# (Illegal) Immigrant day, and a new Anthem



## Hand Sword (May 1, 2006)

Today is the big protest day, along with a new Anthem for the country.

Great, it's about time. or Fed up, Get out!


----------



## Henderson (May 1, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Today is the big protest day, along with a new Anthem for the country.
> 
> Great, it's about time. or Fed up, Get out!


 
What are you talking about?????????


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 1, 2006)

It was written in english sing it in English


----------



## 7starmantis (May 1, 2006)

Yeah, I'm sorry I have absolutely no problem with imigration done legally, why do we feel we must bend over backwards for illegal immigrants regardless of country of origin? That being said, why do they feel the need to be so confrontational? Why come to a country (illegally) if you dont want to live in that country, meaning why try and change it to the place you came from if it was really so bad? If I really hated living in america and moved to France, I wouldn't be trying to make France be like America, that would be the reason for living there in the first place.

Ok, off my soapbox now, sorry.
7sm

7sm


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 1, 2006)

The current protests and agitation in support of illegal aliens invading this country is a tremendous propaganda victory for world socialism (May Day was chosen for a reason) and proponents of open borders.  Illegal aliens have become "immigrants" or "undocumented workers" who are protesting, not for the freedom to commit crime unpunished, but for their "civil rights," as if they are entitled to be in a country of which they are not citizens.  I have watched with horror as criminal behavior has been redefined as a civil rights movement -- which is an insult to all those who have participated in legitimate calls for civil rights and actions towards that goal.

It is my hope that my fellow American _citizens_ will finally recognize this large, hostile, illegal alien presence within the borders of our nation, that they will recognize these greedy calls for amnesty as the entitlement mentality they represent, that they will understand that those now pouring illegal into our country have no desire to assimilate and no wish to become productive members _of our society_.  Instead, they wish to be allowed to remain as parasites -- outsiders who profit from the whole while refusing to participate in it, nevertheless sticking their paws out and demanding what they have not earned.

I am not very optimistic, however.


----------



## beau_safken (May 1, 2006)

Im with ya Phil.  All the resturants in the area were closed except a couple with mostly...Non-immigrant labor...Guess how much cash those people are making.  I say, keep walking out of your job to show how much you care for America.  We have a free-enterprise system and will find a way around the closures of stores, resturants and the like.  I can't imagine how humped a lot of the labor based jobs were today.  I read that most landscaping companies in the region saw as high as a 90% truency rate and were forced to shut down for the day.  

Ahhh nothing screws American citizen like abandoning your job to march for something that doesn't concern you and if it does where is the immigration police.  I mean come on, they are all centralized and ready for questions.  

Tip for immigration:  Call a immigrant protest rally but quarentine the area of the protest and bingo, there ya go.  Why run around looking when you can use propaganda right back?


----------



## michaeledward (May 1, 2006)

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> It was written in english sing it in English


 
Just like the Bible


----------



## mantis (May 1, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm sorry I have absolutely no problem with imigration done legally, why do we feel we must bend over backwards for illegal immigrants regardless of country of origin? That being said, why do they feel the need to be so confrontational? Why come to a country (illegally) if you dont want to live in that country, meaning why try and change it to the place you came from if it was really so bad? If I really hated living in america and moved to France, I wouldn't be trying to make France be like America, that would be the reason for living there in the first place.
> 
> Ok, off my soapbox now, sorry.
> 7sm
> ...


well, the issue is a little bit more complicated than that. you have to realize your life style is going to change quite a bit if those immigrants did not. maybe this change is good, but maybe it's bad too!

the example you said is a little bit off.  those immigrants came here and they want to live the american life, not the african, or mexican, or south american (no discrimination here, i'd want to list 185 countries but there's no place for it here).  i think they're more than happy living the american life, and they do not want to change it, but they want to be given the opportunity to live here. 

second, this entire country is a mix of immigrants, so you cannot really say that unless you have double standards (hmm.. sounds familiar)

third, originally this country is native indian, or mexican. it's not their fault that someone came and wiped them all out. 

besides, some of these "illegal" immigrants have given births to US citizens, and it's not fair to kick the parents out and keep the kids here, and it's not anyone's right to kick out those who were born here either. 

it's difficult to treat this issue on a large scale, and it's even more difficult to deal with this issue on an individual basis. 

some ethnicities in this country are afraid there comes the day when they're a minority.  well, what goes around comes around!


----------



## Makalakumu (May 1, 2006)

Does Canada sing their anthem in two languages?


----------



## mantis (May 1, 2006)

it's funny how mexico bans immigration from south american. yet they want their people to come to the US.
why dont we do this. move south americans to mexico, mexicans to US, americans to canada. boom. done.
canada is empty anyway... except for some pengiuns.


----------



## evenflow1121 (May 1, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> The current protests and agitation in support of illegal aliens invading this country is a tremendous propaganda victory for world socialism (May Day was chosen for a reason) and proponents of open borders. Illegal aliens have become "immigrants" or "undocumented workers" who are protesting, not for the freedom to commit crime unpunished, but for their "civil rights," as if they are entitled to be in a country of which they are not citizens. I have watched with horror as criminal behavior has been redefined as a civil rights movement -- which is an insult to all those who have participated in legitimate calls for civil rights and actions towards that goal.
> 
> It is my hope that my fellow American _citizens_ will finally recognize this large, hostile, illegal alien presence within the borders of our nation, that they will recognize these greedy calls for amnesty as the entitlement mentality they represent, that they will understand that those now pouring illegal into our country have no desire to assimilate and no wish to become productive members _of our society_. Instead, they wish to be allowed to remain as parasites -- outsiders who profit from the whole while refusing to participate in it, nevertheless sticking their paws out and demanding what they have not earned.
> 
> I am not very optimistic, however.


 
I am definately with you here.  I also found it funny how the media called them immigrants, when in reality they are illegal aliens, they are not supposed to be here to begin with.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 1, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> The current protests and agitation in support of illegal aliens invading this country is a tremendous propaganda victory for world socialism (May Day was chosen for a reason) and proponents of open borders. Illegal aliens have become "immigrants" or "undocumented workers" who are protesting, not for the freedom to commit crime unpunished, but for their "civil rights," as if they are entitled to be in a country of which they are not citizens. I have watched with horror as criminal behavior has been redefined as a civil rights movement -- which is an insult to all those who have participated in legitimate calls for civil rights and actions towards that goal.
> 
> It is my hope that my fellow American _citizens_ will finally recognize this large, hostile, illegal alien presence within the borders of our nation, that they will recognize these greedy calls for amnesty as the entitlement mentality they represent, that they will understand that those now pouring illegal into our country have no desire to assimilate and no wish to become productive members _of our society_. Instead, they wish to be allowed to remain as parasites -- outsiders who profit from the whole while refusing to participate in it, nevertheless sticking their paws out and demanding what they have not earned.
> 
> I am not very optimistic, however.


 
The fact that "they are here" is an effect.  The cause is free trade, globalization, and laissez faire economic policies.  Don't like immigrants?  Fight those.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 1, 2006)

That is absurd.

Illegal immigration has nothing to do with "free trade" or capitalism except insofar as our having those makes our nation a desirable place to live compared to the corrupt socialist pestholes from which the aliens flee.  We must protect our borders from this invasion.  We could, indeed, fight the terrible evils of economic freedom, turning the USA into the kind of muckhole that is Mexico -- if we become socialist enough, we just might make our country suck so bad that we'd be climbing over THEIR fences.  I think that's like killing the patient to save him from the disease, however.

Also, the argument, "If we stop illegal immigration, our economic lifestyle will change" is akin to the argument, "If we free the slaves, we won't be able to run our plantations."


----------



## Hand Sword (May 1, 2006)

As for the economic stuff, I'll suppose it would hurt temporarily. However, after 3 to 4 weeks it would be back on schedule. Figuring all of the unemployed Americans would have Jobs (that would be paying correctly), All of the able bodied collectors would have jobs, along with Ex cons that need work or back to prison, and Students and young kids, no more than a month to get on the payrolls and get the training necessary, and back to full production. I think that would add up to at least the same amount of Illegals working.


----------



## Hand Sword (May 1, 2006)

For immigrants in general, I have no problem with those that do it the right way. They learn English, and try to fit in. However, sneaking in, trying to make the native language yours, not trying to fit in, and rewriting a National Anthem, -----NO!

If your here illegally, don't rock the boat. Your existing with no problems due to the grace of Americans. Don't spit in our faces, asking for citizenship, and being accepted, while flying your country's flag, at the protest.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 2, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> That is absurd.
> 
> Illegal immigration has nothing to do with "free trade" or capitalism except insofar as our having those makes our nation a desirable place to live compared to the corrupt socialist pestholes from which the aliens flee. We must protect our borders from this invasion. We could, indeed, fight the terrible evils of economic freedom, turning the USA into the kind of muckhole that is Mexico -- if we become socialist enough, we just might make our country suck so bad that we'd be climbing over THEIR fences. I think that's like killing the patient to save him from the disease, however.
> 
> Also, the argument, "If we stop illegal immigration, our economic lifestyle will change" is akin to the argument, "If we free the slaves, we won't be able to run our plantations."


 
I love how supporters of the free market attempt to rationalize "immigration reform"!  It truly is an absurd contradiction of logic.

The problem is that in this country there is a demand for cheap, unregulated, throwaway Mcworkers.  Illegal immigrants fill that demand.  "Immigration reform" is nothing but the curtailing of a market force.  So, I say again, you want to do something real that will actually matter when dealing with immigration?  Then you have to tackle the problem at the roots.

The conditions that these people are running from are the direct result of NAFTA, globalization, and laissez faire economic policies.  The only way to stem the tide of immigrants seeking a better life is by helping the immigrant find a better life at home.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 2, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> As for the economic stuff, I'll suppose it would hurt temporarily. However, after 3 to 4 weeks it would be back on schedule. Figuring all of the unemployed Americans would have Jobs (that would be paying correctly), All of the able bodied collectors would have jobs, along with Ex cons that need work or back to prison, and Students and young kids, no more than a month to get on the payrolls and get the training necessary, and back to full production. I think that would add up to at least the same amount of Illegals working.


 
The jobs that illegal aliens are working are jobs that would be considered illegal in the US.  They are often paid below minimum wage, they have no benefits, and absolutely no protection by OSHA.  Illegal immigrants are routinely poisoned, mutilated, and/or overworked on these jobs.  

Americans decided a long time ago that we didn't think that these kind of working conditions were okay.  We've backslided big time.


----------



## DuneViking (May 2, 2006)

Greetings,

Fox News last night, a LEGAL mexican immigrant eloquently and simply chastised those illegal aliens as criminals. The socialist item which was spoken of was revealed by the presence of an old Soviet Republic flag in the crowd. My grand parents and their cousins came here and underwent the process of becoming  citizens through hard work and were proud to have done so, learn the language, and protect this land. They were some of the most serious supporters of the process. The same goes for untold numbers and those ilegal aliens have no rights in this country-period, let alone getting in line ahead of the legal immigrants! Businesses should also pay the price for their illegal activity!!


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 2, 2006)

> I love how supporters of the free market attempt to rationalize "immigration reform"! It truly is an absurd contradiction of logic.


 
No, it isn't.  It's yet another facet of property rights.  Those who are not legal citizens of this nation have no right to live and work here.  I do not have the right to live and work in Canada without the permission of Canada's government; I am not entitled to this no matter how much I like Toronto.  Even if Canada and the United States have some sort of free trade agreement, _I still have no right to be in Canada._


----------



## mantis (May 2, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> No, it isn't. It's yet another facet of property rights. Those who are not legal citizens of this nation have no right to live and work here. I do not have the right to live and work in Canada without the permission of Canada's government; I am not entitled to this no matter how much I like Toronto. Even if Canada and the United States have some sort of free trade agreement, _I still have no right to be in Canada._



says who?!
everybody is this country HAS to be a citizen?! with all due respect to you but that statement is just not valid. 

on the other hand, why does the indian, the asian, middle eastern and even europeans go through hell to acquire legal residency or citizenship whereas the mexican doesnt really have to worry about it?  the non-mexican illegal immigrant will be deported next day his visa expires, but we dont see much south americans and mexicans get deported.


----------



## beau_safken (May 2, 2006)

The only reason you don't see Mexican's and the like being deported is because they don't usually use credit, do jobs nobody else wants to do, and blend in.  We use them for their labor not their brains for the most part, course that isn't all of them but a good part.  Point is that they are useful and big business needs the labor because American's would want too much to do the same labor.  

FYI:  If you are saying to kick them out or a bleeding heart it doesn't matter.  IF you go to Walmart, buy 99 cent fruit and veggies, have someone cut your lawn, bought a new house, have a housekeeper, need a pool cleaned or something moved...  You are guilty of using the illegal immigrants for their labor also.


