New Mexico...jurors no need to speak english...or even spanish..

[Soonerjeepman]

again, this country is going so a$$-backwards. How in hell do you expect communication..



The Albuquerque Journal reported that the state's Constitution "shall never be restricted, abridged or impaired on account of … (the) inability to speak, read or write the English or Spanish languages."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/13/non-english-speakers-can-be-jurors-new-mexico-court-says/?test=latestnews#ixzz2bs5B3vCn

[yermom]

they probably shouldn't be able to vote either, huh?

[okie52]

they probably shouldn't be able to vote either, huh?


These citizens have assimilated very well...

I'm sure New Mexico prints biliingual ballots at very little expense to the tax payer. Bravo!!!

[Soonerjeepman]

they probably shouldn't be able to vote either, huh?

nope...ugh meant yup...agree...correct....

[KantoSooner]

Two things:

1. The attournys have every opportunity to exercise pre-emptory challenges during voir dire to keep such people off juries. And they have multiple opportunities to raise the issue leading up to and during the trial. This case was one in which the defense team tried to raise the issue on appeal after failing to take advantage of any of those chances.

2. Setting aside the fact that the very name 'New Mexico' pretty well puts parties on notice that there are people who spoke Spanish there for hundreds of years before the place became US soil there are also a lot of people there who speak a variety of native american languages. They number in the hundreds of thousands. They, too were there long before US territoriality. In their case, some 14,000 years or so.
Are these people to be denied full citizenship because they didn't leave when New Mexico became part of the US?
It's a very small thing to accomodate them as jurors and may, for instance in cases between Spanish or Navajo speakers, allow the jurors to better understand the case than mono-lingual English speakers.

Some flexibility is well applied here.

[Soonerjeepman]

KS, agree to #1...but as far as number 2...I said english OR spanish...the constitution says the jurors do not need to be able to SPEAK, READ or WRITE..hell how do they survive not being able to do ANY of these?

[FaninAma]

they probably shouldn't be able to vote either, huh?
I thought to become a US citizen as an immigrant you had to know how to speak English. Is that not the case?

[FaninAma]

Two things:

1. The attournys have every opportunity to exercise pre-emptory challenges during voir dire to keep such people off juries. And they have multiple opportunities to raise the issue leading up to and during the trial. This case was one in which the defense team tried to raise the issue on appeal after failing to take advantage of any of those chances.

2. Setting aside the fact that the very name 'New Mexico' pretty well puts parties on notice that there are people who spoke Spanish there for hundreds of years before the place became US soil there are also a lot of people there who speak a variety of native american languages. They number in the hundreds of thousands. They, too were there long before US territoriality. In their case, some 14,000 years or so.
Are these people to be denied full citizenship because they didn't leave when New Mexico became part of the US?
It's a very small thing to accomodate them as jurors and may, for instance in cases between Spanish or Navajo speakers, allow the jurors to better understand the case than mono-lingual English speakers.

Some flexibility is well applied here.
Visit me in the ER I work in and I'll show you how. They know how to use their government issued insurance cards.

[FaninAma]

Two things:

1. The attournys have every opportunity to exercise pre-emptory challenges during voir dire to keep such people off juries. And they have multiple opportunities to raise the issue leading up to and during the trial. This case was one in which the defense team tried to raise the issue on appeal after failing to take advantage of any of those chances.

2. Setting aside the fact that the very name 'New Mexico' pretty well puts parties on notice that there are people who spoke Spanish there for hundreds of years before the place became US soil there are also a lot of people there who speak a variety of native american languages. They number in the hundreds of thousands. They, too were there long before US territoriality. In their case, some 14,000 years or so.
Are these people to be denied full citizenship because they didn't leave when New Mexico became part of the US?
It's a very small thing to accomodate them as jurors and may, for instance in cases between Spanish or Navajo speakers, allow the jurors to better understand the case than mono-lingual English speakers.

Some flexibility is well applied here.

Kanto,

You are a student of history. You know very well what happens to a country when diversity runs amok.

[okie52]

Two things:

1. The attournys have every opportunity to exercise pre-emptory challenges during voir dire to keep such people off juries. And they have multiple opportunities to raise the issue leading up to and during the trial. This case was one in which the defense team tried to raise the issue on appeal after failing to take advantage of any of those chances.

2. Setting aside the fact that the very name 'New Mexico' pretty well puts parties on notice that there are people who spoke Spanish there for hundreds of years before the place became US soil there are also a lot of people there who speak a variety of native american languages. They number in the hundreds of thousands. They, too were there long before US territoriality. In their case, some 14,000 years or so.
Are these people to be denied full citizenship because they didn't leave when New Mexico became part of the US?
It's a very small thing to accomodate them as jurors and may, for instance in cases between Spanish or Navajo speakers, allow the jurors to better understand the case than mono-lingual English speakers.

Some flexibility is well applied here.

Pretty sure none of the jurors were born there 14,000 years ago. Pretty sure none of the jurors were born before 1912 when New Mexico became a state.

You'd think after 100 years of statehood and 160 years as a US territory that "New Mexicans" might have assimilated into the US by now.

[cleller]

I thought to become a US citizen as an immigrant you had to know how to speak English. Is that not the case?

Who cares if they're citizens, literate, able to think or reason? Let on the juries, elect them to office, whatever. Sheila Jackson Lee is doing fine.

That's the direction the country is headed, why get in the way with intelligence?

[KantoSooner]

KS, agree to #1...but as far as number 2...I said english OR spanish...the constitution says the jurors do not need to be able to SPEAK, READ or WRITE..hell how do they survive not being able to do ANY of these?

Not a clue. On the other hand, we allow people from Appalachia who speak some dialect of Olde English with no comprehension that the written word exists to serve on juries. I'm not sure there's a difference.

[KantoSooner]

I thought to become a US citizen as an immigrant you had to know how to speak English. Is that not the case?



It's different when the country comes to you vs you going to the country.

[KantoSooner]

Kanto,

You are a student of history. You know very well what happens to a country when diversity runs amok.

Among other things, the vitality of the society skyrockets beyond the dead hand of Tradition in mono-cultural societies. (see: Saudi Arabia vs. Malaysia or North America vs. Europe or USA vs Japan)
It no doubt presents some challenges, but the opportunities far outweigh the costs, in my opinion.

Here's a nice anecdote for you. I attended a wedding over the weekend. It was between a pretty standard ScotsIrishEnglish heritage young man and a Vietnamese heritage young woman. In OKC. Not a lot of English in the older generation....but the younger generation cousin who was doing the EmmCee'ing couldn't stumble through her bit in Vietnamese but spoke Okie fluent English. We have less to worry about than might be supposed.

[cleller]

Robert Putnam, a well known scholar; Harvard Professor of Public Policy, did a very exhaustive study on diversity. His findings were that diversity destroys neighborhoods, making people less involved, less likely to volunteer, vote, on and on. Putnam himself was pro-diversity, and surprised by his own findings.

Of course this guy is only looking at what actually happens, not blinding preaching the PC Pollyanna BS that everyone is conditioned to either spout or repeat. Why deny that people tend to thrive in similar and familiar surroundings?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

[KantoSooner]

India vs. Pakistan

Same people, ethnically. Same people culturally until approximately 1,000 a.d.

Now India is a multicultural, swirling pot of chaos. And Pakistan is a nice, centrally controlled mono-cultural nation defined in identity by faith and ethnicity.

Which one has the perking economy? Which one has a vibrant society? Where would you rather live?

Game, set, match.

Seriously, I'll be happy to debate Putnam with you but would suggest that we both sit down and read both his findings and those of his critics before you do so. A Boston Globe article is not highly compelling as source material. What I have heard about Putnam's work is that his time scales, choice of locales and causation were open to question. But those were comments from a Chicago U guy, so maybe he's biased.

[okie52]

Well how would India fare vs a monocultural country like...say...Japan?

