# New fence in Mexico



## mrhnau (Oct 26, 2006)

Looks like Bush just signed some legislation to construct a fence along the Mexican border. Looks like 700 miles of the 2100 mile border.

Might be a step in the right direction, though I wish it had happened a few years earlier, and not just before the election. Timing seems a bit dubious. Still, I'm glad to see them doing -something- about illigel immigration...

Your thoughts and opinions?


----------



## Monadnock (Oct 26, 2006)

I think it's good. I was watching the Colbert Report the other night, and he suggested a large wall, a few thousand miles long that could be visible from outer space.........

Gee, where have we seen that before?


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 26, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Looks like Bush just signed some legislation to construct a fence along the Mexican border. Looks like 700 miles of the 2100 mile border.
> 
> Might be a step in the right direction, though I wish it had happened a few years earlier, and not just before the election. Timing seems a bit dubious. Still, I'm glad to see them doing -something- about illigel immigration...
> 
> Your thoughts and opinions?


 
People can debate whether the fence will be effective.  We can debate whether it's the right thing to do.  What I resent is _other_ countries trying to tell us we don't have the right to do it.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 26, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> People can debate whether the fence will be effective.  We can debate whether it's the right thing to do.  What I resent is _other_ countries trying to tell us we don't have the right to do it.


Gotta agree with you on that!

I don't think it'll be very effective though.  They'll just go elsewhere like they did when they fenced the area around San Diego.

Jeff


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 26, 2006)

I think it is just what the world needs, ... a New Iron Curtin.

It is a ridiculous, ineffective, political showboat move. Not nearly as bad as the Federal government throwing Billions of dollars to Ohio teachers to buy their votes (Karl Rove is seeing 'special polls, yeah right), but it is a stunt, none the less.

I never thought I would ever miss Ronald Reagan.



			
				Imaginary Ronald Reagan said:
			
		

> Mr. Bush, Don't even think about building this wall.


----------



## Monadnock (Oct 26, 2006)

Speaking of illegals, I got this light-hearted email:




> Subject: Becoming Illegal (From a Maryland resident to his Senator)
> 
> Honorable Senators,
> 
> ...


 
Kind of funny, but then it's not. I think it's pretty easy to renounce citizenship here though isn't it?


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 26, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> Kind of funny, but then it's not. I think it's pretty easy to renounce citizenship here though isn't it?


 
I don't think so.  Seems like there was this guy running around at the start of the war who went to be a human shield for Saddam Hussein.  Ex-Marine who kept trying to renounce his citizenship, and the government kept saying no.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I think it is just what the world needs, ... a New Iron Curtin.


Well, not exactly the same... the Iron Curtain was oriented towards keeping people in. This is more designed to keep people out, or at least make them follow the legal process for entry.



> It is a ridiculous, ineffective, political showboat move.


not ridiculous. too early to tell if ineffective. Time will tell that one. Political showboat move? Perhaps. I'd have less doubts about that if it happened 1.5 years ago. I'm leaning towards it being politically motivated.



> I never thought I would ever miss Ronald Reagan.


I miss him alot, even before this mess. Good president


----------



## Monadnock (Oct 26, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> I don't think so. Seems like there was this guy running around at the start of the war who went to be a human shield for Saddam Hussein. Ex-Marine who kept trying to renounce his citizenship, and the government kept saying no.


 
Yea, I think you have to go live in another country for like 10 years or so, not coming back to the US and taking another citizenship up over there. Something like that...


----------



## Monadnock (Oct 26, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> not ridiculous. too early to tell if ineffective. Time will tell that one. Political showboat move? Perhaps. I'd have less doubts about that if it happened 1.5 years ago. I'm leaning towards it being politically motivated.


 
Nope, it isn't. What it will do is get all the Dem's scrambling to find a way to denounce it during this political season. And denouncing it looks weak on nationalization and security.

As for practicality, someone's gotta watch it. A fence is no good without some towers. As for the length, I guess tehy only had to cover the Californian border  Seems to be where they all want to go anyways.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 26, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> Yea, I think you have to go live in another country for like 10 years or so, not coming back to the US and taking another citizenship up over there. Something like that...



you can have dual citizenship actually...


----------



## Ping898 (Oct 26, 2006)

I am not entirely sure how 700 miles of fence on a 2000 mile border is going to help much...I think the money could be better spent and more effectively spent elsewhere, plus last I heard I don't even think this bill Bush signed included full funding for the fence...wonder where that money will come from...
Plus I got ESPN so can predict the future and tell you that it'll cost more than estimated....:uhyeah: 

I find it all amusing especially cause when I used to drive through El Paso, TX there was this big billboard that said "It's a border not a barrier"


----------



## crushing (Oct 26, 2006)

President Bush doesn't want an effective policy to keep the cheap illegal labor out.  The fence is to get people to believe the opposite.

Also, the media continues to refuse to differentiate between illegal aliens and legal immigrants making people opposed to illegal border crossings out to be xenophobes, which will be helpful in getting out the vote against those that appear to want to have an effective border security (such as those that are for a fence).


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 26, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Well, not exactly the same... the Iron Curtain was oriented towards keeping people in. This is more designed to keep people out, or at least make them follow the legal process for entry.
> 
> . . . . .
> 
> I miss him alot, even before this mess. Good president


 
All fences and walls work in two directions. No matter what attitude the person building the wall desires, it works both ways. 

I believe the line in Mending Walls reads something like: 

"Do we ever ask what we are fencing out, and what we are fencing in" 


And Ronald Reagan was a disaster of a President. History will benefit Reagan legacy because George W. Bush followed him. Compared to Bush, every president looks acceptable.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> All fences and walls work in two directions. No matter what attitude the person building the wall desires, it works both ways.


 
Therefore, what?  All walls are an Iron Curtain?  Or are you saying that this wall will keep millions of Americans from escaping to Mexico?


----------



## Kacey (Oct 26, 2006)

The problem with a wall or a fence - and I think this would be more like the Great Wall of China than the Iron Curtain - is that people will continue to find a way in as long as there is incentive for them to do so that outweighs the potential risk and consequences.  Unless and until that changes, no wall, fence, or law will be effective, and we will continue to pour resources into preventing illegal immigration that could better be used elsewhere - for the benefit of current citizens, instead of the detriment of illegal aliens.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 26, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> Therefore, what? All walls are an Iron Curtain? Or are you saying that this wall will keep millions of Americans from escaping to Mexico?


http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/frost-mending.html



> My apple trees will never get across
> And eat the cones under his pines,


 
and here's the exact language .. 



> Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
> What I was walling in or walling out,
> And to whom I was like to give offence.
> Something there is that doesn't love a wall,


 
Who knew that Robert Frost so hated America, eh?

EDIT

And I just re-read the ending, and was struck anew by its power . . . 



> He moves in darkness as it seems to me~
> Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
> He will not go behind his father's saying,
> And he likes having thought of it so well
> He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."



. . . . and the power is not the catchphrase so many quote when looking to this art.

END EDIT


----------



## crushing (Oct 26, 2006)

> Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
> What I was walling in or walling out,
> *And to whom I was like to give offence. *
> Something there is that doesn't love a wall,




Thank you for finding the poem and posting parts of it.  I took the link too and didn't see any reference to gateways that would allow passage between the neighbors properties, other than gaps caused by spilling boulders.

Anyway, the border patrol is a sort of wall or fence that also keeps people out (I suppose they keep people in that may be thinking of escaping to Mexico too).  Do you think the border patrol may be offensive to someone, and should border patrols cease?  Don't they serve pretty much the same purpose as the fence?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 26, 2006)

We are all here through immigration in some sense.

Seems kinda hyppcrtitcally cruel to say "we were lucky enough to get here ahead of you and now we don't want you to follow"

Seems kinda silly to say "walking from point A to point B is now illegal"

However, if you are going to be part of the community and enjoy the benefits of the community, you need to be part of the community in paying for those benefits.  The borders shouldn't be protected by fences and manned by guards; they should be protected by turnstiles and manned by civil servants handing out SSAN cards.


----------



## donald (Oct 26, 2006)

I say build it. We need to add better security measures to this area. I don't see why anyone would be against this? If you choose to come in legally, it would be a non issue. If you chose to come in by nefarious means, it would be a big issue. Again I say, law abiding citizen=no issue. To the potential lawbreaker=huge issue.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 26, 2006)

Kacey said:


> The problem with a wall or a fence - and I think this would be more like the Great Wall of China than the Iron Curtain - is that people will continue to find a way in as long as there is incentive for them to do so that outweighs the potential risk and consequences. Unless and until that changes, no wall, fence, or law will be effective, and we will continue to pour resources into preventing illegal immigration that could better be used elsewhere - for the benefit of current citizens, instead of the detriment of illegal aliens.


