| Author | Message | ||
     dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 804 Registered: 3-2005 |
The Berlin wall was not built to keep people out. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13436 Registered: 1-2003  |
I'm not convinced a wall will help, either. It would have to be mighty tall, and deep, too. And would we erect it along our beaches, too? The more I think about this, the more I realized I don't have the answers. Alleygater, did you like the Krugman piece? | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 805 Registered: 3-2005 |
The Krugman piece was predictably anti-american. We are not and will not become like Europe with its immigrant problem. Not because we assimilate the immigrants, but because we assimilate their children. France does not. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13439 Registered: 1-2003 |
If two people disagree on how to do what's best for America, it is not necessarily logical to call one of the arguments anti-American. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 807 Registered: 3-2005 |
America and immigration is a multi century sucess story the likes of which the world has never seen!!!!! This is due not to dems or reps or to any group. It is due to all of us and is one of the most awsome things about the USA!!!! I am so proud of this heritage. Krugman had nothing good to say about it. He says we will become like Europe. He is anti-american or delusional or maybe suffering from depression. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 885 Registered: 12-2003 |
You scare your children into going to sleep by telling them there is a boogeyman? I would think that would keep them awake all night. I don't have kids. But if I did, I don't see myself resorting to that kind of tactic. I was using what we in the message board world call "an example." So you are saying that these two sentences are the same? "If you don't go to bed on time, the boogeyman will get you!" "If you don't go to bed on time, the terrorists will get you just like they got the people in the World Trade Center!" No, if you mean do I think people say those things, or should say those things to children. What I AM saying that to get the American people to "go to bed," the Bush people resort to scare tactics. The truth of the matter is that the average American (outside of our area, Washington DC, and maybe LA or Chicago) has about as much chance of encountering terrorism as they do of encountering the boogeyman. But they scare just as easily, if not more easily, than those of us who have actually been affected by a terrorist attack. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 886 Registered: 12-2003 |
Since our terrorist problem seems to stem from Moslem/Arabs, not Swedes or Swiss, it behooves us to make use of racial/ethnic/religious profiling. This is just common sense policing, but it seems to really raise a lot of hackles for some reason. It raises hackles (mine, at least) mostly because profiling doesn't work. These people didn't attack us because they are Moslem, or because of their skin color, they attacked us because they are crazy, and they fervently believe that America is something she is not. Every society has extremists, and any one of them could be a potential terrorist...take Timothy McVeigh. That doesn't mean that the extremists represent the society. I believe someone is innocent until proven guilty...and that suspicion can only be rightfully arrived at based on their behavior, not on where or into what faith they were born. It's a matter of judging them on what they do, not who they are. When Israel got wise to the "profile" of the suicide bomber, extremist Palestinian women and children started strapping on belts. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 147 Registered: 1-2006 |
Alleygater, You zeroed in on the first of the ten points and I thought you were interpreting it from a stricly economic viewpoint. I guess there is an economic angle to any subject, but the benefits of reduced immigration would have positive ramifications for things like the enviroment, public health and public safety. These are quality of life issues which go beyond mere economics. What jumps out at me from the list I posted is point #2: Since immigration policy can profoundly shape a country, it should be set by deliberate actions, not by accident or acquiescence, with careful consideration to ensure that it does not adversely affect the quality of life of American citizens and their communities. As far as I know, the proposed wall or fence would not be thousands of miles, but only hundreds. I believe there was a small fence erected near San Diego a few years ago with good results, i.e. lowered crossings of illegals, so there is reason to hope that a longer fence would work well. Sad to say, but your dream of a borderless world where people can come and go as they please is just that, a dream. It's a nice dream, but it is unrealistic and impractical, and we need to tend to our own gardens. Allow me to leave you with, sigh, one more link:http://www.commonsenseonmassimmigration.org/articles/contents.html These are very short essays that won't take up a lot of your time. Try 1, 10, 14 and 18 for starters. Cheers | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 148 Registered: 1-2006 |