[cleller]

Well how would India fare vs a monocultural country like...say...Japan?

Right, I've got no interest in ever setting foot in India, except he's already claimed victory for himself based on his own opinions. And without looking at what is happening in our country.

Here, I think we've all seen the negative effects of diversity as were cited in the Putnam article. Now Putnam probably has opinions of his own, its just that he has the resume to suggest he may know what he's talking about.

This opening paragraph from his Wikipedia bio lays it out pretty good. Its just each person's outlook and interpretation regarding the US that determines whether or not you agree:


Robert David Putnam (born January 9, 1941,[1] in Rochester, New York) is a political scientist and professor of public policy at the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is also visiting professor and director of the Manchester Graduate Summer Programme in Social Change, University of Manchester (UK). Putnam developed the influential two-level game theory that assumes international agreements will only be successfully brokered if they also result in domestic benefits. His most famous (and controversial) work, Bowling Alone, argues that the United States has undergone an unprecedented collapse in civic, social, associational, and political life (social capital) since the 1960s, with serious negative consequences.

[okie52]

Right, I've got no interest in ever setting foot in India, except he's already claimed victory for himself based on his own opinions. And without looking at what is happening in our country.

Here, I think we've all seen the negative effects of diversity as were cited in the Putnam article. Now Putnam probably has opinions of his own, its just that he has the resume to suggest he may know what he's talking about.

This opening paragraph from his Wikipedia bio lays it out pretty good. Its just each person's outlook and interpretation regarding the US that determines whether or not you agree:


Robert David Putnam (born January 9, 1941,[1] in Rochester, New York) is a political scientist and professor of public policy at the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is also visiting professor and director of the Manchester Graduate Summer Programme in Social Change, University of Manchester (UK). Putnam developed the influential two-level game theory that assumes international agreements will only be successfully brokered if they also result in domestic benefits. His most famous (and controversial) work, Bowling Alone, argues that the United States has undergone an unprecedented collapse in civic, social, associational, and political life (social capital) since the 1960s, with serious negative consequences.

It always appeared to me to be a bit desperate to claim victory on one of your own posts......

You could look at the old USSR's breakup to see how well multi culturalism worked out in some cases...I'm not saying multiculturalism is all bad mind you but just check how well muslim immigrants are appreciated NOW in europe...hell even the French are bitching about illegals.

[Soonerjeepman]

Not a clue. On the other hand, we allow people from Appalachia who speak some dialect of Olde English with no comprehension that the written word exists to serve on juries. I'm not sure there's a difference.

again, the NM constitution, from what I read, says the jurors do NOT NEED TO SPEAK, READ, or WRITE....

[okie52]

again, the NM constitution, from what I read, says the jurors do NOT NEED TO SPEAK, READ, or WRITE....

Breathing probably isn't required either.

[FaninAma]

Among other things, the vitality of the society skyrockets beyond the dead hand of Tradition in mono-cultural societies. (see: Saudi Arabia vs. Malaysia or North America vs. Europe or USA vs Japan)
It no doubt presents some challenges, but the opportunities far outweigh the costs, in my opinion.

Here's a nice anecdote for you. I attended a wedding over the weekend. It was between a pretty standard ScotsIrishEnglish heritage young man and a Vietnamese heritage young woman. In OKC. Not a lot of English in the older generation....but the younger generation cousin who was doing the EmmCee'ing couldn't stumble through her bit in Vietnamese but spoke Okie fluent English. We have less to worry about than might be supposed.
Only if there is some level of assimilation. Large unassimilated populations lead to fragmentation and balkanization of a country and society. Europe is not in trouble because of a lack of diversity. Europe is in trouble because they have a huge demographic problem due to non-replacement birth rates. The same applies to Japan.

[olevetonahill]

Not a clue. On the other hand, we allow people from Appalachia who speak some dialect of Olde English with no comprehension that the written word exists to serve on juries. I'm not sure there's a difference.

They aint never ever put me on a jury, Im offended and stuff

[KantoSooner]

Well how would India fare vs a monocultural country like...say...Japan?

Compund annual growth rate of India vs Japan for the last five years? Ten? Fifteen? Twenty? Twentyfive? I'd say the Indians are not doing too badly.

Japan is sinking into a senescence largely driven by their insistence on remaining perfectly purely Japanese.

India is a global superpower in the making. Japan is becoming, in the words of a friend, "Austria, without the diplomatic gravitas."

[KantoSooner]

Only if there is some level of assimilation. Large unassimilated populations lead to fragmentation and balkanization of a country and society. Europe is not in trouble because of a lack of diversity. Europe is in trouble because they have a huge demographic problem due to non-replacement birth rates. The same applies to Japan.

And the assimilation is happening with breathtaking speed. This is one problem with Putnam's study. Had he come back in 25 years what would he have found? Did he attempt to look at, say, Irish-American communities, or Italian-American? Less than two generations after so-called 'balkanization', they are typical American suburbs. Well, with better bars and restaurants.

[okie52]

Compund annual growth rate of India vs Japan for the last five years? Ten? Fifteen? Twenty? Twentyfive? I'd say the Indians are not doing too badly.

Japan is sinking into a senescence largely driven by their insistence on remaining perfectly purely Japanese.

India is a global superpower in the making. Japan is becoming, in the words of a friend, "Austria, without the diplomatic gravitas."

Did you really post that with a straight face?

Of course India's growth rate would be better than most countries...when you are at the bottom of the barrel you can only go up.

That wonderful Indian economy now has it's citizens up to a whopping $1,500 per capita gdp...impressive. Japan's citizens are starving on a paltry $47,000 per year. India, with 10 times the population of Japan, has a national GDP well below half of Japan's.

Rather than seeing a blossoming super power I see a country headed for disaster:


India has experienced extraordinary population growth: between 2001 and 2011 India added 181 million people to the world, slightly less than the entire population of Brazil. But 76 per cent of India’s population lives on less than US$2 per day (at purchasing power parity rates). India ranks at the bottom of the pyramid in per capita-level consumption indicators not only in energy or electricity but in almost all other relevant per capita-level consumption indicators, despite high rates of growth in the last decade.

Much of India’s population increase has occurred among the poorest socio-economic percentile. Relatively socio-economically advanced Indian states had a fertility rate of less than 2.1 in 2009 — less than the level needed to maintain a stable population following infant mortality standards in developed nations. But in poorer states like Bihar, fertility rates were nearer to 4.0.

Does this growth mean India can rely on the ‘demographic dividend’ to spur development? This phenomenon, which refers to the period in which a large proportion of a country’s population is of working age, is said to have accounted for between one-fourth and two-fifths of East Asia’s ‘economic miracle’ as observed late last century.

But India is not East Asia. Its population density is almost three times the average in East Asia and more than eight times the world average of 45 people per square kilometre. If India has anywhere near 1.69 billion people in 2050, it will have more than 500 people per square kilometre. Besides, in terms of infrastructure development India currently is nowhere near where East Asian nations were before their boom. In terms of soft to hard infrastructure, spanning education, healthcare, roads, electricity, housing, employment growth and more, India is visibly strained.

For example, India has an installed energy capacity of little more than 200 gigawatts; China has more than 1000 gigawatts and aims to generate 600 gigawatts of clean electricity by 2020. To make matters worse, many of the newly installed power stations in India face an acute shortage of coal, and future supply is not guaranteed. China mines close to four billion tonnes of coal per year, which has a negative effect on both local and global air quality. At some stage, it is probably inevitable that India will need much greater capacity than its present rate of mining 600 million tonnes of coal per year, which is also causing local and global pollution levels to rise — parts of India face air quality problems similar to those in China. On oil, India imports close to 80 per cent of its crude oil requirements, while it also runs an unsustainable current account deficit of more than 5 per cent of its GDP, and reserves for new energy sources like shale gas do not look promising either.

