I Have a Plan to destroy America. - Page 2

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 07-15-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Your last post was great, but I quoted a serious error. How would we know if there's a problem with our current laws if we don't enforce them? We've had the authority to go after employers that hire illegal aliens since 1986. Why don't we? Because too many politicians are "dusty" (this is just shy of being dirty) and they pressure our federal law enforcement agencies to ignore certain industries that are big in their district. This happens. A lot.

If Immigration authorities are hobbled by Congress and the President, how can we ever really know what our laws would really do when they're enforced?

I agree totally. You have to enforce the laws. You must. It is only when you enforce the laws and the people are hurt by that enforcement or they fight the enforcement do you know that the law is misguided.

And we, this country, have put ourselves in a very bad position by ignoring the laws for so long. So long that the law has become at best difficult to enforce and at worse irrelevant.

It would have been much better to have enforced the laws early on (early 1980's from what I understand) and then adjusted them to meet our needs as a country.

This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. Both sides have been "dusty". (BTW, this is why a purely market driven economy doesn't work. The market lured these people over. The market drove employers to hire them so that they could compete.)

And even now I believe that there is a way to solve the problem without harming the country or the people that are currently here illegally.

But the only way to do this is to have a real discussion that is not geared towards winning house seats.

Should it start with enforcing current laws? I do not know. Maybe. But maybe the laws have become so irrelevant to the current state that this may cause more harm than good. Or maybe we simply stop, as best we can, further illegal immigration and then figure out how to deal with those currently here.

I am not saying it is in anyway easy. But I do think we are giving our representatives a pass by not challenging them to actually solve the problem.

This is my position.

Immigration is not bad. It is good. Very good. It built our country. Made it the greatest in the world. It is our strength.

We cannot look to the past to determine immigration policy today. The world is much different and much more global. While many things such as tariffs and trade policy have changed to reflect global changes, immigration policy has not.

Simply bringing people here to work and bolster our economy is bad. First it covers up failings in our educational and socioeconomic systems. Second it places many brought here to work in a awkward position. They are making money here but have no interest in the country as a whole. Some may want to stay and become Americans but many just want to take what they earn and move it to another country. Then leave when the well runs dry.

We, the USA, need more people. Like all first world countries our reproduction rate cannot keep up with the demands. The more affluent and educated we become the fewer children we have. This produces a stagnation of sorts that must be overcome. How many we need changes all the time. It has to be constantly analyzed and adjusted. First priority, I think, should be given to our neighbors and those countries friendly to us.

The best way to get the people we need is to allow peoples from other countries to immigrate. We cannot limit it to just the well educated of other developed countries. Kinda defeats the purpose of immigration.

We cannot be afraid of the changes this immigration will bring. See point number one.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 07-15-2006, 07:24 PM

QUOTE=Lucky Shot]So because I am against illegal immigration, I am against all immigration? Wow... So if I am FOR Illegal immigration, I am also for regular immigration?

I think it's important to have strong borders and to also allow immigration.
[/quote]

See, this is what I am talking about. This seems to be a purely emotional response.

Where did I say that? In fact I did say this -> "Others don't mind immigration just want to limit it to a rational and agreed upon number."

You missed my whole point it seems. I was saying that the debate has devolved into a black white issue. Pro or con with nothing in between. Doing this gives those that think that immigration laws should change to reflect the realities of the times a very difficult choice.

Free for all or shoot them on site.

Not that simple I think.

[quote=Lucky Shot]The lack of quality workers will force employers to become MORE efficient in order to stay in business. Or they will pay more for quality workers who perform better than average. [quote=Lucky Shot]

Or they move their businesses to where the workers are. Or they simply go under.

And how does a lawn service become more efficient? How do hotel cleaning crews become more efficient? And do you think you can get better performing chicken pluckers than those currently doing the job? Construction workers can gain greater efficiencies how? Most of the efficiencies gained by American businesses have come with regard to knowledge work or manufacturing/supply chain. Service work is still grunt work that requires sweat and back muscle. Until robots get much better it will be that way.

Or, yes, they can pay more. How much more do they pay? Will this cause high inflation?

This is why I say the discussion is over simplified. I am no economic expert yet I know that two sentences cannot solve the problem as it stands.

[quote=Lucky Shot]I don't think there is a case of too many laws, but perhaps the willingness to break them is that there isn't a sufficient punishment to keep people from breaking them.[quote=Lucky Shot]

This statement I find rather disturbing. The government is supposed to be Of the people and For the people. If the only way to keep the people in line is punish them then I am afraid for this country.

