RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread

RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

TomTurn -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/20/2008 12:16:23 PM)
quote: and guilty of cherry-picking the most positive definition you could find: the one that is simply synonymous with patriotism. I was thinking more in terms of: "jingoism. The support of one nation's interests to the exclusion of others." Nationalism (to be a nationalist) "Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation". - Guilty "The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals." - Guilty for the most part "Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination". - Who could be against that? jingoism "Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism." - I do not believe in a belligerent foreign policy but I for sure believe the U.S. is the greatest Nation in the world to live in (and a bilion or more who want to come here seem to agree). quote: "Mark this date down and in 5 years from today what you are going to see over California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona is a new flag of a Mexican styled Palestinian nation. Not that it will be that but it will be claimed as that. Trust me, the numbers are here, protests are already happening and will soon be followed by more agitation and then violence. And if anyone thinks the bad element in Mexico and Central/South America will not join hands with the bad islamic element, I would ask them to think again. Mexico has never been an ally with the U.S. Even in WWII they allowed German spies to operate within the country. There has been a rif since the 1840's and it will get worse and soon. Has been a long time coming." ....... Such obvious fear-mongering can only be rooted in xenophobia. fear mongering: "is the use of fear to leverage the opinions and actions of others towards some end. The object of fear is exaggerated; those the fear is directed toward are kept aware of it on a constant basis." I made a prediction and have given the proof (which you partialy even led yourself to) as I see it. Want to call that fear mongering, ok, but it is not. Just my prediction that one can accept or not. xenophobia "A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples" Once again by my words I have shown it is not xenophobia. Earlier it was mentioned about the Japanese wrongly emplaced in internment camps and many of those going on to fight in the war. Were they xenophobia if they believed the Japanese nation wanted to dominate the U.S.. Is it xenophobia if an immgrant to the U.S. from Mexcio or citizen by birth but of Mexican heratige believes that the "Mexcian styled Palestine" could and might be made? If they spoke about it forcefully, were or are they "fear mongers"? quote: I'll grant you this. Mexico's internal problems are definitely part of the equation here. And it will never improve until something is forced for them to change within. And part of that is a secure, respected and conrtrolled Southern U.S. border quote: Why would I want to see something that is not evident in someone whom I do not even know? No, it is precisely because of what I did see in your words-- the obvious fear-mongering, etc. -- that caused me to draw some conclusions, albeit hastily. And I have shown you how your words were wrong (my supposed use of immigrant in a slur way and other words) and you are wrong about "fear mongering' quote: The kind of paranoia I am talking about is an exaggerated mistrust of others, usually for flimsy reasons. But I do not have an exaggerated mistrust of others and have shown that repeatedly. A prediction based on facts is not "mistrust of others", it is a prediction. quote: Now, you may consider your reasons perfectly sound, but I happen to disagree. And I respect that quote: To me, you just seem paranoid about a Mexican Palestine. Once again, have stated facts (such as when polled 58% of Mexcians believe the S.W. of America belongs to mexico) and that is not paranoia quote: I agree that there are those Mexicans on both sides of the border who are nationalistic enough to desire what you claim, but I don't see any signs of it coming to pass any time in the foreseeable future, much less five years. And I respect that and even had to change my prediction. If illegal immigration is allowed to continue, given the wink and nod, most likely will not happen in 5 years. But if the U.S. takes a strong stand on the border and illegal imigration, as it should, than I can see it happening in 5 years. quote: It is certainly no reason for the "deport 'em all and seal the borders" mentality so often voiced by various factions in the Southwest . I agree. quote: Mexico is not responsible for our national security. Has been a long time since I have read the treaty in full and do not have time to do so now but if I am not mistaken there is an agreement that each side will secure its borders from harm of the other. But could be wrong and if so, still one would think an "ally" of ours would be interested in our national security. Hence another reason to my claim that Mexico is not an "ally" to the U.S. quote: Furthermore, I don't know what their laws are regarding freedom of religion and activism. Here in the U.S. they are at least guaranteed the ability to voice their views. Which is why we allowed such things as flying the U.S flag upside down under the Mexcian one and the police protected the people removing the U.S flag in Maywood and replaceing it with a mexican flag. (both photos I linked to and which casued more concern that I linked to them rather than the act) quote: Maybe we should be the ones taking action and setting an example by truncating basic civil liberties thereby knocking Mexican-American nationalists off of their soapboxes. A reason the "immigration protests" of a couple of years ago (held on May Day, how appropo) were held and a backfire for them, for now. It will come up again and stronger and I see it fitting into my 5 year prediction if the U.S. reamins strong on no illegal immigration and making self deportation the best and or only option. quote: Heck, the current administration has already crippled the Bill of Rights beyond all reason as it is; it's just a short step to doing away with them altogether. Another issue for another discussion, this one has already went way off Sheriff Joe and the N word cadet. quote: Mexico is not responsible for our national security. .... All the more reason to have a very secure border between the two countries... ..... Perhaps, but this actually was not TomTurn's point. Yes it is, as said above, an "ally", especially one who borders us, would be concerned about or national security. Mexico on a whole has shown it is not. The U.S. dollars continuing to flow into Mexcio based on illegal acts, seems to trump any concern they have for our national security. What will happen if that flow is slowed greatly? A possible claim to land? quote: Yes. All immigrants, whether documented or not, have their freedom of speech safeguarded by the 1st Amendment. The case could be both made for and against the 1st amendment to covering thoes in the country illegally. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" One defintion of "the people" would be "The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate." and could be used against. Another defintion is "A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality" and could be made for. We as a nation have picked it is allowed. quote: Civil liberties in our country do not apply soley to U.S. citizens. We allow anyone the liberty/right to self defense but at the same time we do not allow firearm ownership/posession to those in the U.S. illegally. Anyway, calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" Plus, to be an "immigrant' one would have to be making a choice to remain in this country and not return to living in the country they came from. That is not the case with all you label as "undocumented"