India’s food supply is in an even worse position. As a member of India’s Planning Commission put it, ‘we have a problem and it can be starkly put in the following way: around 2004–2005, our per capita food grains production was back to the 1970s level’. In 2005–07, the average Indian consumed only 2,300 calories per day — below the defined poverty line in rural areas of 2,400 calories a day. The trend in recent years is for Indians to eat even less.

So, for India, treating lightly Malthusian predictions about food supply until 2050 or beyond may not be prudent. Worldwide food prices have been on the rise to unforeseen levels, and India too has been suffering from high food inflation.

Finally, even if India manages to feed its burgeoning population, its growth may not be ecologically sustainable. The global demand for water in 2050 is projected to be more than 50 per cent of what it was in 2000, and demand for food will double. On average, a thousand tons of water is required to produce one ton of food grains. It’s not surprising, then, that international disputes about water have increasingly been replicated among states in India, where the Supreme Court is frequently asked to intervene.

So have the policy responses been proportional to the gravity of the demographic, ecological and developmental problems facing India?

The probable answer is that policy makers have failed miserably on all measurable counts. If one compares India to China this becomes clear. While China’s one-child policy has been criticised as against human dignity and rights — and there is no denying that such measures should be avoided as far as possible — the history of human civilization teaches us that extreme situations call for extreme actions. There will be ample time for multiple schools to have their post-mortems on the success and failure of the one-child policy, but it has helped China to control its population by a possible 400 million people.

The US Census Bureau estimated in 2010 that China will hit its peak population of 1.4 billion in around 2026. China’s fertility rate has been lower than the replacement rate for more than two decades now. That means the one-child policy will have taken nearly 40 years to stabilise or reverse China’s population trend. How long will India take to get to that stage?

There is a distinct possibility of irreversible and unsustainable population growth and big question marks remain over how India will provide nearly 1.7 billion people with their basic minimum demands. In this environment to raise an alarm that turns out to be false is better than relying on comfortable slogans like the demographic dividend. The longer India delays acknowledging the severity of these problems and dealing with them head on, the graver the consequences are likely to be.

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/04/05/indias-population-in-2050-extreme-projections-demand-extreme-action/

India will pass China in population in about 15 years yet it only has 1/3 of the area of China. Japan, on the other hand, showed a population decline... a move in the right direction for overpopulated countries.

In the world of Ponzi schemes India is definitely a "global superpower".

[KantoSooner]

You be the juidge, bucko. India's got a future. Japan doesn't.

All the fastest growing economies in the world are multi-cultural. Most of the hideous backwaters are mono-ethnic and 'Traditional'. Coincidence? I don't think so.

[FaninAma]

You be the juidge, bucko. India's got a future. Japan doesn't.

All the fastest growing economies in the world are multi-cultural. Most of the hideous backwaters are mono-ethnic and 'Traditional'. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I would trade Japan's demographic problem for the crushing poverty and rising Muslim discontent India is facing in a heartbeat.

[KantoSooner]

It's not just Japan's demographics. Check out their national debt, near negative growth rate (for over 20 years now), double digit under/un-employment, social decline (rampant truancy, high levels of solvent huffing and meth addiction and for those of you who are oh so invested in the issue the stat that the average Japanese woman will undergo 2-3 abortions in her lifetime), utter governmental corruption (courier companies delivering grocery carts of banded Yen 10,000 bills to legislators IN THEIR CAPITOL BUILDING and so forth.
India's got a condom problem.
Japan is terminally ****ed as a country that has run out of ideas due to lack of fertilization from the outside.

[okie52]

You be the juidge, bucko. India's got a future. Japan doesn't.

All the fastest growing economies in the world are multi-cultural. Most of the hideous backwaters are mono-ethnic and 'Traditional'. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Yeah, I think the article above illustrates India's future. Most of the multi-cultural countries that show growing economies are poor with nowhere to go but up....but they do have "cheap labor". But that isn't something to attribute to multi-culturalism as it is due to poverty. And there is a high cost to cheap labor when it comes time pay the piper. Ponzi schemes ultimately never work out and India is a prime example.

[KantoSooner]

Okie dokie. You hang with your cultural purity.

I'll be over here with the lively party.

[FaninAma]

Okie dokie. You hang with your cultural purity.

I'll be over here with the lively party.

Google "Best Countries To Live In For Quality of Life" Get back to me which countries at the top of this list are also at the top of the most diversified societies.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218276/Norway-crowned-best-place-world-live--UK-trails-21st-place.html

[okie52]

I've never advocated cultural purity, in fact, quite the contrary. I believe our immigration policy should be balanced on cultural diversity, skilled, unskilled, educated, poorly educated, etc...to fit the needs of the country rather than most immigration coming from one ethnicity due to family reunification, most being poorly educated and possessing little or no skills. Imagine half of our immigrants being highly educated, highly skilled from a diverse group of countries....crazy thinking, eh?

And it is also no "coincidence" that high birthrates are found in poor, uneducated, low skilled people. Just who we need to generate those astonishing ideas and be high tax revenue generators.

You have your lively party with "idocracy". I'm sure it will be fun while it lasts.

[KantoSooner]

Google "Best Countries To Live In For Quality of Life" Get back to me which countries at the top of this list are also at the top of the most diversified societies.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218276/Norway-crowned-best-place-world-live--UK-trails-21st-place.html

Like Canada?

[KantoSooner]

I've never advocated cultural purity, in fact, quite the contrary. I believe our immigration policy should be balanced on cultural diversity, skilled, unskilled, educated, poorly educated, etc...to fit the needs of the country rather than most immigration coming from one ethnicity due to family reunification, most being poorly educated and possessing little or no skills. Imagine half of our immigrants being highly educated, highly skilled from a diverse group of countries....crazy thinking, eh?

And it is also no "coincidence" that high birthrates are found in poor, uneducated, low skilled people. Just who we need to generate those astonishing ideas and be high tax revenue generators.

You have your lively party with "idocracy". I'm sure it will be fun while it lasts.

More or less open borders have worked for us for the last 238 years as USofA and, arguably for a century or so before that.

I'm all for immigration rules based on rational self interest, but the argument that we somehow need to preserve the quicksilver that is 'American Culture' today through laws is absurd. Our national culture is no more similar to what it was 100 or 200 years ago than we are to Russia today (and that was a random selection).

[cleller]

So Bhutan, one of the most isolated, least diverse countries in the world, with some of the strictest tourism and immigration policies anywhere should really be a miserable, dysfunctional place.

Yet, its not, more like a shimmering Shangri-La. Even NPR agrees its the world's happiest country:

http://www.oneworldeducation.org/bhutan-worlds-happiest-country

http://jamaicaplain.patch.com/groups/editors-picks/p/former-npr-journalist-lisa-napoli-speaks-of-bhutan-thf7ee184c61

[okie52]

More or less open borders have worked for us for the last 238 years as USofA and, arguably for a century or so before that.

I'm all for immigration rules based on rational self interest, but the argument that we somehow need to preserve the quicksilver that is 'American Culture' today through laws is absurd. Our national culture is no more similar to what it was 100 or 200 years ago than we are to Russia today (and that was a random selection).

Most countries aren't culturally the same as they were 100 years ago....little things like technology, global economies, rapid transit, etc...have changed most of them. Societies will continue to change throughout the world whether or not a country has open borders or is a closed society.

Open borders worked when the US had a population of a whopping 76,000,000 in 1900 and was still largely an agrarian society. Now, with 315,000,000 people, industrialized, entitlements and straining to sustain ourselves on our natural resources it no longer makes economic sense.

Importing future problems not only is short sighted but it is willful ignorance. Planning for future contingencies with rational policies that will perpetuate a strong American economy while promoting fiscal solvency and a high standard of living should be the goal of immigration policies rather than just absorbing millions of poorly qualified immigrants and leaving it to posterity to clean up or pay for our mess.

