Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:12 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
Posts: 2117
Location: Virginia
In response to Ians remarks on beefing up our borders.

1) costs a lot.

Agreed... but it would create jobs like Gaurds, fence builders/ repairers, electricians, auto mechanics, petrolium transfer engeneers :P .. the list goes on and on.

What's cost? LIke our government even blinks at a defecit anymore. Might as well spend it on something tangable.. like a huge electric fence.



2) cheap labor in USA diminished (tho remaining labor more taxable--sort of; the dirt poor pay few taxes anyway)

The flip side of that is less unemployment.

3) more immigrants will die in more hazardous treks in more isolated areas, or in overheated vans

So what... should we make it easy to invade our country?


4) might not work that well. Ref: the drug war.

Better than just giving them all amnesty.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:05 pm
Posts: 27
Quote:

Better than just giving them all amnesty.

amnesty: the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals
(source: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/amnesty)

As John McCain has pointed out, changing the law doesn't grant amnesty. Amnesty requires the act to be illegal. If it isn't illegal anymore, no amnesty is required.

Also, an action that doesn't work and costs lots of money isn't worth doing. When you have something figured out that does work, then it's okay to sink money into it. A plan of action isn't better than doing nothing if it doesn't do anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
Posts: 2117
Location: Virginia
Quote:
As John McCain has pointed out, changing the law doesn't grant amnesty. Amnesty requires the act to be illegal. If it isn't illegal anymore, no amnesty is required.


umm..yeah right. Well right now it is illegal to sneak into our country. Let's not do something totally stupid like...say.... reward people for breaking our laws. Pretty simple concept I think.
Quote:
Also, an action that doesn't work and costs lots of money isn't worth doing. When you have something figured out that does work, then it's okay to sink money into it. A plan of action isn't better than doing nothing if it doesn't do anything.


Having illegals come into here in droves is costing us lots already.. in lost tax revenue, defaulted medical bills, free school, the list goes on.

I say lets begin to protect our border, language and culture.. now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm
Posts: 1221
Was debating the economics of the situation recently when a couple of interesting points were raised.

1-People that employ illegas seldom pay the proper taxes.

2-It is often claimed that illegas do in fact pay taxes (debatable point) but what is often overlooked is that much of the so-called "taxs" that are paid--are Fed not State taxs.

The States, which are the main providers of social services, are the ones that DON'T get the main benefits from whatever taxs are being paid.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:05 pm
Posts: 27
Quote:
I say lets begin to protect our border, language and culture.. now.

I couldn't agree more. All these immigrants sneaking in and influencing our culture is getting out of hand. They're guilty of taking our jobs, draining tax money, making orchard owners rich, making the railroad owners rich, killing all the buffalo, giving everyone smallpox, and not respecting the treaties they have signed. These immigrants are two-faced thieves and definately have to go.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm
Posts: 1221
Andrew


Good post--seriously.

Thing is that the native americans said more or the same things about OTHER TRIBES.

They raided and killed one another over resources, kept the "best" hunting lands by force of arms and often used violence to take lands that "belonged" to other tribes.

The problem with people trying to establish moral "high ground" on problems such as this is that chances are pretty good they commited the same "crimes" as the very people their grouseing about.

I have no problem with immigrents--many of us WERE at some point.

I have huge problems with ILLEGAL immigrents--don't care of they are asian, hispanic, european etc.

A nation that can't control its own borders is not really a nation.

The irony is that the illgeals--fleeing the poverty and corruption and social breakdown of their own nations.

May well be slowy killing the very place they fled to for refuge.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 1205
Well, in reality the point is moot.
There are too many here now to do anything about it, without starting another civil war.
By the time legislation deals with the issue, it'll not only be totally ineffective, but about 50 years too late. The time for America to deal with this issue has long since expired.
So, might as well lay back, accept it, and be at peace with the reality that White America's days of majority are numbered.

There. I said it.

On that note,
Practice this phrase:

Damos a la recepción a nuestros nuevos hermanos y conquerors meridionales. ¡Dé la alabanza al Tequilla!

_________________
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Posts: 2714
Things that become fixed, die.

We cannot just throw open our borders - unregulated growth and free migration are not something the US can support if the US intends to keep providing social services to low-income individuals such as a free education, subsidized food and healthcare.

