OT: Immigration rules.

"John" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> As to investments or property ownership, I don't think that's a common
> enough problem to worry about.

You may be surprised to find out how much of NYC is owned by foreign
companies. Some years back US real estate was cheap compared to other
countries and gobbled up. You are probably correct about they typical low
wage immigrant though, they are not buying up housing.

On Jul 27, 1:00=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 11:48=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 11:46=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 27, 10:42=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Would you be so kind as to list, for me, WHICH of the Amendments to
> > > the Constitution you wish to keep, and which you wish to have
> > > repealed ?
>
> > Care to explain what this has to do with the issue?
>
> > > Born in this country, for example, =3D citizen.
>
> > That's the law today, at least as it's currently interpreted. =A0That
> > can, and should, be changed.
>
> That's the 14th Amendment. =A0Born in this country =3D citizen.

That's the current interpretation and can be changed. If not, just
deport the parents, with prejudice.

> Please don't assume that -- because YOU can't figure out what I'm
> talking about ... that means I don't know ;-)

You don't, so that's easy.

> > > "It was the parents choice," for another example, could easily
> > > equal ... why hold that against their American-born kids ?
>
> > > Hmm.
>
> > You really are some piece of work.
>
> No response ?
>
> Got it.

...all the response you deserve.

On Jul 27, 9:55=C2=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> *New Immigration Laws:

Good idea.

> =E2=80=A81 There will be no special bilingual programs in the=E2=80=A8 sc=
hools.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Got it. Not only is it better for the country, but *far* better for
the student.

> =E2=80=A82. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
> =E2=80=A8* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Obvious.

> 3. All government business will be conducted in our =E2=80=A8language.
> =E2=80=A8* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Obvious.

> 4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter =E2=80=A8how l=
ong
> they are here.
> =E2=80=A8* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Non-residents"? If they live here, they're residents, by definition.

4a. You must be fluent in the language to *apply* for residency.

> 5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political=E2=80=A8 office
> =E2=80=A8* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

They can't, as long as they aren't citizens. Once they're naturalized
they can, except for POTUS (in the US, of course).

> 6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the=E2=80=A8=C2=A0 taxpayers. No wel=
fare, no
> food stamps, no health care, or=E2=80=A8other government=E2=80=A8=C2=A0 a=
ssistance
> programs. Any burden will be deported.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

For life.

> =E2=80=A87.=E2=80=A8=C2=A0 Foreigners can invest in this country, but it =
must be an=E2=80=A8 amount
> at least equal=E2=80=A8=C2=A0 to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Huh? Small investors aren't wanted, but big ones are OK?

> =E2=80=A88. If foreigners=E2=80=A8=C2=A0 come here and buy land... Option=
s will be
> restricted.=E2=80=A8 Certain parcels,=E2=80=A8=C2=A0including waterfront =
property, are
> reserved for citizens =E2=80=A8naturally born into this country.
> =E2=80=A8* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Silly.

> 9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no=E2=80=A8=C2=A0 demonstrations, no=
waving of
> a foreign flag, no political =E2=80=A8organizing, no=E2=80=A8=C2=A0 bad-m=
outhing our head
> of state or his/her policies. These =E2=80=A8will lead to deportation.
> =C2=A0* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Silly. Any illegal activities (property destruction, etc.) is enough
cause for deportation, however.

> 10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be=E2=80=A8 active=
ly
> hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until=E2=80=A8=C2=A0your deportation =
can be
> arranged. All assets will be taken =E2=80=A8from you.

Bounties.

> Too strict?......=E2=80=A8=E2=80=A8=E2=80=A8=C2=A0
> .

Common sense to silly.

> *The above rules are the current immigration laws of most =E2=80=A8Muslim
> countries.
> =E2=80=A8=E2=80=A8=E2=80=A8So, why not here as well???

For the most part, fine. Is there something that makes Muslims always
wrong? Are you really that much of a racist?

