost never income taxes.

If the jobs and the benefits were cut off what would the illegals do? Even with a modest system like Everify the numbers of illegals working would be impacted. Now if illegals can't get jobs or have benefits it would stand to reason many would leave. This won't touch those that are paid under the table. But ramping up prosecutions of employers that knowingly hire illegals and hitting them with severe fines and/or jail time would make most employers very wary of hiring anyone they can't prove is a citizen or authorized to be in this country.

And what is this devastation to the country? These minimum wage jobs would have to be upgraded in pay so that American citizens would be willing to do them? Phil has often posted on here about the impact to the ag costs and other industries as resulting in an increase of 15%. Hardly devastating and would offset the costs of the benefits that the illegals are receiving now.

Midtowner
10/11/2011, 10:16 AM
Compare the cost to buying them a one way ticket on Greyhound...

A couple of things that would happen if 30 million illegals were gone tomorrow.

1. Unemployment would drop.
2. Wages would rise.
3. Federal revenues would rise.
4. Federal spending in the form of unemployment, ect would drop.

None of those consequences have me shaking in my boots.

We'll see if that happens in Alabama, now won't we.

Midtowner
10/11/2011, 10:19 AM
The illegals often pay SS but almost never income taxes.

They pay payroll taxes, income taxes are typically withheld along with Medicare.


If the jobs and the benefits were cut off what would the illegals do? Even with a modest system like Everify the numbers of illegals working would be impacted. Now if illegals can't get jobs or have benefits it would stand to reason many would leave. This won't touch those that are paid under the table. But ramping up prosecutions of employers that knowingly hire illegals and hitting them with severe fines and/or jail time would make most employers very wary of hiring anyone they can't prove is a citizen or authorized to be in this country.

And what do you suppose the enforcement/prison costs will be for those employers? How many jobs are you willing to kill in order to make this country more white?


And what is this devastation to the country? These minimum wage jobs would have to be upgraded in pay so that American citizens would be willing to do them? Phil has often posted on here about the impact to the ag costs and other industries as resulting in an increase of 15%. Hardly devastating and would offset the costs of the benefits that the illegals are receiving now.

There's no evidence that most welfare-receiving Americans would work any of those manual labor jobs even for 15% more. You're just making a number up.

okie52
10/11/2011, 10:21 AM
Obama also has fought prosecuting employers that illegals. He fortunately lost that battle but don't look to him to create any policy that will seek to punish them. Bush and McCain weren't much better so it isn't just a party line issue although the repubs in general are for tougher actions against illegal immigration.

Yet the public overwhelmingly wants action taken to stop illegal immigration, secure the borders, etc...

Amazing how past administrations avoid tackling it head on.

okie52
10/11/2011, 10:31 AM
They pay payroll taxes, income taxes are typically withheld along with Medicare.

No. Most are 1099 and only pay the SS tax to continue to use a fraudulent SS number. 1099's don't withhold any taxes.



And what do you suppose the enforcement/prison costs will be for those employers? How many jobs are you willing to kill in order to make this country more white?

So its back to race? Thats right up there with anyone that criticizes Obama must be racist. The costs of enforcement/prison would be a lot less than the costs of the illegals. But you are showing your colors now.

There's no evidence that most welfare-receiving Americans would work any of those manual labor jobs even for 15% more. You're just making a number up.

Read closer. I said Phil stated those facts and it wouldn't be the wage increase but the cost to the consumer. Wages (Per Phil) were not that big of a cost so going from and $8 an hour job to a $12 an hour job would only have a 15% additional cost to the consumer.

.

Midtowner
10/11/2011, 10:42 AM
Obama also has fought prosecuting employers that illegals. He fortunately lost that battle but don't look to him to create any policy that will seek to punish them. Bush and McCain weren't much better so it isn't just a party line issue although the repubs in general are for tougher actions against illegal immigration.

Yet the public overwhelmingly wants action taken to stop illegal immigration, secure the borders, etc...

Amazing how past administrations avoid tackling it head on.

The ag lobby is powerful.

okie52
10/11/2011, 10:43 AM
The ag lobby is powerful.


They are powerful and we have got ethanol to prove it.

SouthCarolinaSooner
10/11/2011, 11:00 AM
Over 90% of the US population was white then and of European descent but they were racists against their own kind rather than reacting to a situation of being flooded by Europeans? No dogma in your blood.