----------



## mantis (May 2, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> The only reason you don't see Mexican's and the like being deported is because they don't usually use credit, do jobs nobody else wants to do, and blend in. We use them for their labor not their brains for the most part, course that isn't all of them but a good part. Point is that they are useful and big business needs the labor because American's would want too much to do the same labor.
> 
> FYI: If you are saying to kick them out or a bleeding heart it doesn't matter. IF you go to Walmart, buy 99 cent fruit and veggies, have someone cut your lawn, bought a new house, have a housekeeper, need a pool cleaned or something moved... You are guilty of using the illegal immigrants for their labor also.



you are definintely right. 
i do not say kick them out, and i do not say keep them either. i think it's a more complicated issue than that. 
what i am complaining about is the double standards that i see all the time in all aspects of life. I believe there is a great deal of corruption that has to be dealt with before we get to immigrants.


----------



## beau_safken (May 2, 2006)

That is very true my friend.  This is kinda like going to a vegan party with a bag of steaks, wheel of cheese and a keg of beer.  The idea is so different between the parties involved it will be totally messed up no matter which side of the issue you are on.

We definetly need to get the illegals that have been here for 16+ years in some kind of citizenship to start paying taxes, getting tax refunds, drivers license/car insurance, and to make sure they are accountable for everything we all are.  And it should cost them, just like it does to all other immigrants.  Cost of paperwork, legal fees and other fees to get their paperwork done.  

It's really hard to imagine also kicking all the illegal parents out, and giving the now legal children a choice to stay or go back with their parents.  We didn't control our borders properly so we could profit from the cheap labor...we need to be responsible for our part in it as well.


----------



## 7starmantis (May 2, 2006)

mantis said:
			
		

> well, the issue is a little bit more complicated than that. you have to realize your life style is going to change quite a bit if those immigrants did not. maybe this change is good, but maybe it's bad too!


 I think you place an unrealistic importance on illegal immigrants and their place in the economy. I have no problem with legal immigration in fact I have many freinds and even family members who are immigrants from various countries (including Mexico) but the illegal immigrant being made to either leave or become legal will not affect my lifestyle.



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> the example you said is a little bit off.  those immigrants came here and they want to live the american life, not the african, or mexican, or south american (no discrimination here, i'd want to list 185 countries but there's no place for it here).  i think they're more than happy living the american life, and they do not want to change it, but they want to be given the opportunity to live here.


 Again, I think your placing intent in the mouths of pepole you can't speak for. What exactly do you define as the "american life" then? Take my example from before (me moving to France to get away from American life), I wouldn't insist on singing their national anthem in english, I wouldn't insist on having their driving signs and directions and literature writen in english, I wouldn't insist on not learning french and using american money for everything I could, and that would be after moving theri as a legal citizen. Everyone of them has the opportunity to live here legally. Why should they have the opportunity to live here tax free, get free medical services, free education, while I have to pay for all of these? This isn't living the american life this is sneaking around mooching off of others and not contributing. I have no problem with people teaching their kids their own culture, language, etc, but to ignore the culture, language etc of your "new american life" is not "living the american life".



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> second, this entire country is a mix of immigrants, so you cannot really say that unless you have double standards (hmm.. sounds familiar)


 I think you again have replaced the word immigrant with illegal alien. The two are not the same so no double standard exists.



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> third, originally this country is native indian, or mexican. it's not their fault that someone came and wiped them all out.


 What is your point? I'm confused. You mean its not theri fault Texas or California is not still Mexico's?

I am a card carrying member of the comanche nation from birth, I still live and perform my daily life legally and I still pay my taxes. I could go live on a reservation and hide away from the American Government but I enjoy this so called "American Life" and so I contribute...unlike many.



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> besides, some of these "illegal" immigrants have given births to US citizens, and it's not fair to kick the parents out and keep the kids here, and it's not anyone's right to kick out those who were born here either.


 Nope, but requiring legal status is not kicking someone out, its giving them the opportunity to do what the rest of us do. If they choose not to abide by the law then that is theri own decision. I guess next we'll be saying criminals who have families can't be sent to prison right?



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> it's difficult to treat this issue on a large scale, and it's even more difficult to deal with this issue on an individual basis.
> 
> some ethnicities in this country are afraid there comes the day when they're a minority.  well, what goes around comes around!


Its not that hard, we have laws, if you want to live here abide by them. 

Oh, and as a native american I've been a minority since birth with no chance of that changing, I dont see my minority status as something to live by.

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (May 2, 2006)

Did you hear that Candidate Bush used to have the National Anthem sung in both English and Spanish when he was campaigning. He also had the National Anthem sung in Spanish at his first inauguration.


----------



## beau_safken (May 2, 2006)

Don't worry...As soon as America wakes up from this Bout of nerf politics its gonna be too late.  

IS it just me or do you kinda wish we had leaders like the old days.  I'm talking the Abe Lincolns, founding fathers types and the like.  Better yet, presidents that are willing to take a stand on something rather than bending to please everyone.  

Singing the national anthem in Spanish....Why not just hand out sombreros and those churro's to everyone as a bonus to show how much we all care.  I don't see American's learning Mandarin so we can be better business partners with our main supplier of goods now.


----------



## Cruentus (May 2, 2006)

I shouldn't even be responding here because I am completely dumbfounded by this entire issue.

1. Could someone please explain to me why people who are here illegally, who have made no attempt to gain citizenship or a working visa, and who don't pay taxes, should have the rights to all of our goods and services, including fed/state regulated worker and wage protection?

2. Could someone please explain to me how anyone could have the audacity to come into a country voluntarily, take advantage of our opportunities illegally, and then turn around and protest about what? Leading to my next question... 

3. What exactly are they protesting again? And HOW does THAT make sense?

4. How can anyone have the audacity to go into another country to demand that the NATIONAL ANTHEM be offered in a different language other then the national one. If I went to France or Italy and demanded that they offer their NATIONAL ANTHEM in English as well as their native language, then I would RIGHTFULLY be labeled as an ethnocentric pigheaded american.

5. And why, out of all proposed solutions, is no one in the media or political fronts talking about regulating the companies that HIRE THESE PEOPLE ILLEGALLY, as the solution to the problem. Strict fines for hiring illegals coupled with a raise in the minimum/living wage standards for those that work legally would be the most effective solution as far as I could see. 

I am literally speachless on the issue. I feel like I am trying to make sense out of the "why do the terrorists hate us" question. It's one of things that if you think about it too long, you'll either become a crazy person or have an aniorism. Can anyone make sense of the issue for me without their heads exploding? :idunno:

Edit: sorry, lots of edits for grammatical errors


----------



## mantis (May 2, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I think you place an unrealistic importance on illegal immigrants and their place in the economy. I have no problem with legal immigration in fact I have many freinds and even family members who are immigrants from various countries (including Mexico) but the illegal immigrant being made to either leave or become legal will not affect my lifestyle.
> 
> Again, I think your placing intent in the mouths of pepole you can't speak for. What exactly do you define as the "american life" then? Take my example from before (me moving to France to get away from American life), I wouldn't insist on singing their national anthem in english, I wouldn't insist on having their driving signs and directions and literature writen in english, I wouldn't insist on not learning french and using american money for everything I could, and that would be after moving theri as a legal citizen. Everyone of them has the opportunity to live here legally. Why should they have the opportunity to live here tax free, get free medical services, free education, while I have to pay for all of these? This isn't living the american life this is sneaking around mooching off of others and not contributing. I have no problem with people teaching their kids their own culture, language, etc, but to ignore the culture, language etc of your "new american life" is not "living the american life".
> 
> ...


what's your point?
1. illegal or legal immigrants are not important and we can live without them without ANY change in the economy and in turn our life styles?

2. this entire land was stolen in the first place. so "laws" have no meaning if you think about it (oh wait, we have double standards again)

3. you're happy with being a minority that's fine. white conservatives arent happy about that.

4. criminals who have families cant go to prison? again, ur examples are off.  being a criminal is different from being an illegal criminal.

again, what's your point? what's your conclusion, suggestion, solution? to wake up tomorrow morning and find that 12 million people are gone?


----------



## Marginal (May 2, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I shouldn't even be responding here because I am completely dumbfounded by this entire issue.
> 
> 1. Could someone please explain to me why people who are here illegally, who have made no attempt to gain citizenship or a working visa, and who don't pay taxes, should have the rights to all of our goods and services, including fed/state regulated worker and wage protection?[/b]


 
What amazes me about this argument is it's usually offered by the folks who want to actively deport every illegal immigrant ASAP. If good and services etc are your primary concern, why oppose an amnesty program that would normalize the group, and turn the bulk of them into taxpayers? (Excepting Phil's minority which immigrates solely to commit crimes of course.)



> 3. What exactly are they protesting again? And HOW does THAT make sense?


 
Worth pointing out that it's largely an immigrant protest, not strictly an illegal immigrant protest. Penya seemed to be under the impression that they were looking for immigration controls that crack down on the folks enabling the illegal movement, like coyotes, trade imbalances etc. 



> 4. How can anyone have the audacity to go into another country to demand that the NATIONAL ANTHEM be offered in a different language other then the national one.


 
How does Wyclef etc recording a version of the anthem in Spanish demonstrate a demand by illegal immigrants?



> If I went to France or Italy and demanded that they offer their NATIONAL ANTHEM in English as well as their native language, then I would RIGHTFULLY be labeled as an ethnocentric pigheaded american.


 
I'd at least hope that those purely insturmental anthems would invent english lyrics. Oh, and a danceable bass rhythm. 



> 5. And why, out of all proposed solutions, is no one in the media or political fronts talking about regulating the companies that HIRE THESE PEOPLE ILLEGALLY, as the solution to the problem.


 
That was one of the requests the speakers made in Denver actually. 



> I am literally speachless on the issue. I feel like I am trying to make sense out of the "why do the terrorists hate us" question.


 
Getting at least a little info on the subject might make it a wee bit less confusing IMO.


----------



## michaeledward (May 2, 2006)

Perhaps someone could look into this ... 

I'm curious how many of the people referenced through this thread DO or DO NOT pay taxes.

There seems to be a general assumption that any Illegal Alien - Undocumented Worker (whatever) - do not pay any taxes.

Even if one were to assume that they are being paid cash, under the table, in most states, any purchases they make are subject to taxes; the gasoline they purchase is subject to tax; the property they live in is subject to tax - thus their rent has tax included in it. 

Further, assuming they are day laborers, being paid cash at the end of the day, the company for which they work, is probably being taxed on that unreported payroll. 

I do not believe there are eleven million 'cash-under-the-table' undocumented workers in this country. I am willing to bet that the majority ... probably the vast majority ... of those workers are having payroll checks processed, which are subject federal income taxes, social security withholding and medicare withholding. 

I will, of course, remain open to any evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Cruentus (May 2, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Getting at least a little info on the subject might make it a wee bit less confusing IMO.


 
Well, being a wienie coward hiding behind a keyboard and screen name with no balls to talk to me like the above face to face is a lot less effective then providing more information or a logical addition to the discussion...."IMO."


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 2, 2006)

It's a sticky wicket. I did get these two e-mails, which I thought put some interesting spins on it, though:

Dear President Bush: 

I'm about to plan a trip with my family and extended family, and I would like to ask you to assist me. I'm going to walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and I need to make a few arrangements. I know you can help with this. 

I plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here. 

So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Vicente Fox, that I'm on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following: 

*1.*   Free medical care for my entire family. 
*2.*   English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not. 
*3.*   All government forms need to be printed in English. 
*4.*   I want my kids to be taught by English-speaking teachers. 
*5.*   Schools need to include classes on American culture and history. 
*6.*   I want my kids to see the American flag flying on the top of the flag pole at their school with the Mexican flag flying lower.           
*7.*   Please plan to feed my kids at school for both breakfast and lunch. 
*8.*   I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services. 
*9.*   I do not plan to have any car insurance, and I won't make any effort to learn local traffic laws. 
*10.* In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from Pres. Fox to leave me alone, please be sure that all police officers speak English. 
*11.* I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals. 
*12.* I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, and don't enforce any labor laws or tax laws. 
*13.* Please tell all the people in the country to be extremely nice and never say a critical word about me, or about the strain I might place on the economy.  


I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all the people who come to the U.S. from Mexico. I am sure that Pres. Fox won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely. 

However, if he gives you any trouble, just invite him to go quail hunting with your V.P. Dick Cheney.

Thank you so much for your kind help. 