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/20/2008 4:46:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TomTurn Who could be against that? You're against Mexican nationalism when it comes to their "Palestinian" activism. quote: I do not believe in a belligerent foreign policy but I for sure believe the U.S. is the greatest Nation in the world to live in (and a bilion or more who want to come here seem to agree). Isn't the U.S. going to have to get more belligerent if the situation is to become closer to your liking? quote: I made a prediction and have given the proof (which you partialy even led yourself to) as I see it. Want to call that fear mongering, ok, but it is not. Just my prediction that one can accept or not. Fine; however, your verbal expression seemed to resemble McCarthy-esque hyperbole to me. It seemed more fear-based than fact-based. quote: Is it xenophobia if an immgrant to the U.S. from Mexcio or citizen by birth but of Mexican heratige believes that the "Mexcian styled Palestine" could and might be made? Let's put it this way: do American self-styled "militia" groups give you the same heebie jeebies when they talk about the need to overthrow the government in favor of their intolerant ideologies? My guess is, no. Otherwise, you'd be talking about it. quote: And part of that is a secure, respected and conrtrolled Southern U.S. border You mean secured and controlled from their side as well as ours? Sure. As far as respect goes, we get what we give. quote: Once again, have stated facts (such as when polled 58% of Mexcians believe the S.W. of America belongs to mexico) and that is not paranoia Again, it is also a fact that Khrushchev swore that the Soviet Union would bury the United States, and that world socialism was at hand. Nothing came of it. Sentiment and blustering does not determine the future. quote: But if the U.S. takes a strong stand on the border and illegal imigration, as it should, than I can see it happening in 5 years. So why do you think that the strong border stance is good if it spurs a Mexican-American nationalist movement? quote: Hence another reason to my claim that Mexico is not an "ally" to the U.S. I think that NAFTA pretty much sealed the alliance already. As for the border, both sides seem in need of readdressing the situation. quote: It will come up again and stronger and I see it fitting into my 5 year prediction if the U.S. reamins strong on no illegal immigration and making self deportation the best and or only option. The phrase "closing the barn door after the horses already got out" comes to mind. quote: What will happen if that flow is slowed greatly? A possible claim to land? I am still unclear as to whether or not you advocate this. On the one hand, you gravely warn us of an imminent Mexican American nationalist movement, then on the other hand you want to see implemented the very actions that you are certain will cause the trouble. Do you see what I'm getting at? Can you clarify your position? quote: Anyway, calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" This kind of disparaging comment is why I view you as anti-immigrant. You compare migrant workers without visas to drug dealers, yet you claim to hold no ill will to immigrants? quote: Plus, to be an "immigrant' one would have to be making a choice to remain in this country and not return to living in the country they came from. That is not the case with all you label as "undocumented" Not true. Some do choose to remain, even illegally.