 
This is true.  But it doesn't need to be an absolute success if it minimizes to a large enough degree the number of illegal aliens who risk the trip.  As many as now come across the border, there are many who don't because of the danger, the cost, or other considerations.  Some will still find a way to get through, but the number will likely be smaller because of the increased risk, cost, etc.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 26, 2006)

crushing said:


> Anyway, the border patrol is a sort of wall or fence that also keeps people out (I suppose they keep people in that may be thinking of escaping to Mexico too). Do you think the border patrol may be offensive to someone, and should border patrols cease? Don't they serve pretty much the same purpose as the fence?


 
My opinion as to borders is that we should allow anyone who wishes to enter this country to work, access to enter the country to work. As the immigrants of the late 18th and early 19th century, they pass through a check in station (Ellis Island) to record their entry into the country. Give 'em a green card. Let them work. Eliminate quotas for who can enter the country. Eliminate the requirements for who can enter the country. 

Let them all in. 

Were we to adopt this philosophy, there would be zero illegal immigrants, because all immigrants are welcomed. 

I am not afraid. 

I am not afraid of immigrants.

I am not afraid of terrorists.

I am not afraid of gays.

I am not afraid of blacks.

I'll leave the fear to the other guys.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 26, 2006)

> Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
> What I was walling in or walling out,
> And to whom I was like to give offence.
> Something there is that doesn't love a wall,


 
Yeah, I like that poem too.  Hardly a basis for foreign policy, but... nice poem.

As for whom we are like to give offence, I'm sure they understand.


----------



## BrandiJo (Oct 26, 2006)

I think i would be in suport of this idea if i had some assurance that it would be used just to keep illegal immagrants out, not to at some point keep us in​


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 26, 2006)

BrandiJo said:


> I think i would be in suport of this idea if i had some assurance that it would be used just to keep illegal immagrants out, not to at some point keep us in​


 
Good point, and that's why I asked michaeledward for clarification.  If it keeps us in that's a problem, because you can't have freedom without the right to vote with your feet.

It brings up an interesting question:  what happens if Mexico builds a wall on their side?  That would certainly keep us in or, from their perspective, out.  And they would be within their rights to do so, no?


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 26, 2006)

donald said:


> I say build it. We need to add better security measures to this area. I don't see why anyone would be against this? If you choose to come in legally, it would be a non issue. If you chose to come in by nefarious means, it would be a big issue. Again I say, law abiding citizen=no issue. To the potential lawbreaker=huge issue.



great points.

I know a decent amount of immigrants here, including my wife.  Every legal one I know is really upset about the situation with illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants wind up spending thousands of dollars for lawyers/fees from INS. I'm not asking for new laws, just please start enforcing the existing ones. If this fence stops illegal immigration, or at least stems the tide, then I encourage it.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> My opinion as to borders is that we should allow anyone who wishes to enter this country to work, access to enter the country to work. As the immigrants of the late 18th and early 19th century, they pass through a check in station (Ellis Island) to record their entry into the country. Give 'em a green card. Let them work. Eliminate quotas for who can enter the country. Eliminate the requirements for who can enter the country.
> 
> Let them all in.



Prepare for huge overpopulation. Think its been growing too fast now? Think roads are crowded now? Think schools are bursting at the seams now? Frustrated at people living here w/out being able to speak the common language? Just wait until the flood gates are released. There is a reason we have immigration policies, and why industrialized countries have some form of immigration policy.



> Were we to adopt this philosophy, there would be zero illegal immigrants, because all immigrants are welcomed.



*snort* they are welcome, if they adhere to the legal process of entering this country. There is a process, and thousands a year adhere to that principal, dishing out thousands of dollar to follow the legal process. They are quite welcome.



> I am not afraid.


Except of Republicans, or those that do not adhere to your principle.



> I am not afraid of immigrants.


Not a fear of immigrants, rather of uncontrolled immigration, overcrowding, taxing of our economy, overcrowding of our schools/roads. Not a fear of the illegal immigrant even, but the repurcusions, unless there are legitimate reasons for them not being here (criminal, terrorist, etc).



> I am not afraid of terrorists.


ever heard of 9/11? how about the bombings of embassies over the past 20 years? London? Madrid train? You don't need to live in a state of morbid fear, but realize it is a problem and it needs to be dealt with. Adhering to a state of "I won't be afraid" is not going to deter many suicide bombers.

Since this is about illegal aliens, yes, I would be afraid of admitting terrorist across our porous border with Mexico. That is a recipe for disaster.



> I am not afraid of gays.
> 
> I am not afraid of blacks.


I don't think this is much of an issue with immigration, but, then again... maybe it is for some people. I'm not away of this being an immigration issue.



> I'll leave the fear to the other guys.



I'd prefer to be aware. Living in a state of constant fear is not the way to live, but you do need to be in a state of awareness. Being aware of a potential problem and dealing with it is not "being afraid" but being practical and aware. I'd prefer to be that way.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 26, 2006)

donald said:


> I say build it. We need to add better security measures to this area. I don't see why anyone would be against this?


 
Because of the ungodly sum of money such a project would cost.

This on top of reconstruction efforts following Hurricane Katrina, that PNAC quagmire in Iraq, public education in need of drastic renewal, Social Security funds drying up in the near future, and preferential tax cuts to the wealthiest 10% in the country.....

Seriously, people, where do you think all this money is coming from?? Our education system is a joke (thanks, NCLB!), people are driving to Canada for their healthcare, and our environmental standards are less than ideal. Then, of course, there's the little things like, say, poverty.

Is a regional fence --- which may or may not work --- really best the use of our tax dollars?? I mean, really??


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 26, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Because of the ungodly sum of money such a project would cost.
> 
> This on top of reconstruction efforts following Hurricane Katrina, that PNAC quagmire in Iraq, public education in need of drastic renewal, Social Security funds drying up in the near future, and preferential tax cuts to the wealthiest 10% in the country.....


in this country, it seems nothing is cheap. Its going to be pricey. We will always have other things to pay for. There will always be a crisis. At what point should we shell out the cash then? Or just leave it porous as it is?

I'd get into the tax cut thing, but this is about immigration LOL



> Seriously, people, where do you think all this money is coming from?? Our education system is a joke (thanks, NCLB!), people are driving to Canada for their healthcare, and our environmental standards are less than ideal. Then, of course, there's the little things like, say, poverty.
> 
> Is a regional fence --- which may or may not work --- really best the use of our tax dollars?? I mean, really??



Part of the difficulty we are having here (in NC) with our education system is we are letting illegals come into our school systems. They are flooding them! regionally, 50% of the increase in new students come from children of illegal aliens.

I know a few people in Canada. The health system is not all that, from my understanding. you have a nice waiting line for most procedures (correct me if I'm wrong here! we have alot of canadians here). Alot of people come to the US because we have a great medical community. Most of th best doctors and best research is going on here.


Of course we have other issues. We have the poor, we have social security, we have hurricanes, floods, disasters of all sorts. Is is the best way to spend the money? I think so. Apparently congress/president thought so. I could see arguing against the _cost_ of the project, but not the _purpose_ of the project.

Lets take a look 5 years down the road and see if things have improved some. If so, I'll say its money well spent. I think 700 miles is not enough, but its a decent start.


----------



## crushing (Oct 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I am not afraid.
> I am not afraid of immigrants.
> I am not afraid of terrorists.
> I am not afraid of gays.
> ...


 

It's good you're not afraid.  I'm not sure I understand the purpose of lumping immigrants, gays, and blacks in with terrorists though, or what that has to do with a border fence.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 26, 2006)

crushing said:


> It's good you're not afraid. I'm not sure I understand the purpose of lumping immigrants, gays, and blacks in with terrorists though, or what that has to do with a border fence.


 
Because those are the themes of the Republican campaign in 2006.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 26, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Prepare for huge overpopulation. Think its been growing too fast now? Think roads are crowded now? Think schools are bursting at the seams now? Frustrated at people living here w/out being able to speak the common language? Just wait until the flood gates are released. There is a reason we have immigration policies, and why industrialized countries have some form of immigration policy.


 
I do not think population is growing too fast, except on a global scale.

I'm not worried about crowded roads, and I drive for a living. I'm not worried about school population, because for every child attending school, there is an adult working somewhere. I am not frustrated with language issues; occassionally challenged, but by the second generation, they all speak English. 