...AND

1.    40% of all workers in L. A. County (over 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.
2.    *95% of warrants for murder* in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3.    *75% of people on the most wanted lis*t in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4.    Over 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal.
5.    *Ne**arly 25% of all inmates in California detention center*s are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6.   *29% of inmates in federal prisons* are illegal aliens. 
7.    Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
8.  The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
9.    Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal aliens.
10. 21 radio stations in L. A. Are Spanish speaking.
11. There are 10.2 million people in L.A. County.   5.1 million people speak English - 3.9 million speak Spanish.
12. *Less than 2%* of illegal aliens are picking crops.  *29% are on welfare. *
13.  Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration. 
14.  The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) *$70 BILLION a year*, (From Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University)
15.  The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a *NEGATIVE*


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 2, 2006)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> It's a sticky wicket. I did get these two e-mails, which I thought put some interesting spins on it, though:
> 
> Dear President Bush:
> 
> ...


 
Not sure of the fact/non-fact state of any of it, having not doen the research, but I thought the observations did raise some interesting questions.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## Marginal (May 2, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Well, being a wienie coward hiding behind a keyboard and screen name with no balls to talk to me like the above face to face is a lot less effective then providing more information or a logical addition to the discussion...."IMO."


 
Urusai's apparently an apt name for the forum. I'm simply telling you that rather than running on pure assumption that looking into the immigrant's statements may, just possibly, shed some light on what they want. Since you hadn't bothered to do anything other than offer up a kneejerk reaction to a headline, I think it was warranted to suggest you at some point get around to actually reading the article below it.

Knowing my first name doesn't make my words less or more true. If you want to threaten me with physical repercussions, (which seems to be the only point of your sputtering) feel free to do so. I expect as much to come of it regardless of whether or not you know my name.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 2, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> No, it isn't. It's yet another facet of property rights. Those who are not legal citizens of this nation have no right to live and work here. I do not have the right to live and work in Canada without the permission of Canada's government; I am not entitled to this no matter how much I like Toronto. Even if Canada and the United States have some sort of free trade agreement, _I still have no right to be in Canada._


 
Property rights?  I fail to see how you, or anyone else, have any rights to property.  People make the choice to not work the jobs that immigrants are working.  The only thing that you are pointing out is that it is against the law...

...and the issue of why the immigrants are here goes untouched...

The bottom line is that I sense another stupid war coming on.  Like the war on drugs or the war in Iraq and, for the most part, the war on Terror.  This will be the War on Immigrants.  For the most part, it will be reactionary.  We will throw tons of money down to fight this problem without ever taking a look at why the problem exists in the first place.  There will be no rational approach at actually finding a solution, only politically handy band-aids, stop gaps, and endless bickering.  Meanwhile a second class citizenry will form in the US.  A full fledged throwaway McWorker, totally devoid of human rights of any kind.  

Happy happy day...

artyon:


----------



## Hand Sword (May 2, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The jobs that illegal aliens are working are jobs that would be considered illegal in the US. They are often paid below minimum wage, they have no benefits, and absolutely no protection by OSHA. Illegal immigrants are routinely poisoned, mutilated, and/or overworked on these jobs.
> 
> Americans decided a long time ago that we didn't think that these kind of working conditions were okay. We've backslided big time.


 
Those jobs used to pay more until the owners found out they could pay much cheeper for labor. Through time Americans have become lazy and don't think of those jobs. However, Guess what? If you have to do something or go back to jail....You'll work those jobs. If your having trouble putting food on the table, and stand in lines for something every day, for months.....You'll do those jobs. Americans still do Mining and laborous jobs like that don't they? Yes!  Pay what is supposed to be paid and Americans will work!


----------



## Cruentus (May 2, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> (which seems to be the only point of your sputtering) feel free to do so.


 
The point of my sputtering is only to make a few things very clear:

#1. Your not aiming to provide relevent information to this discussion. Rather, you're looking for the opportunity to try to carp and disparage people through snideness. I've watch you do this to me on this thread, to others in other recent threads, and you have had a habit of doing this for quite sometime. Usually weak minded individuals with inferiority issues do this in a sad attempt to make themselves feel "smarter" at other peoples expense.

#2. People who try to belittle others on internet forums through their "characters" as propigated by screen names and limited personal information are usually cowards. They have a cowards mentality who get their kicks off of argueing and belittling others on forums because their lives are empty. By cowards mentality, I mean that these people usually don't have the balls to speak to someone with the same sarcasm and insult face to face.

#3. It is good for these internet cowards that they are cowards and wouldn't act like such twits to someones face, lest they get hurt. If I, out of nowhere and without warrent, talked to someone the way you just did me in public, I'd expect to be punched in the face.

You seem to fit into the points I have made well. If you have a problem with that, too ****ing bad. The solution is simple. Don't be a dickhead.

If you disagreed with my statements, or if you thought I was out of line, then say so. Explain your position. We can have a logical and peaceful discussion like men. 

As to your "points." I have heard many of the "immigrants" commentary on the issue. The problem is, I haven't seen a clear agenda accross the board. Many people who are protesting don't know why they are there. The few issues that ARE clear I happened to disagree with. We could discuss those issues. I could gladly discuss issues with anyone here.

But no....I guess it is much more fun to snipe at people in an attempt to present them as "stupid."


----------



## Don Roley (May 2, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The jobs that illegal aliens are working are jobs that would be considered illegal in the US.  They are often paid below minimum wage, they have no benefits, and absolutely no protection by OSHA.



With things like minimum wage, etc it really does not sound like the laissez faire system you claim to be the problem. Instead of trying to get rid of the capitalistic system, maybe we should be thinking about getting rid off all these things that the goverment says we need, but workers are willing to do without. Then we make legal immigrants of those willing to take the jobs.

What is the logic used to make certain things leagal?? I think it goes something like, "if we don't make this legal- people/kids will do it anyways in the wrong manner and get hurt." Seems to me that if the minimum wage laws and such are causing folks to hire those that will do the jobs illeagally, the same logic applies.

Let me just duck while the wars begin. :flame:


----------



## Jonathan Randall (May 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> With things like minimum wage, etc it really does not sound like the laissez faire system you claim to be the problem. Instead of trying to get rid of the capitalistic system, maybe we should be thinking about getting rid off all these things that the goverment says we need, but workers are willing to do without. Then we make legal immigrants of those willing to take the jobs.
> 
> What is the logic used to make certain things leagal?? I think it goes something like, "if we don't make this legal- people/kids will do it anyways in the wrong manner and get hurt." Seems to me that if the minimum wage laws and such are causing folks to hire those that will do the jobs illeagally, the same logic applies.
> 
> Let me just duck while the wars begin. :flame:


 
No problem here - you layed out your personal views _unequivocally, but *politely and respectfully. *_I hope the other posters will remember the type of forum we would like this to be and do the same.


----------



## Cruentus (May 3, 2006)

Back to the topic at hand, does anyone want to discuss WHAT exactly the protesters are protesting, and WHAT they hope to accomplish?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 3, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Those jobs used to pay more until the owners found out they could pay much cheeper for labor. Through time Americans have become lazy and don't think of those jobs. However, Guess what? If you have to do something or go back to jail....You'll work those jobs. If your having trouble putting food on the table, and stand in lines for something every day, for months.....You'll do those jobs. Americans still do Mining and laborous jobs like that don't they? Yes! Pay what is supposed to be paid and Americans will work!


 
I absolutely agree.  Those jobs used to pay more before employers started exploiting the pool of unregulated labor...aka immigrants.  If we make a "guess worker program" we'll only see more of the same.  The employers who use cheap, undocumented, unregulated labor are as much at fault as the person running across the border to seek a better life.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 3, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> With things like minimum wage, etc it really does not sound like the laissez faire system you claim to be the problem. Instead of trying to get rid of the capitalistic system, maybe we should be thinking about getting rid off all these things that the goverment says we need, but workers are willing to do without. Then we make legal immigrants of those willing to take the jobs.
> 
> What is the logic used to make certain things leagal?? I think it goes something like, "if we don't make this legal- people/kids will do it anyways in the wrong manner and get hurt." Seems to me that if the minimum wage laws and such are causing folks to hire those that will do the jobs illeagally, the same logic applies.
> 
> Let me just duck while the wars begin. :flame:


 
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying?  

Undocumented workers don't have any rights.  There is no such thing as minimum wage, worker safety standards, or any other worker regulated aspect of work...like a length of a workday.  Thus, they are treated accordingly...overworked, underpaid, poisoned, mutilated, thrown away, etc.  Sounds like "anything goes" to me...

Making them legal may solve the problem somewhat, but this has to include extending basic worker rights that everyone expects in this country.  Thus far, no bill proposed by either side does this to my knowledge.  What the bills would do is create a legalized system to bring in these workers so they can work under the EXACT SAME conditions they were working under in the first place.  The effect of this policy will be to greatly increase the use of these workers and it will undercut every worker protection we have in place for American citizens.  In effect, the "guest workers" will be more economically competitive then American Workers and the standard of living for American Citizens will begin to fall down to the level of these McWorkers (a second class of throwaway humans that basically have no rights on the job).

These are Laissez Faire policies no matter how you cut it.  Capitalism may be a fine way of running things, but I do not think that we should take it to the extent where basic human rights are violated.


----------



## 7starmantis (May 3, 2006)

mantis said:
			
		

> what's your point?
> 1. illegal or legal immigrants are not important and we can live without them without ANY change in the economy and in turn our life styles?
> 
> 2. this entire land was stolen in the first place. so "laws" have no meaning if you think about it (oh wait, we have double standards again)
> ...


1.) I think maybe you should re-read the posts here, we are speaking specifically of illegal "immigrants" so you trying to combine legal and illegal is just incorrect. The legalization or deportation of illegal immigrants will have some effect but not the type you spoke about. I also said nothing about anyone (legal or illegal) not being important, you should be wary of placing words in others mouths, its dishonest.

2.) You are the one who brought up the "this land was theirs first" idea. I simply explained my envolvement in that idea as a native american and expressed my opinion that trying to hold onto past history is what has gotten us in trouble in the past. Lets live in today and deal with issues in the present.

3.) Again, your so quick to put thoughts and intent into people's mouths. I'm half comanche and half "white" I know no "full white" (whatever that means) people who are conserned about not being a majority, they have been a minority in many places for years. If we want to be real, there will most likely not be different races in the future anyway.

4.) Um...your contradicting yourself. Being a criminal is breaking the law no? People who are given the opportunity and time to participate in our country legally and choose not to deserve to reap the consequences, whatever those may be. If I chose not to abide by the laws of this country I would have to deal with the consequences, why should an illegal alien living here be any different? Do what the law requires or be punished, how can we uphold our legal system if that basic point is not important enough to support?

I think the solution is one that will take much time and effort, but I have no problem with alowing those in the country to become legal citizens (within a reasonable period of time or legally here with a visa etc.) or being deported. Look up Mexico's laws and regulation on immigration, or any country for that matter. I just can't understand why people think illegal "immigrants" who take what they want free of any involvement or payment of taxes, should be allowed to continue while we as citizens foot the bill.

7sm


----------



## crushing (May 3, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Back to the topic at hand, does anyone want to discuss WHAT exactly the protesters are protesting, and WHAT they hope to accomplish?


 
While I can not speak for them, I think the protesters do not want the illegal aliens to become felonious aliens as some politicians have been suggesting.

I think it gets really fuzzy when there is a major media failure in their reporting to distinguish between law abiding migrants and immigrants and illegal aliens.  It not only does a disservice to the national debate, but also to those that obey the laws.

Also, what I don't understand is why they would boycott the big business that are not only opposed to making the illegal activity a felony, but would seem to prefer amnesty for those that committed the illegal acts.


----------



## Don Roley (May 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand what you are saying?
> 
> Undocumented workers don't have any rights.



Yes and no.

The *rights* that American citizens have to _force_ others  into doing things like pay at least a certain amount of money prices them right out of the market. If people did not go to illegal folks, the jobs would probably go to somewhere in Pakistan in many cases.

These illegal immigrants still manage to send home enough money that the Mexican goverment does not want the problem to stop.

If we got rid of a lot of the regulations that were not needed about minimum wage, etc, then the need to go outside the law would evaporate. Do you really think that someone who does a job that does not even require English speaking skills deserves as much as those that do? And if we cut off all the nice social programs that Kenbukai Kenpo listed as being used by many illegals, then maybe they would not be so eager to work for wages that sucked.

But when we start talking about cutting off all the goodies, people scream "but what about the children???"

For God's sake, let some of these people have a press conference with a gun to some kids head and at least be honest by saying, "if you don't give us what we want- we are going to hurt these kids by bringing and birthing them in your country."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 3, 2006)

deport them all, build a wall, fine the living hell out of companies using them to fund the upkeep of the wall.  Say, $1mil per violation.

We're paying $3 a gal for gas. $3 for a head of lettuce is around the corner either way.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 3, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> The *rights* that American citizens have to _force_ others  into doing things like pay at least a certain amount of money prices them right out of the market.