TomTurn -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/20/2008 7:17:31 PM)
quote: You're against Mexican nationalism when it comes to their "Palestinian" activism. That would imply you agree to the claim of the Southwestern U.S. rightfully belonging to Mexcio. Mexico is not under foreign domination from the U.S. quote: Isn't the U.S. going to have to get more belligerent if the situation is to become closer to your liking? If you mean enforcing the border, that is not a belligerent foreign policy. If you mean having to fight against a formation of a "Mexcian styled Palestine" in the U.S. should it come about, that is not a belligerent foreign policy. If you mean enforcing the law in such a way that those in the U.S illegally have to leave, that is not a belligerent foreign policy. It all is U.S. local policy taking place within the bounds of the U.S. border. quote: Fine; however, your verbal expression seemed to resemble McCarthy-esque hyperbole to me. It seemed more fear-based than fact-based. And we can now put that aside quote: Let's put it this way: do American self-styled "militia" groups give you the same heebie jeebies when they talk about the need to overthrow the government in favor of their intolerant ideologies?My guess is, no. Why would I be for that? Unless you are trying to put me into a preconcieved bias you have against people who discuss U.S. / Mexcio realtions, illegal aliens in the U.S from all countries and all the rest. quote: Otherwise, you'd be talking about it Have not discussed the global warming on Mars since it is not the topic of discussion. Nor has it been a dsicussion about "American self-styled militia groups and their need to overthrow the government in favor of their intolerant ideologies". If you desire to discuss "American self-styled militia groups and their need to overthrow the government in favor of their intolerant ideologies", we can. But start it in a different discussion and not as an attempt to redirect this one. quote: You mean secured and controlled from their side as well as ours? Sure. As far as respect goes, we get what we give. How have we not been protecting Mexico's northern border? quote: Again, it is also a fact that Khrushchev swore that the Soviet Union would bury the United States The Soviet Union is not gone. Might be under a different name but its heart is not gone. quote: and that world socialism was at hand. Nothing came of it Is socialism around the world on a decline or rise? quote: So why do you think that the strong border stance is good if it spurs a Mexican-American nationalist movement? Did not say it spurs a Mexican-American nationalist movement, if you are using the term "Mexican-American nationalist movement" as a description of a group of people, I do not use that term. You are either a Mexcian or an American. "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else." - Theodore Roosevelt If you are saying it as seperate Mexican Nationalist movement and Amercian Nationalist movement, then a border is good as it keeps the playing fields defined and each can be proud ot thier country and its accomplishments as a Nation. quote: I think that NAFTA pretty much sealed the alliance already. As for the border, both sides seem in need of readdressing the situation. NAFTA was a joke quote: The phrase "closing the barn door after the horses already got out" comes to mind. Arizona is one of the states already leading the way in showing that if you make employers follow the law, punish when they do not and take the draw away for the person here illegally remain. They will self deport. Arizona Seeing Signs of Flight by [Illegals] Mexico Complains Of Too Many Repatriated Mexicans quote: I am still unclear as to whether or not you advocate this. On the one hand, you gravely warn us of an imminent Mexican American nationalist movement, then on the other hand you want to see implemented the very actions that you are certain will cause the trouble. Do you see what I'm getting at? Can you clarify your position? See above about Mexican American nationalist movement. I advocate a strong border between the U.S and Mexico (and canada and the ocean) that reduces the number of people entering the U.S. illegally to a trickle. I advocate Mexicans working in the U.S. legally. I advocate Americans working in Mexcio legally (I was one of them). I advocate increasing the number of people working either way. I advocate controlled border entry points that are staffed WAY more than they are now. I advocate a seperate Mexico and a seperate U.S. (no north american union based on the european union). And could list much more. If all remains just as it is now, illegal numbers growing, border little to no enforcement, etc., "aztlan, reconquista", for lack of a better term, movements will grow, numbers who think that way about the s.w. belonging to Mexico will grow and this and many other factors that I do not have time to list will push things to the brink and I see a "Mexican styled Palestine" forming. Might be a baby movement but it will be there. Might not be in the 5 years but it will come. And the formation between the bad element in mexico can join with other bad elements, such as bad islam, can easily operate across the border. (and I truly think a lot of people do not know how bad the bad element operating in mexico is) Gunmen dump 5 human heads in bar Nuevo Laredo, just cross the border from the United States, has become one of the most dangerous cities in the world. Mexico police chief [of one week] murder linked to border tunnel Mexican Police Chief Seeks Asylum If the U.S. takes control of the border. Enforces law causing illegals to deport, yada yada. This will be a big hit to the Mexican economy since the money from workers in the U.s sent to Mexcio is thir second largest revenue in teh nation (might have already passed oil). And I see the claim of a "Mexican styled Palestine" happening in 5 years. (i am realy running out of time so let me kind of sum this up) The U.S. has problems, no doubt about it. Mexcio has big problems and has since Santa Anna. Nothing short of reveolution is going to turn it around. And that is a fact known on both sides. It is my firm belief that the U.S gives a wink and nod to the border problems because it keeps that from happening. Or so they think. It does not in my mind and only builds a festering problem more. A North American union wll not stop the problems in Mexico, it will only move those problems more North (the neighborhood theory). In short, and I know it wil be picked apart a bunch, especially becasue I am writing so fast. Most of what I advocated above and could not list all of, will not happen. And I just do not see a way out of the border problem between Mexcio and the U.S. being resolved without physical fighting of some type or a exteme weaking of the U.S. (that still will most likely not solve the problem only delay it) quote: This kind of disparaging comment is why I view you as anti-immigrant. You compare migrant workers without visas to drug dealers, yet you claim to hold no ill will to immigrants? It is not a comparison of people but a comparison of a defintion. You attempt to change the meaning of words intentionally or just do not understand the meaning. I cannot be held responsible for your failure to understand the meaning of a word and I will not ignore an attempt to change their meaning.. An immigrant is a person who immigrates to another country with the plan to settle. A worker is one who comes to work for a time and return to thier homeland (I was a legal worker in Mexcio but not a legal immigrant). I am all for people immigrating to the U.S. to settle or coming to the U.S. to work but legally. I am guilty of being anti-illegal immigrant and anti-illegal worker. quote: "Plus, to be an "immigrant' one would have to be making a choice to remain in this country and not return to living in the country they came from". ..... Not true. Some do choose to remain, even illegally. Are you naturally not understanding of the meaning of words or is this a deliberate decision? If you came under the pretense to work (implying a return), not immigrating and decided to stay, you are by best definition an expatriate seeking permission to settle .... That is about it for the next 2 days to 2 weeks. Work in the woods calls.