[KantoSooner]

As is the windmill tilt of trying to maintain some chimera of cultural purity.

[okie52]

Well if having a rational immigration policy that balances the needs of the country as opposed to one that promotes open borders and one ethnicity of immigrant that are poorly educated, poorly skilled and low tax revenue generators....give me the windmills...you can have India.

[KantoSooner]

So Bhutan, one of the most isolated, least diverse countries in the world, with some of the strictest tourism and immigration policies anywhere should really be a miserable, dysfunctional place.

Yet, its not, more like a shimmering Shangri-La. Even NPR agrees its the world's happiest country:

http://www.oneworldeducation.org/bhutan-worlds-happiest-country

http://jamaicaplain.patch.com/groups/editors-picks/p/former-npr-journalist-lisa-napoli-speaks-of-bhutan-thf7ee184c61

Shift ground much? Bhutan is just peachy if you like a Shining Path style insurgency and walking along looking at the wrong end of your yak for your forever, a short life span that offers the opportunity to die of things like tuberculosis and typhoid (or, for variety, Lassa Fever) and a bucolic, agrarian life style.
It's a remarkable example that people can be happy in the midst of material poverty and the dearth of opportunity, educational, economic, artistic or any other kind.

In fact, the more I think about it, Bhutan may be the perfect example of the point I've been trying to make: It's a small island of pure 'Bhutanese-ness'. People are happy doing the same thing their ancestors did a thousand years ago, largely in the same circumstances their ancestors enjoyed. I am sure their communities are strong (and that any social ills are spackled over by the elders just as they are in every traditional society. "Are you sure it was rape, honey? He's just a headstrong boy, now you just go on about your business, we'll take care of this.") The problem is that they are utterly stagnant.

Agaiin, I'll take a nice bubbling stew of variegated humanity any day.

[cleller]

Shift ground much? Bhutan is just peachy if you like a Shining Path style insurgency and walking along looking at the wrong end of your yak for your forever, a short life span that offers the opportunity to die of things like tuberculosis and typhoid (or, for variety, Lassa Fever) and a bucolic, agrarian life style.
It's a remarkable example that people can be happy in the midst of material poverty and the dearth of opportunity, educational, economic, artistic or any other kind.

In fact, the more I think about it, Bhutan may be the perfect example of the point I've been trying to make: It's a small island of pure 'Bhutanese-ness'. People are happy doing the same thing their ancestors did a thousand years ago, largely in the same circumstances their ancestors enjoyed. I am sure their communities are strong (and that any social ills are spackled over by the elders just as they are in every traditional society. "Are you sure it was rape, honey? He's just a headstrong boy, now you just go on about your business, we'll take care of this.") The problem is that they are utterly stagnant.

Agaiin, I'll take a nice bubbling stew of variegated humanity any day.

Don't know what you mean by shifting ground. We were talking diversity, where we not? Your posit was that diversity was a positive, and you gave the example of India. (?) Everyone's model of a pleasant lifestyle.

I gave the example of Robert Putnam's treatise that diversity destroys cohesive, supportive society. I gave the example of Bhutan, which has received much attention for their cohesion and happiness.

And that is all worse than the life of your average Indian? India may be nice for westerners living there, or the higher castes, but most children born in India face a life of poverty, with little chance of advancement.

This, from and Indian, seems to sum up the lack of civility, opportunity, and satisfaction in India today.

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/why-i-left-india-again/

[okie52]

France threatens to pull out of borderless Europe
Published April 26, 2012
Associated Press

LUXEMBOURG – In the heat of France's presidential election campaign, the French government insisted Thursday that if the European Union didn't back its tougher line to fight illegal immigration it would lead to the demise of the continent's borderless travel zone.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/04/26/france-threatens-to-pull-out-borderless-europe-1365620970/#ixzz2byfAwK6n


Italy cracks down on immigrants
By Elisabeth Rosenthal
Published: Thursday, May 15, 2008

ROME — Underscoring the new Italian government's determination to crack down on illegal immigration and crime, the authorities this week arrested hundreds of people in a massive sweep of shantytowns in major urban areas across the country.







UK cracks down on illegal immigration
Kounteya Sinha, TNN Mar 28, 2013, 03.44AM IST


LONDON: After a cash bond for immigrants, UK on Monday announced a fresh crack down on illegal immigration by saying that rogue businesses who employ illegal workers will have to pay penalties of £20,000 - double of what it is now.

British prime minister David Cameron on Monday also announced a "stricter charging" or a requirement for non-European Economic Area temporary migrants like those from India to have private health insurance in order to access National Health Service care.



Greece cracks down as immigrants flood in
Associated Press
Updated 11:02 pm, Wednesday, August 22, 2012


Germany, France begin fight to close borders
Published: 20 Apr 2012 07:11 CET | Print version

Germany and France began moves this week to reclaim the power to close their borders for up to 30 days, in a simmering battle over immigration in Europe's passport-free Schengen travel zone.


Denmark brings in strict border controls to crack down on illegal immigrants from North Africa
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
UPDATED: 07:57 EST, 12 May 2011

Denmark yesterday joined an increasing number of European countries seeking tighter border controls in an attempt to curb crime and illegal immigration.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386317/Denmark-brings-strict-border-controls-crack-illegal-immigrants-North-Africa.html#ixzz2bymlTN00




EU issues warning over immigration crackdown
Countries which fail to crack down on illegal immigration into the European Union will damage their relationship with the organisation, its leaders warned today.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-124487/EU-issues-warning-immigration-crackdown.html#ixzz2bypZ3uEy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


I don't know what is wrong with the Euros...they should be thanking the illegals for helping them to have thriving economies and for the millions of jobs they have created.

And these radicals in Singapore...well, I just don't know what to say about their "immigration policy"....


S'pore orders illegal immigrants jailed, caned

Reuters. March 22, 1998.

SINGAPORE has jailed and ordered caned 117 men convicted of entering the country illegally or overstaying in the city-state, the Sunday Times reported.

So little appreciation for those that have done so much.

[KantoSooner]

India''s middle class is growing faster than anywhere outside of Brazil.

Don't forget that many of our grandparents here in 'Merica lived in what would today be referred to as poverty.

And that many of them were immigrants.

[okie52]

Middle class as compared to whom...other Indians that make $1.25 a day?

Being poor isn't a crime nor is being ignorant or unskilled or having 15 babies. But it also isn't whom a country should be recruiting to create millions of jobs, be self supporting or be a high tax revenue generator.

Unskilled and uneducated immigrants could fill a need for cheap labor as long as when the work is finished they high tail it back to their motherland....or mandate that their employers will be responsible for their costs while they are present in the US so it won't burden taxpayers.

Now if you want to talk about educated H-1B Indians immigrating to the US then that is a whole different story.

[olevetonahill]

If ya caint Dazzle em with Brilliance , Baffle em with Bull sh8it,

[rock on sooner]

If ya caint Dazzle em with Brilliance , Baffle em with Bull sh8it,

Hey, Vet, that's Econ 101! Ya gits a gold star!:highly_amused:

[KantoSooner]

Okie, what I refer to in 'middle class' is roughly as follows:

Own your own home. Said home to be above 250 sq ft per person living there. (there will be outliers. No one could deny that the Japanese are kind of middle class, yet average floor space for a 4 person dwelling is something around 500 sq ft).

Own multiple personal transportation devices. I lean towards requiring that one be a car, but in some metro areas/countries, scooters are simply more desireable.

All school aged offspring in school.

Healthcare taken care of through personal, employer or government insurance.

A savings plan that is actively followed, plus a pension plan that is actively followed.

Active disposable income. Barbecue grills, frivolous clothes, vacation trips, perfume, pets etc.

Trash that includes thrown away food that's not absolutely rotten.

Shopping influenced by brand names.