On Jul 27, 12:46=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/27/2010 2:02 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 11:53 am, -MIKE-<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> On 7/27/10 11:25 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 27, 9:54 am, Robatoy<[email protected]> =A0 =A0wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 27, 11:24 am, "Dr.Deb"<[email protected]> =A0 =A0wrote:> =
=A0 =A0Robatoy, Neil is right and your list is much too long.
>
> >>>>> Lets just abide by the law and all get along. =A0;-)
>
> >>>>> Of course that means that the rights and priveledges extended to ci=
tizens of
> >>>>> this country would be restricted to citizens.
>
> >>>> There would still have to be refuge programs: "Yes, we will give you
> >>>> shelter, but do NOT rearrange the furniture."
>
> >>> So ... that "right" was reserved for white, European immigrants ?
>
> >>> Help me out, here....
>
> >> You mean those white European immigrants who got in line, signed the
> >> book, and basically did everything else required by law to become
> >> citizens? =A0 Those immigrants?
>
> > So ... if LEGAL (Latin) immigrants want to "impose their culture" on
> > this country ... is THAT okay ?
>
> > I'm having a HELL of a time rationalizing all these right-wing
> > contradictions.
>
> > I'm looking for the Wreck's loudest to help me navigate my way
> > through.
>
> > Can YOU help ?
>
> If Green Martians want to turn the US into a Gahooganist Flaboodleship
> (a form of government well known to Green Martians) they are welcome to
> do so as long as they (a) jump through the hoops to become citizens by
> the established procedure and (b) do so in sufficient numbers to
> lawfully enact constitutional amendments bringing about their objective.
>
> The objection is to treating illegal aliens as if they are citizens
> instead of either sending them packing or jailing them.

It's usually a civil offense, actually.

Like a speeding ticket, in some ways.

I'll wait here, while you look into that.

Another either-or fallacy ... falls flat on its ass, too, by the by :-)

>*Aghast* Well said, Tim. Seriously.

Agreed.

-Zz

On Jul 28, 6:52=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote innews:-5idnSO8jfKHn83RnZ2dnUV=
[email protected]:
>
> > You may be surprised to find out how much of NYC is owned by foreign
> > companies. =A0Some years back US real estate was cheap compared to othe=
r
> > countries and gobbled up. =A0You are probably correct about they typica=
l
> > low wage immigrant though, they are not buying up housing.
>
> That last statement may not be true everywhere, Ed. =A0I don't have a quo=
te,
> but heard that in Spain many immigrants, legal or not, drove their
> Mercedeses to the airport to go "home" (South America??), leaving the ban=
ks
> with their mortgages and autoloans. =A0I think Spain is hit almost harder
> with this crisis than the US.
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid

One man's $ 230,000+ S 65 AMG Mercedes is another man's bank repo's S
65 AMG $ 75,000 Mercedes. There are many bargains to be had.

On Jul 28, 12:14=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/27/2010 1:12 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 12:33 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [snipped for brevity]
>
> >> For the most part, fine. =A0Is there something that makes Muslims alwa=
ys
> >> wrong?
>
> > I don't know. Is there? Where does it state that?
>
> >> =A0Are you really that much of a racist?
>
> > I won't dignify that with a response because you are an antagonistic
> > cocksucker just looking for a place to hurl your bile.
>
> You're using naughty language again. =A0Besides being very bad manners,
> there's another reason not to do this: =A0When you use vulgarity, you're
> removing one of the very few mechanisms for defending progressive/left
> ideology. =A0Leave them a little something to play with, will you please?
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Was the irony too subtle?