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/20/2008 8:08:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 quote: ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe All the more reason to have a very secure border between the two countries... Perhaps, but this actually was not TomTurn's point. Perhaps? One of the FEW real responsibilities of the government is the security of the borders... I believe long before offering free health care to people who broke the law to get across that border� quote: quote: When you say "they" does that include those who are here against the law of the land? John Yes. All immigrants, whether documented or not, have their freedom of speech safeguarded by the 1st Amendment. Civil liberties in our country do not apply soley to U.S. citizens. So it must follow that the laws do as well... So those who are known to have broken the law entering the country should be dealt with, correct? John

mapachito13 -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/21/2008 8:21:49 AM)
Secure borders is a pipe dream! How does one secure 12000 miles of land border with an equal distance of shoreline (not counting AL and HI)? The border with Canada is twice as long as with Mexico and doesn't nearly have the miles of fence that the southern border has. Even with all the surveillance in the south, millions still get through; even groups of people at one time. It is imposssible to secure an area of this size, especially when 30000 troops can not even secure the capital of Iraq with every available military asset.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/21/2008 10:13:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TomTurn That would imply you agree to the claim of the Southwestern U.S. rightfully belonging to Mexcio. No, I was responding to your question about nationalism, "Who could be against that?" to which I responded that you are when it comes to Mexico and the Southwest. quote: Mexico is not under foreign domination from the U.S. Not per se, but I think that many of them are exploited for cheap labor by U.S. businesses on both sides of the border. It's a kind of economic domination for which the U.S. and the U.K. have been notorious throughout the world. quote: If you mean enforcing the border, that is not a belligerent foreign policy. It is enforced with belligerence because racial profiling is a tactic used to harass/detain documented workers and immigrants, American born Latinos, and American born non-Latinos who happen to be too a little too brown, e.g. American Indians. quote: If you mean having to fight against a formation of a "Mexcian styled Palestine" in the U.S. should it come about, that is not a belligerent foreign policy. It is if they were to become politically persecuted. However, if they were to commit acts of true violence, that would be different. quote: If you mean enforcing the law in such a way that those in the U.S illegally have to leave, that is not a belligerent foreign policy. It all is U.S. local policy taking place within the bounds of the U.S. border. Legally-speaking, they already "have to leave." The problem, as I stated before, is the degree to which this is enforced with belligerence. When legals and U.S. citizens are harassed, the law is going too far, imo. quote: And we can now put that aside Meaning what?: that your language isn't McCarthy-esque? It is. quote: Nor has it been a dsicussion about "American self-styled militia groups and their need to overthrow the government in favor of their intolerant ideologies". You missed my point. You worry about a Mexican Palestine, but you don't worry about white, American, self-styled militant hobgoblins setting up their own "Palestine" as it were. Why is this? quote: How have we not been protecting Mexico's northern border? We are both supposed to be protecting it. quote: The Soviet Union is not gone. Might be under a different name but its heart is not gone . . . Is socialism around the world on a decline or rise? The point remains that McCarthy and his ilk were convinced that if things kept going the way they were back 50 years ago, you and I would be addressing each other as comrade and speaking Russian by now. quote: Did not say it spurs a Mexican-American nationalist movement . . . I do not use that term. Then invent your own term, but nonetheless you indicated that increased enforcement