Page 2 of 4

Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:40 pm
by Pinky
No Doubt wrote:Interesting that you pounced on the ownership thing
A sense of ownership is the foundation of much of your own argument when it comes to you attempting to justify your opinions about immigration. With you it's our society this and our culture that, our language this and our country that. I think you think it justifies much of your own position so I think it is appropriate that it be a topic when discussing the issue with you. Conveniently you made it the topic of this conversation.
No Doubt wrote:First of all, by sense of ownership I meant ownership as a belonging to and accepting the obligation of maintaining that which we inherited.
Again, you are here by accident of birth. There is no property here that you have inherited. You benefit form having been born here but there is nothing in the accident of your birth that can justify you acting to deny the liberties and freedoms this country has to offer to anyone wishing to enjoy them.
No Doubt wrote:You do accept the fact that human beings come from groups, places, families, races, etc., don't you? Do you respect a native American's right to feel pride in their culture, where they come from, their ancestors, and place in history?

How about African-Americans? Do you respect their right to feel pride in their heritage, culture, etc.?

Do you accept and respect the right of Mexicans to be proud of their culture, heritage and country?

What about Germans or Italians?
I do accept that people come from groups. I don't know why anyone would be particularly proud of their own culture, or ashamed of it for that matter. I'm proud of my own accomplishments, and of the people who are dear to me; pride falls off pretty rapidly when we start considering strangers, be they members of my own culture or not. Why would I ever be proud of you?

I do think that appeals to having pride in one's culture is a cause of much pain and misery throughout the world. It is exactly that which allowed Hitler to come to power, allows Hugo Chavez to brow beat his population into submission, has Jihadists promoting death to infidels, and has you claiming you have rights to deny liberties and freedoms.

People can feel pride for their culture or heritage. By all means they have that right. When they speak to me of their pride I have the right to inform them of their foolishness.

Re: Huckabee

Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:45 pm
by ThomasDad
No Doubt wrote: I don't know, but why would you want to grant amnesty and in-state tuition to illegals?
You should have stopped your sentence with "I don't know."

Huckabee isn't taking about amnesty, since the children haven't committed a crime worthy of amnesty. He is talking about children who fit a specific profile and who will gain an education and become citizens of this country.

We have gone over this before, Bev. This is a sham issue. In-state tuition is available to children of illegal parents in California, and the number of kids who take advantage of that program is negligible--as we noted before, the total number of students taking advantage of this program is a fraction of 1% of the students in the UC and Cal State systems. Most would be applying to community colleges (much more affordable), and I've yet to see a community college which didn't allow a student to enroll because the college was "full".

Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:51 pm
by Pinky
kramer wrote:...My point is, to portray being anti-illegal immigration as a republican only issue is wrong.

Kramer
Of course, but the comment was with regards to Fred Thompson's political statements to what I assume to have been a friendly Republican audience. Democrats are also inclined toward adopting ultra-nationalist positions. I do think the ultra-nationalist policies of the two parties do tend to follow different tracks , in general. I think anti-immigration rhetoric really does play better with the Republicans while anti-globalism rhetoric plays better with the Democrats. No doubt both positions appeal to significant groups within each of the two parties.

Re: Huckabee

Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:06 pm
by Pinky
ThomasDad wrote:...Huckabee isn't taking about amnesty, since the children haven't committed a crime worthy of amnesty...
Well their presence here isn't an act of volition on their part, but nevertheless their presence here is a violation of the law. Huckabee very much is advocating amnesty for these children.

I happen to think the students shouldn't need to be granted amnesty, but then neither should their parents. Nevertheless, as the law stands I think suggesting Huckabee's position doesn't rise to advocating amnesty is just soft peddling. As I see it the problem isn't with Huckabee calling for amnesty, the problem is with a Republican party that feels compelled to condemn him for having done it. In the environment of the Republican party what can his apologists do but deny that his call for amnesty is a call for amnesty.

Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:29 pm
by GOODave
Pinky wrote: I think anti-immigration rhetoric really does play better with the Republicans while anti-globalism rhetoric plays better with the Democrats. No doubt both positions appeal to significant groups within each of the two parties.
I think we should be pretty careful in the terms we banty about I think it is an accurate statement to suggest anti illegal immigrant rhetoric plays better with GOP. The Republicans are not anti-immigrant.

To offer a contrast, Bev is anti-immigrant.

dave

Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:32 pm
by No Doubt
Pinky wrote:A sense of ownership is the foundation of much of your own argument when it comes to you attempting to justify your opinions about immigration. With you it's our society this and our culture that, our language this and our country that. I think you think it justifies much of your own position so I think it is appropriate that it be a topic when discussing the issue with you. Conveniently you made it the topic of this conversation.
No Doubt wrote:First of all, by sense of ownership I meant ownership as a belonging to and accepting the obligation of maintaining that which we inherited.
Pinky wrote:Again, you are here by accident of birth. There is no property here that you have inherited. You benefit form having been born here but there is nothing in the accident of your birth that can justify you acting to deny the liberties and freedoms this country has to offer to anyone wishing to enjoy them.
No Doubt wrote:You do accept the fact that human beings come from groups, places, families, races, etc., don't you? Do you respect a native American's right to feel pride in their culture, where they come from, their ancestors, and place in history?

How about African-Americans? Do you respect their right to feel pride in their heritage, culture, etc.?

Do you accept and respect the right of Mexicans to be proud of their culture, heritage and country?

What about Germans or Italians?
Pinky wrote:I do accept that people come from groups. I don't know why anyone would be particularly proud of their own culture, or ashamed of it for that matter. I'm proud of my own accomplishments, and of the people who are dear to me; pride falls off pretty rapidly when we start considering strangers, be they members of my own culture or not. Why would I ever be proud of you?

I do think that appeals to having pride in one's culture is a cause of much pain and misery throughout the world. It is exactly that which allowed Hitler to come to power, allows Hugo Chavez to brow beat his population into submission, has Jihadists promoting death to infidels, and has you claiming you have rights to deny liberties and freedoms.

People can feel pride for their culture or heritage. By all means they have that right. When they speak to me of their pride I have the right to inform them of their foolishness.
I said a lot of things, you are the one who has made ownership, the foundation of this discussion. You can't make a rational argument for criticizing my beliefs about the obligations and responsibilities that American citizens have to protect and safeguard this country.

Of course I am here by accident of birth; so are you. Every human being ever born is here or there by accident of birth; ditto every single living thing. So! The idea is to do the best with the circumstances we are given and to take care of what we have been fortunate to have been given.

What do you mean there is no property here that I have inherited? You don't know that, what an absurd thing to say.

My birthright absolutely does give me the right and justification for protecting this country just as it does other Americans. It is essential that American citizens act on behalf of the best interests of the country. As I explained to you before it is our responsibility to make sure that we maintain the USA and stay true to our principles and laws to ensure that it remains strong and intact for future generations of Americans.

You are seriously confused as to what a country is and the role of its citizens. A country is a sovereign entity which means it has the right to decide who comes and goes over its borders and how long they stay. The US government's role and first obligation is to its citizens. To protect them from whatever could or would harm them and its system of government.

If our ancestors had your attitude then there would not have been a United States or perhaps a very short-lived one. It would have been a free-for-all where anarchy reined with no system set up to protect the innocent from the aggressive and lawless.

I disagree with you about Hitler and Chavez. I don't think either one had or has anything to do with pride in their cultures. Both Hitler and Chavez are the epitome of megalomaniacs. Germans will have to wait for another day. The jihadists are all about religious extremism.

It's your turn to state what you would do and what the results would be.

Re: Huckabee

Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:07 am
by No Doubt
ThomasDad wrote: You should have stopped your sentence with "I don't know."

Huckabee isn't taking about amnesty, since the children haven't committed a crime worthy of amnesty. He is talking about children who fit a specific profile and who will gain an education and become citizens of this country.

We have gone over this before, Bev. This is a sham issue. In-state tuition is available to children of illegal parents in California, and the number of kids who take advantage of that program is negligible--as we noted before, the total number of students taking advantage of this program is a fraction of 1% of the students in the UC and Cal State systems. Most would be applying to community colleges (much more affordable), and I've yet to see a community college which didn't allow a student to enroll because the college was "full".
You are too funny, ThomasDad. Just hilarious. Nice try with the Huckabee-speak about not giving amnesty to illegal alien children because they haven't committed a crime. LOL LOL hahahaLOL LOL OLL haha OLO OLL OLO ha OLO ha

Excuse me, I got a little carried away there. I never thought that you would ever stick up for the biggest pansy of all the presidential candidates. Just goes to show you the power of the media. It seems that Huckabee has done a sudden about face on the issue of immigration. I guess he finally got the word that he was on the wrong side of the issue if he stood a chance of becoming president.

This guy is truly sickening and he has been an illegal alien amnesty supporter for a long time. He is the epitome of a slimy politician and he's a wimp too.

Oh my gosh, you did it again! Puhleeeeese, ThomasDad are you trying to tickle my funny bone? In-state tuition is available to children of illegal parents in California, and the number of kids who take advantage of that program is negligible--as we noted before, the total number of students taking advantage of this program is a fraction of 1% of the students in the UC and Cal State systems.

I'm having a little trouble getting started with this response because I am on the edge of laughing hysterically at this very dumb thing that you posted.

SORRY - TIME OUT.

Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:09 am
by Pinky
No Doubt wrote:...What do you mean there is no property here that I have inherited?...
I was being figurative in my writing and didn't expect that you would interpret my words so literally. I'll try to take account of your tendency toward literalism in the future so as to not confuse you. I meant that you have not inherited a property interest in America, with reference to the country as a whole, by simple virtue of having been born here. Yes, if it pleases you, I understand that you may have otherwise inherited some piece of property from your kin or acquaintance.
No Doubt wrote:My birthright absolutely does give me the right and justification for...
What birthright is that of which you refer? Is that the birthright of citizenship conferred by accident of birth? I'm sorry, but that birthright only gives you the right to vote and be compelled to serve on jury. Citizenship does not justify your denying freedoms and liberties to others. At any rate, acting out of fear for the security of one's own personal comfort isn't protecting the country. Our principles are that the liberties and freedom we enjoy are here not for our exclusive benefit, but for all who would desire them. We have no birthright in that regard. Liberty and freedom are the principles to safe guard, not our borders, not our language, not our holidays, not our customs and not our pride.
No Doubt wrote:You are seriously confused as to what a country is and the role of its citizens. A country is a sovereign entity which means it has the right to decide who comes and goes over its borders and how long they stay...
Actually, it also means it has the right to decide who gets a bullet through the head and who gets to live in a palace. Big whoop. I thought we were talking about principles?

No Doubt wrote:If our ancestors had your attitude then there would not have been a United States or perhaps a very short-lived one. It would have been a free-for-all where anarchy reined with no system set up to protect the innocent from the aggressive and lawless.
Well, our ancestors, the founders of our country, if I get your meaning, were pretty much revolutionaries. I'm guessing King George would have thought them to be lawless anarchists. So I think your alluding to that pack of libertarians does not serve to further your argument. By the way, those scoundrels didn't establish laws to prevent people from finding freedom and liberty in their newly formed country; go figure.
No Doubt wrote:I disagree with you about Hitler and Chavez. I don't think either one had or has anything to do with pride in their cultures.
Hitler very much employed rhetoric appealing to ultra-nationalism in promoting himself and the Nazis into power. The method of ultra-nationalism is most definitely to appeal to, and work on, a group's sense of pride in culture and heritage. What, otherwise, do you think the Nazi propagandists where promoting? Haven't you ever seen the photos of those gargantuan Nazi rallies? Those were carefully orchestrated to instill pride, loyalty and a sense of destiny among the participants.

Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:57 am
by No Doubt
Pinky wrote: I was being figurative in my writing and didn't expect that you would interpret my words so literally. I'll try to take account of your tendency toward literalism in the future so as to not confuse you. I meant that you have not inherited a property interest in America, with reference to the country as a whole, by simple virtue of having been born here. Yes, if it pleases you, I understand that you may have otherwise inherited some piece of property from your kin or acquaintance.
I think it's obvious that I wanted to establish exactly what you were referring to. Good, I'm glad it pleases you that I understand exactly what you are talking about.
Pinky wrote:What birthright is that of which you refer? Is that the birthright of citizenship conferred by accident of birth? I'm sorry, but that birthright only gives you the right to vote and be compelled to serve on jury. Citizenship does not justify your denying freedoms and liberties to others. At any rate, acting out of fear for the security of one's own personal comfort isn't protecting the country. Our principles are that the liberties and freedom we enjoy are here not for our exclusive benefit, but for all who would desire them. We have no birthright in that regard. Liberty and freedom are the principles to safe guard, not our borders, not our language, not our holidays, not our customs and not our pride.


Excuse me, how did you come up with such a distorted view of what citizenship means to me and countless other Americans? American citizenship gives me much more than the right to vote and serve on a jury. I have told you twice what obligations and responsibilities go with citizenship. Unfortunately, some people do not understand that nor would they act on it if they did. We do have the freedom to choose.

Citizenship does give me the right to make sure our laws aren't changed and/or eliminated to accommodate people like you with weird ideas who naively think that freedom and liberty come without rules and laws.

Your rhetoric No Doubt sounds good to you, but the reality is that if your principles were put into effect it would destroy liberty and freedom for everyone because of the chaos of anarchy.

We cannot have freedom and liberty if we do not safeguard our borders, language, holidays, institutions, laws, etc. If you don't think so then you are terribly naive about human behavior. Do you honestly think that people coming here from all over the world would embrace our way of life? What would happen if they didn't? Think about that. What would happen if they didn't?
Pinky wrote:Actually, it also means it has the right to decide who gets a bullet through the head and who gets to live in a palace. Big whoop. I thought we were talking about principles?
Principles relate to real life. And yes, sovereignty does mean deciding who is executed, arrested, etc. If we don't relate principles to real life then they are worthless.
Pinky wrote:Well, our ancestors, the founders of our country, if I get your meaning, were pretty much revolutionaries. I'm guessing King George would have thought them to be lawless anarchists. So I think your alluding to that pack of libertarians does not serve to further your argument. By the way, those scoundrels didn't establish laws to prevent people from finding freedom and liberty in their newly formed country; go figure.


Who cares what King George thought. For you to say that alluding to the founding fathers does not serve to further my argument is absurd.

If the founding fathers had established a country without laws then there would not have been a country Pinky! Your theory of anarchy as a utopia of freedom and liberty is an impossibility. It would never exist because it could not exist.
Pinky wrote:Hitler very much employed rhetoric appealing to ultra-nationalism in promoting himself and the Nazis into power. The method of ultra-nationalism is most definitely to appeal to, and work on, a group's sense of pride in culture and heritage. What, otherwise, do you think the Nazi propagandists where promoting? Haven't you ever seen the photos of those gargantuan Nazi rallies? Those were carefully orchestrated to instill pride, loyalty and a sense of destiny among the participants.
Yes, you are right that Hitler did play on national pride by orchestrating the huge rallies. But, that was a special circumstance of a country in crisis and they reached out to what they thought was a beacon of hope to escape their miserable existence.

Normal, healthy pride in one's country, school, accomplishment's, area, neighborhood, family, and ethnicity is not a bad thing. It helps to keep people on the path of wanting keep their neighborhoods clean for one thing, to take good care of what they have. People in poor countries scatter garbage everywhere. You must have seen that haven't you? It's a symptom of the decay in their spirit as well as their physical everyday existence. Pride is a good thing if it is used properly.

Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:45 pm
by Pinky
No Doubt wrote:... I have told you twice what obligations and responsibilities go with citizenship. Unfortunately, some people do not understand that nor would they act on it if they did. We do have the freedom to choose.
That's a bit of a contravention since an obligation is contrary to, if not inconsistent with, freedom of choice. But just keep sputtering out those patriot homilies as I'm confident you'll at least continue to inspire yourself.
No Doubt wrote:We cannot have freedom and liberty if we do not safeguard our borders, language, holidays, institutions, laws, etc.
We need to safegaurd our holidays!?!
No Doubt wrote:Do you honestly think that people coming here from all over the world would embrace our way of life? What would happen if they didn't? Think about that. What would happen if they didn't?
Yes and No. More than two hundred years of immigration has demonstrated that immigration does not have an adverse effect on the United States. Nevertheless, with immigration, culture has changed. Of course, culture would have changed with or without that immigration. Immigrants have always adapted themselves to the United States and the United States Adapted to immigrants. There is no reason to suppose that process will stop going forward from November 25th 2007.

By the way, I should point out here that your comments have broadened our debate to include more than simply undocumented immigrants. Your comments immediately above speak to any immigrants and are not exclusive to the undocumented. This is a good example of the opinions you express that cause many people on this board, and the other chat board, to speak of you as being anti-immigration, despite any of your protests that you are really only anti illegal immigrant.
No Doubt wrote:If the founding fathers had established a country without laws then there would not have been a country Pinky! Your theory of anarchy as a utopia of freedom and liberty is an impossibility. It would never exist because it could not exist.
Where in our discussion about extending liberties and freedoms to people coming to this country have I advocated anarchy?
No Doubt wrote:Yes, you are right that Hitler did play on national pride by orchestrating the huge rallies. But, that was a special circumstance of a country in crisis and they reached out to what they thought was a beacon of hope to escape their miserable existence.
Not so special circumstances. Rallying nationalistic sentiments is a favorite method of demagogues. Hitler is an extreme example, but the technique is used by many, including the mundane such as the likes of Fred Thompson.
No Doubt wrote:Normal, healthy pride in one's country, school, accomplishment's, area, neighborhood, family, and ethnicity is not a bad thing...Pride is a good thing if it is used properly.
The operative words here are normal and healthy. Denying liberties and freedoms to others and justifying such by claiming your motives derive from pride is not healthy. As I said before, what truly drives you is fear. You are afriad of the future, afraid of change, and afraid for what the future and change mean to your own personal circumstances. If immigration wasn't your bugaboo it would be international globalism, genetic technology, out of control youth or some other facet of life buffeting your sense of security.

Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:38 pm
by No Doubt
Pinky wrote:That's a bit of a contravention since an obligation is contrary to, if not inconsistent with, freedom of choice. But just keep sputtering out those patriot homilies as I'm confident you'll at least continue to inspire yourself.

Obligations are not inconsistent with freedom of choice. We have the freedom to choose just as I said in the quote. Will you please pay attention and stop talking nonsense.
Pinky wrote:We need to safegaurd our holidays!?!
Where have you been Pinky? Do you not know what goes on in your own country? Do you know what happened to Christmas? Do you know what political correctness has done to our schools? If Americans didn't say or do something there would be no American holidays because of all the ethnic groups that complain and insist on having theirs. Are you so easy-going that you will just sit back and see what happens without a care in the world?
Pinky wrote:Yes and No. More than two hundred years of immigration has demonstrated that immigration does not have an adverse effect on the United States. Nevertheless, with immigration, culture has changed. Of course, culture would have changed with or without that immigration. Immigrants have always adapted themselves to the United States and the United States Adapted to immigrants. There is no reason to suppose that process will stop going forward from November 25th 2007.
You are right that 200 hundred years of immigration has not had an adverse effect on the USA. However, there is a big difference between the first 200 hundred years and what is happening the last 30 years. Are you pretending not to know the adverse effect the invasion of illegals has had on the USA? How many billions of dollars do American taxpayers have to spend on subsidizing illegals that should be spent on repairing infrastructure, helping our own poor, giving Americans access to decent health care, doing something to help stop the depletion of our natural resources before people like you understand what is happening?

Are you one of those benevolent souls that believes the USA should take care of everybody in the world that wants to come here whether they can support themselves or not? Why don't you answer my questions? How far are you willing to go?

There is every reason to suppose that things will change from this day forward regarding the impact immigration has on the USA if people don't wake up and demand that our laws are respected and obeyed. Are you so dumb and naive to think that everyone given a free pass to come here will adapt to our ways of doing things? In the real world nice guys finish last if they do not stand up for themselves.
Pinky wrote:By the way, I should point out here that your comments have broadened our debate to include more than simply undocumented immigrants. Your comments immediately above speak to any immigrants and are not exclusive to the undocumented. This is a good example of the opinions you express that cause many people on this board, and the other chat board, to speak of you as being anti-immigration, despite any of your protests that you are really only anti illegal immigrant.

I have never said that I am only anti-illegal immigrant. I have never said that I am anti-immigrant. I am for whatever is in the best interests of the American people and the United States.

It would help a lot in discussions like this if the other side (that's you) knew enough about the subject to make informed statements. Such as your immigrant and illegal immigrant crap just above. US immigration policy is supposed to serve in the best interests of the country and its citizens. You do know that don't you? Unfortunately, in the last 20 or 30 years that hasn't happened because politicians in the US Congress decided that US citizens will support immigrants coming in to the USA. People that apply to come to the USA are supposed to meet a certain criteria so that they do not become a burden on society. Because of political correctness and the general disintegration of standards in the USA that doesn't happen. Instead immigration policy is being driven by the immigrants themselves by insisting their families join them. There are categories that have unlimited numbers by the way and this is one of them.

So to make this short, there are now too many immigrants being allowed in the US for lots of reasons. Immigrants coming in shouldn't have an impact on society as a whole, but it is and if you had your way it would be much worse because you want to give amnesty to illegals which would open the door to millions more of their relatives.

Isn't it aggravating enough to drive on our freeways now without inviting millions more people to live in the USA? Are you one of those people that like sitting in traffic everyday, twiddling your thumbs when you could and should be doing other things?
Pinky wrote:Where in our discussion about extending liberties and freedoms to people coming to this country have I advocated anarchy?
You didn't have to. It is obvious what your plans would have in store for the future of the USA. However if I'm wrong I would be glad for you to tell me what you envision. So far, you haven't. I want to know what you want to do and what will happen as a result - please?
Pinky wrote:The operative words here are normal and healthy. Denying liberties and freedoms to others and justifying such by claiming your motives derive from pride is not healthy. As I said before, what truly drives you is fear. You are afriad of the future, afraid of change, and afraid for what the future and change mean to your own personal circumstances. If immigration wasn't your bugaboo it would be international globalism, genetic technology, out of control youth or some other facet of life buffeting your sense of security.
Look, I have told you what I think and believe regarding this subject. You don't know me. Instead of telling me what I am like and what I think take the opportunity to tell me what you have in mind. Or are you like so many others on public forums that are too afraid to lay out what their ideas are about?

Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:05 pm
by Pinky
No Doubt wrote:...Instead of telling me what I am like and what I think take the opportunity to tell me what you have in mind. Or are you like so many others on public forums that are too afraid to lay out what their ideas are about?
I thought I'd made myself clear both on this thread and on others that I am for open borders. I have written it on more than one occasion on threads I am pretty certain you have been a participant. I suspect that you know this and thus have endeavored to characterize my position as leading to anarchy while at the same time making repeated requests to make my position known to you. I am also for freedom and liberty; I value these above all other political principles. I consider freedom and liberty to be axiomatically and universally a good that all people should be granted to the fullest extent such that the personal rights, freedoms and liberties of other individuals are not infringed.

Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:23 pm
by GOODave
Pinky wrote:I thought I'd made myself clear both on this thread and on others that I am for open borders. I have written it on more than one occasion on threads I am pretty certain you have been a participant. I suspect that you know this and thus have endeavored to characterize my position as leading to anarchy while at the same time making repeated requests to make my position known to you. I am also for freedom and liberty; I value these above all other political principles. I consider freedom and liberty to be axiomatically and universally a good that all people should be granted to the fullest extent such that the personal rights, freedoms and liberties of other individuals are not infringed.
We simply do not have the infrastructure to support anyone who wants to emmigrate to the United States. There has got to be some control over the numbers.

Now, as you can probably guess, I'm not as vitriolic nor given to the hyperbole she uses to persuade (or manipulate, whichever), but simply put, open borders don't work because we don't have the teachers, the doctors, the police...any professional servant...to support even what we have now.

Further, the scales are out of balance with a self-absorbed, me-first government in Mexico (in particular, being the largest exporter of their citizens): They have no impetus to stay and work out (or "throw" out) their corruptions and dysfunctions if it is that easy to just move north.

I would support, however, some form of staged and incremental assimilation of those already here (EVEN though I expect Bev to now call my patriotism into question because that is nothing more than what she prefers to see as an amnesty plan).

dave

Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:12 pm
by No Doubt
Pinky wrote:I thought I'd made myself clear both on this thread and on others that I am for open borders. I have written it on more than one occasion on threads I am pretty certain you have been a participant. I suspect that you know this and thus have endeavored to characterize my position as leading to anarchy while at the same time making repeated requests to make my position known to you. I am also for freedom and liberty; I value these above all other political principles. I consider freedom and liberty to be axiomatically and universally a good that all people should be granted to the fullest extent such that the personal rights, freedoms and liberties of other individuals are not infringed.
What is with all the personal crap you keep throwing my way? Why don't you save it and use your energy expounding on what you want done, how it's going to work and what the results will be - as you see it?

I have never read where a forum member supports open borders. You did say on this thread that you wanted to give illegals amnesty and invite their families or something to that effect.

So, how many people would that be? The numbers range from 12 million to 20 to 30 million illegals. The way immigration laws are written now the newly legalized would have permission to bring in their families with no rules about only immediate family or any limit on numbers. As I said before the numbers for this category are unlimited. Furthermore, as each immigrant is legalized they have the same privilege of bringing in unlimited family members too.

Illegal aliens now cost American taxpayers billions of dollars a year, if illegals were legalized they would have immediate access to a number of government programs.

Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation did a study earlier this year on the costs that low skill immigrants (legal and illegal) impose on taxpayers. Check this out.

"Receiving, on average, $19,588 more in immediate benefits than they pay in taxes each year, low-skill immi­grant households impose substantial long-term costs on the U.S. taxpayer. Assuming an average 60-year adult life span for heads of household, the aver­age lifetime costs to the taxpayer will be nearly $1.2 million for each low-skill household, net of any taxes paid."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/sr14.cfm

So what you say sounds great, but the hard cold facts of reality prove it won't work.

Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:21 pm
by No Doubt
GOODave wrote:We simply do not have the infrastructure to support anyone who wants to emmigrate to the United States. There has got to be some control over the numbers.

Now, as you can probably guess, I'm not as vitriolic nor given to the hyperbole she uses to persuade (or manipulate, whichever), but simply put, open borders don't work because we don't have the teachers, the doctors, the police...any professional servant...to support even what we have now.

Further, the scales are out of balance with a self-absorbed, me-first government in Mexico (in particular, being the largest exporter of their citizens): They have no impetus to stay and work out (or "throw" out) their corruptions and dysfunctions if it is that easy to just move north.

I would support, however, some form of staged and incremental assimilation of those already here (EVEN though I expect Bev to now call my patriotism into question because that is nothing more than what she prefers to see as an amnesty plan).

dave
How would that work? Assimilate the millions of illegals and then hold your arms out and welcome many more millions of their relatives?

Can't you count? Do you make it a practice of rewarding your children for bad behavior? Are you in favor of giving the car thief the car he stole from the little old lady? How many more hospitals would you like to see close their doors permanently? How many more cases of TB would be acceptable to you? Why is it that something so simple is such a struggle for you?

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:42 am
by GOODave
No Doubt wrote:How would that work? Assimilate the millions of illegals and then hold your arms out and welcome many more millions of their relatives?

Can't you count? Do you make it a practice of rewarding your children for bad behavior? Are you in favor of giving the car thief the car he stole from the little old lady? How many more hospitals would you like to see close their doors permanently? How many more cases of TB would be acceptable to you? Why is it that something so simple is such a struggle for you?
Well, we could start by getting you to read and understand what others say.

When I said "...I would support, however, some form of staged and incremental assimilation of those already here..." I actually meant "...I would support, however, some form of staged and incremental assimilation of those already here."

Note the "staged" and "incremental," as they are foundational to your understanding what I actually said and NOT what you wanted me to have said so that you could continue your mindless hate-rhetoric. I said nothing about assimilating all of them immediately and nothing about inviting their relatives. In point of fact, earlier in that same response, I noted to Pinky that I do not support the open borders over which you are foaming at the mouth.

Get a clue, Bev. You cannot continue with your hate-inspired diatribes against hispanics and expect anyone to take you seriously. I think you need to settle down, dust the cheetohs off your fingers (but not onto your mumu), and constrain your perspective to something even a LITTLE objective before you rupture a blood vessel in your head.

dave

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:44 am
by Fordama
No Doubt wrote:Do you know what happened to Christmas?
Nothing has happened to Christmas. It will be on December 25th just as it has always been ever since the Christians co-opted the pagan winter holiday centuries ago.

Fordama

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:21 pm
by No Doubt
GOODave wrote:Well, we could start by getting you to read and understand what others say.

When I said "...I would support, however, some form of staged and incremental assimilation of those already here..." I actually meant "...I would support, however, some form of staged and incremental assimilation of those already here."

Note the "staged" and "incremental," as they are foundational to your understanding what I actually said and NOT what you wanted me to have said so that you could continue your mindless hate-rhetoric. I said nothing about assimilating all of them immediately and nothing about inviting their relatives. In point of fact, earlier in that same response, I noted to Pinky that I do not support the open borders over which you are foaming at the mouth.

Get a clue, Bev. You cannot continue with your hate-inspired diatribes against hispanics and expect anyone to take you seriously. I think you need to settle down, dust the cheetohs off your fingers (but not onto your mumu), and constrain your perspective to something even a LITTLE objective before you rupture a blood vessel in your head.

dave
Oh yeah, and you might be worth responding to if you would stop playing your stupid race baiting games. Illegals come from all over the world, you dope and most of them are poor with little education. If you want to champion them, then fine, but accept the reality that American taxpayers will be supporting them just as they do now.

I am sick of your hate-filled lying words. Your problem is you are too much of a pansy to speak the truth. You want everybody to like you so much that you can't say anything about immigration issues without making sure to add something in your BS rhetoric that lets everyone know what a compassionate, politically correct, bleeding heart wimp you are so no one would dare accuse you of anything untoward.

You coward, don't you know it is as clear as the sun in the sky that you don't want anyone to call you names and accuse you of anything naughty or unkind. It might spoil that already cracked image you have of yourself. What are you afraid of - one more little tap and you will crumble into a thousand scared little pieces? I can't believe that anyone who has read any of your blather and seen the hypocrisy and lies that come pouring out of you could respect you. You are nothing, but a bunch of hot air that means exactly nothing.

If I was in a precarious situation and needed help you would be the very last person on my list. Anyone that reads your crap can see you are worthless because your words have no integrity, truth or honor. You are on the same level as a profoundly disturbed little schoolboy that still wets his bed.

Re: the above. If you are going to discuss immigration issues then respond with reality mixed in. As it is your statement, "I said nothing about assimilating all of them immediately and nothing about inviting their relatives," is a wasted effort because the reality is that any illegals who are legalized will be given permission for their relatives to follow.

Why is that??? Because as it stands right now and has for some years U.S. immigration policy is being driven by family reunification!!! Do you have a clue what that means?

Also, not only is family reunification the driving force behind U.S. immigration policy, but the numbers are unlimited. Note that: UNLIMITED. UNLIMITED.

Do you know what that means???

It means that if American citizens do not get off their politically correct backsides and contact their reps with demands that the laws are enforced and that illegals are deported as the law states then you are going to be living in very crowded conditions and there will be a lot of poor people who will need to be taken care of.

How far does this country have to decay and slip in quicksand before people like you get it? The entire country is in a mess. How many American jobs have to go overseas or how many businesses have to go under before you wake up? Oh, wait a minute, now I get it, you won't care until it happens to you.

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:21 pm
by GOODave
No Doubt wrote:
Oh yeah, and you might be worth responding to if you would stop playing your stupid race baiting games. Illegals come from all over the world, you dope and most of them are poor with little education. If you want to champion them, then fine, but accept the reality that American taxpayers will be supporting them just as they do now.

I am sick of your hate-filled lying words. Your problem is you are too much of a pansy to speak the truth. You want everybody to like you so much that you can't say anything about immigration issues without making sure to add something in your BS rhetoric that lets everyone know what a compassionate, politically correct, bleeding heart wimp you are so no one would dare accuse you of anything untoward.

You coward, don't you know it is as clear as the sun in the sky that you don't want anyone to call you names and accuse you of anything naughty or unkind. It might spoil that already cracked image you have of yourself. What are you afraid of - one more little tap and you will crumble into a thousand scared little pieces? I can't believe that anyone who has read any of your blather and seen the hypocrisy and lies that come pouring out of you could respect you.
Ahhh, what higher praise than to read this from someone like you about me. Obviously means I'm doing something right.

BUT, does this mean you're not going to research that senate bill and report back to us?

I'm really getting weary of the flotsam you keep throwing up at us. Could you just go do it and report back?
Bev wrote:If I was in a precarious situation and needed help you would be the very last person on my list. Anyone that reads your crap can see you are worthless because your words have no integrity, truth or honor. You are on the same level as a profoundly disturbed little schoolboy that still wets his bed.
There there, now, sweetheart: Go take your meds and lie down...you won't feel any better but you won't be in here yammering with that little crust of spittle forming at the corners of your mouth. :) Win/win!

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:28 pm
by No Doubt
GOODave wrote:Ahhh, what higher praise than to read this from someone like you about me. Obviously means I'm doing something right.

BUT, does this mean you're not going to research that senate bill and report back to us?

I'm really getting weary of the flotsam you keep throwing up at us. Could you just go do it and report back?

There there, now, sweetheart: Go take your meds and lie down...you won't feel any better but you won't be in here yammering with that little crust of spittle forming at the corners of your mouth. :) Win/win!
UNLIMITED UNLIMITED UNLIMITED UNLIMITED