I am not worried by any of these items. 

I think they are false bogeymen.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I do not think population is growing too fast, except on a global scale.
> 
> I'm not worried about crowded roads, and I drive for a living. I'm not worried about school population, because for every child attending school, there is an adult working somewhere. I am not frustrated with language issues; occassionally challenged, but by the second generation, they all speak English.
> 
> ...



Immigration may not be a problem where you live, but here it is. NC has two of the fastest growing counties in the US (percentage wise). almost all illegal aliens.

My wife has a 5th grader that can barely speak english. His parents were born in Mexico. Was he? Nah. Born in Chicago. Still can't speak the language. Isolated incident? Maybe. I don't know alot of illegals, so I can't speak generally.

For every child attending school, there are tax payers paying for him/her. The parents of those children are almost certainly not paying taxes. This increases the burden on those that are on the tax roles. I'm one of those being asked to build more schools, buy more land and send these kids to college. there is already a teacher shortage, and now they are wanting to go year-round here in my county. they are going to lose alot of teachers accordingly.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 26, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> in this country, it seems nothing is cheap. Its going to be pricey. We will always have other things to pay for. There will always be a crisis. At what point should we shell out the cash then? Or just leave it porous as it is?


 
The logical choice --- the one that most conservative ideologues are so dead set against --- is to dramatically cut military spending. We spend more on military expenditures than every other country in the world _combined_. That is, quite literally, insane.

If we distanced ourselves from the PNAC's self-proclaimed agenda of creating and sustaining a _Pax Americana_, then tax payer dollars could be freed up to pay for other things.



mrhnau said:


> Part of the difficulty we are having here (in NC) with our education system is we are letting illegals come into our school systems. They are flooding them! regionally, 50% of the increase in new students come from children of illegal aliens.



And how, exactly, does one know if these children are the offspring of legal immigrants as opposed to illegal immigrants?? Did somebody actually poll their parents and find out??



mrhnau said:


> Alot of people come to the US because we have a great medical community. Most of th best doctors and best research is going on here.



Yes, and I'm sure the people that can actually afford "the best doctors" have no need for healthcare plans and the like. Of course, this in no way applies to the majority of the populace, but why get bothered up in little facts like that??

By the way, research in no way correlates with quality healthcare.



mrhnau said:


> Of course we have other issues. We have the poor, we have social security, we have hurricanes, floods, disasters of all sorts. Is is the best way to spend the money? I think so. Apparently congress/president thought so.



Which isn't saying much, given that we presently have the most fiscally irresponsible government within the last 100 years of American history. The only bill during his 6 years in office that this president has vetoed is increased federal funding for stem-cell research.

Pork barrel, much??



mrhnau said:


> I could see arguing against the _cost_ of the project, but not the _purpose_ of the project.



The _purpose_ of this project is to perpetuate the xenophobic ideology that has defined immigration laws in the United States since the mid-19th century.



mrhnau said:


> Lets take a look 5 years down the road and see if things have improved some. If so, I'll say its money well spent.



Given the fact that we have a multi-billion dollar deficit, are in the middle of a military occupation of a hostile foreign country, and are struggling in a number of domestic issues....

I think it's just business as usual in Washington.

Laterz.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 26, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> The logical choice --- the one that most conservative ideologues are so dead set against --- is to dramatically cut military spending. We spend more on military expenditures than every other country in the world _combined_. That is, quite literally, insane.



Unless you want the US to step down as the sole super-power, I doubt thats going to happen. Point taken though... we could shave some things perhaps, but I'm not big on draconian cuts.



> And how, exactly, does one know if these children are the offspring of legal immigrants as opposed to illegal immigrants?? Did somebody actually poll their parents and find out??


That is hard to tell. As for if its been polled, I'd have to find out. Most of those my wife works with have to have an interpreter for discussions. Does that mean they are illegal? no, but if they are on the route to citizenship, they have to be somewhat literate in the language. Is that the only guideline? no...

I'll see if I can find some information on that. you have me interested now.



> By the way, research in no way correlates with quality healthcare.


No, but it insures that medicine in the future is going to be better. Also, if there are radical new methods, there has to be a testing process, human trials. So, even during the research stages, health care can improve



> Which isn't saying much, given that we presently have the most fiscally irresponsible government within the last 100 years of American history. The only bill during his 6 years in office that this president has vetoed is increased federal funding for stem-cell research.
> 
> Pork barrel, much??


I'll have to agree. not very fiscally responsible.



> The _purpose_ of this project is to perpetuate the xenophobic ideology that has defined immigration laws in the United States since the mid-19th century.


as opposed to just having open border. Is that what you would like? Let anyone in any time they want? no regulation or proper procedure for entry?



> Given the fact that we have a multi-billion dollar deficit, are in the middle of a military occupation of a hostile foreign country, and are struggling in a number of domestic issues....
> 
> I think it's just business as usual in Washington.
> 
> Laterz.


*nods* I'll agree there


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 26, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Unless you want the US to step down as the sole super-power....


 
Yes, I do. 

It is precisely because of this unilateral _Pax Americana_ ideology that we are having such a time of battling international terrorism.



mrhnau said:


> Point taken though... we could shave some things perhaps, but I'm not big on draconian cuts.



I'm not what sure what you mean by "draconian cuts" here, but even as little as a 10% decrease in our current military expenditure would free up billions of dollars for domestic issues like immigration reform, education reform, Social Security, and so on.



mrhnau said:


> Also, if there are radical new methods, there has to be a testing process, human trials. So, even during the research stages, health care can improve



Okay, I am going to tell you something right now for the safety of you and any loved ones you may have that are considering experimental treatment.

Unless you are left with absolutely no recourse, do _not_ do it.

My academic advisor is a behavioral neuroscientist. One of the things she pointed out to me is that experimental medical procedures (particularly from the pharmaceutical side of things) have a number of "phases", one of which is determining what is the "non-lethal" dosage of a particular treatment in humans. 

In other words, they're trying to find out what will and will not kill you.



mrhnau said:


> as opposed to just having open border. Is that what you would like? Let anyone in any time they want? no regulation or proper procedure for entry?



I don't think we should have quotas, that's for sure. Especially when such quotas give preferential treatment to individuals of certain ethnic backgrounds and national origins (i.e., white families from western Europe). This has been the case since the mid-19th century and it is still the case now.

I fully agree with the idea of regulation and proper procedure, but I feel the best way to ensure this is increased spending on law enforcement training, personnel recruitment, and resources. Not building a gigantic wall.

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 26, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> as opposed to just having open border. Is that what you would like? Let anyone in any time they want? no regulation or proper procedure for entry?


 
Yes. In my opinion, that is exactly what we should do. It seemed to work pretty good for us for the first 150 years of the republic. A completely open border. Let anyone in, at any time, for any reason.  If they come to visit, and decide they want to stay and work; Fine. 

As for 'proper procedure', how about they just announce they are here. Maybe they need to check in at a Social Security / Department of Homeland Security / Immigration office - some adminstrative role to count who is here. Perhaps some sort of procedure to give every traveller permission to work in the country - a green card. Something to count them, but not restrict them. No restrictions on what the can do here (outside of other legal rules). No restrictions on how long they can stay here. 

Seems like a simple, inexpensive solution to me. 

Of course, it doesn't work if we are all afraid of 'The Other'.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 26, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> I fully agree with the idea of regulation and proper procedure, but I feel the best way to ensure this is increased spending on law enforcement training, personnel recruitment, and resources. Not building a gigantic wall.
> 
> Laterz.


 
Are you insane?  More Training, sure... but more personell and resources?  Give me a break... Our LEO are already being used primarilly as revenue generators for the state, not in the function of serving and protecting... It jerks my chain when a crime is commited and the response from the cops is "we lack the resources/manpower to invest in this" when I see 4-6 squadcars, 2 cops each,  being used for Seatbelt enforcement stops... and YES that is a REAL EXAMPLE of what is going on here in Illinois... but thats a whole other thread.

I say Less cops... who are more focused on the good of the community and less on the coffers of their villages.

By the way... I support immigration reform more than I support a fence... but if we aint gonna reform it, we may as well make the crime more difficult.  I mean, Mike, and Heretic, would you sell the locks on the doors of your house and car and use the money to reducate criminals?  Would it make you safer?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 26, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> By the way... I support immigration reform more than I support a fence... but if we aint gonna reform it, we may as well make the crime more difficult. I mean, Mike, and Heretic, would you sell the locks on the doors of your house and car and use the money to reducate criminals? Would it make you safer?