Participation in 'cultural' events such as public music/dance performances, sports leagues, theatre, debate, lectures etc.

Essentially, graduation from taking care of needs to taking care of those needs with an eye toward personal preference and style and participation in optional self expression.

Acheiving this level of affluence might not strike you as important, but it's what happened in this country as recently as the 1940's and '50's and it has a huge impact on a country's economy and general vibrance.

Keep in mind that acheiving this will require a different absolute income level in almost every country. The simplest analogy would be to compare housing in South Florida to that in Michigan. South Florida homes couldn't even pass code in Michigan, they're pieces of ticky tacky crap. But it never get cold there, so who cares? Further the inflated economies of some places can skew the numbers. $47,000 in Tokyo, for instance, buys a stable, middle class life....but it's one that can be exceeded in virtually any metric by a $30,000 income in NYC. And, I'd argue, by a $15,000 income in Jakarta.

Taking the Indian example specifically, look at places like Bangalore, the so-called Silicon Valley of India. The neighborhoods look like Southern California, including the manicured lawns. Is this all of India? Of course not; but it would have been unthinkable 25 or 50 years ago.There's great change afoot in the 'third world' and many countries are in the midst of making a big leap out of poverty into middle class life. Those that are making this leap tend to be those that embrace the rest of the world rather than huddling in an insular defense of their wonderful traditional culture. India and Pakistan offer a pretty stark example.

We, as a people, have been very open to outside influences for our entire history and it's served us extraordinarily well. Now is not the time to retreat into a misguided, chauvanistic nativism.

[KantoSooner]

Okie, source for above metric is an article that appeared in Far Eastern Economic Review circa 1995. I believe it was written by Nuri Vittachi.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I don't know what is wrong with the Euros...they should be thanking the illegals for helping them to have thriving economies and for the millions of jobs they have created.

And these radicals in Singapore...well, I just don't know what to say about their "immigration policy"....



So little appreciation for those that have done so much.

I don't know Okie, but maybe changing New Mexico's state constitution would be a better tactic than worrying about illegal aliens in Europe.

Was the person excused from the jury an illegal alien?



The Albuquerque Journal reported that the state's Constitution "shall never be restricted, abridged or impaired on account of … (the) inability to speak, read or write the English or Spanish languages."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/13/non-english-speakers-can-be-jurors-new-mexico-court-says/?test=latestnews#ixzz2c39QTTOY

[olevetonahill]

I don't know Okie, but maybe changing New Mexico's state constitution would be a better tactic than worrying about illegal aliens in Europe.

Was the person excused from the jury an illegal alien?

Heh, jaun, we need more messicans like these 2 :cocksure:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/robbers-arrested-being-told-come-033200700.html

[yermom]

one doesn't have to be an immigrant to be hispanic or speak something other than English in New Mexico. this is just another thread that gets back to certain people's favorite thing to blame the all of the ills of the country on

[okie52]

Kanto,



The myth of the great Indian Middle class: Roughly 30 per cent of India's population still lives below the poverty line

WHAT INDIA OWNS
■ Bicycles: 44.8% ■ Car/jeep/van: 4.7%
■ Computer/laptop: 9.5%
■ Computer/laptop with internet: 3.1%
■ Computer/laptop without internet: 6.3%
■ Radio/transistor: 19.9%
■ Scooter/motorcycle/ moped: 21%
■ Telephone/mobile phone: 63.2%
■ Both telephone and mobile phone: 6%
■ Landline only: 4% ■ Mobile only: 53.2%
■ TV: 47.2%
■ TV, computer/laptop, telephone/mobile phone, scooter/car: 4.6%
■ None of the specified assets available: 17.8%


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2327182/The-myth-great-Indian-Middle-class-Roughly-30-Indias-population-lives-poverty-line.html#ixzz2c33xszOq


Only 4.6% of Indians own a TV, computer, phone and scooter/jeep. Certainly not a big deal for even most poor people in the US. I dare say by US standards a large part of India's middle class would be poor...maybe even very poor.

I point this out not to disparage India's progress but to show they have a very long way to go.

But more to the point is the debate over immigration. You seem to support the concept of any immigrant that wants to come to the US should be allowed to do so regardless of the needs of the country or even what harm it might do to the country.

And, by the way, US has had immigration restrictions in the past. From 1921-1965 there was an immigration law that restricted eastern europeans immigration. There have been others, too.

As I have said in the past, the US grants citizenship to over 750,000 immigrants per year, LEGALLY...by far the most in the world. Unfortunately, the majority of these citizenships are for family reunifications for relatives south of the border and therefore the US is not receiving near the "diversity" it should be nor are we receiving the best and the brightest through this process. A much wiser approach would be to balance the needs of the country for greater immigration diversity rather than just one ethnic group south of the border and to recruit educated, highly skilled immigrants.

Now who do you think will generate more jobs, create higher tax revenues and be self sufficient, a highly educated/skilled immigrant or an uneducated low skilled one?

There is also the population aspect that must be considered (although it isn't). There is nothing appealing to me about China, India, and/or Japan because they are overpopulated. China and Japan have seen their populations slow or decline in recent years but it is way too late IMO. India's continued population growth is incredibly stupid and short sighted and has not been addressed by most Indian politicians. These countries natural resources cannot sustain them.

Nobody (or not me anyway) has been promoting ending legal immigration. I'm fine with 750,000 a year as long as the needs of the country are being addressed rather than some chaotic approach that ignores reason under the banner of "we are a nation of immigrants".

[okie52]

one doesn't have to be an immigrant to be hispanic or speak something other than English in New Mexico. this is just another thread that gets back to certain people's favorite thing to blame the all of the ills of the country on

Kudos to those citizens that are bilingual or multilingual as long as English is one of their languages. If not, where did they go to school?

[okie52]

I don't know Okie, but maybe changing New Mexico's state constitution would be a better tactic than worrying about illegal aliens in Europe.

Was the person excused from the jury an illegal alien?

juan, you're late to the conversation.

I was just pointing out that many countries around the world are having trouble with illegal immigration...not just the US.

[KantoSooner]

Okie, we're conflating several debates at cost to all. On immigration, we need it, it needs to be legal and we need to deal with those here illegally. We argue over how to do that, but on fundamentals, no argument. Our illegal immigrant problems, in my view, flow from having very close to no effective policy rather than a restrictive or permissive one. I am not an open borders guy, neither do lean toward the crypto racism that infuses so much anti-illegal passion (I do not condemn you as such, but you have to admit that it's a big part of the emotion behind the debate).
On diversity, I will hold with the basic concept that a culturally diverse society will kick the hell out of a non-diverse one across the board. And I'll still cite the example of India vs. Pakistan as an excellent test case.
Your numbers on India are accurate for all I know, but they ignore the movement made and the trend lines. I'll put my bet on the more diverse India vs the culturally pure Pakistan anyday. And I think the example has causative lessons that hold in general. I think we are a more productive and innovative place to live than Europe, for example, with their relatively more homogenous societies.

I agree that I'd rather live in the US than anywhere I can think of. That's why I'm here. Close behind would be Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Notice a trend? That said, it's important to see and recognize what has happened in the last 30 years in numerous places in the 'third world'. If you combine China, India and SE Asia, you come up with a total populatin of some 3.5 biliion people. Half of all humans alive today. And, mostly, they are pretty normal folks. The majority that I encountered were strongly in favor of beer and barbecue and standing around the grill saying, basically, "Yep", "U Huh", "Yer Right" to each other while the kids screamed and ran around. Now, that grill might be on the sidewalk of some noisome city, but still. And here's the cool thing: in the last 30 years, over 500 million of them have graduated from waking up each day to the challenge of getting the necessaries to shopping in malls. This is perhaps the biggest mega-trend event in our lifetimes.
Things could be much better, but the trend is definitely in the right direction.