 
I wonder if you have actually seen the conditions that illegal immigrants work in?  I have and I certainly would not want to work in those conditions.  Further, I don't think that ANYONE should have to work in those conditions.  If you deregulate the American Worker, then EVERYONE will be working in those conditions.  The bottom line is that being safe and paying decent wages costs money.  Sure, we can cut those things that help workers live better lives, but that is a quick way to opening up Indonesian style sweatshops in your backyard.



> If people did not go to illegal folks, the jobs would probably go to somewhere in Pakistan in many cases.


 
Most of the jobs that illegal immigrants are working cannot be moved to other countries.

The jobs that can move to Pakistan, will.  Free Trade agreements assure that.  They also ensure that the countries with the lowest amount of worker protections are the most competitive.  This is an ethically backward system, IMO.  Sure, someone may argue that the government is "telling people what they have to do."  My response is... 
:sadsong: 

So what if the big bad government is telling companies that they can't poison, mutilate, overwork, and underpay their workers...



> These illegal immigrants still manage to send home enough money that the Mexican goverment does not want the problem to stop.


 
Why should they want that to stop?  Illegal immigrants are a gigantic economic force in the countries where they are coming from.  



> If we got rid of a lot of the regulations that were not needed about minimum wage, etc, then the need to go outside the law would evaporate. Do you really think that someone who does a job that does not even require English speaking skills deserves as much as those that do? And if we cut off all the nice social programs that Kenbukai Kenpo listed as being used by many illegals, then maybe they would not be so eager to work for wages that sucked.


 
This argument is reminiscent of the people who say that vaccinations are bad and are surrounded by people who are vaccinated.  The health of these people is being protected by everyone around them...and their laughable ideas really don't have much of an impact.  The problem begins when these people start to convince others not to get vaccinated.  That's when health standards start to fall.  

Our standards of living are utterly dependent on worker protections and government regulation.  A completely free market would drive our standards of living into the toilet.  Don't believe me?  Just take a look at the conditions that people work in, in unregulated countries.  You wanna stick your kids in a sweatshop where they can get their arms pulled out of their sockets by a machine that the employer decided it was uneconomical to add safety gaurds?  

That is the end result of an unregulated free market.  Party on...

artyon: 

The big picture of all this is not good.  Guest workers, Amnesty, undocumented workers, are all just repackaged attempts to politically convince Americans to shoot themselves in the foot.  The agenda is clear.  Certain leaders in Washington would like to circumvent all worker protections in this country and help their campeign financiers make craploads of money.  Meanwhile, everyone loses.


----------



## Drac (May 3, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> deport them all, build a wall, fine the living hell out of companies using them to fund the upkeep of the wall. Say, $1mil per violation.
> 
> We're paying $3 a gal for gas. $3 for a head of lettuce is around the corner either way.


 
Excellent idea....


----------



## beau_safken (May 3, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> deport them all, build a wall, fine the living hell out of companies using them to fund the upkeep of the wall. Say, $1mil per violation.
> 
> We're paying $3 a gal for gas. $3 for a head of lettuce is around the corner either way.


 
IF only it were so simple Bob...


----------



## Cruentus (May 3, 2006)

crushing said:
			
		

> I think it gets really fuzzy when there is a major media failure in their reporting to distinguish between law abiding migrants and immigrants and illegal aliens. It not only does a disservice to the national debate, but also to those that obey the laws.


 
Agreed. I think the media has done a horrible job in reporting the issue.



> Also, what I don't understand is why they would boycott the big business that are not only opposed to making the illegal activity a felony, but would seem to prefer amnesty for those that committed the illegal acts.


 
This goes back to my point in that many of these protestors don't even really know why they are there, or what the hell they are doing. So, many parts of the issue, and the behavior of the immigrants attached to the issue, are completely nonsensical.

Here are some out of the many reasons for protest as I have heard them (as reported by the media, so I realize that some of these reasons may be way off base), and here is why I disagree:

_1. Many of the protestors don't want illegals to be prosecuted or deported. Most want amnesty for those already here and working. _

I am sorry, but right now they are here illegally, benefiting from our goods, services, and opportunities while sucking off the US government teet. The exchange of value is imbalanced, as they are mostly only offering cheap illegal labor (assuming they aren't a member of the criminal element that is here illegally), while our tax dollars foot the bill for their use of services.

So, under THAT circumstance, it is immoral and unjust to DEMAND amnesty for people who have not provided comparitive value for what we as taxpayers provide them.

Now, I can understand that deporting 11 million people is not a viable policy. But what is really counterproductive is to give blanket amnesty for people who don't deserve it. That will only encourage people to flee accross the borders, knowing that if they make it and hang out long enough that they will never see reprocussions, all the while putting further burden on our society and economy. Not to mention, Amnesty is completely unfair to those immigrants who went through the process of getting working visa's or citizenship.

A better solution would be one similar to what John McCain offered. I am fuzzy on the details, but the basic principle is that the people on the top of the 11 mil, who have been here for years working, who have families, and who have made efforts to function in american society would be offered citizenship; not as amnesty, but because they effectively EARNED it. Those in the middle who haven't met the criteria to be offered citizenship, but who are productive members of society could be offered a limited visa, and could be guided into taking the right steps to become citizens. The lower portion of the 11 mil - the criminals, the people who just got here, and the people who have made no steps to becoming productive members of society, would be deported and in some cases criminally prosecuted.

A solution similar to what McCain proposed, however, is not good enough for many of the protestors. This is because many of the protestors have a problem with ACCOUNTABILITY. Many of the have an entitlement mentality. This is the same entitlement mentality and lack of accountability that is screwing up our country in all socio-economic and cultural circles. 

So THAT is why I think that this reason for protest is philisophically wrong.

_2. Many of the protestors want workers rights and better wages for all workers, regardless of whether or not they are illegal._

If this was truely the case, then they should be putting down the hispanic flags, and they should be protesting for better working conditions and wages for ALL AMERICAN WORKERS. This would be a fair thing to stand up for, and I would agree.

However, they don't care so much for all American workers. They care mostly for immigrant and ILLEGAL workers. This is where I have the problem, as it goes back to that entitlement mentality.

First off, if you want a better job then get an education, learn the national language (which is ENGLISH) and some marketable skills, and get one. There is no shortage of companies hiring immigrants from other countries legally and with marketable skills, and giving them the same treatment and rights as they would an American worker. Sure, job availability, wages, and treatment should be better then they are. But, it should be that way for ALL people who are working here LEGALLY.

If you are here illegally with few marketable skills, then you can't expect to slip in under the radar with the rights to ***** that the only jobs availabe for you are manual labor. If you are here illegally, you are not entitled to a job, welfare programs, and health care. Sorry. If one can demonstrate their worth by showing the effort of being a productive worker and member of society, then one can have the benefits of our social programs and services because it would have been EARNED. Earning and entitlement are not one in the same.

_3. Many of the protestors believe that because Hispanics are a sizable percent of the population, then Americans should make more accomidations for the culture, including but not limited too forcing public signs and directions to be in both Spanish and English, access to public services to be in Spanish and English, and even as far as the Anthem to be offered in Spanish, or the Mexican flag to be flown next to the American one._

Even though this is the least impacting of the issues, it probably is the one that pisses me off the most. This is because it is so damned arrogent.

Regardless of the evils that have occured for us to get here, The United States of America is a sovereign nation with its own history and CULTURE. Deny it or not, there are things in this country that is classically American. This is no different then seeing things that are classically french in France. Yet, if I were to go to France and demand that they dillude their culture to accomidate me, then I would be an arrogent pig. This is no different then the demand that some of the protestors are placing on us AMERICANS now.

That said, I of course have no problems with having signs and services be in Spanish in communities with large hispanic populations. This is no different then many of the signs in services in the Detroit/Dearborn area which are written in Arabic because of the high Arabic populus. This is fine, as it makes functioning in society much easier.

It is the DEMAND that is arrogent. It is the expectation that you should be able live and work in a country for years without having to learn the native language. Such expectations are just plain rude.

Out of all of these issues, what is most abhorrible and disgusting is the fact that many of these protestors are spouting hatred towards American culture and society, all the while USING the same AMERICAN society that we all work hard to build and maintain for their own benefit and betterment. Most of these people should be fallating the statue of liberty in american flag underoos for the opportunities that the US has gifted them and their families. Too bad it isn't applicable to deport such scumbags for treason.

Paul

P.S. Since I am such an ill-informed idiot, as demonstrated by other ingenious and all knowing posters, did I miss anything? Am I wrong in my assessment (kidding aside, it is certainly fair that I may be misunderstanding certain things)?


----------



## Marginal (May 3, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Back to the topic at hand, does anyone want to discuss WHAT exactly the protesters are protesting, and WHAT they hope to accomplish?


 
Well,



> ** Any employer who hires a person without correct documentation should be subject to significant fines or imprisonment. "I think that would largely stop any new (illegal) hires."
> ** Don't waste billions of dollars building a fence between the U.S. and Mexico - spend part of that money instead on beefing up border patrols and employer inspectors.
> Peña not only believes a fence would be ineffective and a waste of money, but he said he is concerned how a fence may damage political relations with Mexico, one of the country's most important trading partners.
> ** Peña said if employers still need workers, he is in favor of a guest worker program or fine-tuning current temporary visa programs for agricultural and technology workers.
> ...


 
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/other_business/article/0,2777,DRMN_23916_4668821,00.html

Full article there. (The same info you ignored last time in favor of a tanturm....)


----------



## Cruentus (May 3, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/other_business/article/0,2777,DRMN_23916_4668821,00.html
> 
> Full article there.


 
Thanks for the information and for adding something of value to the discussion. I will look it over and comment later when I have time.



> (The same info you ignored last time in favor of a tanturm....)


 
Wrong. Not once in this thread was any of that information referenced so cleanly. Had you of referenced some information and made a cohesive arguement rather then a snipe, then I wouldn't have responded as I did. If you don't believe me, reread the thread. When you realize that I am right, you can be the bigger man, admit your wrong, and apologize for being rude. I am so sure that's going to happened.


----------



## Cruentus (May 3, 2006)

To comment on the previous article (I read the article and figured I'll comment now while it is fresh, then log off for the rest of the evening)...

I am in agreement with Pena on a lot of the bullet points previously listed. However, I am in grave disagreement over the Amnesty issue, and one can read my arguement behind that.

I am also in disagreement with participation in the may 1st events, by protestors or political leaders deciding to speak at some of the more peaceful rallys. The reason is because this protest was also designed for immigrant workers to walk off their jobs for a day to "show" america and its employers what it would be like to function with out them. Such actions are a betrayal to the very country that gave them the opportunity in the first place.

Does the US and its companies get to take a day off from providing services like education, healthcare, welfare, and opportunity? And how about flying native flags....the flags the represent the countries that could not give them the opportunities that the US offers them?

Bottom line: if you don't like it here, leave. If you like it here but want to change the immigration process, then do so through legitamite means. I see walking off your job for a day and making your demands on the streets as a betrayal of the country that offered you freedom, not as a legitimate means of supporting the country you live in while trying to to improve the process.

The fact is, at least as the media has reported it, the reasons I listed previously are the main reasons that people were out there. Pena from Denver offers solutions and other reasons to be out there, but he does not represent the vast majority of the protesters as far as I can see.

Paul


----------



## shesulsa (May 3, 2006)

*Moderator note:*

Keep the conversation _polite and __respectful_, please.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Senior Moderator


----------



## Monadnock (May 3, 2006)

Hey everyone! (Que Pasa?)

"Give me your tired, your poor, 
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, 
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. 
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. 
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."


----------



## Don Roley (May 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I wonder if you have actually seen the conditions that illegal immigrants work in?  I have and I certainly would not want to work in those conditions.  Further, I don't think that ANYONE should have to work in those conditions.



Well,  no one is forcing you to take the jobs. There are plenty of people who would take the job- that is why we are facing this situation. 

Why should two adults working out something between themselves be interfered with by another just because that outsider thinks that something does not meet their standards? I am not attracted to homosexual sex. But if two adults want to do it, who am I to butt in? In the same token, if two adults (employer and employee) want to agree to something, why should your reluctance to do the same job have any bearing on the matter?

I have heard anti-capitalistic types say that employers _force_ workers to take wages because there is no other choice and they would die without even meager wages. But we have people risking death and travelling hundreds of miles for a wage that people say you can't live on.:idunno: 

It does not matter if we give the current batch of illegals amnesty. They will then be covered by the wage controls that first led to the employers looking for folks willing to work for what they thought was worth their skills. And most of the new folks won't have the English language skills to get a wage worth minimum wage or better. They would probably just end up on some sort of assistance program.

And as for 3 dollars a head of lettuce.... Bob, have you looked at where some of your produce comes from? I can't remember for America, but in Japan they tend to label that type of thing. I would bet you would pay 1.20 a head of lettuce from Chile and pay a lot more in taxes to support the farmers that went bust.


----------



## 7starmantis (May 3, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> Hey everyone! (Que Pasa?)
> 
> "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> ...