Madden 11, I don't think profiling is a "magic bullet", or could never be abused. But it should be included in the tool box of policing. Membership in a group is a valid criterion for assuming unobserved behavior in the absence of specific information about an individual. Profiling takes place all the time. A few years back, Jesse Jackson created a stir when he said that if he heard foosteps approaching from behind him as he walked the street at night, he felt relieved to turn and see a white teenager, not a black teenager. That is profiling, pure and simple. It also might be the only honest thing he's ever said, but that's another story. You also said:These people didn't attack us because they are Moslem, or because of their skin color, they attacked us because they are crazy, and they fervently believe that America is something she is not. I have to disagree with you here. I think they did attack us because they were Moslems and they were not crazy. It's true that skin color had nothing to do with it. I also disagree with Mr. Bush, who said we were attacked because they hate our freedom and our way of life. We were attacked because we have spent decades meddling in the affairs of Moslem countries. This stems from a weird and unstable alliance of bubble-headed Wilsonianism and crass commercial interests. Based on the tenets and traditions of their religion, they were not insane to attack us. The solution to these problems lies in immigration reform, securing the borders and a strictly non-interventionist approach to foreign policy along Jeffersonian lines. If you hear of any candidates advocating these views, please let me know. Cheers | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5501 Registered: 8-2003 |
"I think they did attack us because they were Moslems and they were not crazy." 3ringale -- Should we fear or at least be very wary of all sane Muslims? | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 887 Registered: 12-2003 |
Membership in a group is a valid criterion for assuming unobserved behavior in the absence of specific information about an individual. I agree about a membership that an individual chooses, like the NRA or PETA. But people are born into a religion and into a region...it's not like they're signing up to be Muslims, and we shouldn't assume that they all think and act the same way. And just because Jesse Jackson says something doesn't make it right. His personal feelings should not be the basis of our system of law enforcement. I think they did attack us because they were Moslems and they were not crazy. I can't agree with that either. I believe the Muslim world has no shortage of legitimate beefs with the US. But flying planes into buildings and killing thousands of innocent people is not something sane people do. Based on the tenets and traditions of their religion, they were not insane to attack us. We'll also have to disagree that strongly held religious beliefs presuppose sanity. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1591 Registered: 10-2004 |
I think what I have confirmed PRETTY SOLIDLY from this thread is that I was right all along and this immigration issue really is a diversion tactic. Nothing really is going to change (seems to be the concensus from what I read here) and no one has a solution (but everyone has an opinion -- plus it leads to lots of related side conversations) but at least no one is talking about Iraq. Mission accomplished Republicans. Could you turn off the smoke machine now??? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13445 Registered: 1-2003 |
I agree. Here's another interesting column. http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060410ta_talk_cassidy | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3140 Registered: 5-2001  |
There is a clear anti-latino undertone to the debate on this subject. It seems to me that people often equate the term "immigrant" with "Mexican" in spite of the fact that there are obviously illegal immigrants from all over the world. So, I took a quick look to see what the numbers are. It turns out that most illegals immigrants in the country are Mexican and quite a lot of the others are from other latino countries. I leave it to you to decide what effect, if any, this should have on the discussion (none, I think, regarding "rights," but certainly it would affect logistical decisions). I found this info from 2000 in an executive summary on the DHS website, here: The INS estimates that 7.0 million unauthorized immigrants resided in the United States in January 2000. The total population estimate is somewhat higher than INS’ previous estimate. In its last set of estimates, INS estimated the population to be 5.0 million in October 1996; the new estimates produced a total of about 5.8 million for the same date. Estimated annual population growth was variable in the 1990s; on average, however, the population grew by about 350,000 per year from 1990 to 1999, about 75,000 higher than INS’ previous annual estimate of 275,000 for the 1990s. In addition to the total population, estimates were compiled for each State of residence and for 75 countries of origin. As expected, California is estimated to have the most unauthorized residents in January 2000, about 2.2 million, or 32 percent of the national total. The States with the largest numerical increases in unauthorized population in the 1990s were California, Texas, Illinois, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. Mexico is the largest source country for unauthorized immigration to the United States. The estimated unauthorized resident population from Mexico increased from about 2.0 million in 1990 to 4.8 million in January 2000. Mexico’s share of the total unauthorized resident population increased from 58 percent in 1990 to 69 percent in 2000. In addition to Mexico, six countries had more than 100,000 unauthorized residents in the United States in January 2000 --El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, Honduras, China, and Ecuador. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1592 Registered: 10-2004 |