We have no reason to be growing rather we should be seeking to drop our population in half in the next 50 years. How are our natural resources doing? Are we an oil exporting country now?
How is water faring in many part in many parts of the country?

Basic human rights include the right to go to any country you want and demand citizenship with all benefits? No territorial sovereignty, no borders, no laws that restrict immigration. If you are against that then you are a racist. Have I got your views summed up?
Yes, I'm saying that legislation was racist because it was designed to keep out all Asians as well as Jews from Central and Eastern Europe.

Population cut by 50% in the next 50 years? You actually? We're a has been in oil production, and the sooner we get off oil the better. Global oil production is peaking now through 2020 according to various models, but I doubt we'll do anything seriously proactive about developing alternative sources.

Ideally, yes I think that's how things should be. However, I do think there should be practical limits, I'm not actually for a total free for all. But in this situation, with the crisis going on especially in Mexico, we should open our doors not build bigger fences.

okie52
10/11/2011, 11:30 AM
Yes, I'm saying that legislation was racist because it was designed to keep out all Asians as well as Jews from Central and Eastern Europe.

Population cut by 50% in the next 50 years? You actually? We're a has been in oil production, and the sooner we get off oil the better. Global oil production is peaking now through 2020 according to various models, but I doubt we'll do anything seriously proactive about developing alternative sources.

Ideally, yes I think that's how things should be. However, I do think there should be practical limits, I'm not actually for a total free for all. But in this situation, with the crisis going on especially in Mexico, we should open our doors not build bigger fences.

Couldn't disagree more. Not only about the legislation (as being created to stop cheap labor) but about oil production.

I am sure you know nothing about our reserves nor about new drilling techniques regarding oil exploration. We have a vast amount of untapped reserves but in many cases we aren't allowed to drill it. See our east and west coasts. But that doesn't address our need to reduce our population. 1 child per household would get us there in a few generations. Rather than subsidizing families with more than 1 child we should be punishing them by higher taxes, etc...

Mexico's problems are their problems. That is one of our foreign policy problems is the apparent belief we need to intervene in other countries problems.

And your open borders approach is scary to say the least.

TUSooner
10/11/2011, 11:59 AM
Couldn't disagree more. Not only about the legislation but about oil production.

I am sure you know nothing about our reserves nor about new drilling techniques regarding oil exploration. We have a vast amount of untapped reserves but in many cases we aren't allowed to drill it. See our east and west coasts. But that doesn't address our need to reduce our population. 1 child per household would get us there in a few generations. Rather than subsidizing families with more than 1 child we should be punishing them by higher taxes, etc...

Mexico's problems are their problems. That is one of our foreign policy problems is the apparent belief we need to intervene in other countries problems.

And the your open borders approach is scary to say the least.

If I hadn't quit reading your ****, I might have thought you were subtly implying the benefits of forced population control in addition to mining the borders. If that were so, I might have to start thinking of you as some sort of creepy Malthusian social engineer or perverse Social Darwinist. Thankfully, I'm no longer wasting my time on your ****, so it's OK.

okie52
10/11/2011, 12:20 PM
If I hadn't quit reading your ****, I might have thought you were subtly implying the benefits of forced population control in addition to mining the borders. If that were so, I might have to start thinking of you as some sort of creepy Malthusian social engineer or perverse Social Darwinist. Thankfully, I'm no longer wasting my time on your ****, so it's OK.

And yet you responded.

Forced population control as opposed to what we have now? He11, we are promoting growing the population and have been throughout our existence. Nothing wrong with reversing an outdated concept with a more beneficial one. Even more importantly is the world's population or more properly put...overpopulation. Is this a concept that is taboo for you? That the world will go from 6.5 billion to 9 billion in the next 30 or so years? At what point should the world and/or the US recognize that there is a population problem and the world doesn't have the resources to meet their needs?

1 billion > 9 billion. 150,000,000 > 300,000,000.

Now, of course, if you are one that believes US growing to the size of China is a good thing then you would find those positions detrimental. Is that how you see it?

TUSooner
10/11/2011, 12:30 PM
And yet you responded.