of the border and the immigrant/visa laws would hasten the timetable of the Mexcian Palestine, did you not? quote: NAFTA was a joke Yes, and everyone laughed at Ross Perot's warning about NAFTA's resulting "giant sucking sound" out of our southern border, but he wasn't exactly wrong. quote: Arizona is one of the states already leading the way in showing that if you make employers follow the law, punish when they do not and take the draw away for the person here illegally remain. They will self deport. I know about Arizona; that's where I live. You are misled about a couple of things here: 1. Employers are not being punished to any notable degree, unless they happen to be racially-profiled businessmen. 2. The "self-deport" to which you eluded includes non-Latinos, citizens, and documented laborers/immigrants who are leaving, not to Mexico, but to other states because of the slowing economy here in Arizona (not that they are going to find things that much better elsewhere). 3. The population in Arizona naturally undulates due to the influx and outflow of "snowbirds," spring breakers, and tourists. Sometimes the shift is dramatic, thus affecting the demand for labor. quote: If the U.S. takes control of the border. Enforces law causing illegals to deport, yada yada. This will be a big hit to the Mexican economy since the money from workers in the U.s sent to Mexcio is thir second largest revenue in teh nation And this is desirable, in your opinion? quote: And I see the claim of a "Mexican styled Palestine" happening in 5 years. You know, I have been thinking about this and you changed my mind to where I don't entirely disagree. The elements are all in place: an age-old rivalry rekindles a grassroots nationalistic restlessness fed by exploitation by the dominant nation . . . Yeah, I definitely see something brewing. I wouldn't call it "Palestine," but I think I see why you do. quote: It is my firm belief that the U.S gives a wink and nod to the border problems because it keeps that from happening. Actually, it is because the U.S. wishes to continue enjoying the benefits of exploiting cheap Mexican labor and tax asylum. quote: And I just do not see a way out of the border problem between Mexcio and the U.S. being resolved without physical fighting of some type or a exteme weaking of the U.S. (that still will most likely not solve the problem only delay it) As long as the U.S. and the U.K. and other like-minded nations continue the age-old policy of exploitation and teirs monde domination, you are likely correct here. quote: It is not a comparison of people but a comparison of a defintion. . . . A definition of people. I'm not letting you off the hook on this one. quote: I am guilty of being anti-illegal immigrant and anti-illegal worker. Yes you are. You demonize those on the bottom rung of an economic ladder just because they are desparate enough to migrate undocumented. quote: Are you naturally not understanding of the meaning of words or is this a deliberate decision? I have no excuse for this one. I re-read it and I can't even make sense out of what I wrote. Let's just chalk it up as a very embarrasing typo on my part. quote: That is about it for the next 2 days to 2 weeks. Work in the woods calls. Be careful out there. Talk to ya later.

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/21/2008 8:13:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mapachito13 Secure borders is a pipe dream! How does one secure 12000 miles of land border with an equal distance of shoreline (not counting AL and HI)? The border with Canada is twice as long as with Mexico and doesn't nearly have the miles of fence that the southern border has. Even with all the surveillance in the south, millions still get through; even groups of people at one time. They get through because there is nothing more than a token effort... I certaintly didn't argue for "secure" borders, yet there has to be more of an effort... What it taking place now is wrong... quote: It is imposssible to secure an area of this size, especially when 30000 troops can not even secure the capital of Iraq with every available military asset. Having the gear isn't the same as having the ROE's in place to use the gear... And for the record I'd rather have the 30,000 troops on our border than trying to give freedom to people who really don't care to have it... John