On Jul 27, 11:27=A0am, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > But ... it takes a blindly partisan idiot NOT to recognize that ...
> > all sides seem to think illegal immigration offers them benefits:
> > =A0- Democrats like the notion of new voters
>
> First, illegal immigrants cannot vote. =A0Second, legal immigrants tend t=
o
> vote for the party in power when they arrived/became citizens, no reason =
to
> think illegals wouldn't do the same if they became legal--which is perhap=
s
> what the Bush admin had in mind when it proposed a guest worker program a=
nd
> path to legalization for illegal immigrants (something some folks bitterl=
y
> complain is an Obama/Dem plan).
>
> > - Republicans like to exploit the cheap labor, for increased
> > profitability
> > - EVERY administration like the contribution to GDP MADE BY illegal
> > immigration
>
> Exactly, everyone knows where the illegal workers are, but governments te=
nd
> to leave them there because they are a source of cheap labor for industri=
es
> with lobbying clout. =A0However it is worth noting the Obama administrati=
on
> has sharply increased audits of firms suspected of hiring illegal aliens =
(as
> well as sharply increasing deportations) which probably doesn't fit well
> with the predictable right-wing view that Democrats never do anything abo=
ut
> illegal immigration.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR201...
>
> >> Western Democracies live by social contract. You cannot make claims
> >> upon a contract to which you are not yet a party...
> > Which is REALLY what is meant by an Argument Ad Hominem.
>
> I have no problem with illegal immigrants being deported, "illegal" means
> just what it says. =A0And while illegal immigrants do a lot of work most
> Americans won't do at a wage industry wants to pay, they also represent a
> heavy drain on medical care, schools and so on. =A0However that raises th=
e
> question of whether or not we should let an illegal immigrant bleed to de=
ath
> on the hospital steps since he isn't a party to our social contract. =A0D=
oes
> our social contract require us to behave like rat-bastards to anyone who
> hasn't yet joined the club?
>
> A guest worker plan makes sense to me. =A0At least that way such workers =
will
> be documented, will have health and auto insurance, will have a driver's
> license, won't be afraid to report crimes to the cops and so on. =A0But s=
o
> long as even a mention of such a plan stirs many folks to a frothing rage=
I
> can't see it happening, especially if the Dems lose control of Congress i=
n
> the mid-terms election.

Your use of facts, logical argument, objectivity, and rational
thought ... have NO place, here, Sir !

<grin>

On Jul 27, 1:48=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Care to explain what this has to do with the issue?
>

Can you explain what positive contribution you are making in this
discussion?

OMFG !!!

I just clicked "View Profile."

The fact that you're a rock-and-roll fan is offensive enough, on its
face, but ... are ... are ... are you one of those damned DEADHEADS,
too ????

Pitiful.

Neil
150+ shows ;-)
Would have kept going, but ... Jerry ... stopped showing up :-(

On Jul 27, 12:12=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 12:33=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snipped for brevity]
>
> > For the most part, fine. =A0Is there something that makes Muslims alway=
s
> > wrong?
>
> I don't know. Is there? Where does it state that?
>
> >=A0Are you really that much of a racist?
>
> I won't dignify that with a response because you are an antagonistic
> cocksucker just looking for a place to hurl your bile.


Then you two should get along quite nicely, I should think !

On Jul 27, 12:14=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 1:00=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 11:48=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 27, 11:46=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 27, 10:42=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > Would you be so kind as to list, for me, WHICH of the Amendments to
> > > > the Constitution you wish to keep, and which you wish to have
> > > > repealed ?
>
> > > Care to explain what this has to do with the issue?
>
> > > > Born in this country, for example, =3D citizen.
>
> > > That's the law today, at least as it's currently interpreted. =A0That
> > > can, and should, be changed.
>
> > That's the 14th Amendment. =A0Born in this country =3D citizen.
>
> That's the current interpretation and can be changed. =A0If not, just
> deport the parents, with prejudice.

Here's the text that's being "interpreted."

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So ... which Amendments do you think we should keep, and which do you
think we should discard ?

Do you think the Framers had immutable wisdom, or do you think that
things could have changed, significantly, since their time ?

It's a valid question. Care to answer ?


> > Please don't assume that -- because YOU can't figure out what I'm
> > talking about ... that means I don't know ;-)
>
> You don't, so that's easy.

I believe I just shot THAT piece of your idiocy right down :-)

> > > > "It was the parents choice," for another example, could easily
> > > > equal ... why hold that against their American-born kids ?
>
> > > > Hmm.
>
> > > You really are some piece of work.
>
> > No response ?
>
> > Got it.
>
> ...all the response you deserve.

Nah. All the response you can muster.

You're making that clearer and clearer.

So ... what about it: which Amendments would YOU interpret "strictly"
and ... for which would you impose a DIFFERENT standard ?

Thanks.