 
No, but I wouldn't spend millions of dollars building a giant fence around my house, either.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 26, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> By the way... I support immigration reform more than I support a fence... but if we aint gonna reform it, we may as well make the crime more difficult. I mean, Mike, and Heretic, would you sell the locks on the doors of your house and car and use the money to reducate criminals? Would it make you safer?


 
Well, let me think about that for a few minutes ... 

What criminal ? ---- straw man construction alert.

I am very much in favor of rehabilitation. When rehabilitation is not possible, I am in favor of loss of freedom. When rehabilitation is possible, I recommend loss of property and rehabilitation. 

Seems to me, however, that building and operating jails is a big business in this country. There is lots of money to be made in building and operating prisons and housing criminals - especially those non-violent drug offenders. So, I don't think we are going to see much effort toward 'reducation', as you call it. There is not so much money in that. 

But, if there weren't any laws prohibiting fellow earthlings from travelling to our fair city, they wouldn't be criminal. 

Seems to me that one of the other threads on this board talked about 'hiding our light under a bushel' - (I know I've heard that argument somewhere) - kinda begs the question - why are even trying to be a light on a hill, if we won't let those who need to come here most, come?


----------



## Drac (Oct 26, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> What I resent is _other_ countries trying to tell us we don't have the right to do it.


 
I agree...


----------



## Drac (Oct 26, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> ... It jerks my chain when a crime is commited and the response from the cops is "we lack the resources/manpower to invest in this" when I see 4-6 squadcars, 2 cops each, being used for Seatbelt enforcement stops... and YES that is a REAL EXAMPLE of what is going on here in Illinois... but thats a whole other thread


 
Thank God I'm an LEO in Ohio... 4-6 squad cars with 2 officers@ for a SEATBELT stop???? Like you said that's a whole nother thread...


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 26, 2006)

I'm sorry to say that I missed this when the article was originally published ... 

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/26/bush-fence-bill/

Sorry - don't have the direct link to the WaPo. 



> No sooner did Congress authorize construction of a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border last week than lawmakers rushed to approve separate legislation that ensures it will never be built, at least not as advertised, according to Republican lawmakers and immigration experts.
> 
> . . .
> 
> But shortly before recessing late Friday, the House and Senate gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money to a combination of projects -- not just the physical barrier along the southern border. The funds may also be spent on roads, technology and "tactical infrastructure" to support the Department of Homeland Security's preferred option of a "virtual fence."


 
So, basically, like the teacher money thrown to Ohio yesterday, this is a cheap way to throw money at votes in the border states. 

And the FENCE will never be built. 

Must be election time.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Seems to me that one of the other threads on this board talked about 'hiding our light under a bushel' - (I know I've heard that argument somewhere) - kinda begs the question - why are even trying to be a light on a hill, if we won't let those who need to come here most, come?



Ok, so lemme ask you this:  My fairly small suburban town is one of the ones looking to enact legislation against Illegal Aliens.  It is currently esitmated that approxamatly 40% of our towns population is illegal.  So far for 2006 the Village has footed over 400,000 dollars in unrecoverable ambulance bills for the illegal aliens living here.  Meanwhile our roads have potholes large enough for a small child to hide in, and moderate rains cause them to flood to the point that they become impassible.  The village claims it lacks the funds to repair the roads... But I wager that 400,000 bucks would go a LONG way twords repairing them.  Instead... just to recover some of those funds, they have raised the rates for Water and Sewer, & Village Vehicle sticker costs.  So, I'm paying for those people "who need to come here most"... while they hide from their responsibilies here (like the ambulance bills). And thats just ONE expense they are costing my town.  Maybe you don't understand my frustration... 

But... I have a feeling that you live better than I do... perhaps you'd like to pony up a portion of your income every month to help ME better MY situation... I mean... winter is upon us, and I still cant afford a working car... so I will be on my motorcycle in the snow again this year... Help a brother out.  Its the least you can do, if you actually believe that its MY responsibility to let these folk do what they are doing here and then I pay for THEM.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 26, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> No, but I wouldn't spend millions of dollars building a giant fence around my house, either.



If the fence cost that much, your house is too big.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 26, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Ok, so lemme ask you this: My fairly small suburban town is one of the ones looking to enact legislation against Illegal Aliens. It is currently esitmated that approxamatly 40% of our towns population is illegal. So far for 2006 the Village has footed over 400,000 dollars in unrecoverable ambulance bills for the illegal aliens living here. Meanwhile our roads have potholes large enough for a small child to hide in, and moderate rains cause them to flood to the point that they become impassible. The village claims it lacks the funds to repair the roads... But I wager that 400,000 bucks would go a LONG way twords repairing them. Instead... just to recover some of those funds, they have raised the rates for Water and Sewer, & Village Vehicle sticker costs. So, I'm paying for those people "who need to come here most"... while they hide from their responsibilies here (like the ambulance bills). And thats just ONE expense they are costing my town. Maybe you don't understand my frustration...
> 
> But... I have a feeling that you live better than I do... perhaps you'd like to pony up a portion of your income every month to help ME better MY situation... I mean... winter is upon us, and I still cant afford a working car... so I will be on my motorcycle in the snow again this year... Help a brother out. Its the least you can do, if you actually believe that its MY responsibility to let these folk do what they are doing here and then I pay for THEM.


 
Estimated by whom ?

Assuming your number is even close to correct ........ what are those 40% doing in your community? 

Somehow, I think that somewhere in your ancestry, someone in your lineage came to a new town, and those there before felt the newcomers weren't welcome either. 

And .... although I think you are raising noise in an area better left silent ....  I support a few notable causes. . . . . . . . 

But perhaps most importantly, I am a big government kind of guy. I think government can do things to help the community. I don't try and tear the community and government down. In my estimation, that has been the tactic of the Republican party at least since I turned my attention toward politics in the mid-eighties. It seems that we reap what we sow. And the harvest may be upon some now, eh?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 26, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> If the fence cost that much, your house is too big.


 
Okay, lemme put it his way.

I wouldn't build a fence around my home. At all.

I've lived with them and I've lived without them. I prefer the latter.

Laterz.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Estimated by whom ?
> 
> Assuming your number is even close to correct ........ what are those 40% doing in your community?



The Village Board, and this Number is supporetd by the Village president who does not believe we should remove them.  What are they doing?  Lessee... 2 PROMINENT Hispanic street gangs... 4 known fatal hit-and-runs in the last 18 months by Unlicenced, uninsured Illegal aliens, who were eventually caught, not to mention the ones who were not, or who were nto involved in FATAL accidents... and oh yes, did I mention that 400,000 in Unpaid, uncollectable ambulance fees?



michaeledward said:


> Somehow, I think that somewhere in your ancestry, someone in your lineage came to a new town, and those there before felt the newcomers weren't welcome either.



Yes.  I am 50-50 Irish German.  My ancestors weren't welcome.  The major  difference?  They came here, learned the language, and became LEGAL citizens, as opposed to being lawless criminals.



michaeledward said:


> But perhaps most importantly, I am a big government kind of guy. I think government can do things to help the community. I don't try and tear the community and government down.



Nahhhh... never seen you make a post that would try to tear the current Government down... no sir... you've never done it.   But for my part... I used to be a big supporter of government... But now I see it for what it is... and yes... I support removing most of it from our lives... like I said earlier... make it easier for them to become legal... so they can pay into the system and not be criminals.  Until then, we need to keep them out, or make them pay, and Im waiting for that car you are buying me.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 27, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> I've lived with them and I've lived without them. I prefer the latter.
> 
> Laterz.



Well, we all have our own ideas on saftey... Believe me, if it was a) Affordable, and b) Legal in my neighborhood, I would have a 8 foot wall topped with barbed wire around my house.  

As it stands, its hard to get a permit to fence in a dog run here.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 27, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> The Village Board, and this Number is supporetd by the Village president who does not believe we should remove them. What are they doing? Lessee... 2 PROMINENT Hispanic street gangs... 4 known fatal hit-and-runs in the last 18 months by Unlicenced, uninsured Illegal aliens, who were eventually caught, not to mention the ones who were not, or who were nto involved in FATAL accidents... and oh yes, did I mention that 400,000 in Unpaid, uncollectable ambulance fees?
> 
> 
> Yes. I am 50-50 Irish German. My ancestors weren't welcome. The major difference? They came here, learned the language, and became LEGAL citizens, as opposed to being lawless criminals.
> ...


 
So 40 % of the population of your village are living the MadMax world. <<shrugg>> I guess I understand your dilema. I do find the statistic strains credibility, but I don't know where you are, and so I must take your word for it. 