mapachito13 -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/22/2008 9:32:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe quote: ORIGINAL: mapachito13 Secure borders is a pipe dream! How does one secure 12000 miles of land border with an equal distance of shoreline (not counting AL and HI)? The border with Canada is twice as long as with Mexico and doesn't nearly have the miles of fence that the southern border has. Even with all the surveillance in the south, millions still get through; even groups of people at one time. They get through because there is nothing more than a token effort... I certaintly didn't argue for "secure" borders, yet there has to be more of an effort... What it taking place now is wrong... quote: It is imposssible to secure an area of this size, especially when 30000 troops can not even secure the capital of Iraq with every available military asset. Having the gear isn't the same as having the ROE's in place to use the gear... And for the record I'd rather have the 30,000 troops on our border than trying to give freedom to people who really don't care to have it... John It's a token effort because our government recognizes that the positive economic impact outweighs everything. "In this Council Special Report, Professor Gordon H. Hanson of the University of California, San Diego approaches immigration through the lens of economics. The results are surprising. By focusing on the economic costs and benefits of legal and illegal immigration, Professor Hanson concludes that stemming illegal immigration would likely lead to a net drain on the U.S. economy�a finding that calls into question many of the proposals to increase funding for border protection. Moreover, Hanson argues that guest worker programs now being considered by Congress fail to account for the economic incentives that drive illegal immigration, which benefits both the undocumented workers who desire to work and live in the United States and employers who want flexible, low-cost labor. Hanson makes the case that unless policymakers design a system of legal immigration that reflects the economic advantages of illegal labor, such programs will not significantly reduce illegal immigration. He concludes with guidelines crucial to any such redesign of U.S. laws and policy. In short, Professor Hanson has written a report that will challenge much of the wisdom (conventional and otherwise) on the economics behind a critical and controversial issue." Emphasis added. LINK Notice it says through the lens of ECONOMICS not anti-Mexican EMOTION.

TomTurn -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/22/2008 10:11:03 AM)
quote: It's a token effort because our government recognizes that the positive economic impact outweighs everything. No, the governemnt allows it because to not will push Mexico into a quicker revolution. Politically it is a 3rd world hole with the good fortune to be next door to the U.S. Given all that it is but placed in South America, revolution would have come a long time ago. And I can post links all day long to counter the one you did. We all have our opinions and express them but for now I am truly bored with this conversation. later quote: anti-Mexican And see my comment on this attitude in the thread about Mexico forced to take back Mexicans

mapachito13 -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/22/2008 10:25:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TomTurn quote: It's a token effort because our government recognizes that the positive economic impact outweighs everything. No, the governemnt allows it because to not will push Mexico into a quicker revolution. Politically it is a 3rd world hole with the good fortune to be next door to the U.S. Given all that it is but placed in South America, revolution would have come a long time ago. And I can post links all day long to counter the one you did. We all have our opinions and express them but for now I am truly bored with this conversation. later quote: anti-Mexican Emphasis added. Everyone can see your anti-Mexican bias but YOU!! BTW, your counter argument links should have come earlier. Don't let your emotions on this issue blind you to the FACTS!!

TomTurn -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/22/2008 12:29:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mapachito13 quote: ORIGINAL: TomTurn quote: It's a token effort because our government recognizes that the positive economic impact outweighs everything. No, the governemnt allows it because to not will push Mexico into a quicker revolution. Politically it is a 3rd world hole with the good fortune to be next door to the U.S. Given all that it is but placed in South America, revolution would have come a long time ago. And I can post links all day long to counter the one you did. We all have our opinions and express them but for now I am truly bored with this conversation. later quote: anti-Mexican Emphasis added. Everyone can see your anti-Mexican bias but YOU!! BTW, your counter argument links should have come earlier. Don't let your emotions on this issue blind you to the FACTS!! Shouting does not make correct. Just shows more you have no agrument. I have earlier addressed the empty, childish label and when a child is not getting what they want they just scream louder. Now I am really bored One question before I go. If the 20,000,000 or so people in the U.S. illegally are good for the economy. Then allowing 1,000,000,000 more like them (for the most part poor and little education) would make us a power house in economy, woud it not?

Fritzpw_Admin -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/22/2008 12:40:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mapachito13 quote: ORIGINAL: TomTurn quote: It's a token effort because our government recognizes that the positive economic impact outweighs everything. No, the governemnt allows it because to not will push Mexico into a quicker revolution. Politically it is a 3rd world hole with the good fortune to be next door to the U.S. Given all that it is but placed in South America, revolution would have come a long time ago. And I can post links all day long to counter the one you did. We all have our opinions and express them but for now I am truly bored with this conversation. later quote: anti-Mexican Emphasis added. Everyone can see your anti-Mexican bias but YOU!! BTW, your counter argument links should have come earlier. Don't let your emotions on this issue blind you to the FACTS!! This is a good example of what NOT to do. TomTurn is not the topic. Accusing him of being anti-mexican is not the topic. Get it on topic or stay off the thread. Please do not reply to this message within the Community. Please email Community@salemwebnework.com with questions, comments, or concerns. Please do not send me PMs regarding this message. Messages which disregard the words in red will be removed without warning and the poster may also be banned.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/22/2008 7:40:23 PM)
A question to any and every one in general: If the the issue of illegal laborers/immigrants is strictly a legal one, why do you suppose the name of the thread is "Racial Issues in the News?" I'm not trolling here; I am truly interested in folk's response.