[SoonerNomad]

I am going to have to do some research on New Mexico law, including looking up the actual text of the New Mexico decision, but here in Arizona our legislature has specifically addressed this issue by statute.

Read A.R.S. § 21-202(B)(3). Jurors have to understand English to participate.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/21/00202.htm&Title=21&DocType=ARS

[okie52]

Okie, we're conflating several debates at cost to all. On immigration, we need it, it needs to be legal and we need to deal with those here illegally. We argue over how to do that, but on fundamentals, no argument. Our illegal immigrant problems, in my view, flow from having very close to no effective policy rather than a restrictive or permissive one. I am not an open borders guy, neither do lean toward the crypto racism that infuses so much anti-illegal passion (I do not condemn you as such, but you have to admit that it's a big part of the emotion behind the debate).
On diversity, I will hold with the basic concept that a culturally diverse society will kick the hell out of a non-diverse one across the board. And I'll still cite the example of India vs. Pakistan as an excellent test case.
Your numbers on India are accurate for all I know, but they ignore the movement made and the trend lines. I'll put my bet on the more diverse India vs the culturally pure Pakistan anyday. And I think the example has causative lessons that hold in general. I think we are a more productive and innovative place to live than Europe, for example, with their relatively more homogenous societies.

I agree that I'd rather live in the US than anywhere I can think of. That's why I'm here. Close behind would be Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Notice a trend? That said, it's important to see and recognize what has happened in the last 30 years in numerous places in the 'third world'. If you combine China, India and SE Asia, you come up with a total populatin of some 3.5 biliion people. Half of all humans alive today. And, mostly, they are pretty normal folks. The majority that I encountered were strongly in favor of beer and barbecue and standing around the grill saying, basically, "Yep", "U Huh", "Yer Right" to each other while the kids screamed and ran around. Now, that grill might be on the sidewalk of some noisome city, but still. And here's the cool thing: in the last 30 years, over 500 million of them have graduated from waking up each day to the challenge of getting the necessaries to shopping in malls. This is perhaps the biggest mega-trend event in our lifetimes.
Things could be much better, but the trend is definitely in the right direction.

We probably have merged too many issues although they are somwhat related.

I am not advocating a culturally pure society for the US or any country for that matter. The issues I see with Pakistan are more due to the same issues I see with Afghanistan...a religiously driven, corrupt political system that retards economic growth and technological advancement rather than some cultural purity (alone) being the retarding influence...although the two are probably connected.

My angle is probably different than most with regards to immigration. I believe in reduced populations worldwide as well as in the US. 150,000,000 seems like a good number for me as far as the sustainable size of the US. I want the US (and the world for that matter) to have plenty of living space, food, water, energy, etc...But I also recognize that with a reduced population we will need to import outside talent....much like OU has to do in recruiting TX to stay competitive...at least until the world population drops proportionately. It doesn't particularly matter to me where our "recruits" come from as long as they fill needs for the country.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

juan, you're late to the conversation.

I was just pointing out that many countries around the world are having trouble with illegal immigration...not just the US.

Ok, sorry, I thought this thread was about something different.

[okie52]

Ok, sorry, I thought this thread was about something different.


Like most threads, at one time it was about something different.

[SoonerNomad]

SanJoaquin Sooner. I read the text of the decision and the excused juror was not an illegal alien. It was an American citizen that spoke English but was not comfortable with all the legal jargon and admitted such at one point during jury selection and was excused. Defense objected, but only on basis that it appeared the juror understood English well enough to keep going and not on the constitutional issue of spanish speaking juror's right to participate and probably, more importantly, the defendant's right to have a spanish speaking person on the jury.

[yermom]

Kudos to those citizens that are bilingual or multilingual as long as English is one of their languages. If not, where did they go to school?

in your rage over what ever you are raging about, i think you are reading this differently than i am:


The Albuquerque Journal reported that the state's Constitution "shall never be restricted, abridged or impaired on account of … (the) inability to speak, read or write the English or Spanish languages."


so say you have a bunch of jurors/and or defendants that speak Spanish. should the juror that only speaks English be dismissed?

is someone less of a citizen if their descendents lived in New Mexico before it was New Mexico and they didn't learn English?

i'm not saying that's a good idea, but i can see it happening. but what do you suggest? forced assimilation?

[okie52]

in your rage over what ever you are raging about, i think you are reading this differently than i am:



so say you have a bunch of jurors/and or defendants that speak Spanish. should the juror that only speaks English be dismissed?

is someone less of a citizen if their descendents lived in New Mexico before it was New Mexico and they didn't learn English?

i'm not saying that's a good idea, but i can see it happening. but what do you suggest? forced assimilation?

Rage? I didn't have any rage I was just reading your post:


Originally Posted by yermom View Post
one doesn't have to be an immigrant to be hispanic or speak something other than English in New Mexico. this is just another thread that gets back to certain people's favorite thing to blame the all of the ills of the country on

If they are a citizen (since we are eliminating immigrants in your post) they would have either learned English through Naturalization or been taught it in school....well, unless it was through Reagan's amnesty 27 years ago and what a fine example of assimilation that would be.

If someone's descendents lived in New Mexico before it was a state it would probably make them well over 120 years old...I doubt they were up for jury selection.

I'm just trying to understand how a "citizen" lives in this country for any length of time and hasn't learned English...assuming he went to school in the states or was naturalized which requires them to have a grasp of English.

[KantoSooner]

Okie, I'm really not trying to poke up the fire here, but there are communities in Louisiana and Maine that speak French everywhere except in school. And I know that over in the Hill Country in Texas, there is still, I think, a daily newspaper printed in German.
I admit you'd have to be a special kind of stubborn to not learn English if you're going to live your whole life in the middle of an English speaking population, but I"m sure we can both ID at least few so stubborn known to both of us.

[okie52]

Kanto, I truly applaud bilingual/multilingual capabilities. I keep procrastinating about learning Spanish myself. I don't have a problem with people speaking other languages wherever they want unless it would be in an area where one form of communication was necessary...like the military...government...school...etc...

[KantoSooner]

Okie, I"m not against against that either. I'd only modify it, a bit, in the event a local government wanted to make alternative application forms, for example, available in alternative languages. For that government's convenience.

Example, let's say you had parking permits in Miami and wanted to print them in German as well as English to accomodate German tourists. Or applications for yard trash removal in suburban Honolulu and wanted to be bilingual in Japanese.I'd let the local government make up their own minds on that. It would not be a 'right' but the locals would have the ability to be flexible if they thought it was worth their while.

PS on the language thing, I had several employers spend good money trying to train me. Nothing worked until I was alone as the only American/English speaker in a bachelor's dorm. I got a girlfriend who spoke no English. Suddenly I started to learn. "it's a Miracle!"

[yermom]

Rage? I didn't have any rage I was just reading your post:



If they are a citizen (since we are eliminating immigrants in your post) they would have either learned English through Naturalization or been taught it in school....well, unless it was through Reagan's amnesty 27 years ago and what a fine example of assimilation that would be.

If someone's descendents lived in New Mexico before it was a state it would probably make them well over 120 years old...I doubt they were up for jury selection.

I'm just trying to understand how a "citizen" lives in this country for any length of time and hasn't learned English...assuming he went to school in the states or was naturalized which requires them to have a grasp of English.

i guess i inserted immigrant to the original post, but the idea is the same. you can be culturally 3rd generation Mexican, basically and live in New Mexico and be a native citizen.

[okie52]

i guess i inserted immigrant to the original post, but the idea is the same. you can be culturally 3rd generation Mexican, basically and live in New Mexico and be a native citizen.

If you were an 80 year old native citizen it would mean you were born in New Mexico roughly 20 years after statehood or about 1932. You would have been schooled in the late 30's and 40's. How would you miss English in school?

[yermom]

school is irrelevant. they could have gone to school in Indonesia and later get elected POTUS

[okie52]

Okie, I"m not against against that either. I'd only modify it, a bit, in the event a local government wanted to make alternative application forms, for example, available in alternative languages. For that government's convenience.