We choose to provide those social services and corresponding legal protections to maintain what we consider to be an orderly society. Because if you got enough people who can't get their basic needs met - you will end up with a revolution of some kind or another.

So the question is how to manage an fluid influx of immigration (both skilled and unskilled workers) without making it easy for basic human rights to be violated and without breaking the economies that depend on cheap labor (which are the same economies we live in and expect cheap stuff from).

Good fences make good neighbors...but I'm not sure electrical fences make good neighbors.

As long as opportunity is greater in the US than in the vast majority of South America people will come to opportunity like moths to flame. So one of the best things we can do is to be a good mentor and partner in the economic development of South America - and in particular in Mexico and Central America since those are the places of most of the undocumented workers.

I think we should consider buying Tiajuana from Mexico. Radical, I know - but I think a logical step as we would be able to develop that area more quickly. (Watch out - I sound like a capitalist)

I think we should spend more effort on reducing our need for oil so that we don't have to expend as many resources controlling the tensions in the middle east and could use those fund to encourage development in countries we're allowing to fester away that will only become the next hotbeds of dissent and terrorism that we will ask the next generation to deal with since we couldn't tighten our belt when it came to oil.

Short-term:
Make it clear that social services for undocumented workers are being provided to create greater opportunity for those who will eventually return to Mexico and other South and Central American countries because it will help stem the tide of workers.

Make it clear that all states must help share the burden of these social services - because it is for the good of the nation.

Make employers of undocumented workers pay higher taxes.

Offer undocumented workers education but not citizenship. if they want citizenship they must return to their home country and wait in line with everyone else.

Make encouraging development of Mexico and Central American as important an economic security issue as the Middle East.

hmm..that's all I can think of right now on an empty stomach. Time for lunch.
-d

_________________
Did you show compassion today?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 1205
Dana Sheets wrote:
Things that become fixed, die.

We cannot just throw open our borders - unregulated growth and free migration are not something the US can support if the US intends to keep providing social services to low-income individuals such as a free education, subsidized food and healthcare.


Meta: I would argue that the way our borders are now, while not exactly "wide open", the results show that they are at least stuck in "halfway open" mode.

Dana Sheets wrote:
We choose to provide those social services and corresponding legal protections to maintain what we consider to be an orderly society. Because if you got enough people who can't get their basic needs met - you will end up with a revolution of some kind or another.


Meta: I prefer the term "Gradual cultural displacement and political paradigm shift."


Dana Sheets wrote:
So the question is how to manage an fluid influx of immigration (both skilled and unskilled workers) without making it easy for basic human rights to be violated and without breaking the economies that depend on cheap labor (which are the same economies we live in and expect cheap stuff from).


Meta: Indeed. But the sacrifices necessary to achieve those goals rely upon citizens making economic sacrifices. Americans are so used to cheap domestic help, produce,
and restaurant prices that to get them to change spending habits would be a daunting task. American economics will not allow the disappearance of this class, whether it is filled by Illegal or citizens.
Since the law prohibits substandard compensation, companies would either have to go under the table, move operations to another country with no such regulation, or fund the black market for acquisition of more illegals.

Dana Sheets wrote:
As long as opportunity is greater in the US than in the vast majority of South America people will come to opportunity like moths to flame. So one of the best things we can do is to be a good mentor and partner in the economic development of South America - and in particular in Mexico and Central America since those are the places of most of the undocumented workers.


Meta: This is true I feel but aren't we forgetting that most large companies have no issue (in fact it is preferable) to exploit rather than to build. As it is currently, I think there is not such thing as Corporate responsibility.


Dana Sheets wrote:
I think we should consider buying Tijuana from Mexico. Radical, I know - but I think a logical step as we would be able to develop that area more quickly. (Watch out - I sound like a capitalist)

Meta: But really isn't all we are doing just "expanding" the boarder more south? You can buy a city perhaps, but you can't control it's governance unless it is annexed.


Dana Sheets wrote:
I think we should spend more effort on reducing our need for oil so that we don't have to expend as many resources controlling the tensions in the middle east and could use those fund to encourage development in countries we're allowing to fester away that will only become the next hotbeds of dissent and terrorism that we will ask the next generation to deal with since we couldn't tighten our belt when it came to oil.


Unless you pass legislation which complete;y severs Washington from all ties strictly with oil companies and their subsidiaries, and build a bullet/poison/scandal/bomb proof infrastructure within the senate against retaliation, there can be no change in that area. There is simply too much money at stake, and the corruption and conspiracy is deeper than an X-files episode. Taking on the mob would seem like child's play compared to the Big Oil conglomerates.


Dana Sheets wrote:
Short-term:
Make it clear that social services for undocumented workers are being provided to create greater opportunity for those who will eventually return to Mexico and other South and Central American countries because it will help stem the tide of workers.


Meta:Clear to whom?
The Mexican government? They already know very well, I'm certain.
The Mexican people? I would submit that if the immigrants who are migrating illegally here could understand the levels of economics involved, they would: A.) Not care. B.) Have the wherewithal to obtain employment in their own country.

Dana Sheets wrote:
Make employers of undocumented workers pay higher taxes.


Meta: Then aren't we right back where we started, in the sense that the higher taxes will be ultimately passed onto the consumer?


Dana Sheets wrote:
Offer undocumented workers education but not citizenship. if they want citizenship they must return to their home country and wait in line with everyone else.


Meta: They already have that. Then tell the Teacher's unions that from now on, the gates are open, their workload will quadruple, but pay will not increase. Then tell John Q. Taxpayer they must pay higher taxes above what they are already subsidizing to pay for the "education" of illegals.

Dana Sheets wrote:
Make encouraging development of Mexico and Central American as important an economic security issue as the Middle East.


Meta: That's a good way to go. My question is, our Government has known this for many years. Why hasn't it been given the implementation priority it requires? For that matter, why hasn't Mexico been encouraged to bind their own borders from the North and South as well?
There's something rotten a foot, it seems.

_________________
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Posts: 2714
Rotten...perhaps.

Smells more like money to me. Greed goeth before...

_________________
Did you show compassion today?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
Posts: 2117
Location: Virginia
Quote:
Offer undocumented workers education but not citizenship. if they want citizenship they must return to their home country and wait in line with everyone else.


I'm not sure this is a great idea.. a compassionate idea yes, but as Meta pointed out, we are already doin' that.

All that would do is encourage even more to come over.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
If we're already doing it, how can doing it encourage MORE to come over?

If Mexico had the resources to easily close its borders, wouldn't it have more resources to develop northern mexico and make border closing unnecessary?

What happened to America when we had a great influx of Irish and other european immigrants in the Ellis island days? Did that help us, or did they take all the american jobs?

Does anyone have any thoughts about the disproportionate immigration that BENEFITS the USA, namely, the mass importing of educated people to our colleges and universities, graduate programs, and to staff a large proportion of our physician and nursing positions? Is the arrival of a poor person something we build an electric fence about and the recruitment of all the talented people from poor nations something we just say "don't be a sore loser" about? Maybe the brain drain countries should build their own electric fences.

The biggest problems seem to involve the health care and education costs. Both are high, once you throw in healthy doses of english illiteracy, low income, TB, diabetes and other chronic medical problems, and this group doesn't support itself. Maybe the solution could come in part the same way we dealt with our rapidly rising fruit picking costs--that is, pay someone a wage an American would not want. It's not feasible to pay americans paying mortgages in san diego's home market and commuting on 3.29$/gallon gas to educate a bunch of kids whose parents won't pay taxes... could their community provide education at a lower cost the way migrant workers do? We could provide some education, and I promise they'll know the native language.

On the other hand, maybe one way to look at this is that american workers picking fruit isn't that much more expensive. They would afterall be able to pay for more of their education and healthcare. Maybe there's no free lunch, or at least you've got to get creative to find one.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
Posts: 2117
Location: Virginia
Quote:
What happened to America when we had a great influx of Irish and other european immigrants in the Ellis island days? Did that help us, or did they take all the american jobs?


How many of them went on welfare (did welfare exist then??) how many got free healthcare at our expense?

Most importantly.... how many learned ENGLISH ? We didn't bend to their ways then they melted into our culture. They didn't want to re conquor America. Now we have almost everything in English and Spanish. Why??

How many were processed through Ellis Island, and pledged ALEIGENCE to the United States? (all of 'em)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
Good points by Benzocaine...

When the Irish, Italians, Scottish and others were immigrating through Ellis Island, they all pledged their allegiance to their new home nation. In those days, everyone assimilated to their new nation and didn't expect their new home to accommodate them. Certainly there were areas where they spoke their native language (Little Italy - North End, Chinatown, etc.), but those were small pockets and if you didn't speak that language, you were still waited on in stores with English. The United States was called (and it was taught to us in school when I was a kid) "a melting pot".

Now, it's all about "culteral diversity" and (supposed) "tolerance". Those have just become buzz-words for the majority having to accommodate the influx of a largely illegal minority. Immigrants have never been denied their native culture, but were expected to accommodate the mainstream in the past. Currently, the entire nation is expected to celebrate other cultures (which are nice, interesting, etc... but tax dollars should not be used to make certain very specific sub-groups "feel comfortable and appreciated").

With the new "cultural diversity" mantra, we have ceased being "Americans" as it was when I was growing up. Instead we have become MEXICAN-americans, LATINO-americans, AFRO-americans, NATIVE-americans, ITALIANamericans, IRISH-americans, and the list goes on and on and on and on and... That is what the current mantra pushes. When that happens people stop assimilating, people stop feeling like they have a common national bond, tensions between different "diverse" groups (as with different diverse nations) start to arise, and soon there is a need to expand the mantra to include "tolerance". In the past, when the U.S. was "a melting pot", everyone was an American and when different cultures were discussed, it was done in the context of being an American of Irish descent or Italian descent or Native ancestry or African roots or Latin/hispanic roots or Jewish faith or Muslim faith or ... etc. ... on and on and on and ...

It has become a major problem, because of the gradual social engineering changes over the decades, that have caused individuals to stop focusing on their common nation first and start focusing on their diverse cultures primarily. Some believe that this has been done intentionally by certain groups in order to create just the type of conflict and upheaval that we're seeing now. Your mileage may vary.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
"When the Irish, Italians, Scottish and others were immigrating through Ellis Island, they all pledged their allegiance to their new home nation."

So would this be an acceptable solution if the illegal immigrants did so?

"The United States was called (and it was taught to us in school when I was a kid) "a melting pot"."

They still teach that...

"But tax dollars should not be used to make certain very specific sub-groups "feel comfortable and appreciated")"

Agreed that this should not be a major thrust of any government unless there's some demonstrated rift that's causing problems or likely to. We sure had to work on tolerance in the south in the 60s. All good, nation minded americans but little good that did. Anyway, should tax dollars be expended to ... help american citizens receive an education, healthcare, or basic services in a language they understand? Or should those things be on hold till they learn the language? Just how easy is it to learn a new language when you're working 12 hours a day 6 days a week with other spanish speaking migrant workers (as were the legal immigrants I met in a med-spanish course)?

"When that happens people stop assimilating."

So back in the melting pot days there wasn't any strife with the rapidly assimilated italians, irish, and the "mainstream?" Of course there was. I've not yet heard how all this is different. They had neighborhoods then, we do now, and the mainstream flocks to china town, little italy, that little indian conclave with the good samosas, and "old town" and their mexican restaurants. People don't want those things gone. We really have two questions here:

"what about those illegal immigrants!?"

and

"why can't those people act like americans (legal and otherwise)!"

As for the second, this is a free country. I'm not sure I'd like to see it homogenized. If I did, I wouldn't think it possible, legally or practically. While I think I would learn the language if I moved to Germany as fast as I could, I also know that most europeans speak at least one other language. Americans seem to think that everything besides American english is a secondary form of communication. Hence I've made an effort to learn spanish, as there's a lot of spanish to be spoken at work. When people complain I'm not fluent, I do tell them that I've made an effort to learn their language and if they'd rather have the conversation in english they're welcome (there is a nice way to do this) and tell em we can always get a translator. But if they're haughty about wanting service in their language whenever, what exactly are you supposed to do?

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group