TomTurn -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/22/2008 8:08:49 PM)
There was a thread about a Sheriffs Cadet using a racial slur. The conversation got moved here since it was a racial disussion. Once here I questioned the deserving of respect of all immigrants and I did not not use the term African - American. Then it grew rapidly to illegal immigration once I made a comment about the formation of a "Mexican styled Palestine". At least twice I made a comment about how far we had gotten from the Sheriffs Cadet use of a racial slur. Now I am leaving and will not be back for a couple of weeks for sure. later

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/22/2008 8:41:36 PM)
Thanks. Have a good one. Anyone else?

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/22/2008 8:48:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mapachito13 quote: ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe quote: ORIGINAL: mapachito13 Secure borders is a pipe dream! How does one secure 12000 miles of land border with an equal distance of shoreline (not counting AL and HI)? The border with Canada is twice as long as with Mexico and doesn't nearly have the miles of fence that the southern border has. Even with all the surveillance in the south, millions still get through; even groups of people at one time. They get through because there is nothing more than a token effort... I certaintly didn't argue for "secure" borders, yet there has to be more of an effort... What it taking place now is wrong... quote: It is imposssible to secure an area of this size, especially when 30000 troops can not even secure the capital of Iraq with every available military asset. Having the gear isn't the same as having the ROE's in place to use the gear... And for the record I'd rather have the 30,000 troops on our border than trying to give freedom to people who really don't care to have it... John It's a token effort because our government recognizes that the positive economic impact outweighs everything. "In this Council Special Report, Professor Gordon H. Hanson of the University of California, San Diego approaches immigration through the lens of economics. The results are surprising. By focusing on the economic costs and benefits of legal and illegal immigration, Professor Hanson concludes that stemming illegal immigration would likely lead to a net drain on the U.S. economy�a finding that calls into question many of the proposals to increase funding for border protection. Moreover, Hanson argues that guest worker programs now being considered by Congress fail to account for the economic incentives that drive illegal immigration, which benefits both the undocumented workers who desire to work and live in the United States and employers who want flexible, low-cost labor. Hanson makes the case that unless policymakers design a system of legal immigration that reflects the economic advantages of illegal labor, such programs will not significantly reduce illegal immigration. He concludes with guidelines crucial to any such redesign of U.S. laws and policy. In short, Professor Hanson has written a report that will challenge much of the wisdom (conventional and otherwise) on the economics behind a critical and controversial issue." Emphasis added. LINK Notice it says through the lens of ECONOMICS not anti-Mexican EMOTION. One report says it all? Hardly... We are a republic governed by laws... The government is wrong to have laws and not enforce them... John

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/22/2008 8:53:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 Thanks. Have a good one. Anyone else? It's absurd to suggest that because the powers to be place the conversation into a one stop thread regardsing race that race must be a factor... It's simply done to lighten the work load... The issue of ILLEGAL immigration is first and foremost a legal one with me and my wife who is half Mexican and half Polish agrees... John

mapachito13 -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/23/2008 4:43:57 AM)
First of all I would like to apologize to Tom Turn for MY emotional outburst and name-calling. It was first and foremost a very un-Christian act and I am sorry. I am sorry to this community for having to put up with it. I hope all who were offended find it in their hearts to forgive this sinner. I promise from now on not to make this personal and stay on topic. What I won't apologize for is my view that most immigrants legal or illegal have something positive to contribute to this country - one that was built on the backs of its immigrants. I also feel that illegal immigration may be slowed by increased enforcement but never stopped altogether.