As for your German heritage not being welcome / criminal - I suppose we have to go back and find the immigrant population that showed up before the German's and get their opinion on that matter. 

And as for what language the immigrants speak, I think it is only fair to look forward ... how long ago did your German anscestors arrive? - several decades to determine what language a) they are speaking and b) we are speaking. And, just another random thought or two ---- I see lots of Sweedish Flags on the back of Saabs - Why doesn't anyone get upset with that? And, doesn't every major metropolis in the country have a 'Chinatown'? What language do they speak there? Why doesn't that seem to bother the people who don't like 'Hispanictown'? 

Yes, I do tear down the current government. Because they are executing the responsibilities of government in a criminally incompetent manner. While every system has inherint inefficiencies, and no government will ever be perfect, the current Legislative and Executive players *do not believe that government can do any good*. Why on earth would someone vote for a person or group who does not believe in the institution of which, they are trying to become a part?

Voting for a candidate for government that you think is best going to remove government, in my opinion, is an act of insanity. Vote for the guy who believe in limited government - not the guy who wants to destroy government - or worse yet - manipulate what he sees as disfunctional for his personal gain (The Google - Tom Delay for instance).


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 27, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Unless you want the US to step down as the sole super-power.
> 
> Oh yes! Please!


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 27, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> mrhnau said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you want the US to step down as the sole super-power.
> ...


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Yes, I do tear down the current government. Because they are executing the responsibilities of government in a criminally incompetent manner. While every system has inherint inefficiencies, and no government will ever be perfect, the current Legislative and Executive players *do not believe that government can do any good*. Why on earth would someone vote for a person or group who does not believe in the institution of which, they are trying to become a part?



Straw man argument.

The current administration does not think that goverment can't do any good. But they think that the goverment should be running everything like they run the post office.

I think I explained it to you in the thread about this year's peace prize winner.



> And .... although I think you are raising noise in an area better left silent .... I support a few notable causes. . . . . . . .



Why should you get to pick and choose what you will give money too and John has to pay taxes for causes he does not support? If you feel strongly enough about the matter, then you should be willing to put your money where your mouth is. That is the point I think John was trying to make.



> But perhaps most importantly, I am a big government kind of guy. I think government can do things to help the community. I don't try and tear the community and government down.



You also wrote,



> Vote for the guy who believe in limited government -



Limited government is not the same as a government that will "help" you. A government that protects you from other people and the harm they can do to you is a very needed part of goverment. But when goverment tries to come in and build up a community, it means that it has decided what we all will strive for. I hate that idea of someone imposing the goverment will on others and prefer to leave others alone as much as possible. Who gets to say what is the type of people we should be and why do they need the power of goverment to stiffle any voices that may disagree?

John is complaining that people who will not be paying taxes are costing tax dollars. Why should he pay taxes to something that does not benefit him, only a group of people that came here knowing that they are breaking the law? There is compassion, and then there is the tax man forcing you to pay up.

Those that want to help, should open up their hearts and wallets to do so. What I have trouble with is those that call out for compassion and expect _everyone else_ to shell out cash because they feel that they know better than those people how the money they earn should be spent.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> As for your German heritage not being welcome / criminal - I suppose we have to go back and find the immigrant population that showed up before the German's and get their opinion on that matter.



Come now... You and I both know I was referring to my IRISH heritage when I say my ancestors came here and were unwanted.  Its the reason my last name is no longer O'Boyle.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> And as for what language the immigrants speak, I think it is only fair to look forward ... how long ago did your German anscestors arrive? - several decades to determine what language a) they are speaking and b) we are speaking.



When my ancestors came here - predominately between 1900 and 1910, although one set of great-grandparents moved to Chicago in the 1860s - they spoke anything from Russian to German to Gaelic.  They all learned English for dealing with those from other countries, because it was the common language of the areas to which they moved - Chicago, as previously stated, New York (upstate NY, not the city), and Alabama.  Two of my granparents were born in the US - one in Chicago, and one in Alabama; the other two were brought here by their parents as young children - one was born in Russia, and the other en route.



michaeledward said:


> And, just another random thought or two ---- I see lots of Sweedish Flags on the back of Saabs - Why doesn't anyone get upset with that?


Because the people with Swedish flags don't walk around talking loudly in Swedish and refusing to integrate with the larger society outside their own neighborhoods.  One of the best things that happened in terms of creating an American culture was, in my opinion, when the neighborhoods that were so strictly stratified by culture became integrated - that was when it truly became necessary for people to learn English, so they could leave their own cultural enclave.  Before that time, people stayed in - and protected the segragated nature of - their own enclaves.  

One of the problems here is created by political correctness.  Everyone is now hyphenated to avoid offending anyone... and I find it offensive that so many people will not identify themselves or others as simply "Americans".  I am an American; I also happen to be Jewish, female, Caucasian, etc. - but I am not a hyphenated anything, and I am vocal about my objections to that when people try to categorize me that way.  If some of the "politically correct" labels were removed - and thus stopped creating subgroups within society that serve to separate, rather than unite, I think that some of the problems would ease.  We are so busy, as a society, identifying people by their origins, lest we offend them by omitting those origins, that we do many people a disservice.  I know way too many people who are native speakers of some dialect of Spanish who are lumped in as Hispanic, and don't like it - because once they are labeled as Hispanic, everyone assumes they are from Mexico, and many of them aren't; they are from Spain, Portugal, Brazil, and Middle and South America, and they are emphatically _not_ Mexican - a fact that is lost when they are lumped together.



michaeledward said:


> And, doesn't every major metropolis in the country have a 'Chinatown'? What language do they speak there?



Because not every metropolis had a mass immigration of Chinese or other Asian immigrants at the time the city was being developed, and newer cities, while immigrants (both legal and illegal) may choose to live near others who share an ethnic background, a religion, a language, etc., and often newer immigrants end up being placed together deliberately by aid agencies who have found inexpensive housing, such areas are not as clearly defined as they were at the time - that is, the 1850s.  And yes, many people in Chinatown speak Chinese - but they don't refuse to learn English for use outside their own community.



michaeledward said:


> Why doesn't that seem to bother the people who don't like 'Hispanictown'?



See above.  And also because Chinatown is an old area, well-established, and has been around since before racial discrimination was an issue.  It is, at this point, less residential than it is aimed at the tourist trade, which is another issue.  As a teacher, I know too many kids whose parents were born in the US and never bothered to learn English, and the kids resent having to learn it for school.  This is, almost universally, a problem with the 2nd and 3rd generation Spanish speakers - never the new immigrants, whose parents have a clear idea of why they moved to the US and what they want for their kids, and how important it is for those kids to learn English - and therefore for the parents to learn as best they can - so their kids can gain the advantages of being American citizens.  The ones who have lived in this country for 2 or 3 generations and never learned much English, if any, who stay within their own community because they cannot communicate with anyone outside it - those are the ones who are at the root of much of the problem.  Historically, this actually did occur in Chinatown, but it changed so long ago that no one thinks about it, just like it did in the equivalent community of Germans who moved to Milwaukee.



michaeledward said:


> Yes, I do tear down the current government. Because they are executing the responsibilities of government in a criminally incompetent manner. While every system has inherint inefficiencies, and no government will ever be perfect, the current Legislative and Executive players *do not believe that government can do any good*. Why on earth would someone vote for a person or group who does not believe in the institution of which, they are trying to become a part?


Because if I don't vote, I am giving up a significant portion of my ability to participate in government.  Yes, the US government has some significant problems - but better to be part of the solution, by making my voice heard wherever and whenever I can, than to sit on the sidelines and complain.



michaeledward said:


> Voting for a candidate for government that you think is best going to remove government, in my opinion, is an act of insanity. Vote for the guy who believe in limited government - not the guy who wants to destroy government - or worse yet - manipulate what he sees as disfunctional for his personal gain (The Google - Tom Delay for instance).


Herein lies one the greatest strengths, and greatest weaknesses, of the US government.  Your definition of whom this person is may mirror mine, may differ in some minor details, may be totally different.  That is what makes us a free republic, and is also what creates the opportunities that the self-serving use to increase their gain and our loss.  Only by participating can we do anything about it.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 27, 2006)

Kacey

From that post, all arguments you make fall beneath the claim that Chinatown was around before racial discrimination. 

Now it is truly unfair that I take that one proposition of yours, and because it is so blatantly wrong, and so indicitive of your lack of understanding of history, and discard all your other points.