Example, let's say you had parking permits in Miami and wanted to print them in German as well as English to accomodate German tourists. Or applications for yard trash removal in suburban Honolulu and wanted to be bilingual in Japanese.I'd let the local government make up their own minds on that. It would not be a 'right' but the locals would have the ability to be flexible if they thought it was worth their while.

PS on the language thing, I had several employers spend good money trying to train me. Nothing worked until I was alone as the only American/English speaker in a bachelor's dorm. I got a girlfriend who spoke no English. Suddenly I started to learn. "it's a Miracle!"

I'm really not against a community having the option of printing bilingual documents if it makes economic sense to do so....as you say not a "right' but an economic decision. I'd do it in my business if it made sense and in some cases it would.

Having the right language teacher can make the course "stimulating"...

[okie52]

school is irrelevant. they could have gone to school in Indonesia and later get elected POTUS

Heh, well, true... but he does speak English....

[cleller]

Heh, well, true... but he does speak English....

...with forked tongue.

(rimshot, cymbal)

[KantoSooner]

Having the right language teacher can make the course "stimulating"...

My boss at the time almost wept when he thought of the money spent and reflected that all they'd really needed to do was give me some date money on Thursday and let nature take its course.

[Soonerjeepman]

one doesn't have to be an immigrant to be hispanic or speak something other than English in New Mexico. this is just another thread that gets back to certain people's favorite thing to blame the all of the ills of the country on

no it wasn't...I started it because it blew me away that we would allow ANYONE who CANNOT read, speak or write the majority language of this country...and then throw in spanish due to the location. THAT is why I started it...and yes the frickin libs just want to keep on adding to this $hit.

[FaninAma]

Nobody should be forced to learn English just as nobody should be forced to get an education or do anything that helps improve their chances of being successful economically in this country. But then the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to turn around and subsidized this type of self-imposed ignorance.

[KantoSooner]

You're right Fanin, but then you've got to take it the next step. Are we willing to live with the predictable consequences of that stance? Are you willing to step over the dead and dying on city streets? Or would that bum your trip to the point where you'd throw some money in a hat to provide for a potter's field and some guys to drag off the corpses of those too....whatever to take care of themselves?

I am no lover of the nanny state, but it's a finer line than most of us would like to admit.

[okie52]

...with forked tongue.

(rimshot, cymbal)


heh heh...

[FaninAma]

You're right Fanin, but then you've got to take it the next step. Are we willing to live with the predictable consequences of that stance? Are you willing to step over the dead and dying on city streets? Or would that bum your trip to the point where you'd throw some money in a hat to provide for a potter's field and some guys to drag off the corpses of those too....whatever to take care of themselves?

I am no lover of the nanny state, but it's a finer line than most of us would like to admit.

Kanto, if they aren't motivated to correct their status of self-imposed ignorance then maybe it should fall under the category of natural selection.

I seriously doubt that there would be mass starvation or homelessness in this country without a total collapse of our economy and if that happens I
suspect there will not be enough taxpayer funds to prevent such occurrences. BTW, was there mass starvation and bodies lying in the street during
the Great Depression? If there was I guess I missed that lecture in my history classes. And remember FDR's Great Society didn't get enacted until after
the Great Depression. My mother's family lived in some of the poorest areas of Oklahoma during the Great Depression which was probably also some of
most severely impacted areas economically. She has never reported any cases of mass starvation or bodies lying in the street even in Gotebo, Oklahoma.

Scare tactics as a form of debate should be saved for those who make decisions based purely on emotion.

Now, let me ask you a question. What are you going to do with all the broken families, neglected children and wasted lives that resulted from a multi-
generational dependency on government handouts and the loss of self-reliance and pride these programs have destroyed in large segments of our society?
Any healthcare problem or psychological problem(including substance abuse) is much higher among those of the lower class and the risk of being in the lower is increased by being entrapped by dependency on the government.

[KantoSooner]

Calm down there, boyo; my comments were not an attack.

What I am saying is that we are not going to have a purist situation one way or the other. When we, and the Europeans had as close to pure capitalism as we're likely to see, in the 1890's or so, we did have pretty severe numbers of folks who simply died and were hauled off to so-called potter's fields. Several of them still exist as 'retired' cemetaries in and around NYC if you look. The original book version Gang's of New York (which was a scholarly work distinct from the movie) covers a lot of this along with statistics regarding numbers of bodies picked up daily by the NYPD.

But I'm not using that to support any particular point of view, only to urge you to back off from an unworkable and inflexible fundamentalism.

Because the alternative is no solution, either. We can't have a permanent (or even too much of a temporary) nanny state without, at the very least, continued huge deficits. The moral decay argument is a reach in my view. Governmental impact on morals is a chancy argument and one I'm not sure you really want to base much upon. Do you really want to posit government as productive of a society's moral compass? I sure don't.

Where we are today is in a situation that is crying out for rational solutions....at a time when our political class is locked in junior highschool level philosophical slanging matches and half bright parliamentary manuevering.

[FaninAma]

Kanto, it is not fundamentalism to expect a higher level of personal responsibility and less expectations that society will come in and rescue you for continuous poor personal decisions.

Live your life as you want but don't expect others to bail you out for bad decisions especially if you keep making the same bad decisions over and over again. I wouldn't do it for my kids after they are grown and I sure as hell don't want to do it for adult strangers.

And throwing out a scenario of starving people on the streets is not a legitimate line of argument.

BTW, I wasn't upset at the post in question just surprised that you deviated from your usual smooth, logical, fact-supported style of debating.

[KantoSooner]

Purity would demand no pulbic support for anyone. I'm all for it in a number of cases. Crippled veterans. Retarded people. Some guy who gets whacked in a car accident and is permanently messed up and then runs out of insurance. People born with physical issues that mean they can't work or can't work enough to make ends meet. And so forth and so on.
The point here is not to catelog each and every circumstance in which public support is justified or to argue over what type of support is called for but to break the unreasoning hard line.
Government is a messy process, like most human things. I don't imagine most congressional committee rooms are much more uplifting than most PTA meetings. But that's what we get for being human.
We need to embrance that and dump the hard-left, hard-right dichotomy. It's not acheiving anything other than making talk radio guru's rich.

[FaninAma]

The examples you have cited are not applicable to the individuals I am talking about because those you listed find themselves in their unfortunate positions not because of personal choice or poor decisions but accidents and events they had no control over. They are there because of misfortune and accidents. Big difference.

Examples of poor choice(IMO): Not completing your education. Deeming entry level jobs are beneath you or choosing not to work when physically and mentally able.. Refusing to learn the language of the country you have chosen to live in. Deciding or not trying to prevent having multiple off-spring when you know you cannot support them without food stamps and other public assistance. Allowing yourself to fall prey to substance abuse. Accepting public assistance without making the effort to improve your personal condition or worse, repeating the choices that got you in that position in the first place.

The fact is Kanto, nobody will have to scream and shout about the abuses much longer because the ability of "we the people" to correct the shortcomings of our welfare and economic system is little to none anyway.. The economic condition and economic principles of our country will eventually take care of a system that has allowed itself to become so large and rife with abuse. Hard economic facts will eventually correct most of the problems not any personal code of ethics or political principle.

[KantoSooner]

Fanin,
I used my examples precisely because they would be non-controversial. Of course we'd take care of the mentally challenged orphan. And virtually no sane person not raised by wolves would argue with throwing their share into the pot to cover the cost. But you have to admit that that act would be a break with doctrinaire self reliance theory. Thus, we'd be in a world of compromise and debating where to place lines, rather than the existance of such lines in the first place.

And that is pretty much my core beef with the whole current generation of government critics from the right. They attempt, in my evaluation, to create some impossible world in which all things are defined and somehow programmed so that no flexibility, or thought, is involved in decision making. I find that to be unachievable and also morally wrong.