Forced population control as opposed to what we have now? He11, we are promoting growing the population and have been throughout our existence. Nothing wrong with reversing an outdated concept with a more beneficial one. Even more importantly is the world's population or more properly put...overpopulation. Is this a concept that is taboo for you? That the world will go from 6.5 billion to 9 billion in the next 30 or so years? At what point should the world and/or the US recognize that there is a population problem and the world doesn't have the resources to meet their needs?

1 billion > 9 billion. 150,000,000 > 300,000,000.

Now, of course, if you are one that believes US growing to the size of China is a good thing then you would find those positions detrimental. Is that how you see it?

But it was a purely hypothetical reponse, not an indication that I want to converse with you about your social theories. Heck, I don't even want to think about them, because I'm reading Paul Johnson's history of the 20th Century, and the rise of Leninism and fascism is depressing enough. Please carry on without me.

okie52
10/11/2011, 12:37 PM
But it was a purely hypothetical reponse, not an indication that I want to converse with you about your social theories. Heck, I don't even want to think about them, because I'm reading Paul Johnson's history of the 20th Century, and the rise of Leninism and fascism is depressing enough. Please carry on without me.

As long as it was only hypothetical....

SouthCarolinaSooner
10/11/2011, 03:10 PM
Couldn't disagree more. Not only about the legislation (as being created to stop cheap labor) but about oil production.

I am sure you know nothing about our reserves nor about new drilling techniques regarding oil exploration. We have a vast amount of untapped reserves but in many cases we aren't allowed to drill it. See our east and west coasts. But that doesn't address our need to reduce our population. 1 child per household would get us there in a few generations. Rather than subsidizing families with more than 1 child we should be punishing them by higher taxes, etc...

Mexico's problems are their problems. That is one of our foreign policy problems is the apparent belief we need to intervene in other countries problems.

And your open borders approach is scary to say the least.
Wait...so you want to drill more and further deplete the environment while advocating forced population control in order to conserve resources. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical, despite the fact we are not overcrowded.

Mexico is our neighbor on a long border, their problems will become our problems. I agree we intervene far too much, but this problem cannot be wished away and is an immediate threat on our border.

cleller
10/11/2011, 07:09 PM
While we debate, the Zetas be takin' care of business! Expanding business.

TheHumanAlphabet
10/12/2011, 12:05 AM
I don't feel sorry for ILLEGALS who put their family at risk. The need to get their family and themselves the hell out of the country.

TUSooner
10/12/2011, 08:08 AM
Some of the social engineereing advocated around here would put a twinkle in the old dead eyes of guys like Karl, Vladimir, Adolph, and that Malthus guy I mentioned awhile ago. I thought I was cynical, but the obsessively dim view of large parts of humanity, the pessismism, and the radical measures suggested to save "society" ("save it for for whom?" one might ask), make me feel like Mother Teresa. I'm not sure even August Busch has enough suds to wash this **** down.

sappstuf
10/12/2011, 08:25 AM
Wait...so you want to drill more and further deplete the environment while advocating forced population control in order to conserve resources. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical, despite the fact we are not overcrowded.

Mexico is our neighbor on a long border, their problems will become our problems. I agree we intervene far too much, but this problem cannot be wished away and is an immediate threat on our border.

They will become a problem much faster if we follow your suggestion and open the border. Peace and stability would not flow south.. Killing and chaos would flow north.

TUSooner
10/12/2011, 08:29 AM
They will become a problem much faster if we follow your suggestion and open the border. Peace and stability would not flow south.. Killing and chaos would flow north.

That's pretty pessimistic, just sayin'.

Does "free market in labor" apply at any point? (No sarcasm intended.)

NormanPride
10/12/2011, 08:43 AM
No, on that point I agree. As long as we destabilize South America and Mexico with the war on drugs, we cannot let them just waltz into our country.

TUSooner
10/12/2011, 08:53 AM
No, on that point I agree. As long as we destabilize South America and Mexico with the war on drugs, we cannot let them just waltz into our country.

<clap clap clap> (If there's a smiley for that I'm sure I dont like it!)

sappstuf
10/12/2011, 09:13 AM
That's pretty pessimistic, just sayin'.

Does "free market in labor" apply at any point? (No sarcasm intended.)