Right, that means anyone who wants to sneak in can, anyone who wants to steal free medical care can, anyone who wants to use educational systems, roads, transportation systems without helping to pay for them can....... I guess us law abiding, tax paying citizens are the dopes then.....anyone got info on how to renounce your citizenship?  

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (May 3, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Well, no one is forcing you to take the jobs. There are plenty of people who would take the job- that is why we are facing this situation.


 
The question important question that many people are missing is why immigrants feel the need to leave their homes and their families to work a job that pays low wages, has ungodly long hours, will poison them, could mutilate their bodies, etc...

The fact that we can even ask that question describes the desperation that drives immigrants into this country in order to look for a better life...



> Why should two adults working out something between themselves be interfered with by another just because that outsider thinks that something does not meet their standards? I am not attracted to homosexual sex. But if two adults want to do it, who am I to butt in? In the same token, if two adults (employer and employee) want to agree to something, why should your reluctance to do the same job have any bearing on the matter?


 
You are assuming that both parties are equal.  They are not.  The difference in POWER makes a difference.  When you have the power to set a minimum standard that is unethical by all measures so that you can make more money, you control the options the other person has to choose from.  In the end, the choice, on the part of the powerless party doesn't matter.  This is the essence of exploitation.



> I have heard anti-capitalistic types say that employers _force_ workers to take wages because there is no other choice and they would die without even meager wages. But we have people risking death and travelling hundreds of miles for a wage that people say you can't live on.:idunno:


 
They risk death and worse on the job in order to squeak by and hopefully feed their children.  Would you do any different, Don, if you lived in an area where the options were starvation for you and your family or immigrating illegally to a foreign country to send home a meager wage for as long as your body can handle the terrible working conditions?  If I had to, I would do that...but that doesn't mean that I think it is a good thing.  And I think that society should do everything it can so people aren't faced with such a terrible life.  That is what it means to be a progressive.



> It does not matter if we give the current batch of illegals amnesty. They will then be covered by the wage controls that first led to the employers looking for folks willing to work for what they thought was worth their skills. And most of the new folks won't have the English language skills to get a wage worth minimum wage or better. They would probably just end up on some sort of assistance program.


 
First of all, NONE of the amnesty programs extend even basic protections to these workers.  They only make it legal to hire them.  Second, it sounds as if you are saying that _these people_ aren't even worth minimum wage...much less a living wage.  When you are one of _those people_, tell me what you think then.  

I would rather pay 3.00 bucks for a head of lettuce that puts food on the table for the growers family and brings both parents home safely at night to take care of their children.  In fact, I do pay for this.  It's called a an Organic Coop.


----------



## Monadnock (May 3, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Right, that means anyone who wants to sneak in can, anyone who wants to steal free medical care can, anyone who wants to use educational systems, roads, transportation systems without helping to pay for them can....... I guess us law abiding, tax paying citizens are the dopes then.....anyone got info on how to renounce your citizenship?
> 
> 7sm


 
Oh well crap - tear the thing down then. It came from the French anyways...


----------



## crushing (May 3, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> Hey everyone! (Que Pasa?)
> 
> "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> ...




I'm not sure of the point of your post with the 19th century nation building quote, but I'm not seeing many people wanting to eliminate legal immigration, or get rid of legal migrants.  The problem most people have seems to be with those that break the law and cheat the system; cut in line, so to speak.

Also, while the Statue of Liberty was a gift from the French, the quote is actually from an American poet, Emma Lazarus.


----------



## Don Roley (May 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You are assuming that both parties are equal.  They are not.  The difference in POWER makes a difference.



Class warfare. The employers are not forcing anyone at the point of a gun to work for them. They certainly are not going to Mexico to force folks to come to them and work for them. And the problems of Mexico are hardly what we pay taxes and such to deal with.

If these people want to come here to work for wages they agree to and do so *legally* I don't think many of us would have a problem. But the system is such that the jobs they are qualified for are not worthy of being paid the wages that American laws demand. People want to work at them, the goverment won't let them. By saying that we are defending the workers, we are cutting off a whole lot of people that want to come here to improve themselves but can't do so legally. And of course all the problems that come with their illegal status as well.



> They risk death and worse on the job in order to squeak by and hopefully feed their children. Would you do any different, Don, if you lived in an area where the options were starvation for you and your family or immigrating illegally to a foreign country to send home a meager wage for as long as your body can handle the terrible working conditions? If I had to, I would do that...but that doesn't mean that I think it is a good thing. And I think that society should do everything it can so people aren't faced with such a terrible life. That is what it means to be a progressive.



So we either step in and take care of Mexico's problems or we cut these people off from a way of feeding their children in the name of being compassionate.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 3, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Class warfare.


 
A difference in power exists whether you choose to believe it or not.



> The employers are not forcing anyone at the point of a gun to work for them. They certainly are not going to Mexico to force folks to come to them and work for them.


 
If you were a biologist, you would understand this in the terms of "environmental" pressure.  The environment can force individuals of a species to do things that it needs to do in order to survive.  Even if those things are terrible things.  The environment, in this case, was built by things like free trade, globalization, and laissez faire economic policies.


----------



## Carol (May 3, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> deport them all, build a wall, fine the living hell out of companies using them to fund the upkeep of the wall. Say, $1mil per violation.
> 
> We're paying $3 a gal for gas. $3 for a head of lettuce is around the corner either way.


 
I'll pay $3 for lettuce if it means that Salem Hospital doesn't go bankrupt.


----------



## Don Roley (May 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If you were a biologist, you would understand this in the terms of "environmental" pressure.  The environment can force individuals of a species to do things that it needs to do in order to survive.  Even if those things are terrible things.  The environment, in this case, was built by things like free trade, globalization, and laissez faire economic policies.



Are you trying to say that I should just give up trying to debate you because you have some sort of superior insight into the matter because you are a biologist? Do you honestly think I can't understand a simple principle like enviromental pressure? It sounds to me like you are trying to use the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy with you as the authority just like you have in other threads.

I think I should warn you that I really dislike it when  someone can't debate a point and tries that tactic. Being sarcastic is the least of the things I can do if you continue to try it. Oh, and have you ever lived and worked in another country, or do you work outside of a goverment job? If not, then I have insights you don't.

And instead of laissez faire economics, globalization and such, you should subsitute the words "faeries" because  you can't show how one leads to the other any more than you can show how faeries cause the the poverty problems these folks are fleeing. These people are not coming from places where the goverment leaves folks alone.

Things are pretty bad in the countries these folks come from. The goverment can pretty much push you around and you ahve to pay them off to get them to leave you alone. But that is not America's problem. Why on earth do these folks flee that type of situation and then run around in protest in their adopted countries flying their old nations flags????? If they come here to seek a better, American life, then why are they trying to sing in the language of another country????


----------



## Lisa (May 3, 2006)

*SECOND MODERATOR and FINAL WARNING
*
* Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). 

For reference please note MartialTalk's Rule fourn here:  No "Challenges" - If there is a threat or physical challenge, real or perceived, issued, the person making said threat will be immediately banned from this board with no warning or recourse.

Thank you.

Lisa Deneka
MT Senior Moderator*


----------



## mantis (May 3, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Right, that means anyone who wants to sneak in can, anyone who wants to steal free medical care can, anyone who wants to use educational systems, roads, transportation systems without helping to pay for them can....... I guess us law abiding, tax paying citizens are the dopes then.....anyone got info on how to renounce your citizenship?
> 
> 7sm



i see your point there 7sm
but in a way they are paying too. yes, they do not pay directly and explicitly, but they do get paid less than others due to their circumstances. bottom line is as long as money is flowing between companies and government then we're okay.  if those illegal immigrants did not add value, believe me, governments wouldnt be cool with them sneaking in. 

it's hard for me to argue and defend illegal immigration, and in fact i do not agree with it in the first place.  but what do we do what those who are already inside?

do not think about this emotionally. this is america, not france!  think income - outcome. if this is a good deal then keep them, if not then be strict enough on immigration.

i was wondering if they can keep the mexicans and get rid of the persians instead... i wish that's possible (im only kidding..)


----------



## Makalakumu (May 4, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Are you trying to say that I should just give up trying to debate you because you have some sort of superior insight into the matter because you are a biologist? Do you honestly think I can't understand a simple principle like enviromental pressure? It sounds to me like you are trying to use the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy with you as the authority just like you have in other threads.


 
I know that you can understand it and I didn't mean to come off as uppity.  However, "environmental pressure" is something that I am very familiar with and it is something that describes this situation perfect.  Much better then you "gun to the head" analogy.  These people are doing what any other biologic organism tries to do...obtain enough energy to survive.  There environments, for whatever reason, do not have enough energy to support them, so they come to a place that does have enough energy.



> I think I should warn you that I really dislike it when someone can't debate a point and tries that tactic. Being sarcastic is the least of the things I can do if you continue to try it. Oh, and have you ever lived and worked in another country, or do you work outside of a goverment job? If not, then I have insights you don't.


 
Yes, I have done all of that stuff.  I've even lived in a third world nation right inside the US borders.  



> And instead of laissez faire economics, globalization and such, you should subsitute the words "faeries" because you can't show how one leads to the other any more than you can show how faeries cause the the poverty problems these folks are fleeing.


 
Can't show eh?  Are you trying to say that a market doesn't exist for undocumented and unregulated labor in this country?  Are you trying to say that illegal immigrants aren't used and abused and thrown away while on the job in this country?  Are you trying to say that multinationals corporations haven't set such a low standard of workers rights in the countries where these immigrants are coming from that the atrocious conditions they get here are paradise compared to back home?   



> These people are not coming from places where the goverment leaves folks alone.


 
Sweat shops.  Child Labor.  Poison and mutilation.  That is what a worker faces in the third world.  And your family still goes hungry.  The root cause of all of this is the globalization of laissez faire economic policies.  It is the simple act of seeking the lowest amount of regulation in order to make the most money.  Illegal immigrants are fleeing from this.  Fleeing to a place where they are surrounded by a government that protects people from that kind of exploitation.  They are parasites, in a truly biologic sense, bleeding off the dregs of "opportunity" that Americans, for very real and honest reasons, will not take advantage.  

The reason why is because the "opportunity" is illegal in this country.  A long time ago progressive Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt decided that working conditions like that were unethical, inhumane, and inappropriate.  So they made laws that raised the minimum standards so that workers could be safe on the job and make enough money to feed their families.  They realized that this was the only way capitalism works for everyone, because they had lived through the inverse. 

That is why the above quote makes absolutely no sense.  You just don't have any experience with exploitation and the real life effects of "anything goes" economic policies.  The whole "invisible hand will lift everyone up" is nothing but a pie in the sky pollyanna way of looking at economics and it is utterly disconnected with reality because it has NEVER been observed to happen anywhere in the world EVER.

Further, "governments won't leave people alone" totally ignores the fact that massive corruption exists in these countries and that people in power are using the national laws to benefit themselves.  Often they kowtow the wishes of multinationals, keeping the worker standards low in exchange for sweet personal stock options that make them craploads of money.  Or its done because of outright bribery.  

There is a new documentary out about the Bolivian government and their elections.  You can see all of what I'm talking about in action.  And you can see why the people rioted in the streets in order to get someone like Eval Morales in power.  The movie was made by Rachel Boynten and it is called "Our Brand is Crisis."  I think that if you watch this movie, you'll be absolutely floored by what you see.  The candid way Bolivian politicions talk about their own corruption is astounding.  Further, it should be noted that the candidate that is most highly tied to the multinational interests in Bolivia is having his election campeign managed by a bunch of Americans led by none other then James Carvell.



> Things are pretty bad in the countries these folks come from. The goverment can pretty much push you around and you ahve to pay them off to get them to leave you alone. But that is not America's problem. Why on earth do these folks flee that type of situation and then run around in protest in their adopted countries flying their old nations flags????? If they come here to seek a better, American life, then why are they trying to sing in the language of another country????


 
I don't know why they want to fly their own flags and speak their own language.  Maybe they look at all of the American's surrounding them and wonder...I'm a human being just like them, why don't I deserve the same rights that they have?

As far as the conditions in their countries not being our problem, I'd have to disagree.  It is our problem.  First, because American business interests are a major factor in causing those conditions.  Second, they are our problem because in order to do anything about illegal immigration, we need to make conditions better so people stay at home.  That is pure market economics.  People are voting their feet in response to the environmental pressure.


----------



## Don Roley (May 4, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Sweat shops.  Child Labor.  Poison and mutilation.  That is what a worker faces in the third world.  And your family still goes hungry.  The root cause of all of this is the globalization of laissez faire economic policies.



Wrong. These people are falling over themselves to work for foriegn companies because it is better than anything they had before. If things were better before the companies came along, they would not work for them. They would not be trying to get to America to work if things without the foriegn companies were so good. The stronger the goverment power, the more that goverment seems to abuse that power. Take a look at Zimbabwe and try to tell me how laissez faire policies made that place the way it is.