Someone above in this thread told me it would only take a few hundred miles of wall to keep the illegals out. Ummmmm...I'm pretty sure that Canada is more than a few hundred miles wide. The comment implied to me that we must be talking about only walling off Mexico, which seems dumb to me. I guess the people who cross the border down south are just too stupid to fly to Canada and cross the border for the North. But if the wall down South is successful then I'm sure we can justify walling in the North when that becomes a problem right? Also, what stops people from entering the country legally on an airplane and just staying permanently? Happens all the time in every country. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5503 Registered: 8-2003 |
Flying to Canada to pay a coyote to get you into the US adds cost, not to mention scrutiny of another government (Canada) whereas Mexico just turns a blind eye at the border. I disagree that this is a smoke-machine. I have my doubts on a real solution emerging, but anyway.... Illegal Immigration caused two Democrat governors to declare a state of emergency. I don't think they did it just for the politics of their local situation nor to help out Bush. Illegal immigration is as tough an issue as social security reform was, and medicare reform will be. We have to face it. It would help if Democrats would join the debate rather than obstruct or play only for political angles. And as regards illegal immigration, there are union members not happy with the amnesty/open borders for voters approach the Dem leadership is taking. If it's not resolved here, it will be a '06 issue. Democrats removed Iraq from their recent talking points, coinciding with terrorists killing Iraqis versus GIs. Obama was asked recently about what Dems should run on in 06 and Iraq was conspicuously absent from his list. If Democrats don't speak about Iraq, I think they look better because they're still perceived as wimps without a plan. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1899 Registered: 3-2004 |
CJC, Assuming that you're from Latin America, flying to Canada is, yes, nonsense. However, if you are from another part of the world, let's say the Middle East, there are many places along that relatively unprotected and in some cases wilderness border that you can use to cross to the US, anywhere from Nova Scotia to British Columbia. Blind eye or not, it's a significant border to watch. And Canada has a significant Middle Eastern population where people can "hide" if they're so disposed. I agree with you that Dems may have de-emphasized Iraq in their talking points. And why not? It's an imploding problem, originated by the current administration, for which the White House has no real solution. As more Iraqis and "terrorists on tour" kill more Iraqis each day, Dems can watch while the administration tries more desperately to convince the public that "things will work out" and not be tainted by getting involved with a failure of enormous proportions. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5504 Registered: 8-2003 |
Innis -- Arabs and Muslims are only a concern if they operate ports, versus Chinese communists. Schumer and company are right to leave the borders open. Democrats aren't speaking about Iraq because they have no alternative and retreat isn't popular enough poll-wise to run on. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1902 Registered: 3-2004 |
CJC, On your first point, I thought that the president had abrogated to himself the duty of protecting the American people. He reaffirmed that not an hour ago in a live speech from somewhere in the heartland. I heard him say so. Next, if the administration had no strategy to begin with, and still has none, for Iraq (and it's the President's job as Country CEO to develop and execute strategy), why should anyone else, regardless of party, be expected to offer up an alternative? According to the President, he's the one mandated with making the tough decisions, the difficult plans, the hard choices. He also reaffirmed that not an hour ago in a live speech from somewhere in the heartland. Again, I heard him say so. Why demand an alternative from someone else? Why are people are looking for an alternative from other sources when the guy in charge should be figuring out Plan A, Plan B, and any contingency plans. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1636 Registered: 5-2001 |
Democrats are talking about Iraq, but they aren't offering tactical advice because that would truly undermine the efforts there (as demonstrated by Condi blaming the troops and Rummy contradicting her). | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5505 Registered: 8-2003 |
dave23 -- why don't Democrats say they're not talking about Iraq out of their concern for the efforts there? Probably because it's not true or people wouldn't believe them. Who told you that was the case? The Admin does and did have a strategy. Disagree with it if you wish. And it's not required that an opponent offer up a different strategy, but that's not a winning issue if the opponent blasts the current strategy and imply you'd do a better job. Unless the majority of the country is like you, I guess. Kerry had a plan, but wouldn't tell us unless we'd elect him. The big issue was Iraq. He lost as would anyone offering that alternative with the Iraq war being prominent. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1637 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually, Kerry said he would pull out the troops under certain conditions, the main one being international support and help (in other words, a true coalition). Granted, that plan doesn't have the same headline-grabbing appeal as "bring 'em on," but it was there if you paid attention. (And before you point out the obvious again, Kerry ran a terrible campaign and was constantly equivocating and hemming and hawing.) The admin had a strategy for getting in but not one for getting out. Or was an occupation part of a secret plan? Their new plan: Blame the troops. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5506 Registered: 8-2003 |