I am all for legal controlled immigration. But a country can only assimilate so many people from other cultures at a time without losing its own identity. For pretty much our entire existence, we have been the best country on the planet at doing that and we still are. But asking a few things from the people who want the opportunity to work in our country isn't too much.. Learn our language, learn our culture, obey the law.

I have spoken to people in a couple of our consulates around the world asking for the opportunity to work in our country. They were professional, already spoke English and were full of excitement(And these were western countries I was in).. It made me proud and reflect on how lucky I was to be born in our country. I saw several of those people denied Visas.

You seem worried about the criminal that crosses the border in the dark of the night that has no skills, doesn't speak English and has no desire become a part of our American culture.

I think your worry about the wrong people. I more concerned about the person who has done everything right, educated themselves, would love to become a part of our culture and followed the law, but cannot get here.

It is seperate, but I do understand that a lot of illegals did come here legally and overstayed their Visa.

TUSooner
10/12/2011, 10:04 AM
***
You seem worried about the criminal that crosses the border in the dark of the night that has no skills, doesn't speak English and has no desire become a part of our American culture.

I think your worry about the wrong people....

I'm not sure what you mean by "worry" about those people; they are the ones who give immigration a bad name and fuel anti-immigrant sentiments.

CrimsonCream
10/12/2011, 10:43 AM
That is one of our foreign policy problems is the apparent belief we need to intervene in other countries problems.

Because we do so well with our own.

sappstuf
10/12/2011, 10:53 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by "worry" about those people; they are the ones who give immigration a bad name and fuel anti-immigrant sentiments.

The only reason they give immigration a bad name is because our government has allowed the lines to blur between immigration and illegal immigration and have done their best to stop/slow down the enforcement of illegal immigration.

TheHumanAlphabet
10/12/2011, 11:39 PM
sappstuf is 100% correct. Our goodness will flow south a whole lot less than the badness will flow north... Manure flows from more to less...

Serge Ibaka
10/12/2011, 11:49 PM
If they only put as much effort into changing their dirthole of a country as they do in getting to the U.S. they wouldn't have these types of problems.

I know that this comment is 2 days old, but seriously: wtf. Is this even real?

Do you really think that there's anything that dirt-poor Jose in rural Mexico can do to improve his immediate situation (not to mention, the situation of his entire nation!). What do you propose he ought to do, smartypants?

SanJoaquinSooner
10/13/2011, 01:09 AM
You are quite welcome. BTW, have you gotten the whole family here yet? Have they had kids?

I have six sisters-in-law, 3 in the U.S. and 3 in Mexico. The parents-in-law have had their green cards since 96, but live in Mexico and just visit the U.S. once a year on average.

The six sisters-in-law have a total of 8 kids among them - 5 were born in Mexico and 3 in the U.S. That's 8/6 = 1.33 fertility rate. Sorry if that doesn't live up to your "breeder" conception. Truth is, the fertility rate among Mexican women has nose-dived since 1970 dropping from 6.8 per woman to 2 per woman:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/world/20110703_IMMIGRATION/images/graphics/Birthrate-WEB.gif

Two of the sisters-in-law who live in the U.S. are homeowners and employed in the private sector, both with employment-based health insurance. The third one (to whom I was legal guardian) just graduated from Cal State Bakersfield and is employed with a private foundation affiliated with Cesar Chavez.

SanJoaquinSooner
10/13/2011, 01:24 AM
No. Most are 1099 and only pay the SS tax to continue to use a fraudulent SS number. 1099's don't withhold any taxes.

the use of independent contracts is for the employer's convenience. It doesn't relieve the worker from paying income taxes.

The 1099 info is sent to the IRS and they expect you to pay your taxes. They don't care if you are an illegal alien from Mars - they want their damned money.

If you are in line to get a resident visa, you don't want to risk being turned down for failing to pay taxes.

Under an independent contract, the worker has to pay both the employer and employee share of FICA taxes: 15.3% total.

I helped an amigo who worked under an independent contract to stock a certain product on store selves. Made around 50K. He had to pay around 10K in taxes (FICA + income) and the IRS told him he needed to start paying quarterly, instead on yearly.

SanJoaquinSooner
10/13/2011, 01:37 AM
Originally Posted by okie52

We have no reason to be growing rather we should be seeking to drop our population in half in the next 50 years.

Can you imagine a perpetual depression, with 50% abandoned buildings a la Detroit's finest ghettos? No construction driven by consumer demand?