People could still be living their life styles that are a century behind in certain places. They want their and their children's lives to be better. American life is better. Their lifestyle would still be a century behind us if the US never existed. They just would not have some place that they could look to for a better place for their kids. It is not the fault of globalization that their countries did not develop as fast as America.

I fully support people being able to take any job they want without do-gooders telling them they can't. They do not have to take the jobs. The enviroment you talk about just does not exist. People live in backward, third world nations that are not a tenth as advanced as ours. It is not international pressure that makes them so behind the times, it is a variety of things like powerfull corrupt goverments, cultures that have oppressed thinkers and things like that. So they come to nations where things are better. 

I think they should be able to _if they do so legally._ Coming here as an illegal and then expecting the host country to accept their ways is just damn silly. I live in Japan and hate Americans that come here and will not learn the language or try to act like they are still in America. But at least they don't hold protests over the Japanese reluctance to sing their anthem in English.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 4, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Wrong.


 
Apparently sweat shops don't exist.  People aren't being regularly poisoned on the job.  Multinationals in third world countries are taking every single safety precaution they can to protect their workers.  No children ever have to work, much less work in sweatshops that overwork, underpay, poison and mutilate them.  And people aren't starving despite all of this...



> These people are falling over themselves to work for foriegn companies because it is better than anything they had before. If things were better before the companies came along, they would not work for them. They would not be trying to get to America to work if things without the foriegn companies were so good.


 
Anyone else see a contradiction here?  These people (illegal immigrants) are falling over themselves to work for multinational corporations in their own countries and yet still feel the need to run to ours?  Huh?

If the conditions that the collusion of the multinationals corporations and the corrupt third world governments created were so good, why don't these people just stay home?



> The stronger the goverment power, the more that goverment seems to abuse that power.


 
True.  That is why there needs to be balance.



> Take a look at Zimbabwe and try to tell me how laissez faire policies made that place the way it is.


 
The exploitation those policies caused made people support a the populist message of a dictator.  Laissez faire created the desperation that made Mugabe possible.



> People could still be living their life styles that are a century behind in certain places. They want their and their children's lives to be better. American life is better. Their lifestyle would still be a century behind us if the US never existed. They just would not have some place that they could look to for a better place for their kids. It is not the fault of globalization that their countries did not develop as fast as America.


 
So, basically, what you are saying is that _these people_ were incapable of organizing themselves, taking advantage of their own resources, and lifting themselves up?  Therefore, they NEED the US and the West to do it for them.  Does anyone else see the underlying bigotry and racism inherit in that argument?

What you just expressed was a left over belief from the colonial era.  The British, and other colonials, thought this about all the people they came in contact with.  They were primitive, they couldn't organize themselves, they couldn't form a "proper" society, they couldn't even take advantage of the resource in their own country.  

I suggest you read Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel."  His work will neatly debunk this ill-informed, ignorant, and racist notion.  

Further, there is an assumption here that their lifestyles were bad before the multinationals arrived.  This assumption pays absolutely no attention to the history of the areas in question.  Recent history, going back 500 years or so, is one of colonialism, corruption, and exploitation.  All of this was forced, at gunpoint, on the people who lived in these countries.  So, when you say that the people's lives were better now then they were 100 years ago, you're wrong.  They aren't.  People are still living under the same oppressive conditions they were before, except now, the pollution is worse, the work is more dangerous, the corrupt powers are more entrenched, and the coersion behind those powers are more dangerous and violent.  

The US, and the multinationals, are nothing but colonial powers doing some of the same things that were done that were done by the Spanish, the Portugese, the French, and the British.  Sure, we don't have troops on the ground committing genocide, but that is because the Spanish did it for us (and we did that on our own soil).  Anyway, globalization and Free Trade are nothing but repackaged colonialism.  The ideology is ultimately racist and that is why certain individuals who believe it feel that the "anything goes" approach to business is perfectly acceptable.

In fact, it has even gone so far that some people start claiming that we are doing these people a favor by giving them sweat shops, child labor, horribly unsafe working conditions, overworking for underpay, and by destroying the people's ability to use their own resources for their own benefit.

WOW!  

The fact that some people can rationalize the gross mistreatment of human beings like that is utterly terrifying.



> I fully support people being able to take any job they want without do-gooders telling them they can't. They do not have to take the jobs. The enviroment you talk about just does not exist. People live in backward, third world nations that are not a tenth as advanced as ours. It is not international pressure that makes them so behind the times, it is a variety of things like powerfull corrupt goverments, cultures that have oppressed thinkers and things like that. So they come to nations where things are better.


 
Another contradition.

For example, first you say that the environmental pressure that I'm talking about doesn't exist.  And then you start naming a bunch of factors that create the environmental pressures that drive immigrants over our borders....huh?



> I think they should be able to _if they do so legally._ Coming here as an illegal and then expecting the host country to accept their ways is just damn silly. I live in Japan and hate Americans that come here and will not learn the language or try to act like they are still in America. But at least they don't hold protests over the Japanese reluctance to sing their anthem in English.


 
I understand what you are saying here.  I think that immigrants who do come here should assimilate, to a certain extent.  However, I need to point out that my great grandparents and my grandparents still spoke (and speak) german and polish.  In fact, my grandparents were the first generation to learn English.  As a kid, I went a Catholic Church where the mass was given in German.  I grew up on sauerkraut and perogies.  My point is that there was room in this country for my families traditions.  Why isn't there room for the traditions of the new immigrants?  Why isn't the same respect that was given to my immigrant family members, given to these people?  Even if they come here legally?  I think that race is a huge part of this equation too.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 4, 2006)

We are a nation if immigrants.  The national anthem is sung in an immigrant language...english.  What would people say if they knew that school children on Indian Reservations near my home sing it in Ojibwa?


----------



## Don Roley (May 4, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> So, basically, what you are saying is that _these people_ were incapable of organizing themselves, taking advantage of their own resources, and lifting themselves up?  Therefore, they NEED the US and the West to do it for them.  Does anyone else see the underlying bigotry and racism inherit in that argument?



Calling me a racist? I really think you should apologize for even trying to use the race card.

It is a fact that some nations are not as advanced as America. They still live in places where water is bad, illnesses are rife, and the goverments should be put against a wall and shot. _Pointing these things out is not racist!_

Those things are not the fault of the US or its economic policies. They existed before we came along. The US had some good things going for it and kept out of the people's way for the most part to build wealth. Other countries had despots and bandits as rulers and did not do as well. The people in those countries were not pushed down by international trade, they were like that before it was a factor. Now they want to improve themselves by means of trade. They have no skills to deal with on the international market and do what they can to improve themselves with their unskilled labor. Or they come here if the factories in their own country are full.

And some of them work damn hard. They may not have skills, but they work what they can and try to make their kids do their best in schools so that their lives can be better. I know a few _legal_ immigrants that are like that and they are people we should welcome with open arms. They are willing to do scut work to improve their kids lives and it is the rules of well- meaning ninnies and people with their own agenda that keep them from legally doing so in many cases.

And because things are illegal, those that do best as criminals seem to come along as part of the problem. You can look at prohibition for a good case of how making something illegal for people's own good  leads to criminals taking advantage of the loopholes in the law.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 4, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Calling me a racist? I really think you should apologize for even trying to use the race card.


 
Racism isn't a card.  It isn't a person.  It's an ideology.  Implying what I pointed out above is racist.  It's the same sort of belief that colonial societies have used for 500 years to do what they do.  It isn't an insult.  It's just an observation.  For example, my grandfather still has a 1968 Vote For George Wallace, campaign poster in his garage.  And sometimes he talks like Archie Bunker.  Those behaviors and beliefs are clearly racist, yet I still love that old man.  My point is that a person is not the sum of their beliefs.



> It is a fact that some nations are not as advanced as America. They still live in places where water is bad, illnesses are rife, and the goverments should be put against a wall and shot. _Pointing these things out is not racist!_


 
But that isn't what you said.  Here is what you said...



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> People could still be living their life styles that are a century behind in certain places. They want their and their children's lives to be better. American life is better. *Their lifestyle would still be a century behind us if the US never existed*.


 
The implication is clear.  _Those people_ wouldn't even be where they are without the US, without the West.  You have completely underestimated their own ability to organize and use their own resources for their own gain.  You have also completely justified our interference, because "American life is better."  This is a racist assumption.  Why is our way of life better then anything they could figure out?



> Those things are not the fault of the US or its economic policies. They existed before we came along.


 
The problems existed long before the US was even a nation.  They began with colonialism.  The US (and now the multinationals) continues some of the same patterns.



> The US had some good things going for it and kept out of the people's way for the most part to build wealth. Other countries had despots and bandits as rulers and did not do as well.


 
This completely ignores the current reality of our nations interactions with other countries and all historical examples of the same thing.  The history of the US is replete with colonial conquest.  Ask any native american.  During the post civil war era, the US began to act like a broader colonial power and it was through this that it began to build wealth and power in the world.  The Spanish/American war was fought between two colonial powers competing for the spoils of the Third World.  These policies continue today.  The Neocons in Washington are attempting to extend a "benevolent American Hegemony" across the world.  Don't believe me, read there own writings.



> The people in those countries were not pushed down by international trade, they were like that before it was a factor.


 
Colonialism is the root cause of third world poverty.  The shipping out of their nations wealth for the benefit of the colonial powers is the ultimate reason why these countries have not gotten ahead historically and it is the reason why many can't get ahead today.  We aren't really even talking about international trade.  That is a misnomer.  What this really is, is a tacit agreement between American installed stooges, who are armed with American made weapons that were sold at "very reasonable" prices (gotta keep down the proles), and US/Multinational business interests.  The goal is to export their natural resources for our benefit.  The profits from these sales, go not to the people of the country, but to the stooges we backed.



> Now they want to improve themselves by means of trade. They have no skills to deal with on the international market and do what they can to improve themselves with their unskilled labor. Or they come here if the factories in their own country are full.


 
These people are just like you and I.  They have the same potential that everyone here in the US has.  They love their families as much as anyone here does.  And I think they want a better life just like anyone else does.  And I truly believe, that if given the opportunity, they could build their own societies within their own nations, with their own resouces.  Trade is part of the deal, but "trade" isn't something that is happening right now.  Trade implies a mutual benefit.  The people who are running illegally across our borders aren't benefiting from "trade" as it happens now.  All of that wealth isn't "trickling down" to others in the country.  It's being horded and exported, perpetuating the colonial cycles that began 500 years ago.



> And some of them work damn hard. They may not have skills, but they work what they can and try to make their kids do their best in schools so that their lives can be better. I know a few _legal_ immigrants that are like that and they are people we should welcome with open arms. They are willing to do scut work to improve their kids lives and it is the rules of well- meaning ninnies and people with their own agenda that keep them from legally doing so in many cases.


 
Interesting.  What "rules" are keeping legal immigrants from succeeding?


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 4, 2006)

> Colonialism is the root cause of third world poverty.


 
The root cause of Third World poverty is government oppression and misappropriation (not to mention misapplication) of national resources.  The Soviet Union, for example, was remarkably poor at the individual level because it was very good at centrally planning the production of goods and services _that consumers within the USSR didn't want_, all while failing to produce the goods and services that they _did_ want.

Socialism as a socio-economic theory denies reality in every way, shape, and form in favor of a fantasy -- the utopian notion of equality and mass well-being that becomes, in its execution, a dystopian nightmare.  Blaming freedom, economic or individual, for the ills of the world may make the individual socialist _feel_ better, but it is this misplacement of blame that is the denial of reality.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 4, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> The root cause of Third World poverty is government oppression and misappropriation (not to mention misapplication) of national resources.


 
The root cause of your root cause is colonialism.  Colonialism has always been about extracting wealth from far away places.  This always leaves little opportunity in those far away places.  If we can figure out how to help local people hold on to their wealth, it would go a long way in helping to stem the tide of immigrants to our wealth.


----------



## beau_safken (May 4, 2006)

But really come on...No matter how you look at it..its not a good thing.  

One one hand:  We legalize all the ones already here, pissing off all the ones that went thru the process and leave ourselves open for lawsuits using this a precident for future immigrants to demand citizenship.

OTher hand:  We don't do a thing for them, kick them all out and pay more for goods like produce or other former illegal immigrant labor based product.  Housing will go up, produce and other goods but we will all live in the short term.  Allow all of them to do the process and show the world we will defend our borders.


----------



## mantis (May 4, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The root cause of your root cause is colonialism. Colonialism has always been about extracting wealth from far away places. This always leaves little opportunity in those far away places. If we can figure out how to help local people hold on to their wealth, it would go a long way in helping to stem the tide of immigrants to our wealth.



it's the british, french, spanish and italians who appointed the corrupt and oppressing governments in the countries they invaded. a good example of that is 100% of the middle eastern governments including saddam's baath rule in iraq.