Incorrect. Getting out would be possible once the Iraqis were able to stand on their own. Always was the plan. Now, if Iraq happens to want us sticking around, and basing our troops on the Iran border, well.....I'd be up for that. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 36 Registered: 2-2006  |
cj- Was that your goat talkin'? | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1639 Registered: 5-2001 |
Getting out when the Iraqis are ready to "stand on their own" isn't a plan, it's an objective. Huge difference. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 37 Registered: 2-2006 |
It's not even an objective, it's objectionable. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3144 Registered: 5-2001 |
Also, terror isn't an enemy. The "War on Terror" is about as stupid as the "plan" to leave Iraq when the Iraqi government and army is self-supporting. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5507 Registered: 8-2003 |
It's a plan to train and equip Iraqis to protect themselves and leave them with a representative form of government and in the process making Iraq not the gathering threat it was. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1642 Registered: 5-2001 |
Sorry cjc, that's still an objective. The president and his people made the same mistake. (I'll ignore the "gathering threat" joke for now.) objective: Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. plan: A scheme, program, or method worked out beforehand for the accomplishment of an objective. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5509 Registered: 8-2003 |
Sorry, dave23. The plan is what it is, the methods of implementing it have changed as difficulties present themselves, but the plan is the plan. If the objective was to take out Saddam's regime and leave, that's what was called the 'war plan' that General Franks had. Since then, the Pentagon and now the State Department has been operating the 'plan' to carry out the 'objective' of leaving Iraqis standing with a representative government smack in the middle of the Middle East. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 38 Registered: 2-2006 |
Sorry cjc- "It's a plan to train and equip Iraqis to protect themselves and leave them with a representative form of government and in the process making Iraq not the gathering threat it was." Tell the goat that if he or she would have stopped at the word government, it would have passed for an intelligent observation, I mean objective or obsteration or bubububbbbut Clinton did it- uh, forty years ago. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 39 Registered: 2-2006 |
Cj's earlier post translated, because it needed it: Spiacente, dave23. Il programma è che cosa è, i metodi di effettuarlo è cambiato poichè le difficoltà presenti essi stessi, ma il programma è il programma. Se l'obiettivo fosse eliminare il regime ed il permesso del Saddam, quello è che cosa è stato denominato 'il programma di guerra 'che le firme di franchigia generali hanno avute. Da allora, il pentagono ed ora il reparto della condizione sta funzionando 'il programma 'per effettuare 'l'obiettivo 'di lasciare gli Iracheni che si levano in piedi con uno smack rappresentativo di governo nel mezzo del Medio Oriente. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 149 Registered: 1-2006 |
cjc, I think we should be wary of Moslems in general, and the more of them that we allow to come here, the harder it is know what they are up to. In my opinion, Islam is a religion fused with a political ideology that makes it incompatible with the American Constitutional system, even in its current sorry state. Evidently, you disagree with me. Perhaps you are in agreement with Mr. Bush who says that Islam is a religion of peace and we need only worry about a few "Islamist" bad apples. I've been wrong before and I wouldn't mind being wrong about this, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. I guess time will tell. Madden 11, If Group A is responsible for committing crimes out of proportion to their share of the population, how would it not make sense to single out that group for scrutiny if you want to prevent crime? I wouldn't care if the group was the NRA, PETA or Moslems if there was reason to associate that group with criminal behavior. I could probably spot a Moslem in a crowd easier than a member of the NRA or PETA, but that is because there is a racial/ethnic tag for a Moslem that doesn't exist for the other groups. Most of the terrorist incidents affecting the US in the last 25 years have been carried by Moslems, so, why not profile Moslems? This may sound like mindless stereotyping to you, but there is an element of truth in all stereotypes. That's why we have them, no? Profiling could be abused like any policing technique, but we shouldn't bar an entire profession from using a tool because of the potential of abuse by a few. That would be like..........profiling. Are all cops racist thugs? I doubt it. I only mentioned Jesse Jackson to point out that many people practice a form of "profiling" already, consciously or unconsciously. As for the compatibility of strongly held religious beliefs with sanity, I guess it depends on how you define religion. I would define it a little more broadly than "organized" religion. In fact, I would say that religion is an inescapable component, similar