But, Chinatowns across America exist *because of* racial discrimination. The Chinese immigrants of the 19th century were used, and abused, as indentured servants. Because of this, the created very closed, inward looking communities. This is why, one hundred and fifty years later, the native language is still used and revered in the Chinatowns across the country. 

But, I will address one other thought in your post ... 

When I suggest that others vote for a person who supports limited government, rather than those who seek to destroy government, I don't believe who those people are is open to interpretation. When someone says they want to '*starve the beast*' or '*reduce the size of government so it is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub*' - that is not someone in favor of limited government.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> When I suggest that others vote for a person who supports limited government, rather than those who seek to destroy government, I don't believe who those people are is open to interpretation. When someone says they want to '*starve the beast*' or '*reduce the size of government so it is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub*' - that is not someone in favor of limited government.


 
Personally, I think if things keep up in this manner, Im gonna find me an Oil Tanker or old Cruise ship and start a nice happy Mobile Country.

Who's with me?


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 27, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Personally, I think if things keep up in this manner, Im gonna find me an Oil Tanker or old Cruise ship and start a nice happy Mobile Country.
> 
> Who's with me?


 
I was thinking about getting a motorcycle with a sidecar and a nuke and declare myself a sovereign nation.  Any Stephenson fans here?


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 27, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Tez3 said:
> 
> 
> > *eyeballs the country you are from*
> ...


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 28, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> But, Chinatowns across America exist *because of* racial discrimination. The Chinese immigrants of the 19th century were used, and abused, as indentured servants. Because of this, the created very closed, inward looking communities. This is why, one hundred and fifty years later, the native language is still used and revered in the Chinatowns across the country.



None of the above is really relevant to the current situation, is it not?

We have people that are not forced by law to live in certain areas choosing to build up their own little enclaves with their first loyalty it seems to another country. They are here illeagly, so they just can't look at America as home as the Chinese did.

And if you go to Chinatowns, 99 percent of the people seem to speak English. Those that don't were not born here.

But there are families in their third generation on American soil and they don't seem to feel that they need to learn the language. They resent being told they should learn it.

I have a lot of problems with people that come to Japan to live for a few years and won't learn the language. My kids are learning Japanese and English. It is just common sense to make the kids learn the language of where you live.

But a lot of hispanic families are not.

And that is going to be one hell of a big problem down the line. About half of the hispanics in America may be here outside the law. That means they do not have loyalty to America since they are not part of it. They will not learn the language and don't make an effort to be part of America or the other cultures that make it up.

I look at some of the wars that have started in other countries between different ethnic groups and I see trouble in a few decades. Americans are pretty good about accepting new groups. But to make a concious effort to not teach your kids English, to discourage it, is something we have rarely seen. We can imagine someone just off the boat being too old to learn a new language. But when they discourage the kids to learn our language that is a declaration that they will not be part of the greater whole.

And that is not going to end well.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 28, 2006)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-561352967665308095&q=Eric+Schlosser&hl=en

I took the time to watch this wonderful series of lectures on video.  All of these guys bring up some wonderful points about our agriculture system.  This video deserves discussion all by itself.  

However, the speech of the Indian woman/scholar, Vandava Shiva, who appears around 36:00, is particularly relevant to this discussion.

I cannot say how many times, in this immigration debate, that I have brought up the point of "Why are the immigrants coming to this country."

Listen to her words.  We have reaped what we have sown.  And as soon as you understand this, you'll see the sheer irony of building this fence.

Also, listen to Eric Schlosser's speech.  He expounds upon Ms. Shiva's points and ties them directly to how they effect the US.  He appears around 47:00 minutes.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 28, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Kacey
> 
> From that post, all arguments you make fall beneath the claim that Chinatown was around before racial discrimination.


 
Let me rephrase:  I did not mean that racial discrimination was not alive and disturbingly common; I meant that it was not considered wrong at the time - it was considered normal.  It was, in that sense, a non-issue - something that no one would think about or consider wrong.  I was typing quickly and thus was unclear.  The word I left out was "social" - as in, it was not considered an issue of importance to society; polite society was racially and economically stratified, and that was the way of the world - no one thought about it, or if they did, it was just the way things were.  Only when it became socially acceptable to mix levels of society did discrimination become a social issue instead of a fact of life.  Today, in comparison, I find it to be unlikely that anyone would name an area "HispanicTown" because it would be deemed to be politically incorrect... that is, the area might be known as that quietly, but it is unlikely it would be published on maps.

I fail to see how that single unclarity makes the rest of my statement incorrect by default, nor do I see how it makes my grasp of history unclear - only my assumption that others would understand what I meant was in error, not my reasoning.  So sorry you could not separate the two.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 28, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-561352967665308095&q=Eric+Schlosser&hl=en
> 
> I took the time to watch this wonderful series of lectures on video. All of these guys bring up some wonderful points about our agriculture system. This video deserves discussion all by itself.
> 
> ...


 
For those of you with time or bandwith issues, the point of what I posted is to show that everytime that you buy a Big Mac or a bag or Doritos, you help support the system that puts a Mexican farmer out of business...leaving them no choice but to leave their families, risk life and limb, and abandon any sorts of workers rights to come here.

This is why building this fence is so ironic.  It's like Wal-mart moving into a small town, putting all of the small businesses out of business and then barring their doors to the newly cheap and desperate labor.  Can you see why President Bush, ever the champion of globalization, was initially against this?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 28, 2006)

Kacey said:


> Let me rephrase: I did not mean that racial discrimination was not alive and disturbingly common; I meant that it was not considered wrong at the time - it was considered normal. It was, in that sense, a non-issue - something that no one would think about or consider wrong. I was typing quickly and thus was unclear. The word I left out was "social" - as in, it was not considered an issue of importance to society; polite society was racially and economically stratified, and that was the way of the world - no one thought about it, or if they did, it was just the way things were. Only when it became socially acceptable to mix levels of society did discrimination become a social issue instead of a fact of life. Today, in comparison, I find it to be unlikely that anyone would name an area "HispanicTown" because it would be deemed to be politically incorrect... that is, the area might be known as that quietly, but it is unlikely it would be published on maps.
> 
> I fail to see how that single unclarity makes the rest of my statement incorrect by default, nor do I see how it makes my grasp of history unclear - only my assumption that others would understand what I meant was in error, not my reasoning. So sorry you could not separate the two.


 

Kacey, 

Are you really saying that racial discrimination was not considered wrong? 

Such an assertion can only be put forth with the confidence of the race doing the discrimination, not the discriminated. Somehow, I think the Chinese that were abused throughout the country didn't feel that everything was A-O-K with racial discrimination.

Even Thomas Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, as the nation was being created. It was a social custom, but it was absolutely wrong, and he knew it. If I am not mistaken, upon his death, he freed many of his slaves. 

People know wrong. They may choose, in their arrogance to ignore that it is wrong. And cowards may not have the courage to stand against tradition, but if a tradition is wrong, most people, I believe, in their thoughts know it is wrong.

As for naming of locations, seems to me that for a time 'Spanish Harlem' was a pretty famous neighborhood. That may not be the name they would use today, but every immigrant population got its own neighborhood red-lined from the community.

You have clarified your thoughts. I find they new clarity does not lend itself toward a greater appreciation.

Michael


----------



## Fu_Bag (Oct 28, 2006)

OK. First off, let me just say that my oppressed Ninja ancestors wouldn't approve of further oppression!!! (ninja joke...sorry, couldn't resist)

Secondly, the fence has yet to be financed and, in all probability, won't be. The legislation is probably toothless.

Here's a link to some interesting "fence" related news:

http://www.google.com/Top/Society/Issues/Immigration/Reconquista/

People can decide for themselves what they want to think.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Kacey,
> 
> Are you really saying that racial discrimination was not considered wrong?
> 
> Such an assertion can only be put forth with the confidence of the race doing the discrimination, not the discriminated.



I think that what he means is that society at large did not consider what happened to the Chinese as wrong. They were a racial minority and in the thinking of the time, were not important. He went out of his way to try to show how that would not be the same case in the 21st century but you seem to have missed it.

And we seem to have gotten off of his main point with this discussion about racism.

The Chinese of the 19th century in America did not have a common border with China. If you go to Chinatown now you will find people who speak Chinese _and English._ If you go to Little Italy you will find people who speak Italian _and English._ If you go to Armenian sections of some cities your will find people who speak Armenian _and English._

But if you go to some sections of cities with large numbers of hispanics you will find folks who _discourage_ their kids from learning English.

This is about as much of a slap in the face for integrating into America as you can get.

Take a look at some of the major problems we have seen in other countries. People have died in conflicts over stupid stuff like ethenticity is a lot of nations. And in a lot of those places the warring sides _speak the same language and are citizens of the same country!_

So when I look at people who refuse to let their kids learn English and still act as though they were part of Mexico, I have to worry what will happen in a few decades.

I am sure some people will think I am being paranoid. "It can't happen here!" But look at the Winter Olympics in Sarajevo and consider what happend less than a decade later. Who saw that coming?

You look at the troubles in Northern Ireland and ask yourself if the same thing could not happen in the border states of America- the ones that used to be part of Mexico. Not today, not even in this decade. But if people keep raising their kids to think of themselves as Mexicans in America and not Americans with ties to Mexico who the hell knows what will happen?

And the sad thing is, we are helping to cause that sense of alienation with our laws meant to be compassionate. I am with you when you say that we should open the doors to more immigrants. But the laws we have passed to make things better for workers have insured that the first generation from Mexico will never make it under those rules.

It is almost funny to work with an illeagle in a restraunt and realize that even though you cost more to the business, he takes home more pay at the end of the day. In addition to your pay, the business has to lay out cash for those taxes John was talking about that pay for fixing the road, Unemployement insurance, Social Security, Federal taxes, health care and quite a few other things that cost the company money to employ you. Andn that is not even counting the litigation risk from citizens in this lawsuit crazy society. For someone that is not a skilled worker and can't even speak the language it really is not worth it to employ them. So they either send the jobs overseas, get automation or get someone who has no legal status.

In the past, the first generation to America was quite willing to make the sacrifice of being treated as little better than work animals for a chance to live in America. They worked their best and pushed their kids to learn the language and do well in school so as to get the chances they did not. As parents they were willing to take a minial job to insure their kids future.And those kids did take off and did well.

But now, we have insured that the first generation could not find a job if they became citizens. No one will lay out the money they have to hire someone legal for someone who is unskilled and can't speak English. Our sense of compassion has regulated them to permanent second class status. And I am sure they resent all these folks patting themselves on the back at how much they think of the little guy while keeping the dream of working legally from them. And so they never become citizens, and often dream of going back to Mexico. And even if they hav kids and end up dying in America, they pass along that outlook as Mexicans in America to their kids and now we have huge centers of people who think of the Mexican flag as theirs and not the American one.

Oh yeah, I fear that in my lifetime, or that of my children, we will see much of the same problems we see between Shia and Sunni, Irish Protestant and Catholic and Serb and Croat and possibly worse.

I hope I am wrong. I doubt that I am.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Oct 29, 2006)

In response to Don's post, I'd like to bring the riots in Paris to people's attention.  The dynamics aren't exactly the same but the intentional refusal to assimilate into the society they have become a part of is very similar.  There are some interesting parallels there.......

Anyone else see any similarities?


----------



## Kacey (Oct 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Kacey,
> 
> Are you really saying that racial discrimination was not considered wrong?
> 
> Such an assertion can only be put forth with the confidence of the race doing the discrimination, not the discriminated. Somehow, I think the Chinese that were abused throughout the country didn't feel that everything was A-O-K with racial discrimination.



I never said the Chinese were "A-O-K" with racial discrimination.  I said that the controlling culture - that is, the white, well-off people who named the area "Chinatown" after ensuring that Chinese immigrants could live nowhere else, who looked down upon and denigrated all who did not meet their standards of gentility - did not consider their actions in any way to be wrong.  They considered themselves better than those they denigrated, as evidenced by their opinions and actions.  This is in no way intended to condone their actions, as I find them despicable; it is intended to explicate them.



michaeledward said:


> Even Thomas Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, as the nation was being created. It was a social custom, but it was absolutely wrong, and he knew it. If I am not mistaken, upon his death, he freed many of his slaves.



Yes, he did... he also fathered children on at least one of them.  This did not stop him from retaining the services of slaves until _after_ his death - something which causes me to discount his action in freeing them after he, personally, no longer needed their services.  Had he truly been concerned about slavery and slaves, he would have freed them _before_ he died, not after.  His beliefs were not strong enough for him to stand up for them in life, only in death, and in many ways, I find that worse than not standing up for them at all.



michaeledward said:


> People know wrong. They may choose, in their arrogance to ignore that it is wrong. And cowards may not have the courage to stand against tradition, but if a tradition is wrong, most people, I believe, in their thoughts know it is wrong.



People know what they are taught.  Yes, some people rise above the values inculcated in them by their culture, but many follow the path of least resistance - no matter if they agree or not.  In some cases it is, indeed, arrogance; in many others it is ignorance mixed liberally with moral cowardice.



michaeledward said:


> As for naming of locations, seems to me that for a time 'Spanish Harlem' was a pretty famous neighborhood. That may not be the name they would use today, but every immigrant population got its own neighborhood red-lined from the community.



And yet, very few such areas remain named for the ethnic group that originally populated it.  Were your thesis correct, more such areas would exist, and more would continue to be created.  Instead, many ethnic, religious, linguistic, and similar groups assimilate into the American culture as quickly as possible.  Only those who are rewarded by our culture for not assimilating - a topic Don Roley has covered sufficiently well that I will not attempt to add to it - remain in geographically and linguistically isolated enclaves.



michaeledward said:


> You have clarified your thoughts. I find they new clarity does not lend itself toward a greater appreciation.
> 
> Michael



Your inability to understand - or at least give credence to - the opinions of others only serves to undermine any credence I place on your opinion.  I do not have to agree with a person to understand or give credence to their opinions; your total inability (based on your posts over time) show that you are uninterested in any opinion that does not match your own, a loss to yourself that only you can determine.  For myself, I would rather agree to 
disagree with someone than to denigrate them solely because they disagree with me.  I find it broadens my horizons.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 29, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> For those of you with time or bandwith issues, the point of what I posted is to show that everytime that you buy a Big Mac or a bag or Doritos, you help support the system that puts a Mexican farmer out of business...leaving them no choice but to leave their families, risk life and limb, and abandon any sorts of workers rights to come here.



Ok, I'm either stupid or confused, Because I am reading what you are saying is that buy purchasing an american product, Im forcing illegal aliens to come here.  If I purchase from McDonalds or Doritos here in Chicago, the farmers in mexico cannot sell their product down there, so they have to come here...

Im scratching my head on that one.  I mean... was I buying a mexican hamburger or tortilla chip from a farmer in mexico, and stopped, because McDonalds was here?

If we all started buying Fords, would we have a huge influx if Illegal Japanese because they cant sell Toyotas?  Clarify this for me, Im lost.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 29, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> If we all started buying Fords, would we have a huge influx if Illegal Japanese because they cant sell Toyotas?


 
Nah, they sell Fords in Japan


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Ok, I'm either stupid or confused, Because I am reading what you are saying is that buy purchasing an american product, Im forcing illegal aliens to come here. If I purchase from McDonalds or Doritos here in Chicago, the farmers in mexico cannot sell their product down there, so they have to come here.


 
That is exactly what I'm saying.  Enjoy your Big Macs!

Welcome to Wal-America!

It's all tied together.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2006)

Kacey said:


> Your inability to understand - or at least give credence to - the opinions of others only serves to undermine any credence I place on your opinion. I do not have to agree with a person to understand or give credence to their opinions; your total inability (based on your posts over time) show that you are uninterested in any opinion that does not match your own, a loss to yourself that only you can determine. For myself, I would rather agree to
> disagree with someone than to denigrate them solely because they disagree with me. I find it broadens my horizons.


 
Kacey,

If you believe I denigrated you - my apologies. I was denigrating your argument. I understand the difference between the arguer and the argument. You stated that Chinatown did not arise because of racial discrimination. That is just wrong. And it is wrong in a big way. 

The entire post here - although I quote only a portion of it - is reasonable and something with which I find no dispute. I think if you look at your original, and subsequent posts, I believe there is a difference among them. 

I will continue to disagree with the way in which you characterize my attitudes and abilities; regardless of how you interpret my posts. I am quite certain I state my beliefs, forcefully. I believe them strongly. But I disagree with your assessment that I find fault with differing opinions merely because they are counter to mine. Opinions that I find factually unsupported, or weakly argued will get challenged. 

If an opinion is argued intelligently and supported, I will have no problem agreeing to disagree. I am completely aware that my opinions are not in the mushy middle. So my opinion often needs to be argued clearly. I know that the majority of people in the country do not share my opinion.

My best friend and fishing buddie is an 'arch conservative' - I've read Limbaugh's books because he's bought them for me. I think his views are wrong, but we get along just fine. 

I continue to believe that anyone advocating a fence is wrong. The fence is wrong. I believe the 'illegal immigrant' is the 'OTHER' that we are all taught to fear. It is manipulation by the political powers to get control over the levers of power. Being concerned with pockets of 1st generation immigrants not speaking English is, in my opinion foolish to the extreme. In the next century, all the languages of the world will devolve to two - a version of English and a version of Mandarin. Getting panicked about a little Espanole is focusing on the wrong thing. I think.

Michael


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 30, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> That is exactly what I'm saying. Enjoy your Big Macs!


 
Sorry man, thats just ****ing stupid.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 30, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Sorry man, thats just ****ing stupid.


 
Sorry man, but it's ****ing true.  The **** you do affects other people.  

And in a globalized world, connections are far reaching indeed.

Welcome to Wal-America.

Watch the video.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 30, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Sorry man, but it's ****ing true.  The **** you do affects other people.
> 
> And in a globalized world, connections are far reaching indeed.
> 
> ...



If thats true If I only buy from "El Burrito Mexico", all the American Farmers will be out of work, and have to illegally immigrate to Mexico, right?  So nothing I can do is the "right" thing, now is it?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 30, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> If thats true If I only buy from "El Burrito Mexico", all the American Farmers will be out of work, and have to illegally immigrate to Mexico, right? So nothing I can do is the "right" thing, now is it?


 
BTW - did you watch the video I posted?  Do you farm?  Do you know anything about the industrial agriculture process in the US?  Not trying to be mean or anything, but the last question especially is important if you are going to understand how "dumping" works.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 30, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> BTW - did you watch the video I posted?  Do you farm?  Do you know anything about the industrial agriculture process in the US?  Not trying to be mean or anything, but the last question especially is important if you are going to understand how "dumping" works.



Nope... currently having bandwith issues.  Nope... havnt lived on a farm since I was in kindergarten.  And Nope.  Cant say that I do.  

Thats why I asked for clarification of my understanding several posts up, but you told me my understanding of what you were saying was exactly right... so...


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 31, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> If thats true If I only buy from "El Burrito Mexico", all the American Farmers will be out of work, and have to illegally immigrate to Mexico, right? So nothing I can do is the "right" thing, now is it?


 
Okay, in a nutshell, here is how it works.  American farmers are heavily subsidized.  The federal government engages directly in price manipulation by paying huge industrial factory farms.  This drives down the price of ag products.

American farmers are also subsidized in terms of oil.  The oil they use for fertilizer, the oil used for pesticides, and the oil used for transportation is all coming to the market far cheaper then market price.

The end result is that we can dump large quantities of ag products on the market below the cost of what it takes to make them.  This is almost exactly what Wal-mart does, after a fashion.  The smaller farmers, including the American family farmer, can't compete.

Here is how it connects to you.

When you buy a bag of chips or a cheeseburger, all of those are made with ag products purchased from the large industrial farms who are able to deliver food to you for so cheap because the prices are artificially low.  This is akin to shopping at Wal-Mart instead of your local ma and pa store.  

In this way, you support the system that drives Mexican farm labor out of business and north of their border in order to make a living.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 31, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Okay, in a nutshell, here is how it works.  American farmers are heavily subsidized.  The federal government engages directly in price manipulation by paying huge industrial factory farms.  This drives down the price of ag products.
> 
> American farmers are also subsidized in terms of oil.  The oil they use for fertilizer, the oil used for pesticides, and the oil used for transportation is all coming to the market far cheaper then market price.
> 
> ...



In part, correct. The family farms are also dying out partly due to the death tax. They are not cash rich, so have to liquidate in order to pay the tax burden. Perhaps they will get rid of that stupid law eventually. Each generation of deaths makes it more difficult for small farming familes to stay alive.

Smaller farmers do get subsidized too, but a proportionally small piece of the pie. The difference is they can't do the volume of produce neccessary to compete with the mega-farmers. I grew up on a farm. I honestly don't know any family farms anymore in my region. Its not all "mega-farmers" but I don't know anyone that farms -only- their own land.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 31, 2006)

And with NAFTA, the push for a Flat Earth, and the Global Marketplace, not only can Americans buy products at the very inexpensive 'walmartitized' price; but the local farmers around the world can not even generate enough product for local consumption. The neighbors of those small farmers in Africa or Mexico can buy the American Products cheaper than local products.

Using the Wal-Mart metaphor, its not just that Wal-Mart comes in and kills the small local businesses on Main Street in your town, but it also kills the local businesses in the surrounding towns. In this case, the 'surrounding towns' is the entire planet.

You hear the arguments about the difference between 'Free Trade' and 'Fair Trade'. And many of us, perhaps, think it is the 'other' guy who is not trading 'Fair'. Alas, at the expense of foreign farmers, and American laborers, it is not so.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 31, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> You hear the arguments about the difference between 'Free Trade' and 'Fair Trade'. And many of us, perhaps, think it is the 'other' guy who is not trading 'Fair'. Alas, at the expense of foreign farmers, and American laborers, it is not so.


 
So-called 'free trade' and the so-called 'free market' are myths. They have no reality outside the minds of conservative ideologues and neo-classical economists.

What actually happens in a truly 'free market' is that when certain individuals and organizations acquire wealth and power through entrepeneurship, they essentially 'fix' the playing field so that they maintain this wealth and power, thereby making it more difficult for others to acquire said wealth and power. This kind of thing happened earlier in American history, when a government-mandated 'trust busting' campaign was required to break up the monopolies certain companies had on industry.

The great ideal of the free market is competition. However, once corporations and companies maintain a monopoly, competition essentially becomes non-existent. If you're not part of the conglomerate, you become bankrupt (because, as in this case, there is no way your little ma' n' pa' store can compete with the low-low prices of The Walmart; not if they want to pay the bills, that is). 

This is clearly the case in the oil industry today, where as Lou Dobbs recently pointed out on the Daily Show, corporate profits are higher than they've ever been while worker wages per capita are as low as they have been in decades. And that's not even counting the thousands of American jobs that are outsourced each year to deplorable working conditions in developing countries (i.e., the Malaysian adolescent working for ten cents an hour). These corporations are getting away with this kind of stuff because they _can_. There is no real competition forcing them to do otherwise.

If an economy starts out with a 'free market', it won't stay that way for long, as our own history can attest. Not unless the government intervenes and starts imposing standards and regulations on how things are done.

Just something to think about.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 31, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Okay, in a nutshell, here is how it works.  American farmers are heavily subsidized.  The federal government engages directly in price manipulation by paying huge industrial factory farms.  This drives down the price of ag products.
> 
> American farmers are also subsidized in terms of oil.  The oil they use for fertilizer, the oil used for pesticides, and the oil used for transportation is all coming to the market far cheaper then market price.
> 
> ...



IMO, this carries a lot of assumption.  You assume that if we dont support the mega-farms we support small farms in mexico.  I'm in chicgao, I wont go to a mexican farm for my produce... it isnt going to happen.  Call it a "global marketplace" but in the same fashion that If I couldnt get my Goth Tshirt at "HOT TOPIC" (big chain) I wouldnt drive to California to get it at "Retail Slut" (indie stroe) I would stay in chicago and buy it from "The Alley" (indie store).  Is that forcing californians to Move to Chicago to find work?

Also, everyone wants to Villify Wal-mart as the Great Satan, but lets not forget Wal-mart started as a "Ma and Pa" store... it just happened to become a successful one... same as blockbuster Video, Hot Topic, and numerous other chain stores... they didnt start as Mega Chains.  So what you are vilifing is the fact that Sam Walton succeeded.  Sour Grapes, much?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 31, 2006)

A couple of points .. 

First, I own Hot Topic stock. It is not a big chain, and it ain't that good of in investment. I should go short, maybe I could cut my losses. Check the charts. --- now, are either of those two small indie stores you mention public? 

Second, once Wal Mart succeeds to the point that they can dictate terms of doing business, - which they do - they are changing the playing field. See heretic888's post. If you can change the rules of the game, its something more than 'sour grapes'.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 31, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> IMO, this carries a lot of assumption.


 
I'm not sure that it does.  All that is being done is following the money.  Believe it or not, you vote every time you spend a dollar.  And when you spend a dollar in this system, you are "voting" to put these people out of work.

Consumerism and social responsibility is a new thought for Americans.  Most of us are totally ignorant of the damage we do.  This is why monstrosities like this fence get proposed.

We put the mexican farmer out of work and then we kick them while they are down.

Nice.


----------