----------



## crushing (May 4, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> We are a nation if immigrants.  The national anthem is sung in an immigrant language...english.  What would people say if they knew that school children on Indian Reservations near my home sing it in Ojibwa?



Why does the real issue of ILLEGAL aliens keep getting sidetracked by such things as the language in which the national anthem should or shouldn't be sung?

Personally, I don't care what language the national anthem is sung in, although I am now curious as to how it sounds in Ojibwa.  Got an MP3 of it?


----------



## Don Roley (May 4, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Racism isn't a card.  It isn't a person.  It's an ideology.  Implying what I pointed out above is racist.



No, you are playing the race card. Pointing out that nations are 100 years or so behind America, and that it is not America's fault, is not racist. It is just a matter of fact. They would still be behind us if America did not exist. They would be there due to corrupt goverments and things like that. Hey, do you think that a goverment coming in and conquering a country is an example of _leave alone_ economic policies? :lfao: 

Spain and France may have had a part in fouling up Mexico. Being run by folks like Pancho Villa and the PRI was probably an even worse thing for them. To say that it is because of leave- alone economic policies is just another false anti-capitalistic rant.

Coming in and building factories is not colonialism. Taking over the goverment through military means is. As Mantis pointed out, the Europeans invaded and appointed some really vile thugs in a lot of the world. But to build a factory and offer wages that local people would love to have and call it colonialism is nuts.

One side wants to offer certain things for certain services. The other side is willing to agree. Who are you to say that it is your right to stick your nose into what they both want? To claim it is in their own best interest, to shut down those factories or prevent them from coming to the US to work and letting them stay where they are is insulting.

If people are willing to come to the US legally and work at some of the scut work I know they do, then as long as they are happy with what they get I don't see how anyone else has a say in the matter. If they are not happy with the wages, then they can stay home.


----------



## Cruentus (May 4, 2006)

crushing said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't care what language the national anthem is sung in, although I am now curious as to how it sounds in Ojibwa. Got an MP3 of it?


 
lol...I am a bit familiar with Ojibwa tribes, and I am pretty sure their not singing the national anthem in their native language. They have other songs that they do sing in their native language which sound pretty damn cool.

And on a side note, I love the Gypsie Kings too, but I am sure that if they tried to do a rendition of the anthem that it would end up sucking. lol


----------



## Makalakumu (May 4, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> No, you are playing the race card. Pointing out that nations are 100 years or so behind America, and that it is not America's fault, is not racist. It is just a matter of fact. They would still be behind us if America did not exist.  They would be there due to corrupt goverments and things like that.


 
I don't know, Don, it still sounds like you are underestimating our neighbors to the south.



> Hey, do you think that a goverment coming in and conquering a country is an example of _leave alone_ economic policies? :lfao:


 
That is only part of the equation, the inciting incident, if you will.  Laissez faire came later and made bad things worse.



> Spain and France may have had a part in fouling up Mexico. Being run by folks like Pancho Villa and the PRI was probably an even worse thing for them. To say that it is because of leave- alone economic policies is just another false anti-capitalistic rant.


 
You are taking to myopic of a view on this and missing the big picture.  The bottom line is that colonialism made our economic exploitation of the third world possible.



> Coming in and building factories is not colonialism.


 
It absolutely is part of colonialism.  Colonialism has always been about extracting wealth from far away places.  Building factories to process goods with cheap, disposable, labor is a good way to do that.



> Taking over the goverment through military means is. As Mantis pointed out, the Europeans invaded and appointed some really vile thugs in a lot of the world.


 
And we've been doing the same thing for 150 years.  Noriega, Pinochet, Saddam, anyone?



> But to build a factory and offer wages that local people would love to have and call it colonialism is nuts.


 
Oh yeah!  They certainly love those sweat shops that poison them, chew them up and spit them out, where even children aren't immune.  They love them so much that they risk their lives sneaking across the border into this country!  

Wow.  Just wow.



> One side wants to offer certain things for certain services. The other side is willing to agree. Who are you to say that it is your right to stick your nose into what they both want? To claim it is in their own best interest, to shut down those factories or prevent them from coming to the US to work and letting them stay where they are is insulting.


 
Again, you are neglecting to look at the difference in power between the two parties.  If one party can control the choices and set the standards, then there really is no freedom.  As far as me being a do-gooder willy nilly sticking my nose into things like sweat shops, deadly working conditions, and pollution...all I can say is that if I've got the power to help these people make their lives better, I'm going to do it.  And I think that it is a safe assumption that they wouldn't look down on some gringo who is trying to stop other gringos from exploiting poor people in their countries.



> If people are willing to come to the US legally and work at some of the scut work I know they do, then as long as they are happy with what they get I don't see how anyone else has a say in the matter. If they are not happy with the wages, then they can stay home.


 
It just doesn't work that way, man.  The reality is that the people running across the border to find a better life have a lot less freedom then you think.  And they have no rights that would protect them from people who would exploit them.  When the "choice" is between exploitation and starvation for you or your family, there really is no "choice" at all.  It doesn't have to be that way and I know that we can do better then that.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 4, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> lol...I am a bit familiar with Ojibwa tribes, and I am pretty sure their not singing the national anthem in their native language. They have other songs that they do sing in their native language which sound pretty damn cool.


 
Yup, they are.  I'll see if I can get a recording and upload it.


----------



## Marginal (May 4, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> 1.) I think maybe you should re-read the posts here, we are speaking specifically of illegal "immigrants" so you trying to combine legal and illegal is just incorrect. The legalization or deportation of illegal immigrants will have some effect but not the type you spoke about. I also said nothing about anyone (legal or illegal) not being important, you should be wary of placing words in others mouths, its dishonest.


 
Dishonest is the thread's title. Illegal immigrants weren't the sole marchers, nor were they the sole protestors involved in immigrant day. Despite this, look at the title, and look at how the term immigrant is commonly used in this thread. It's always presumed to be referencing an illegal. Fudging the terms is intentional. It's designed to breed hysteria and make this into a wedge issue resulting in a new version of the yellow scare etc rather than initiating a dialogue on solutions to a solveable social problem. 



> 4.) Um...your contradicting yourself. Being a criminal is breaking the law no?


 
Laws are never revised? Amended? Retired? 



> I think the solution is one that will take much time and effort, but I have no problem with alowing those in the country to become legal citizens (within a reasonable period of time or legally here with a visa etc.) or being deported. Look up Mexico's laws and regulation on immigration, or any country for that matter. I just can't understand why people think illegal "immigrants" who take what they want free of any involvement or payment of taxes, should be allowed to continue while we as citizens foot the bill.


 
Still makes me wonder why guest worker programs are opposed when the end result is they're paying for their part of the bill once they're paying taxes and registration fees etc.


----------



## Cruentus (May 4, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yup, they are. I'll see if I can get a recording and upload it.


 
Cool. I pay attention a bit to the tribes in my area, but I have never heard of anything like that. Probably best to be put in a new thread.

btw... I should note for the record that I am not against people singing the anthem in different languages; although I think that musically there are probably better songs to go through the trouble of translating, it's actually kind of honorable and neat that someone would find our Anthem worth singing in their native language, whether it would be Spanish, Arabic, Ojibwa, or what have you.

I have a problem with the notion that people would DEMAND that our anthem be offered in a different language, which is the message that many of those who protested in the streets are sending.


----------



## Hand Sword (May 5, 2006)

They're also trying to push radio stations, across the country to play it.


----------



## Don Roley (May 5, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Again, you are neglecting to look at the difference in power between the two parties.  If one party can control the choices and set the standards, then there really is no freedom.



You are repeating the same mantra of greed and envy that I have heard time and time again. You talk as if the employer has a gun to the person head. In a lassiz faire system, both sides can say yes or no and it takes both to make an agreement.

These people were not dying in droves of starvation before these factiries and jobs in America spang up. But my grandfather thought that working from sun up to sun down on his farm was just the accepted reality. That is still the case in many places in Mexico.

So what you call harsh working conditions, they think of as an chance at a better life. You see exploitation of power where they see an oppurtunity to improve themselves. And in your drive to seem compasionate, you want to take that chance to improve their life away from them.  

And don't go blaming an economic system like 'leave alone' economics for their troubles. And don't try to call me a racist again for pointing out that things are not as good there as they are here. People coming in with guns may have had a part in their lot in life, but the freedom to deal with others as they please without people forcing them at the end of a gun is not one of the problems.

And it certainly can't be laid at the feet of the people now trying to employ these folks. One person selling something freely to a willing buyer is not the same as taking over their goverment by force no matter how you want to define colonialism.

You know, if someone tried to say that all immigrants are (fill in the blank) some folks would be screaming about bigotry. But you don't seem to have a problem in painting all employers as trying to poison their workers. The illegals working as nannies, gardners, construction, etc I knew don't seem to be missing many limbs or dying in terrible accidents every week. It is the job of the goverment to prevent people from doing harm to others and it seems that the factories in other countries should be regulated by these goverments to do just that of that is the case.

But the goverments that have the power to come in and _force_ you to do the right thing have _at least_ as bad a record. We just saw the 20th anniversery of Cherynobel. Have you read the accounts of how the goverment _founded on the premis of forcing people to do the right thing_ actively suppressed the things that would have saved a lot of lives and left the area more free of contamination. Their interests were not that of a regulating agency divorced from the benifits of the company and they did things that were simply criminal.

It is the rule of reality that the more you try to give the goverment power to come in and _force_ people to do the right thing, instead of merely trying to prevent them from actively doing harm to others, the worse the goverment becomes. 

So the idea that you can prevent people who want to work for a certain wage is intrusive. No matter how many ways you try to place the blame on someone else, the person keeping them from improving their lives is people like you.

And hey, I bet as a martial artist you just would not pay as much for a seminar by Joe Blow as you would with Bruce Lee. You would not care if Joe could not be as good as Bruce because he had to work a full time job to take care of his parents, or was raised in an area were there were no MA schools. All you care is that one is worth more to you than the other. I bet when you went to your teacher, you did not choose him for anything other than the skills you wanted from him and did not ask if you should pay him more because of his family situation. You naughty, naughty man. But of course you want _other people_ to not pay others what they think they are worth, but what you think they should be paid based on their situation. And if you can't, then you would deny them the chance to improve themselves in any fashion. If you demand that people pay as much for Joe Schmoe's seminar as they would for Bruce Lee's, do you honestly think many people would go?

So you keep people down with your _compassion._ You are quiet free to donate your entire life savings to helping those you can look down on, but I think the typical recipient of your compassion would be insulted when you told them they can't take a job.

And in the case of immigration, maybe we should be a little less compassionate. We pay for the education of their kids, their hospital visits, and we can't even ask if they are illegal immigrants or not. Maybe that should change. I would think that if someone brought in their 12 year old for emergency mendical care, we could agree that the police should not be called. I do not want kids to suffer for their parents stupidity. But everything else should be just cut off IMO. The good-nicks can donate money to private clinics if they want, but no tax payer money for someone who came here illeagally. If that makes the trip here not worth their effort, then fine with me.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 5, 2006)

Somehow, capitalism has become some sort of religion.  I blame Ayn Rand...



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> You are repeating the same mantra of greed and envy that I have heard time and time again. You talk as if the employer has a gun to the person head. In a lassiz faire system, both sides can say yes or no and it takes both to make an agreement.


 
We've already discussed how the "gun to the head" analogy is not analogous to what is happening.  I've pointed out that "environmental pressure" is a much better descriptor.  Thus far, you've ignored that point, told me that enviromental pressure does not exist, and then pointed out in the same paragraph that it does exist.  So which is it?  

While it is true that no one is holding a gun to someones head telling them to take a certain job, the desperate environment experienced can still "force" someone to make choices that are inhumane by any standards.



> *These people were not dying in droves of starvation* before these factiries and jobs in America spang up. But my grandfather thought that working from sun up to sun down on his farm was just the accepted reality. That is still the case in many places in Mexico.


 
Yes they were.  Ever hear of Potosi?  Ever hear of Kubatau?  Probably not.  Also, working from sun up to sun down is not a virtue.  Just ask your kids...



> So what you call harsh working conditions, they think of as an chance at a better life. You see exploitation of power where they see an oppurtunity to improve themselves. And in your drive to seem compasionate, you want to take that chance to improve their life away from them.


 
No, I want to make sure that each of these people are treated the same human rights that we grant to our children.  All you are trying to do is rationalize the mutilation, the poison, the child labor, the sheer brutality of the sweat shops.  You want to turn this argument on its head and make it seem that THAT is opportunity.  That is not opportunity.  It is artificially induced desperation.  And this is desperation that colonial policies specifically created.  



> And don't go blaming an economic system like 'leave alone' economics for their troubles.