SonInMe1 -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/23/2008 8:25:50 AM)
quote: that most immigrants legal or illegal Legal, certainly. Let me ask everyone a question.....when has breaking the law become accepted in America? Its not about race, its about the law. If some white guy from France came here illegally...shouldn't he go back? Either change the laws where everyone can come here....or enforce the laws on the books.

mapachito13 -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/23/2008 10:14:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SonInMe1 quote: that most immigrants legal or illegal Legal, certainly. Let me ask everyone a question.....when has breaking the law become accepted in America? Its not about race, its about the law. If some white guy from France came here illegally...shouldn't he go back? Either change the laws where everyone can come here....or enforce the laws on the books. A little while ago a native born American and two naturalized (ie legal immigrants) citizens were busted by the feds for stealing secrets and selling them to the Chinese. Legal immigrants don't always mean they will contribute something positive and be law-abiding citizens either. But most immigrants (legal and illegal) do contribute something positive. Most Americans of European ancestry came over with minimal (if any) screening. In modern America, you're treated like a criminal and have to come up with massive amounts of money just to file an application. This is a long cry from "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, your wretched refuse from your teeming shore. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." Now its, "Give me your rich, your fingerprinted quota who have to wait ten years for approval. I lift my surveillance equipment along the golden, electrified fence." BTW, to solve the "they don't pay taxes" issue just requires us to convert from an income tax system to a consumption tax system. Everyone, legal and illegal needs to buy stuff. This would catch the non-filers as well. This also might have an added benefit in turning Americans into savers as opposed to spenders. But stopping illegal immigration entirely is not possible unless Americans want to give up more rights than already required by PA II.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/23/2008 6:42:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe It's absurd to suggest that because the powers to be place the conversation into a one stop thread regardsing race that race must be a factor 1. I didn't suggest it 2. It would be even more absurd for someone to think that they should not find race to be a factor in something put into a thread called Race Issues in the News quote: ... It's simply done to lighten the work load... How does labeling something a race issue that isn't a race issue lighten anyone's load? quote: The issue of ILLEGAL immigration is first and foremost a legal one with me and my wife who is half Mexican and half Polish agrees... The racial/ethnic makeup of you, me, or your wife is irrelevant. The point remains that the discussion of immigration enforcement was put into a "race issue" thread for a reason other than convenience.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/23/2008 6:50:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SonInMe1 Its not about race, its about the law. If some white guy from France came here illegally...shouldn't he go back? Now, here is where race and ethnicity comes in: racial profiling. Let's use the white guy from France as an example. Suppose that immigration law enforcement deemed it necessary to crack down and deport illegal French people in America. Now suppose that law enforcement officials regularly harassed, questioned, and demanded you to make account for yourself just because you "looked French," or had a French surname. Would you then see this as more than just a legal issue?

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/23/2008 7:48:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SonInMe1 quote: that most immigrants legal or illegal Legal, certainly. Let me ask everyone a question.....when has breaking the law become accepted in America? Its not about race, its about the law. If some white guy from France came here illegally...shouldn't he go back? Either change the laws where everyone can come here....or enforce the laws on the books. Excellent post... John

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/23/2008 7:57:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 quote: ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe It's absurd to suggest that because the powers to be place the conversation into a one stop thread regardsing race that race must be a factor 1. I didn't suggest it 2. It would be even more absurd for someone to think that they should not find race to be a factor in something put into a thread called Race Issues in the News I didn't say that right... I meant to say that the concept of race doesn't have to involve bigotry... quote: How does labeling something a race issue that isn't a race issue lighten anyone's load? Because you don't have 40 threads about race to monitor and it can be a tinderbox issue� quote: . The point remains that the discussion of immigration enforcement was put into a "race issue" thread for a reason other than convenience. I say convenience... It's a victim of the one stop thread monster, which tends to dumb down the thread if you ask me... I really don't bother to post in the Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread because it's to much for one thread to house and it's a pain... The current theme of the threadd dictates what is being talked about and you can't make a thread for a certain item because it's covered by the ONE STOP THREAD... Blah... John

SonInMe1 -> RE: Racial Issues in the News - One Stop Thread (4/24/2008 8:19:47 AM)
quote: But most immigrants (legal and illegal) do contribute something positive. So you would be in favor of repealing all immigration laws? quote: Now its, "Give me your rich, your fingerprinted quota who have to wait ten years for approval. I lift my surveillance equipment along the golden, electrified fence." Do you think we needed more laborers during our westward expansion than we do now? quote: Now suppose that law enforcement officials regularly harassed, questioned, and demanded you to make account for yourself just because you "looked French," or had a French surname. IF such a circumstance existed, where there was a crisis concerning the immigration of French people and I looked like one or whatever, then that is the way it goes. IF illegal immigration is a big problem...and many think it is....then it must be important enough to check suspicious people out. I just wouldn't eat French fries in public..is all.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI