PDA

View Full Version : US Immigration Laws


Hazzle
21-05-2006, 10:06 PM
Who else thinks the fuss over the new US Immigration laws is a pile of shit?

Every single country in the world sets limits on immigration. Every single country in the world passes laws to help them protect their borders and enforce population controls. There's nothing different about what the US is doing. It's simply a culture shock to a country that hitherto has allowed the infestation of illegal immigrants to continue unchecked.

And why oh why is it so contentious to make English the national language of the United States. I mean what's your Constitution written in? Exactly.

English has been the de facto national language in the US for years...it's about time you passed a law to make it so.

Shoot all the hippy Democrats I say...

EmotionSickness
21-05-2006, 10:12 PM
I agree, wholeheartedly.

But expect a lot of bullshit to pop up (or out, ha) in this thread.

Kriv
21-05-2006, 10:26 PM
Why does a person for the UK care about US domestic policy?

Hazzle
21-05-2006, 10:31 PM
Why does a person for the UK care about US domestic policy?

Because I'm interested in politics. Domestic or otherwise.

I watch the news and it comes up a lot. And having a brain (although I sometimes misplace it) I form an opinion.

"Care" may be stretching it. Just interested. Do you have an opinion?

Swordsman
21-05-2006, 10:32 PM
Well we need immigrants in the US, because they do the jobs we're to lazy to do. For very little money do they do it for to.

If you pass a law on making English the language i doubt that that will do anything. Wouldn't that affect learning a second language in school or if someone moves here from another country. One way or another i doubt it would work.

I personally don't care very much since i live up north.

Kriv
21-05-2006, 10:35 PM
Unless I understand the exact problem with the current laws and have read the version of the bill congress intends on passing, if they ever do so. Then I will be informed to have an educated opinion. So untill then :icon_conf

Hazzle
21-05-2006, 10:49 PM
Well we need immigrants in the US, because they do the jobs we're to lazy to do. For very little money do they do it for to.

If you pass a law on making English the language i doubt that that will do anything. Wouldn't that affect learning a second language in school or if someone moves here from another country. One way or another i doubt it would work.

I personally don't care very much since i live up north.

Ahh. Well as part of the laws being passed it was discussed in the Senate whether English was the national language or merely a "common and unifying" one. In fact both definitions were accepted, leaving the decision to the House to decide. It makes a big difference because apparently they want to make the ability to enter the US as a worker dependent on your knowledge of English. Which I think is fair enough.

Every country need migrant workers. That's why you make laws allowing migrant workers under set circumstances. What's being opposed is illegal immigrants, those not coming through set channels and not fulfilling the criteria as migrant workers. Potentially this causes unemployment if those coming in possess skills you already have in abundance. That's why you have laws allowing regulation of what skills are being brought in, versus what skills are actually in short supply.

Swordsman
21-05-2006, 10:56 PM
Well, thanks fo the knowledge. I think i'm too dumb to continue having an opinion on this one.

Hazzle
21-05-2006, 11:00 PM
Well, thanks fo the knowledge. I think i'm too dumb to continue having an opinion on this one.

You're entitled to an opinion. Everyone is. Opinions are like arseholes. Especially those of stupid people as they stink. But they're still entitled to them!

Swordsman
21-05-2006, 11:10 PM
You're entitled to an opinion. Everyone is. Opinions are like arseholes. Especially those of stupid people as they stink. But they're still entitled to them!

I didn't say i wasn't entitled to my opinion anymore. I just said that i'm not very knowledgable to keep talking about the subject. I could easily say that we should just build a big sign on the border that says "IF YOU CAN'T READ THIS SIGN THEN GET THE HELL OUT!" but i'm not like that. I'd prefer to leave this subject up to the people that actually knows what's up with immigrants.

Hazzle
21-05-2006, 11:28 PM
I didn't say i wasn't entitled to my opinion anymore. I just said that i'm not very knowledgable to keep talking about the subject. I could easily say that we should just build a big sign on the border that says "IF YOU CAN'T READ THIS SIGN THEN GET THE HELL OUT!" but i'm not like that. I'd prefer to leave this subject up to the people that actually knows what's up with immigrants.

Oh, it's just because you said "I think i'm too dumb to continue having an opinion on this one."

Anyway...anyone else got a view or is it just me and ES?

kingdumbass
21-05-2006, 11:31 PM
The US government is pathetically ineffective....
Whatever immigration law those jackasses pass, I'm sure it will do little. And how shocking that they finally decided to tackle this issue a few months before an election!

Yeah, let's stop the illegal immigrants with a fence. Bwa-ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Katielondon
22-05-2006, 02:26 AM
The US government is pathetically ineffective....
Whatever immigration law those jackasses pass, I'm sure it will do little. And how shocking that they finally decided to tackle this issue a few months before an election!

Yeah, let's stop the illegal immigrants with a fence. Bwa-ha ha ha ha ha ha!




the US government is not as bad as the retards we have in power over here, whats more astounding is that they got voted in again last year and now everyones just deciding that theyve had enoug-wish they made up thie rminds last year.

dave
22-05-2006, 03:50 AM
Personally, the fight over the English Language has always seemed to me to be an attempt to force immigrants to 'assimilate.' We really have no problem accepting as many immigrants as wish to come as long as they are coming to stay.

I personally believe that we should have a much more open border, but I worry about the people who are coming here in order to foment rebellion and bring their Religious Zealotry into our land. I live in New Mexico. I understand that at the last census there were four states that had a Majority of 'minorities'. That might involve lumping all Hispanic Speaking people as 'Hispanics.' The Euro-Caucasians are no longer the Majority in four states. That number of states is changing rapidly. Soon there will be another. The Senators see that many of those 'minorities' are not assimilating; thus, the effort to force the children to learn English.

This entire 'border fence' issue seems to be a political issue being raised by the particular party which believes they can take back the Congress by scaring the minorities into voting for them. There are alot of things like that done over here to get the 'minority voters' back into the groups whose votes can be counted on by the Democrats (The Party that wants to 'help' you. The Party which is against 'Big Business'.)

So, I'm against 'Big Business' (when they are like Enron, Standard Oil, Phillips Petroleum, etc. AND I am against 'Big Welfare' as well. Being retired has opened my eyes. Living on a fixed income is hard. I could easily get a job as a truck driver, or a writer/editor, or a Network Administrator; but any of those jobs would force me to move away from my cabin in the mountains. So, what happens to me when the bottom Welfare Wage goes up? Or when the 'Big Business' decides that they want to raise prices (since they control a large portion of their market)?

But an open border is a very good method to use to save the Guatamalans from life under the Drug Cartels, to save the Mexicans from life in the roaming gangs of kidnappers, to save the... well, you get the picture.

Spend a couple of minutes here... Fred on Everything... (http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm)
318 Thoughts on War
317 Multiculturalism



Multiculturalism And Alligators

Better Than NASCAR

May 12, 2006

It is possible to derive an ashen satisfaction from watching really stupid people dancing on a tight rope over a den of alligators. At each resounding dental snap one yells “Yeeeeeeeee-ha! Told you so!” and reaches for another beer.

It makes a better Saturday night than a six pack and a bug zapper.

From the Washington Post: “Nearly half of the nation's children under 5 are racial or ethnic minorities, and the percentage is increasing mainly because the Hispanic population is growing so rapidly, according to a census
report released today.”

Now in newspaper parlance, “minorities” means “permanently underperforming and inassimilable minorities,” which is to say blacks, Latinos and, when anybody remembers, American Indians. It very seldom means successful minorities, such as Chinese, Greeks, white men, Jews, or Anglo-Saxons.

As we look forward to a massive slewing away from the dominance of European whites in America, what may we expect? What will these huge minority populations do? It is instructive to look at what they have done so far.

Some thirteen percent of the country is now black, and thirteen percent Latino: over a quarter in all. Blacks remain intractably far below the white population academically. An astounding proportion can’t read, and of those who can, few do. The gap hasn’t closed, despite Head Start, integrated schools, segregated schools, more funding, welfare, black teachers, black school boards, black mayors, remedial instruction, or anything else.

The gap appears on every known test of mental capacity or scholarly achievement—SATs, GREs, ACT, LSATs, MedCats, Stanford-Binet, Wechsler, Raven’s matrices. Nothing makes a difference. Everything has been tried. Because of this, we got affirmative action or, as kids once said, make believe.

Further, blacks are not assimilating. Despite pushing, shoving, laws, legislation, regulation, and relentless indoctrination, the races are not melding at a rate that will produce results any time soon. The huge black necrotic regions of the cities, that whites never see, are so big and isolated as to be impervious to outside influence. If you have not spent time in police cars in such places, you cannot imagine the hopelessness and hatred that brood there. If you think that “hatred” is too hard a word, go look. I have. Whether the hatred is justified doesn’t matter. It exists.

Yes, I will be called a racist for saying these things. I hope so. Today, “racist” means “one who says what everybody else knows.” It is a badge of intellectual honor. Nonetheless, it remains that if I could change any of these conditions, I would. I don't enjoy seeing people in lousy circumstance. I just don’t know what to do about it. Neither does anyone else.

Now, Latinos. Americans seem to think that the word denotes one kind of people, namely Mexicans, conceived as sitting torpidly under cactuses while wearing sombreros. Actually the variety of Latinos is great, from Argentines who amount to Europeans to Bolivians who are Indians. The Latinos coming into America are heavily Indian and uneducated. Mexican ophthalmologists do not swim the river. Mexicans who can make a decent living do not want to live in the United States. Thus the US gets the losers, the second-grade educations, people who on average have neither the intellect nor the urge to study. Yes, there are exceptions. But they are exceptions.

Everyone says, “But the Hispanics work hard.” They do indeed, in the first generation. Many people in fields such as construction have told me that the Latinos are the backbone of their operations, that blacks don’t want to work, have attitudes, show up if they feel like it and quit without warning. The Latinos work, now. Their children do terribly in school, however, drop out, and lose the desire to work. Then they join gangs.

Nice white people don’t know about gangs. Maybe they think of West Side Story. I used to ride in Chicago, with the PD and with the South Side Gang Initiative, a federally funded program in the rotting satellite cities, Markham, Robbins, and Fort Ord. I saw the gangs. There were the Black Gangster Disciples, the Vice Lords, the Latin Kings, the Latin Cobras, the P Stones, the El Ruykins who came out of the old Blackstone Rangers and, earlier, Blackstone Raiders. They aren’t the Jets, people. They’re killers. And they loathe white America.

I once interviewed a ranking Vice Lord in the Cook Country Jail. Why, I asked, did blacks kill each other so much? “They’d rather kill whites,” he answered, “but they know they’d lose.” There's a lot of that. When I left Washington four years ago, Mara Salvatrucha (look on the web) was appearing in Arlington, Virginia, and now their graffiti are show up in Springfield, Virginia.

Law enforcement in America relies on having a white population that is mostly law-abiding. It has no good way of responding to large numbers of violent criminals, especially when they are backed by politically potent voting blocs. The crucial question, or a crucial question, is what proportion of the new minorities will fall into the permanent underclass? How much permanent underclass can the nation stand?

Another crucial question is this: If half the children today are of minorities, then in no more than eighteen years half the kids of college age will be. Unless they show a sudden scholarly afflatus which has not heretofore been in evidence, this means that soon the US will have to compete with China with the brains of only half the nation. This is not to mention secondary effects, such as enstupidating all schools to hide the failures of the minorities. Do you suppose that the Chinese are doing that?

Now, from the same story in the Washington Post, this: “William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, predicted that the United States will have 'a multicultural population that will probably be more tolerant, accommodating to other races and more able to succeed in a global economy.'"

How heart-warming. I suggest that William H. Frey is a thoroughgoing fool, but this is common among academics.The whole touchy-feely multy-culty idea that forcing people together will make them love one another, kum bah yah, is simply wrong. Right now, there is a tremendous repressed hostility between blacks and whites, the lid being held on by federal power, tight control of the press, and rigorous political correctness. Whites, huge numbers of them, detest Latino immigrants and would love to expel them from the country. Serious friction grows between blacks and Latinos as Latinos push blacks out of regions they once controlled. We’re not moving toward accommodation. We’re moving toward trouble.

What will happen as the economy declines and the minorities continue growing in number? As they continue demanding through political power what they cannot obtain on their merits? As standards of living drop, and the pie isn’t creamy enough to give everyone juicy freebies?

It will be nothing if not entertaining. Bring it on. Love them alligators.

Hazzle
22-05-2006, 07:23 AM
the US government is not as bad as the retards we have in power over here, whats more astounding is that they got voted in again last year and now everyones just deciding that theyve had enoug-wish they made up thie rminds last year.

Well, there's no real viable alternative to Labour at the moment, sadly. Don't get me wrong, I'm anti-Blair too, but I just wish the Conservatives were offering a viable option. The Lib Dems would run this country into a ground with their left wing nonsense so until then...Labour it is.

hasselbrad
22-05-2006, 01:04 PM
I boils down to votes. The Democrats have come to the realization that if they can get as many illegals the right to vote as possible, they win! That's why they support a "path to citizenship", which is really just a politically correct sounding term for "stuff the ballot-box". We already have a path to citizenship! It's the same "path to citizenship" that's been used by virtually everyone who has emigrated to the United States over the past two-hundred years.

Hazzle
22-05-2006, 01:09 PM
To be fair...the Democrats need all the votes they can get. I've never seen a political party end up in such a ridiculous state in such a short space of time. Let's not forget that the president before this one was a Democrat...and now look. They've got little or no chance of having another President for a decade and they're gonna continue to get walloped in Congress too.

May as well call the US a one-party state cos that's what it'll be for a long time to come...

hasselbrad
22-05-2006, 01:18 PM
I don't know. Bush's approval ratings are getting very close to single digits. I think it will probably hurt the GOP in the up-coming mid-term elections. From what I've seen, neither party can get their head out of their asses. I wouldn't be surprised to see a general fracturing of the political landscape in this country as people in both parties become more and more disgusted with their own party affiliation.

Hazzle
22-05-2006, 01:25 PM
I agree but I think the difference is that the Republicans are sensitive to what people dislike about them. Note how Bush has moderated his stance on this immigration issue, accepting the Democrat view that a migrant worker law was necessary. I think the Republicans are likely to line up a moderate as their next presidential candidate, and moderate their policies somewhat, whereas the Democrat response to this partisan split that's occuring is to become more and more extreme.

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually a moderate. I like the idea of McCain or Giuliani as the next president, and it looks as if one of those two will end up getting the nod.

hasselbrad
22-05-2006, 01:34 PM
I agree but I think the difference is that the Republicans are sensitive to what people dislike about them. Note how Bush has moderated his stance on this immigration issue, accepting the Democrat view that a migrant worker law was necessary. I think the Republicans are likely to line up a moderate as their next presidential candidate, and moderate their policies somewhat, whereas the Democrat response to this partisan split that's occuring is to become more and more extreme.

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually a moderate. I like the idea of McCain or Giuliani as the next president, and it looks as if one of those two will end up getting the nod.

True. The Democrats seem to be drifting toward the MoveOn dot org bunch and leaving the Joe Liebermans without a party. I would have voted for Lieberman in the last election if he had gotten the nod.

mehrdad368
22-05-2006, 02:37 PM
But in fact u.s must decrease the laws.it's hard to enter.

Katielondon
22-05-2006, 03:05 PM
Well, there's no real viable alternative to Labour at the moment, sadly. Don't get me wrong, I'm anti-Blair too, but I just wish the Conservatives were offering a viable option. The Lib Dems would run this country into a ground with their left wing nonsense so until then...Labour it is.



i think the Conservatives would do the country a lot more good than Labour has over the last few years, all theyve done is increase state interferance and monitor everyone excessivly in the name of anti terrorism, theyve let countless illegal imigrants in and have no clue how many are here, and all they have done since 1997 is make this nonsense PC nany stat, so my question really is,what good has new Labour done for Britian?,answer absolutly fuck all, but thankfully thier losing popularaty fast and i think the next government will definatly be a conservative one, i know they certainly have my vote.
im middle class, im anti Blair, im very anti Brown and even more so anti Livingstone.

Hazzle
22-05-2006, 03:31 PM
Katie, I concur, the issue is that the Conservatives don't look electable to me. They'll get my vote but I know for a fact that 99.9% of the people in my area will vote Lib Dem or Labour. And I'd sure as hell rather see Labour than the Lib Dems.

If the Conservatives could gain back the support of the majority I'd be totally behind them, I just can't see them winning the next election as it currently stands.

Incidentally whilst I'm sure the Conservatives would be tougher on immigration, I doubt they'll be any less tough on "state interference" and monitoring people. Not that I oppose that, I quite like the idea that my government gives enough of a shit about my life that it's willing to sacrifice PC privacy crap in the name of protection of life. We have a right to privacy...great...but surely the right to life is more important? Terrorism is a real concern, and I doubt the Conservatives would disagree.

Ranman
22-05-2006, 04:20 PM
Conservatives suck in the U.S.A. and in England

Hazzle
22-05-2006, 06:34 PM
Conservatives suck in the U.S.A. and in England

*mutters*. Bloody hippies. The only thing I dislike about New York is the fact so many New Yorkers are stupid enough to vote Democrat. D'oh.

But no, seriously, I'm actually very moderate. Pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-equality. I disagree with teaching "Creationism". I oppose the Death Penalty. I just think the Democrats take it too far. Welfare should be a safety net, not a drain on hard working people. War is sometimes necessary. McCain could make a great President if you ask me, and I think even some Democrats would back him.

hasselbrad
22-05-2006, 06:44 PM
*mutters*. Bloody hippies. The only thing I dislike about New York is the fact so many New Yorkers are stupid enough to vote Democrat. D'oh.

But no, seriously, I'm actually very moderate. Pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-equality. I disagree with teaching "Creationism". I opposed the Death Penalty. I just think the Democrats take it too far. Welfare should be a safety net, not a drain on hard working people. War is sometimes necessary. McCain could make a great President if you ask me, and I think even some Democrats would back him.

See Ranman...these are almost exactly my politics, except that I'm pro death penalty.
Mainly, I'm pro-death. The one's we don't get in the womb, we can get with the gallows. :icon_eplu

EmotionSickness
22-05-2006, 06:55 PM
Mainly, I'm pro-death. The one's we don't get in the womb, we can get with the gallows.

Haha. Well put.

Anyway, I don't see what the problem is...trying to "assimilate" immigrants. You can still maintain your own cultural heritage/beliefs/whatever (hell, come to Texas...you will see, they do that very well) and learn to speak fucking English.

It's kind of like an American living in Mexico and never bothering to learn a lick of Spanish. Hell, I've had problems with people getting upset that I can't speak the language when I'm just visiting another country (although, I caught on very quickly...as most people do or SHOULD, once they are immersed in another language).

I've found that most of those arguing against the use of English, and only English, in the States have absolutely NO IDEA what a pain in the ass it is to have such a huge language barrier in your everyday life. When people cannot communicate properly, things don't get done properly. End of story.

Hazzle
22-05-2006, 07:06 PM
Anyway, I don't see what the problem is...trying to "assimilate" immigrants. You can still maintain your own cultural heritage/beliefs/whatever (hell, come to Texas...you will see, they do that very well) and learn to speak fucking English.

Agreed. The idea that assimilation requires you to give up your cultural heritage is just a fallacy. We've had similar bullshit spouted over here but noone actually believes it anymore. My dad was born in India, speaks perfect English. Yet he still retains his culture, heavily so.

It's kind of like an American living in Mexico and never bothering to learn a lick of Spanish.

It's EXACTLY like that. Tourists who don't learn the basics of the language are bad enough...

My mum speaks such good English that people are amazed when they find out she wasn't born here. I'm not saying that to boast, as it would be a stupid thing to boast about, but it shows what CAN be done if you put your mind to it. English was like...her fourth or fifth language when she arrived.

I've found that most of those arguing against the use of English, and only English, in the States have absolutely NO IDEA what a pain in the ass it is to have such a huge language barrier in your everyday life. When people cannot communicate properly, things don't get done properly. End of story.

Agreed. I mean I don't think we have the same level of problem, in terms of the number of people who can't speak ANY English. I think most people in this country speak SOME English. However we still have a problem with people who speak broken English, don't understand it fully and who cannot manage to speak it without mangling it through some accent.

Having done a telesales job I can tell you what a pain in the arse that is. In the end I just had to put the phone down on people who couldn't understand, or just be rude and ask if there was anyone there who understood English. Didn't want to be but necessity dictated it.

dave
22-05-2006, 09:11 PM
To be fair...the Democrats need all the votes they can get. I've never seen a political party end up in such a ridiculous state in such a short space of time. Let's not forget that the president before this one was a Democrat...and now look. They've got little or no chance of having another President for a decade and they're gonna continue to get walloped in Congress too.

May as well call the US a one-party state cos that's what it'll be for a long time to come...
You're not watching the same people I am. Our next President will be Hillary Clinton, pretending to be a middle-of-the-road Democrat and relying on her built in 53% majority. All she has to do is stage a public humiliation of "Slick Willy".

She is already counting on most women voting for her, (which is why the Republicans are floating Condoleeza Rice as an opponent.) Most of the minorities have always voted Democratic, (reason two in favor of Condoleeza Rice.)

Expect to see two women next election cycle. If one woman doesn't make it, then Hillary will run unopposed. (Perhaps the Republicans could run Oprah, that's about the only person who could beat Hillary [after publicly humiliating Bill] )

Oh, and this November? I predict that the War on Iraq's Mullah's has so upset the electorate that the Democrats will win an overwhelming majority and Bush will be stagnated for his final two years.

However, there is one more thing going on that is even more important to watch. I am 62. I was born in 1943. I have always been one of the first of the 'baby boom'. I just retired. Within the next two years, over half of the baby boomers will retire. Social Security will be paying 'out,' not coming in. The Senate will not be able to borrow from Social Security to pay for all those pork barrel projects to get Democrats elected, but it will take too much time for that to 'sink in' with the Politicos. The country will go deeply into debt, and the whole world will feel the pain.

Hazzle
22-05-2006, 09:33 PM
The thing is, Clinton remains popular. I'm unsure Hillary can win if she actually humiliates him. I've seen the reaction he gets on talk shows...he's still adored.

Also most women are Democrat anyway, as are most minorities, so Hillary isn't going to get any more support than Kerry did unless her POLICIES reflect middle-of-the-road America. The thing is, she can't pull off that con if you ask me, her track record in the senate is overwhelmingly leftist.

The funny thing is, if the Republicans DO go with Rice then Clinton could end up winning even less states than Kerry. Women will buck the usual trend and some will vote for Rice. Minorities too will buck the usual trend. The Republicans don't actually EXPECT to get women or minority votes, and so those would be considered a bonus on top of their core support.

Secondly I don't think Senators are very electable. Many people do actually know the different role of legislature and executive and want their President to have executive experience. Whilst I want McCain to get the nod for the Republicans, I did suspect it may be Giuliani as he has executive experience. Rice is also a possibility for the same reason.

Thirdly the Democrat party as a whole just isn't trusted. If an overwhelmingly Democratic state like California can elect a Republican as their Governor, it speaks volumes to me about what they want. Even the old Democrat heartlands are dying, and there is NO way a Democrat will ever win the bible belt. In fact if Giuliani were to run he'd probably win a lot of the east coast states that are traditionally Democrat. Don't forget how many people from Connecticut, for example, actually commute into New York City to work. Given how popular Giuliani was as Mayor...

Fourthly the War with Iraq is cleverly being disguised by this whole immigration issue. It's one of the reasons its been brought up now. And it enjoys the support of a LOT of moderate Democrats...I predict that when it comes down to it, the policy on immigration will trump the war in Iraq. Everyone cares about domestic policy more than foreign. Plus news today out of Iraq is that an exit strategy has come about through Blair's visit to Iraq...I'd expect to see Allied troops out of there long before November. Just in time for the election...surprised? I won't be. That, coupled with the Iraqi PM thanking the west for bringing democracy back to Iraq will go a long way towards gaining the Republicans some votes for getting it right. Which they did.

Finally...the Republicans are SO hellbent on Hillary Clinton NOT being President that they will do everything in their power to prevent it. They're not adverse to a smear campaign and it'll be successful, as the people I speak to are not as enamoured with Hillary as they once were. Unless you're a hardcore democrat you see Hillary as what she is; an opportunist who's using the excuse of her husband's infidelity for her political career. She loses a lot of respect for that. Plus noone has any sympathy for her anymore, she's proven how cold and ruthless she is in her campaign to become Senator. Plus those apathetic Republicans will become a lot less so...

The crucial problem is that the democrats will always be smeared as being cowards on the Iraq issue and on national security. They will be seen as being weak on immigration, costing Americans work. I'm not sure what GOOD policy they can attach their name to at the moment to erase all that negative spin. They really should have backed Bush on this immigration law...

dave
22-05-2006, 10:59 PM
I really hope you are right. This is not the time to be messing around with ideological candidates.

We have a set of problems coming that has never been faced before. My particular solution would be to eliminate the treatment of Corporations as "People." But I don't see that happening. Corporations should be treated as businesses, and shouldn't be able to buy "Individual Property Rights." They should only be able to lease them. But that would be a really big change. Too far to go with our current business structure.

Imagine the difference if actors, musicians, and artists could only rent out their compositions. If a Copyright expired within a generation. You could pass on the money to your heirs, but beyond your immediate children, you couldn't pass the actual copyright to your great-grandkids. People you've never met. Dynasties would fade much more quickly because kids who grow up too rich rarely learn how to deal with that money. Some inventions are so important/lucrative that the money becomes a force unto itself, but eventually it disappears. (Oh, I forgot to say, I'd repeal the 'Death Tax.')

Our biggest problem seems to be the high interest rates that the banks can charge. Did you realize that there are now credit cards that charge 34%? When a bank can charge 34% with the feds only requiring a 6% holding, that bank can reissue that note almost twenty times. (i.e. loan out the amount being paid back again and again, only keeping that 6% of the payments coming in and reissuing the profit to a new borrower until our 'M' or 'Money Supply' has increased by a factor of 20. Our government doesn't print money, our banks do it for them [in the form of credit card debt.] )

So watch what happens when all those retirees stop using their credit cards because they can't pay... Those Democrats have their work cut out for them, trying to keep the retirees from starving on Social Security. And the illegal immigrants are taking the work that the old people used to do 'under the table.' This is not to say that old people do 'stoop labor,' no, old people work at MacDonald's and drive trucks.

Most new truck drivers are women, and retirees. Women because they are unsophisticated and can be tricked into thinking that $50k driving a truck is a huge wage, (not realizing that a third goes to the government, and another third to eat, clothe, and exist while 'on the road,) and the retirees because they crave the experiences and freedom they never had; and they can live on the small take home.)

Remind me to tell you about the night I spent in that 200 mile long line of stalled trucks outside of Amarillo, Texas. There is this long hill outside of Amarillo Texas, on I-40. It snowed. A truck being driven by two Pakistani drivers was at the front of the line, trying to figure out 'chains'. They, of course, didn't have any, had never seen snow, and didn't have a clue...

Imagine putting on borrowed chains, in five inches of snow, wearing sandals and a t-shirt, speaking broken english, with helicopters swirling around overhead beaming your predicament to the entire country, 200 miles of stalled trucks spread out behind you and hundreds of angry truck drivers trying to 'help you' solve your predicament... :icon_redf

Katielondon
23-05-2006, 12:15 AM
Katie, I concur, the issue is that the Conservatives don't look electable to me. They'll get my vote but I know for a fact that 99.9% of the people in my area will vote Lib Dem or Labour. And I'd sure as hell rather see Labour than the Lib Dems.

If the Conservatives could gain back the support of the majority I'd be totally behind them, I just can't see them winning the next election as it currently stands.

Incidentally whilst I'm sure the Conservatives would be tougher on immigration, I doubt they'll be any less tough on "state interference" and monitoring people. Not that I oppose that, I quite like the idea that my government gives enough of a shit about my life that it's willing to sacrifice PC privacy crap in the name of protection of life. We have a right to privacy...great...but surely the right to life is more important? Terrorism is a real concern, and I doubt the Conservatives would disagree.



so what about the threat from the IRA in the 1980s?, Maggie Thatcher didnt clamp down on civil liberties like captain dramatic blair, from what ive read recently the conservatives are on a huge popularity comeback well sort of anyway, and if its a choice in 2010 between Brown and Cameron then i think even a lot of traditional labour supporters may even change thier minds as lets face it Brown is not popular and nor are his leftist ideals, which would surely leave the Tories in a very strong position.
also to add the Conservatives are slightly different in the UK to the US i belive.
oh and the Lib Dems i agree would probably be even worse.

once_dreaded
23-05-2006, 02:14 AM
I feel that Congress is wasting their time trying to pass laws to make English the official language...which, hello, it already is but that hasn't stopped us from babying the illegal immigrants and their offspring by creating ESL classes (okay, it sounds rude, I know plenty of people who have immigrated here LEGALLY and, yes, they do take those courses as well, but I'm bent on the illegal movers here). I went back to visit my elementary school teachers (1st-6th grade) back in 1998 and was APPALLED that the school system was having teachers teach in SPANISH, WTF...if you're in America you should be taught in English, can't handle it..go back to where you came from and learn English there. Hell, if I up and move to Spain I doubt they're going to provide me with SSL classes, there's no babying in other countries, the US needs to stop babying people and get their arses in gear.

And the comment regarding the illegal immigrants taking the jobs that Americans are too lazy to take is wrong. In Oregon there are plenty of people to take those jobs that aren't illegals...they just don't have an educational background to be able to take higher-paying positions.

Hazzle
23-05-2006, 07:42 AM
so what about the threat from the IRA in the 1980s?, Maggie Thatcher didnt clamp down on civil liberties like captain dramatic blair, from what ive read recently the conservatives are on a huge popularity comeback well sort of anyway, and if its a choice in 2010 between Brown and Cameron then i think even a lot of traditional labour supporters may even change thier minds as lets face it Brown is not popular and nor are his leftist ideals, which would surely leave the Tories in a very strong position.
also to add the Conservatives are slightly different in the UK to the US i belive.
oh and the Lib Dems i agree would probably be even worse.

Blair's a closet Thatcherite Katie. Pretty much everything Blair's done Thatcher did before him. And yes, Thatcher did curb civil liberties during her time. You forget that the same level of technology didn't exist. However GCHQ still collected information about your communications. Secondly the IRA weren't quite the same threat. They rarely aimed to kill civilians, and nearly always gave warnings. There was scope for political negotiation. Thirdly the protection of civil liberties has grown stronger since that time.

Before the PACE Act was passed in 1989 we had cases like the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. In both cases civil liberties were not just curbed, but absolutely crushed. 10 innocent people were convicted of crimes they didn't commit. The police were able to get convictions by beating confessions out of them. After PACE they no longer can. The police are now a lot weaker than they were. Let's also not forget the impact of the Human Rights Act. In fact it's ironic Blair is hammered for being bad on Civil Rights when it was him who brought that into law.

Oh, and let's not forget the crushing of the unions...many unionists would tell you that was curbing civil liberties too. That was during a time of even more crisis than the IRA attacks. The miners strikes were true chaos. I actually like Blair because he reminds me so much of Thatcher. My only problem with him is that he hides his true roots. He SHOULD have been a Conservative PM. Instead he hides behind this "New Labour" crap.

As for the Conservatives winning in 2010...I think unfortunately there's too much bad publicity associated with the party. Cameron needs a full term as opposition leader before he can mount a viable campaign. At the moment the public aren't QUITE sure what to make of him.

I feel that Congress is wasting their time trying to pass laws to make English the official language...which, hello, it already is

I think it's more an issue of making it the "NATIONAL" language. Y'see, the second it becomes that, it can become part of the citizenship exam, because that tests your knowledge of "NATIONAL" subjects. It's a technicality but it's a crucial one. So long as the language is merely the "official" one there's a case that it doesn't belong on any immigration exams. Which is stupid.

And yes, I think once it becomes the "national" language, it then becomes easier to make it law that schools can only teach in English. Which I agree with. I agree with everything you've said in fact.

dave
28-05-2006, 11:40 PM
An interesting 'take' on the immigration issue. Somehow I never imagined that something like this would be even considered. This quote is from my little brother's webpage. Marystruck.us (http://www.marystruck.us)


THESE ARE THE SENATORS WHO VOTED TO GIVE ILLEGAL ALIENS SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY, THESE POLITICIANS NEED TO BE DEFEATED IN 2006, 2008 OR 2010 WHENEVER THEY COME UP FOR OFFICE. THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES NEED TO KNOW THIS INFORMATION. Grouped by Home State
Alabama:
Alaska: Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea
Georgia:
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho:
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky:
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Maine:
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota:
Mississippi:
Missouri:
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Nevada: Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire:
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina:
North Dakota: Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma:
Oregon: Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Tennessee:
Texas:
Utah:
Vermont: Jeffords (I-VT), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Virginia:
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming:

Hazzle
28-05-2006, 11:50 PM
What a surprise. Most of them are democrats.

Seriously...the democrats fucked themselves with this immigration issue. Had they taken a more moderate approach to it they'd have won some favours but they're screwed. Especially with Iraq seemingly calming down and with a withdrawal of troops likely to happen before the next Presidential election campaign begins.

Perfect timing, no? Not that I'd be cynical enough to suggest it was planned that way...oh no, not at all:p

Pygmalion
29-05-2006, 01:32 AM
No country can have worse immigration laws than us:
"Chuck every non-english speaking person in a camp...oh crap that one turned out be a crazy german speaking Australian citizen wandering around the countryside....hmmmm....sorry about that!"

Hazzle
29-05-2006, 02:39 AM
No country can have worse immigration laws than us:
"Chuck every non-english speaking person in a camp...oh crap that one turned out be a crazy german speaking Australian citizen wandering around the countryside....hmmmm....sorry about that!"

I agree with a policy like that. Lousy German-speaking Nazis.