A very modest 1% growth rate is what the doctor orders for the economy to keep ticking. I've seen "no growth" communities in California try the idea and they inevitably give up when it becomes clear they need a little growth for workers to have some work to do. Construction drives so much of economic activity. That's why this economic downturn is so nasty: the housing bubble burst has construction, and all that rides along, dormat.


Tell me you had only one kid and have only one grandkid!

SicEmBaylor
10/13/2011, 01:56 AM
I know that this comment is 2 days old, but seriously: wtf. Is this even real?

Do you really think that there's anything that dirt-poor Jose in rural Mexico can do to improve his immediate situation (not to mention, the situation of his entire nation!). What do you propose he ought to do, smartypants?

How about he get together with a few of the 100m people in that country and overthrow the f'n government. God knows there are plenty of guns in Mexico. Grab a gun and a start a revolution. We did it; so can they.

SanJoaquinSooner
10/13/2011, 08:29 AM
How about he get together with a few of the 100m people in that country and overthrow the f'n government. God knows there are plenty of guns in Mexico. Grab a gun and a start a revolution. We did it; so can they.

Actually, Mexico needs to continue on its present pro-capitalist, free enterprise path. It's doesn't need revolution which would inevitably lead to a Hugo Chavez type socialist in power. Mexico had a corrupt, one-party monopolistic gov't (PRI) for 70 years. The last two presidents (PAN) have helped move the country forward. It still has a long ways to go. The quality of life has improved significantly the last 15 years. Illegal immigration by Mexicans has dropped greatly due to the U.S. recession and the increased danger and cost of crossing the border. But the huge drop in birthrates is the long-term reason it will continue to drop to a trickle. One million new job seekers per year of the 1990s will drop to 300,000 per year by 2030. Mexico will be able to absorb most of that. More young Mexicans are staying in school to complete high school.

And Sic em, on the "we did it, so can they". Our European ancestors didn't stay and fight. They left Europe.

Of course the drug cartels are a huge negative, but the Mexican gov't is battling it, and it is messy. It used to ignore it. Unfortunately, the fine people of the U.S. are allies to the drug cartels, sending 20 billion U.S. dollars to them every year in exchange for drugs.

cleller
10/13/2011, 09:24 AM
SanJoaquin-
Are you at all worried that criminals associated with the cartels are also establishing a foothold in the US?

Do you support any type of restraints on who comes across the border?

SanJoaquinSooner
10/14/2011, 01:07 AM
SanJoaquin-
Are you at all worried that criminals associated with the cartels are also establishing a foothold in the US?

Do you support any type of restraints on who comes across the border?

Worried? Very, the cartels have loyal customers in the U.S. who pay them $20 billion each year.

The Alabama law will have no impact on U.S. demand for the drug cartels' products.

Restraints on who enters? Yes, we should do biometric/face recognition reads tied to a terrorist/felon/etc. database. Of course with the billions in cash, they can find ways to enter, and if some of their soldiers are caught, that's the cost of doing business.

Serge Ibaka
10/14/2011, 01:14 AM
How about he get together with a few of the 100m people in that country and overthrow the f'n government. God knows there are plenty of guns in Mexico. Grab a gun and a start a revolution. We did it; so can they.

So overthrowing the Mexican government = jobs + prosperity for all? What???? Who knew it would be that easy to improve Mexican society (and fix our "illegal problem")? You really oughta call up some Mexicans, SickEm; tell them that you've figured it all out.

Hey yo, senor! Why come you're mowing this lawn and putting food into your belly? Don't you know you could just return to Mexico, overthrow your government, and magically produce a bunch of jobs for you and your countrymen??! C'mon Stupid! Use your cabeza!

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 02:24 PM
I love it when people suffer, especially children who suffer because their parents foolishly tried to make a better life for them without getting proper authorization. Serves 'em right. Now if we could only find a way to void these guardianship deals and send the kids back, too, the country would once agains be safe for right-thinking decent people.

Just send the whole damn family back, that way we won't be breaking up any families.

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 02:25 PM
Worried? Very, the cartels have loyal customers in the U.S. who pay them $20 billion each year.

The Alabama law will have no impact on U.S. demand for the drug cartels' products.

Restraints on who enters? Yes, we should do biometric/face recognition reads tied to a terrorist/felon/etc. database. Of course with the billions in cash, they can find ways to enter, and if some of their soldiers are caught, that's the cost of doing business.

in other words "no" he doesn't care who comes across the border.

SanJoaquinSooner
11/23/2011, 03:07 PM
in other words "no" he doesn't care who comes across the border.
that's false. I don't want terrorists and convicted felons entering. One million folks are processed through our 325 ports of entry every day. I'm all for high tech means of recognizing them.

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 03:43 PM
If your parents murdered someone 25 years ago, and since that time were productive, law abiding citizens, had several children, then got caught, would any of us be advocating letting them off because we wouldn't want to break up their family?

And no, I'm not comparing murder to illegal immigration. I'm simply trying to understand the mindset that says, if a person has committed a crime and they get caught, we can not punish them if it means we will break up their family.

Or does that only apply to illegal immigration? And please don't give me the "they were just coming here for a better life" argument. They broke the law, and just like any American citizen would and should be punished, so should they.

Midtowner
11/23/2011, 04:03 PM
If your parents murdered someone 25 years ago, and since that time were productive, law abiding citizens, had several children, then got caught, would any of us be advocating letting them off because we wouldn't want to break up their family?

Murder doesn't have a statute of limitations, other things do. Child molestation, for example, must be prosecuted within 12 years (there are exceptions though). So if you're wanting to talk about statute of limitations, where does being in the country illegally fall.. less bad than murder but more bad than child molestation?

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 04:05 PM
Murder doesn't have a statute of limitations, other things do. Child molestation, for example, must be prosecuted within 12 years (there are exceptions though). So if you're wanting to talk about statute of limitations, where does being in the country illegally fall.. less bad than murder but more bad than child molestation?

again you missed the context in which I asked the question, never mind.

C&CDean
11/24/2011, 12:25 PM
What a great Thanksgiving Day topic.

Me? In all honesty, IDGAS. Our country is already so effed up by the people here already I quit caring about the Mexican immigrants years ago. They work jobs none of you will, take care of their kids, and cook good grub. Why should I care if they ain't paying taxes? We've got tons of "natives" who don't either who are tapping the till much worse.

If they start blowing **** up or killing the Jews I might feel different.

soonercoop1
11/24/2011, 05:39 PM
They will become a problem much faster if we follow your suggestion and open the border. Peace and stability would not flow south.. Killing and chaos would flow north.

Sapp maybe we should open the borders and wait until the problem HAS to be dealt with...seems the only way to get things done in America anymore...

soonercoop1
11/24/2011, 05:51 PM
Compare the cost to buying them a one way ticket on Greyhound...

A couple of things that would happen if 30 million illegals were gone tomorrow.

1. Unemployment would drop.
2. Wages would rise.
3. Federal revenues would rise.
4. Federal spending in the form of unemployment, ect would drop.

None of those consequences have me shaking in my boots.

I love the preface of their argument that "Everyone realizes we can't send 12-20 million illegals home". That is complete BS especially if we made hiring and renting to them illegal with huge fines to the businesses. They would be leaving in droves. We would have "El sendero de lágrimas II"....

cleller
11/24/2011, 09:35 PM
What's the purpose of that border anyway? Our countries are just alike in terms of economy, law and order, prosperity and productivity. No one should fear millions of persons from Mexico and Latin American coming here completely without documentation. Our societies mirror one another, so the citizens of those countries must also mirror US citizens. Have no fear, the USA cannot suffer from their increased presence.

Its not like they're Swedes or something.

soonercruiser
11/26/2011, 05:56 PM
I told ya we still need the sarcasm emoticon!
:sneakiness:

SanJoaquinSooner
11/30/2011, 01:47 AM
There's so much horse**** in this thread --- if only I were unemployed I might have time to respond to a chunk of it. but let me scratch the surface on a couple of issues.



Compare the cost to buying them a one way ticket on Greyhound...

A couple of things that would happen if 30 million illegals were gone tomorrow.

1. Unemployment would drop.
2. Wages would rise.
3. Federal revenues would rise.
4. Federal spending in the form of unemployment, ect would drop.

None of those consequences have me shaking in my boots.


Horse**** #1. 30 million illegally present is one of those lies where "a big lie is preferable to a small lie," as they used to say in some European circles.