As to the observation that none of this matters anyway because everything is so ****ed up that we won't have the wherewithal to execute on any decisions anyway, I give you the answer that I gave the religious zanies convinced the rapture was coming, "Can I have your stuff after this apocalypse?" Problems we have amany, we also have a very functional election system (though it kicks out febrile idiots on a depressingly routine basis. Mary Fallin. Nancy Pellosi. Harry Reid. Sarah Palin. Et al. ) And we have the world's largest economy, the world's reserve currency, we own most international institutions and a biggish chunk or our debt (though not the majority) is owed to foreigners. We're far from collapse and we would chew away contentedly for a generation or more even if the whole thing went in a ditch. (And, if we did so, Ireland would have already descended into utter devastation by decades.) So, basically, I discount the dire predictions of economic armaggedon. We'll futz around and make things worse for a while more. And then we'll make decisions that will be more painful then than they would have been now.

[FaninAma]

So, do we keep spending ourselves and our kids into oblivion ignoring human nature? Do we continue to lurch from economic crisis to economic crisis because of the attempts by a handful of "experts" to control us economically and manipulate our government based on failed policies? And most importantly, do we continue to engage in military intervention across the globe in order to prop up our current corporate-fascist state?

The lessons are there to be learned from the first settlements on this continent in which the edict that those who don't work don't eat saved the settlements from destruction right down to the implosion of the former USSR which was supposed to be a socialist utopia in which all would be taken care of according to their needs.

There are a lot of people right now looking at those who are gaming and overutililizing the social safety net and wondering why they should keep playing by the rules.I know because I talk to them everyday. They do not understand why theyshould keep working hard and having more and more taken away from them in the name of fairness so others can continue to engage in making poor life decisions without suffering the consequences.

You seem to be saying that we can't change our current system based on nothing but emotion when you above most should understand that policies and programs ran based on pure emotion are usually disasters. I trust that some tough decisions will alter the race to a more and more irresponsible and dependent society.

and I certainly don't give the establishment GOP a pass either because they are just as culpable in our current economic plight via their subsidization of corporate greed.

[KantoSooner]

So, do we keep spending ourselves and our kids into oblivion ignoring human nature? Do we continue to lurch from economic crisis to economic crisis because of the attempts by a handful of "experts" to control us economically and manipulate our government based on failed policies? And most importantly, do we continue to engage in military intervention across the globe in order to prop up our current corporate-fascist state?

**Probably about right. Except that a) we don't have nearly the fullblown 'corporate-fascist' state that you believe. (and it's not even within a time zone or two. and, no we're not going to debate that here. You want to go into that, we'll have to start a dedicated thread.) and b) we do face real consequences to continued deficit spending, so it's kind of self-regulating, but not in the fall-off-the-edge sense of self-regulating. More along the lines of late 1970's interest rates self-regulating. And that was when people had to buy Audi's instead of Beemers, so I don't foresee Western Civilization collapsing.

The lessons are there to be learned from the first settlements on this continent in which the edict that those who don't work don't eat saved the settlements from destruction right down to the implosion of the former USSR which was supposed to be a socialist utopia in which all would be taken care of according to their needs.

**Well, other than the fact that what saved those colonies was the largess of their neighboring indian tribes in teaching the coloniest how to farm and giving them lots of food until they mastered basic survival skills, I like your historical vein. But don't stop with attacking materialism in the USSR. The primary flaw in communism (and don't let anyone tell you 'It's never been tried!") has very little to do with their idiocy in resource management and more with their failure to realize that human nature can not be remade to suit political planners.

There are a lot of people right now looking at those who are gaming and overutililizing the social safety net and wondering why they should keep playing by the rules.I know because I talk to them everyday. They do not understand why theyshould keep working hard and having more and more taken away from them in the name of fairness so others can continue to engage in making poor life decisions without suffering the consequences.

**And it'll continue to be a debate forever, largely because we will always have free loaders and it'll always make more sense (and be cheaper, too) to accept some level of free loading vs attempting to create the illusory perfectly fair system.

You seem to be saying that we can't change our current system based on nothing but emotion when you above most should understand that policies and programs ran based on pure emotion are usually disasters. I trust that some tough decisions will alter the race to a more and more irresponsible and dependent society.

**Some people will always be dependent and irresponsible. Good parents can have rotten kids. No governmental system is going to change this. We need to accept that point, and move along with the best system we can put together and not waste time with our panties in a twist.

and I certainly don't give the establishment GOP a pass either because they are just as culpable in our current economic plight via their subsidization of corporate greed.

**But it's understandable that they do what they do. About all I can see that might help is to lessen the need for/impact of campaign money.

[FaninAma]

**But it's understandable that they do what they do. About all I can see that might help is to lessen the need for/impact of campaign money.

i couldn't sgree with you more, friend.

[KantoSooner]

But even that is slippery.

Let's say we restrict a candidate to $X in spend for his/her campaign. How do we put a brake on what others spend on their behalf? And how do you link a third party's spend to a given candidate? We can all do it pretty much in our heads, but when it comes down to preventing a person from spending their own money as they wish, you need to have a tight and defensible legal definition of what is and isn't permissible.

And we'd get at least momentarily hung up on the definition of 'person' (though we could solve that quickly in my opinion) and 'speech' and the like.

But, when we spend billions to run for President, it's gone too far. No candidate is so complex nor are the list of critical issues long enough to justify that level of spend.

[FaninAma]

In addition, the average voter has just so much attention span to process information to make a reasonable decsion. I think the problem once again is that most people don't have the capability to sit down and prioritize the issues that are really important to them. For these individuals making an emotional choice is much easier and a whole lot less demanding.

Personally as a physician I would benefit greatly(and probably will from the ACA) if the government throws even more money at healthcare, especially children's healthcare. But I also realize the country cannot keep spending money it doesn't have because eventually it will or has already started damaging our economy and nation. This will in turn hurt my children's chances of being successful and having the same or better quality of life that I had.

I also see the effects on people as they succumb to the dependency mentality encouraged by the left. Pride and self-reliance are good qualities despite the effort of the Democrats to convince people otherwise like they are currently doing in many of their SNAP program outreach efforts.

[KantoSooner]

Tend to agree, but even there, you find squishiness. For instance, do I really care why a kid is hungry? Well, yes, I do if I want to solve the problem long term. But, in the short term, no, I really don't. I want to feed that kid and make sure we don't end up with a permanent problem because the kid is hungry, can't focus on his/her school work and thus gets permanently handicapped in life. It's in MY self interest to feed that kid. Correcting his parents' work ethic is utterly a side issue at the tactical level.

The question is not really do we or don't we, but how we do social programs and how we manage them.

[sooner46]

Let’s see if I have this right.

The two states that I have lived in pay jurors five dollars a day. All of those that do not speak English will need translators at $25 to $50 an hour. After every question they would need stop and let the translators state the question, then after the answer the same. Yes, I know what they do at the UN, but are we going to set up those systems up in every court room in America. Let’s see a three week trail will then take six to nine weeks at the tax payer expense. By the way in those states the lawyers can only reject so many then they have to take all.

I do not care what color ones skin is. We must all be able communicate if we live in the same country. The movie “The Postman” is a good example of that; once they started to communicate they came back together.

On the subject above this post.

We need to go back to that rule “If you do not work, you do not eat” (There are some exceptions). For all of those who say that is not every Christian of you that statement is straight out of the bible.

Yes, the bible states I am supposed to help others, but that does not mean raising them. Children are not the in that statement, of course we take care of them. It is the lazy parents (All races) that can starve they have chosen their path. We have spent so much money training people for jobs. We have required that if they want money for food they have to take the training. Well they have taken the training but still will not work. The bible speaks about lazy people also. There is a difference in needing temporary help and just being lazy.