to what Aristotle meant when he said that man is a political animal, in the sense that there is a yearning for community and meaning. I would say that religion has metaphysical, epistemological and ethical aspects, and that no one can live without coming to some conclusions about these things. So, we could say that everyone is religious, even atheists! Some years back, I worked with a guy who was a member of the Socialist Workers Party. He ate, drank, breathed and slept the SWP. He was quite sane, but I would consider him to be one of the most religious persons I have ever met, even though he would have strenuously denied that he believed in God. I guess I should stop here, I feel like I am swimming into deep waters. Alleygater, I said that the fence would be a few hundred miles long, but I was only referring to the fence mentioned in HR 4437, passed by the House last year: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109nt8mfv:e287375: The proposed fence only covers the Mexican border. I read somewhere that it might be 700 miles long, but I am too lazy to pull down an atlas and figure it out. I also agree with you that not much will come out of all this debate. There will be no fence, there will be some sort of amnesty, and there will be guest workers (who will be included in the next amnesty). Cheers | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5307 Registered: 10-1999  |
3ring, I've given up responding to you, because you clearly cannot be convinced to let go of your opinions. But, just so you know, your generalizations about Islam, and Muslims, seem to be the result of very limited information. If I were a Muslim, I would be gravely insulted. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13472 Registered: 1-2003 |
Furthermore, you've made the case for bigotry and prejudice in the general sense. The problem with those principles is that they are both cruel and inaccurate. I thought they taught about the evils of bigotry in school, no? Are you a member of any minority? Woe to you if you should ever feel what that's like. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 150 Registered: 1-2006 |
Nohero, Why should I let go of my opinions just because someone disagrees with me? I'm not telling anyone else to change their opinions. Your opinion about my opinion about Moslems is just another opinion. So we disagree on this. I'm sure neither one of will be losing much sleep over it. Cheers | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13476 Registered: 1-2003 |
Folks, the word is "Muslim" not "Moslem" and the first syllable rhymes with "puss." 3ringale, you haven't know many Muslims, have you? | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 151 Registered: 1-2006 |
Tom Reingold, You said: Furthermore, you've made the case for bigotry and prejudice in the general sense. I'm not sure what this means, but it looks like we're back to that opinion thing again. I graduated from Columbia High School in 1973, before political correctness entered the curriculum. That was the end of my formal education. What little I have learned since then has been through my own initiative. I'm sure I missed out on a lot of good things by not going to college, but I am grateful that I didn't spend 4 years being indoctrinated into the cult of diversity. As far as I know, I said nothing that was inaccurate and it will take more than ad hominem remarks to get me to recant. I am of Irish/German descent, so that probably gives me some sort of standing as a minority, but I'm not asking for any special treatment. Cheers | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13478 Registered: 1-2003 |
No one is asking for special treatment. I suppose your implication is that minorities are. No, they're asking for equal treatment. That would include a presumption of innocence, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds. I daresay you haven't received any discrimination. In a way that's good, because no one deserves it, but the disadvantage is that you have no inkling of what it's like for others. And what boggles my mind is that you appear to be proud of that. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 888 Registered: 12-2003 |
If Group A is responsible for committing crimes out of proportion to their share of the population, how would it not make sense to single out that group for scrutiny if you want to prevent crime? I wouldn't care if the group was the NRA, PETA or Moslems if there was reason to associate that group with criminal behavior. Because there is a difference between being Muslim and being in the NRA...do you not understand that? One is something you are, the other is something you do. The Group A in your example is "terrorists," not the roughly 1 billion Muslims that live in this world. Christians have killed more abortion doctors and burned down more women's health clinics than any other group, way out of proportion...would it be a useful tactic to profile all Christians to prevent this from happening? Or, if some Christians chose to ally themselves with extremist anti-abortion groups that shoot doctors and burn buildings, wouldn't it be a better idea to monitor THAT PARTICULAR GROUP'S activity? Bottom line...it makes sense to single out a group for what they do, not what they are. I only mentioned Jesse Jackson to point out that many people practice a form of "profiling" already, consciously or unconsciously. And I only responded to make the point that law enforcement policy should not be based on, nor justified by, the prejudice of individuals, no matter who they are. And the fact that you later conflated civil rights with political correctness indicates to me that this discussion probably isn't going anywhere. |