You assume that those breaking the laws are deviant and trying to undermine the country. I have seen no evidence of this. But if I am wrong and this is the case then there is a very large part of the American population trying to undermine the country. This would also be very disturbing, no? This says the government is not in line with the people and their needs.
(Unless you think the people should serve the government.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

But if you are breaking the law just coming into the country, guess I don't think your going to have a great track record of upholding any of our other laws once your in.

Ok, forget those coming in. Focus instead on those hiring and providing the impetus for the illegal immigrants. Without them the problem would be very small. And the number of people that this group involves is huge. Much bigger than most will admit to. It encompasses conservative, liberals, Democrats and Republicans. The number of people that are in this group speaks in large part to why action has been so limited and has come so slow.

Prohibition is a good example of what I am trying to express. There where MANY people that violated the Constitution of the United States to get a drink of booze. I don't think this meant that people drinking during this time would automatically violate other laws. That they wanted to destroy the USA. I think it meant the government had laws that did not reflect the will of the people.

You do have a point though. If you make laws that totally disregard the needs of the people I do think that the people will tend to disregard the bodies that make and uphold the laws. Maybe even hold them in contempt. And that can't be good.

Lucky Shot · 07-15-2006, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Specifically, is Canada on the brink of destruction?

Well, they have had several votes to try and make Quebec it's own country splitting Canada into pieces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_...ignty_movement

Lucky Shot

**CingularDuality** · 07-15-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Specifically, is Canada on the brink of destruction?

Ha! That's why I asked for a Canadian opinion. Canada as we now know it has been on that brink for quite a while.

Beatnik · 07-15-2006, 08:21 PM

As a brief aside that has nothing to do with the content of this thread, but given the title of the thread, I'd like to extend a warm Greetings and Salutations to the NSA and the FBI.

**CingularDuality** · 07-15-2006, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

And how does a lawn service become more efficient? How do hotel cleaning crews become more efficient? And do you think you can get better performing chicken pluckers than those currently doing the job? Construction workers can gain greater efficiencies how? Most of the efficiencies gained by American businesses have come with regard to knowledge work or manufacturing/supply chain. Service work is still grunt work that requires sweat and back muscle. Until robots get much better it will be that way.

Wrong. Look at how the tomato industry bred tomatoes to get some that could be picked and processed by machines instead of men. This was a direct result of the tightening of immigration laws. You think that this "yankee ingenuity" can't extend to other industries?

Quote:

You assume that those breaking the laws are deviant and trying to undermine the country. I have seen no evidence of this.

You need to google "aztlan" and "la raza". Not all, but many illegal aliens ARE trying to undermine this country with both active and passive means...

**leejo** · 07-15-2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Oh yea. But I live in Oklahoma. And I am from rural Oklahoma. Many of the people I know here are against all immigration. They do not want anybody that isn't one of them. (Yankees are tolerated, but just.)

See I'm the opposite. I like immigrants, legal or otherwise, much more than I like Yankees.

Look, I'm sorry about the people in your town but they aren't speaking for "most" people who oppose illegal immigration, and they aren't setting national policy. If you want to say "most people in my little town in OK think <x>" then that's another thing. "Most" people I know support many hard-working immigrants by hiring them and providing for a lot of extras like health care for their families when in need (yes I have specific examples). I don't kid myself that since the people I know go above and beyond to open opportunities and relieve pressures on these immigrants that all employers do the same. I'd ask you to hedge a little in the other direction. As it stands, I read your statement as an (inadvertent?) implication that most people who oppose illegal immigration are racist, a typical insinuation from the dems that I find offensive.

A personal friend and former coworker is struggling because she is an alien and is stuck in visa hell right now. But she's doing things the legal way. The nature of the work she does and the quality of her character is such that she has to take this approach. I support people like her. I do not particularly feel like being coerced into supporting illegals, and I think that people ought to follow the law, especially if they aren't citizens.

Diceman · 07-15-2006, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Ha! That's why I asked for a Canadian opinion. Canada as we now know it has been on that brink for quite a while.

Ok, I've been checking in on you guys from time to time - while on my honeymoon, don't tell my wife! - and I had no intention of getting into any sandbox shenanigans from Europe.

Unfortunately, this claim is just too absurd to let pass. Cing, we ain't on the brink. Quebec separatism is an issue that comes and goes from time to time, and there have been times in our history where things have gotten a little on the tense side because of it.

There is a lot more to this story, and I'll be happy to elaborate, but I'll do it when I get home again - in a week and a bit.

For the mean time, let me assure you: Canada is not about to seperate. Quebec is in no mood to pick that fight right now and, even if it did, there is not much reason to assume that the nationalists there would win.

As an aside, multiculturalism is celebrated in Canada. It is an important part of our national character and make-up.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 07-15-2006, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Oh yea. But I live in Oklahoma. And I am from rural Oklahoma. Many of the people I know here are against all immigration. They do not want anybody that isn't one of them. (Yankees are tolerated, but just.)

The funny thing is they still hire them to work the farms and care for their children. But go to the coffee shop and listen to locals talk and the Mexicans and Arabs (and all light brown skinned people are one of the two) are hear to destroy our country.

Not everybody is like this. Some do appreciate that the Mexicans have revitalized small towns and are willing to let sleeping dogs lie. They are not the majority.

Yes I am quoting myself. I just want to say that I am not trying to spit on my roots in rural Oklahoma.

I do disagree with some of their viewpoints. I openly discuss this with them and they all understand that I am one of the "wierd ones".

We exist in peace when I go back. For some reason it is important that I say this.
So be it.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 07-15-2006, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

See I'm the opposite. I like immigrants, legal or otherwise, much more than I like Yankees.

Look, I'm sorry about the people in your town but they aren't speaking for "most" people who oppose illegal immigration, and they aren't setting national policy. If you want to say "most people in my little town in OK think <x>" then that's another thing. "Most" people I know support many hard-working immigrants by hiring them and providing for a lot of extras like health care for their families when in need (yes I have specific examples). I don't kid myself that since the people I know go above and beyond to open opportunities and relieve pressures on these immigrants that all employers do the same.

All I said was that it was significant. Enough that it affects the debate. Enough so that one party or the other will capitalize one these view points.

But I don't think it is just my home town for two reasons.

While in the Navy I naturally migrated to other nukes from small towns. While at sea you have alot of free time and you discuss these things. It was apparent that, of those I spoke with, the attitudes where pretty much the same in their home towns. Reject change if at all possible and suspect all that do not look, act, talk and think like everybody else. My friends where from rural Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North Dakota, Kansas, Arkansas, Colorado and Virginia.

After getting out of the Navy I visited a few of my friends and this proved to be true. In fact my best friend was a manager in a chicken processing plant in southern Alabama and he was in charge of many of illegal immigrant workers. (Puerto Rico and Mexico if I remember right.) We had many interesting discussions about this. (Yes the management knew and did nothing about it until one acted up. My friend didn't like it but this was southern Alabama and he needed the job. That is another aspect of rural life that is best left to another thread.)

Second is that I don't think my small town is an enclave of evil. I think it is pretty typical. You have to grow up in a rural place to really understand it. (And I am not talking about having a house 30 or so miles outside of a city. I am talking sticks.) It is a mindset that is very difficult to understand. It is a mindset that is understandable and even necessary to a certain extent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I'd ask you to hedge a little in the other direction. As it stands, I read your statement as an (inadvertent?) implication that most people who oppose illegal immigration are racist, a typical insinuation from the dems that I find offensive.

It was inadvertent if anything. The fact you read that into it kinda proves my point. Most people are looking to be offended and react to all discussion of the topic emotionally.

**leejo** · 07-15-2006, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Finally, this celebration of Victor Davis Hansen is really not healthy. He is a neoconservative hack who to has consistently failed to take an honest analysis of events, and has demonstrably allowed his political bias to taint his research. He's more of a TV personality than an academic at this point.

Yeah well, that's your opinion. Re: the hack comment, he's got pretty terrific credentials. And re: allowing his political bias to taint his research, what are you talking about?

If you don't like his opinions, that's your opinion. That doesn't make him a hack, or biased. If you're going to insist that people accept as "unbiased" endless examples of partisanship from the NY Times, et al, then you're going to have to keep your mouth shut when someone with whom you disagree says something you don't like. At the very least this sort of personalized attack on the writer doesn't help your cause.

Steeler · 07-15-2006, 09:55 PM

Let's not get into this biased/unbiased "that's just your opinion, shut your mouth" thing again. I'm sick of it.

**leejo** · 07-15-2006, 09:59 PM

If you're sick of it, then don't bring it up when someone says something you don't like. If you want to confine your comments to VHD's points and refrain from calling him a biased hack, that'll be a terrific start.

One gets the impression that when people say things with which you agree, they're unbiased. When people say things with which you disagree, they get called names like partisan and stupid. At the very least, demonstrate HOW he is a hack or biased. Otherswise it's just name calling.

Steeler · 07-15-2006, 10:04 PM

I'll let James Wolcott do it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Wolcott

VDH in quotes:"Of course, it is possible, and perhaps even understandable, to coast for a while and advisable to cool the rhetoric about bringing democratic change through 'smoking out and hunting down terrorists 'dead or alive.' But we shouldn’t forget that the global village gets back to normal only after a Shane or Marshall Will Cane [sic: Kane] is willing to take on the outlaws alone and save those who can’t or won’t save themselves. So, remember, when, to everyone’s relief, such mavericks put down their six-shooters and ride off into the sunset, the killers often creep back into town."

First of all, it's embarrassing for a historian of any stature to seal his arguments with Hollywood citations. Alan Ladd's Shane and Gary Cooper's marshall in High Noon were fictional heroes whose success in the final showdowns were preordained in the script; their relevance to the policy decisions of a prime minister or president is nil. George Bush didn't strap on six guns and swaggered bow-legged into Baghdad, much as Hanson and Howard Fineman might want to fantasize; he sent the country's uniformed men and women to do the fighting, thousands of whom have returned home in flag-draped coffins, thousands more seriously wounded and left to contend the rest of their lives with being blinded, deafened, deprived of the use of all their limbs, psychologically traumatized. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest personally risked nothing; they will enjoy prosperous retirements, and be free to pen memoirs primping their place in history. VDH isn't one to wait. He's doing his historical revisionism here and now. Elsewhere in the piece, he lauds the "audacious removal of...the Taliban," without acknowledging that the Taliban is staging a strong comeback in Afghanistan, in part because the US was in such a hurry to hit Iraq. His comment about post-invasion Iraq is even more cavalier with the truth. "Iraq is messy, but its chaos is no longer novel. And for all the violence, its democratic government just keeps chugging along, its enemies so far unable to derail it."

The Bush administration and the neocons didn't promise to bring "chaos," novel or not, they promised order and stability, once the hornet's nests were removed; the opposite has occured. Sectarian violence has whipped chaos into a tragic whirlwind that has Baghdad residents fleeing as their city implodes. And if the Iraqi government is "chugging along," as Hanson blithely puts it, it's because it's impotent to stop what's happening in the streets and the elected representatives are engaged in empty pantomime.

And another thing. If you're going to tell me to shut my mouth because I say something you don't agree with, then I never want to hear you again complain that you are being shouted down in a thread (as you have done many times in this forum).

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 07-15-2006, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

I disagree with it's core assumptions. Namely, that multiculturalism is inherently dangerous or weakening to our national character. <…>

As for the bilingual issue - there are dozens and dozens of peaceful and prosperous societies (including our own) with a multi-lingual culture, reflected both in local parlances and in civic communications.

I may be reading too much into the speech but I think the overarching point has validity. (That sentence just sounds wrong.)

Namely that a country divided cannot stand.

Now to say that it will be divided simply by culture or language is a bit silly especially with the technology and population movement we have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Severe, society-rending conflict between cultures usually occurs when speakers of various languages segregate themselves or are forcibly segregated by the state.

I think that a guest worker program could cause this type of thing to happen. Having a large group of individuals that have no vested interest in the place they live outside of earning a living could cause a big rift. Probably not big enough to destroy the country, probably not.

I would also say that this applies to the illegal immigrants currently here. They don’t have allegiance to America and have no reason for it because of the current laws. This was somewhat evident during the demonstrations when the impulse for many of them where to wave flags of their home countries instead of the American flag.

I think this symbolic act does show that there is a problem and it needs to be addressed.

07-15-2006, 08:21 PM	#20 (permalink)
Beatnik Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Age: 33 Posts: 4,337	Re: I Have a Plan to destroy America. As a brief aside that has nothing to do with the content of this thread, but given the title of the thread, I'd like to extend a warm Greetings and Salutations to the NSA and the FBI. __________________ -F- Beatnik

07-15-2006, 09:55 PM	#27 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: I Have a Plan to destroy America. Let's not get into this biased/unbiased "that's just your opinion, shut your mouth" thing again. I'm sick of it. __________________

07-15-2006, 09:59 PM	#28 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: I Have a Plan to destroy America. If you're sick of it, then don't bring it up when someone says something you don't like. If you want to confine your comments to VHD's points and refrain from calling him a biased hack, that'll be a terrific start. One gets the impression that when people say things with which you agree, they're unbiased. When people say things with which you disagree, they get called names like partisan and stupid. At the very least, demonstrate HOW he is a hack or biased. Otherswise it's just name calling.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links