Back in 1995 there were an estimated 3 million illegally present Mexicans according to Pew Research and the money sent to Mexico from other countries totalled 3.7 billion. By 2005, the funds sent to Mexico had increased to 20 Billion.

So some lame-brained researchers set up a proportion: $3.7 Billion / 3 million Mexicans = $20 Billion / x Mexicans. They solved for x, and got about 16 million. Add that to 4 to 6 million estimated from other countries and they reasoned the total number of illegally present aliens was 20 to 22 million.

Now throw in a few blogs and message board discussions and you got to add another 10 million because surely these aliens are undercounted since they don't want to be counted. Poof! and we got 30 million illegal aliens!!! It's magic!!!!

Now the funds sent to Mexico come from lots of folks who are not illegal. Many green card holders and U.S. citizens send money to Mexico for many reasons. The more affluent of this set could substanially increase the amounts sent.

The Pew Researchers say the number of illegally present aliens peaked at about 12 million in 2007, and has decreased about 1 million or so, to about 11 million. They start with the census count and adjust it to account for undercounting. That's right Pew knows the undercount concept and adjusts accordingly. If there were 20 million, the U.S. birthrate would be much higher than it is.

Even the head dude researcher who came up with the 20 million now admits there is no way it's that high.

Now this leads us to ...

Horse**** #2.
A couple of things that would happen if 30 million illegals were gone tomorrow.

1. Unemployment would drop.

In 2007 there were 12 million illegally present and unemployment was 5% (the nominal full employment figure). Today there are 11 million, and unemployment is 9%. There is an INVERSE relationship.

If you could somehow cut the number of illegally present (without replacing them with legal aliens) in half, unemployment would RISE even higher than 9%! Removing immigrant workers from the labor force would reduce productivity in such industries as agriculture, retail, food prep, tourism/hotel/restaurant, construction and landscaping. There would be less demand for housing, a sector which is struggling significantly and is the key to economic recovery. Less productivity and demand would reduce the related job openings in more skilled positions, reducing employment for native-born middle-class Americans. Less investment and employment would in turn reduce government revenue.

As the number of immigrants, legal and illegal, rises, the number and percentage of native-born Americans living in poverty DECREASES. It's a fact, Jack.

Horse**** #3.

Now the real shame is the crowd that cannot see any solution beyond fence building, troops at the border, landmines, and deportation. Having 5% of the workforce illegally present undermines the rule of law. Dysfunctional laws undermine the rule of law and they need to be fixed.* I am against illegal immigration. The fix should be something along the lines of the Red Card Newt talked about. In the past I've called it a kiosk at each port of entry to pick up a LEGAL visa. We have the technology to do this with biometrics to control for known/suspected terrorists and convicted felons.

But the plan Newt was talking about would privatize the system, with major upgrade in use of smart technology, etc -- since gov't ****s it up. Supply would be tied to labor demand instead of a government quota set, long obsolete after it is set and in use.

*see sales tax not collected on internet purchases for an example of another dysfunctional law that makes millions of consumers lawbreakers, and needs to be fixed ( as opposed to locking them all up).

okie52
11/30/2011, 10:18 AM
Horse****#1-

If there are "only" 11,000,000 here now you can greatly increase that number through family reunification...probably 3-4 times. Kind of like your family, eh SanJoaqin?

Horse**** #2-

Oh Lord-illegals create demand? Illegals are here because of demand, not the other way around. And if 1,000,000 did leave it was because of the depressed economy otherwise we just need to import all of Mexico and we'll be out of this recession. And there is a key to getting them all to leave...take away their jobs, their benefits, their education, etc...

Horse****#3-

Dysfunctional laws in this case are those that aren't enforced. Newt is just selling out to the Latinos on his "humane" approach. So a 25 year illegal is granted residency (as long as he is a member of the church and is active in his community) but that 20 year illegal needs to go?

Newt is kind of a puzz on illegals but he did say (along with all of the other pub candidates) that securing the border would be his first act. He also would strip federal funds from any sanctuary city/state. Not exactly your cup of tea. He11, you might even get in trouble for your classes. Newt has not really defined what he would do with the other millions of illegals nor has he stated (that I have seen anyway) any changes to birthright citizenship or family reunification.