 
Why not?  "Anything goes" seems to describe the situation that is happening pretty darn well.  The problem is that you've turned this economic system into some sort of religion and you are "unrepentent" so that means that you are unwilling to accept any sort of rational criticism of it.



> And don't try to call me a racist again for pointing out that things are not as good there as they are here.


 
That isn't what you said initially...but you seemed to have mended your ways after I pointed out what I did. 



> People coming in with guns may have had a part in their lot in life, but the freedom to deal with others as they please without people forcing them at the end of a gun is not one of the problems


 
You still can't (won't) grasp the difference in power between the two groups.  This exists.  They (both sides) will tell you if you'll listen.



> And it certainly can't be laid at the feet of the people now trying to employ these folks.


 
Okay, I get it.  It is perfectly ethical to hire workers in an unsafe and polluted working environment when you know they will have an average lifespan of five years from working at that job.  Yeah, their kids will really appreciate their wonderful life as they bury their mothers and fathers or take care of their disabled parents.

If the employers set a standard that is so low that it is literally killing the the people who are forced to take the job by the environmental pressure exerted by their homeland, then they are absolutely culpable for all damages.



> One person selling something freely to a willing buyer is not the same as taking over their goverment by force no matter how you want to define colonialism


 
You are refusing to look at what colonialisn actually is.  It is the movement of wealth from far away places to one centralized location.  You are oversimplifying this by making it a black and white issue where one has to choose between military conquest and laissez faire.  However, what you fail to realize that is that colonialism is a progression from conquest to laissez faire...as I have pointed out numersous times above.



> You know, if someone tried to say that all immigrants are (fill in the blank) some folks would be screaming about bigotry. But you don't seem to have a problem in painting all employers as trying to poison their workers. The illegals working as nannies, gardners, construction, etc I knew don't seem to be missing many limbs or dying in terrible accidents every week. It is the job of the goverment to prevent people from doing harm to others and it seems that the factories in other countries should be regulated by these goverments to do just that of that is the case.


 
Not all employers of immigrant labor are doing so in an unethical way.  However, many are.  You just need to do the research.  I can't read the stuff for you.  Eric Schlosser has a couple of books you should check out.



> But the goverments that have the power to come in and _force_ you to do the right thing have _at least_ as bad a record. We just saw the 20th anniversery of Cherynobel. Have you read the accounts of how the goverment _founded on the premis of forcing people to do the right thing_ actively suppressed the things that would have saved a lot of lives and left the area more free of contamination. Their interests were not that of a regulating agency divorced from the benifits of the company and they did things that were simply criminal.


 
The key is balance.  Regulation to promote ethics.  Freedom to choose what those ethics are.  If you ask the people working in sweat shops whether or not they wish their jobs could be better, emphatically, you get an affirmative answer.  However, the very real difference in power between the employer and employee prevents this.  The problem is that a small group of people in the countries in question have the ability to set standards for their own gain.  And they do so, setting them at a point where they make the most money regardless of any ethical standards.



> It is the rule of reality that the more you try to give the goverment power to come in and _force_ people to do the right thing, instead of merely trying to prevent them from actively doing harm to others, the worse the goverment becomes.


 
Again, balance is important.  I don't see anything wrong with a government demanding that workers have a safe working environment that does not poison them and does not completely remove them from their families.  If you could even imagine yourself in the inverse of that situation, I have no doubt that you would agree.



> So the idea that you can prevent people who want to work for a certain wage is intrusive. No matter how many ways you try to place the blame on someone else, the person keeping them from improving their lives is people like you.


 
Sorry, but this logic utterly fails.  I don't set the standards of employment.  The small group of people who compromise the employers does.  By attempting to force the employer to raise his/her standards to something that does not kill the worker is in no way keeping that worker from improving their lives.  I am actually saving a life.  By rationalizing this, you are promoting this system and killing that person.



> And hey, I bet as a martial artist you just would not pay as much for a seminar by Joe Blow as you would with Bruce Lee. You would not care if Joe could not be as good as Bruce because he had to work a full time job to take care of his parents, or was raised in an area were there were no MA schools. All you care is that one is worth more to you than the other. I bet when you went to your teacher, you did not choose him for anything other than the skills you wanted from him and did not ask if you should pay him more because of his family situation. You naughty, naughty man. But of course you want _other people_ to not pay others what they think they are worth, but what you think they should be paid based on their situation. And if you can't, then you would deny them the chance to improve themselves in any fashion. If you demand that people pay as much for Joe Schmoe's seminar as they would for Bruce Lee's, do you honestly think many people would go?


 
This is another inanalogous metaphor because you are again assuming that the two parties are equal parties.  This is not the case.  The difference in power exists, no matter how much you deny it.



> So you keep people down with your _compassion._ You are quiet free to donate your entire life savings to helping those you can look down on, but I think the typical recipient of your compassion would be insulted when you told them they can't take a job.


 
Yeah, I can see it now.  Through my grassroots efforts, I am suddenly able to get sweatshops to provide the proper safety equipment, properly use chemicals, pay workers decent wages, and schedule workers for reasonable hours...it is a really strange world where someone can see that as an insult.  Further, the very fact that you can call that insulting really shows how utterly disconnected your arguments are from any from of reality or logic.


----------



## Don Roley (May 5, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> By attempting to force the employer to raise his/her standards to something that does not kill the worker is in no way keeping that worker from improving their lives.



So, employers are trying to kill their workers......by not paying the wage you happen to think they should.....

Maybe you should try owning a business sometime. If you think you have the ability to do so. Or try living in a place that gives the goverment the abilities you want them to do to make the people's lives a better place like China, Zimbabwe or Cuba.

Wow....


----------



## Makalakumu (May 6, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> So, employers are trying to kill their workers......by not paying the wage you happen to think they should.....


 
They are not trying to kill their workers.  The workers are irrelevent and replaceable.  Safety standards, environmental standards, higher wages, and reasonable hours cost more money in the short term.  Most of the Third World industry in question, however is about making as much money, in the short term, as possible.  Thus, standards that protect people, race to the bottom.  This all begins when the country in question removes any worker protections, environmental standards, and workers rights in order to attract foreign investment by US/Multinational interests.  The same people who run these countries also lower the taxes so that the people can't receive any sort of benefit in their homelands from this investment...ie roads, education, health care, etc.  The end result is the endless, opportunitiless, poverty that drives those people here.



> Maybe you should try owning a business sometime. If you think you have the ability to do so. Or try living in a place that gives the goverment the abilities you want them to do to make the people's lives a better place like China, Zimbabwe or Cuba.


 
This isn't a black or white argument.  That you think this is telling.  Alot of people treat capitalism as some form of religion...in a Biblical sense, that is idolatry.  Thus it is impossible to criticize even the most minute details.  And even those who accept some criticism are quick to point out that it is the best system we have and refuse to think outside the box.  I think this is a narrow minded and dangerous assumption.  There are real problems with how this whole thing works.  For instance, the laissez faire policies of the multinational corporations have created the environment that forces immigrants across our borders.  And when you really get into it, the ethical issues behind it are astounding.  There are some serious abuses of human rights occuring right now in these places where the government refuses to protect their people from exploitation for economic reasons.  

And the people in those countries are voting with their feet.  They obviously don't want that if they are coming here.  The American Dream that they see is the direct result of the Progressive movement in this country.  150 years ago, the conditions that are common in the Third World were common right here at home.  We live in a land of opportunity that is somewhat free from exploitation because people voted and decided that conditions like those in the Third World were completely innappropriate and inhumane.  The people were able to vote in a government that was sympathetic to their needs and had a mind for ethics.

In the Third World, nowadays, this isn't possible.  The US government actively opposes any governments who seek to provide better conditions for their workers, toughen up environmental standards, and tax multinationals to build better roads, schools, hospitals, etc.  We have even gone so far as to completely overthrow another countries government.

And this is not just our problem.  The entire First World has been employing these policies around the world.  Through colonialism, we have take these peoples wealth and made ourselves what we are.  And now, everywhere in the First World, immigrants are a problem.  France, Spain, England, Australia, you name the country, they are all instituting policies to control the flood of people trying to get into their countries and experience some of the wealth that was taken from their home countries.  Free Trade and globalization will only make the problem worse.  First because they make it easier for people to move around.  And second because they expediate the process of resource removal and worsening conditions.  

This worldwide and systemic problem can be laid directly at the feet of capitalism.  And if you are unwilling to accept any sort of criticism regarding this system, then we'll never ever be able to solve problems like the immigrant problem facing the world.  We can kick them out, but they'll be back.  We can build a fence, but they'll beat it down.  We can close our borders and kill all who approach, but even that won't be enough in the end.  There are alot more desperate people in the Third World then there are in the First.  Ignoring the real cause of these problems and keeping people out will only turn our country into a lifeboat with people scrambling to get in.  We can't hold back that tide forever.

The only way to stop it is to make it attractive for people to stay home and that will require that people face the very real, systemic, worldwide problems with capitalism.


----------



## Don Roley (May 6, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This isn't a black or white argument.



Yes it is. Your standards for things is the standard you would impose on everyone, even if they agree among themselves. You keep jumping around definitions and such, but it comes down to the idea that if someone does not want to pay a certain amount, and get others that will agree to that lower price, then they are evil, murdering capitalists.

And nothing is going to change your mind and you won't try working as an employer to see how the folks you rail against look at things.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 6, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Yes it is.


 
It isn't black and white...



> Your standards for things is the standard you would impose on everyone, even if they agree among themselves.


 
You are assuming that the people running across our borders agreed to the standards that they are running from.  I would definitely say that is a bad and baseless assumption.



> You keep jumping around definitions and such, but it comes down to the idea that if someone does not want to pay a certain amount, and get others that will agree to that lower price, then they are evil, murdering capitalists.


 
No.  I will make this simple.  Ethical working conditions aren't cheap in the short term.  Thus, countries that reduce worker safety requirements, environmental standards, worker's base pay, workers age, hours, etc become more competitive in the short term.  The become even more competitive by lowering taxes to a point where good roads, schools, hospitals, etc can't be built.  Thus, the race to the lowest ethical standard begins.  

The people who are running to the First World aren't making these decisions to become more competitive.  The First World has been promoting this for hundreds of years...even at the expense of democracy.  



> And nothing is going to change your mind and you won't try working as an employer to see how the folks you rail against look at things.


 
Who says I haven't worked as an employer?

Look, this argument is not complex.  However, you will not see it because of your idolatric veneration of _an economic system_.  Eventually, all of your opinions on this will be marginalized because everyone else will see the truth of what I'm saying.  If you believe that capitalism has no part to play in creating the immigrant issue, then you are clearly wrong as I have shown again and again and again above.


----------



## Don Roley (May 6, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It isn't black and white...



And yet you want to blame capitalism and not anything else.

But when you want to get complicated, you can't quite get things down in a logical manner. You make the jump to people getting poisoned and killed when I talk about unregulating wages. You say that a company that wants to hire workers is a colonolizing power in the same catagory as those that take over goverments by force. You won't apply the principles you use to choose a martial arts teacher to what you would make others do when they hire workers...... 

I am not going to change a mind such as yours and it looks like I flirted with danger already because you are a staff member here. I will bow out now.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 6, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> And yet you want to blame capitalism and not anything else.
> 
> But when you want to get complicated, you can't quite get things down in a logical manner. You make the jump to people getting poisoned and killed when I talk about unregulating wages. You say that a company that wants to hire workers is a colonolizing power in the same catagory as those that take over goverments by force. You won't apply the principles you use to choose a martial arts teacher to what you would make others do when they hire workers......
> 
> I am not going to change a mind such as yours and it looks like I flirted with danger already because you are a staff member here. I will bow out now.


 
Well, it was a good aggressive debate.  Get some sleep.  Sayonara...


----------



## Doc (May 18, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> The current protests and agitation in support of illegal aliens invading this country is a tremendous propaganda victory for world socialism (May Day was chosen for a reason) and proponents of open borders.  Illegal aliens have become "immigrants" or "undocumented workers" who are protesting, not for the freedom to commit crime unpunished, but for their "civil rights," as if they are entitled to be in a country of which they are not citizens.  I have watched with horror as criminal behavior has been redefined as a civil rights movement -- which is an insult to all those who have participated in legitimate calls for civil rights and actions towards that goal.
> 
> It is my hope that my fellow American _citizens_ will finally recognize this large, hostile, illegal alien presence within the borders of our nation, that they will recognize these greedy calls for amnesty as the entitlement mentality they represent, that they will understand that those now pouring illegal into our country have no desire to assimilate and no wish to become productive members _of our society_.  Instead, they wish to be allowed to remain as parasites -- outsiders who profit from the whole while refusing to participate in it, nevertheless sticking their paws out and demanding what they have not earned.
> 
> I am not very optimistic, however.


Amen brother.


----------