On Jul 27, 10:45=C2=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/27/2010 11:22 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 9:24 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 7/27/2010 10:04 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 27, 8:55 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> *New Immigration Laws:
>
> >>> [snip]
>
> >>>> *The above rules are the current immigration laws of most =E2=80=A8M=
uslim
> >>>> countries.
> >>>> =E2=80=A8=E2=80=A8=E2=80=A8So, why not here as well???
>
> >>> Why do so many right wingers aspire to be AS BAD AS the people they
> >>> believe to be our enemies, and among the least evolved nations on the
> >>> earth ?
>
> >>> Why do those who wave the inane flag of "patriotism" ... always want
> >>> this country to do WORSE THAN, rather than BETTER THAN ?
>
> >>> That's supposed to be love of country ?
>
> >>> Sounds fucking stupid, to me.
>
> >> What part of what he wrote is:
>
> >> a) Right Wing? =C2=A0Most of it used to be called "Common Sense".
> >> b) Bad? =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Where is the harm?
>
> > a) all of it. =C2=A0And ... to your second point, under (a),
>
> > =C2=A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
>
> > b) I didn't characterize it as "good" or "bad."
>
> > But ... it takes a blindly partisan idiot NOT to recognize that ...
> > all sides seem to think illegal immigration offers them benefits:
>
> > =C2=A0- Democrats like the notion of new voters
> > =C2=A0- Republicans like to exploit the cheap labor, for increased
> > profitability
> > =C2=A0- EVERY administration like the contribution to GDP MADE BY illeg=
al
> > immigration
>
> >> Western Democracies live by social contract. =C2=A0You cannot make cla=
ims
> >> upon a contract to which you are not yet a party...
>
> > Which is REALLY what is meant by an Argument Ad Hominem.
>
> > Thanks.
>
> There's nothing Ad Hominem about it. =C2=A0It's a simple statement of
> fact.


Ohhhhhh-Kay, Tim.

What "social contract" do "Western democracies live by," and ...
please support your assertion that I am "not yet a party" to it.

Good luck. Been taking a page from Jack Stein's play(comic) book,
huh ?

Like I never noticed .....

On Jul 27, 12:33=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

> For the most part, fine. =A0Is there something that makes Muslims always
> wrong?

I don't know. Is there? Where does it state that?

>=A0Are you really that much of a racist?

I won't dignify that with a response because you are an antagonistic
cocksucker just looking for a place to hurl your bile.

On Jul 27, 11:46=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 10:42=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

> Would you be so kind as to list, for me, WHICH of the Amendments to
> the Constitution you wish to keep, and which you wish to have
> repealed ?

Care to explain what this has to do with the issue?


> Born in this country, for example, =3D citizen.

That's the law today, at least as it's currently interpreted. That
can, and should, be changed.

> "It was the parents choice," for another example, could easily
> equal ... why hold that against their American-born kids ?
>
> Hmm.

You really are some piece of work.

On Jul 27, 1:11=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:40a5aac5-7de6-4b6c-a6e9-0f8b6104a7b4@a30g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 27, 11:46 am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 10:42 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Would you be so kind as to list, for me, WHICH of the Amendments to
> > the Constitution you wish to keep, and which you wish to have
> > repealed ?
>
> Does the constitution condone "Illegal Immigrants" coming here to have
> children? =A0Or does it allow for "legal" immigrants
>
> > Born in this country, for example, =3D citizen.
>
> That's the law today, at least as it's currently interpreted. =A0That
> can, and should, be changed.
>
> > "It was the parents choice," for another example, could easily
> > equal ... why hold that against their American-born kids ?
>
> > Hmm.
>
> I am not holding anything against the kids, the kids should blame the
> parents for not becoming legal. =A0The parents are simply and from the
> beginning teaching the kids how to illegaly get benefits.

Like the British who settled this country, you mean ?

Okay. I'm with you.

On 2010-07-27 11:24:21 -0400, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> said:

> What part of what he wrote is:
>
> a) Right Wing? Most of it used to be called "Common Sense".
> b) Bad? Where is the harm?

Way to aim for the lowest common denominator!

"When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.”
-- Sinclair Lewis (American Writer, 1885-1951)

And, just so you can't punk him:

“Intellectually I know that America is no better than any other
country; emotionally I know she is better than every country”
--  Sinclair Lewis (American Writer, 1885-1951)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:04:35 -0500, "ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In news:44761926-2844-4619-b461-4695301cd287@s17g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
>Neil Brooks <[email protected]>spewed forth:
>> On Jul 27, 1:11 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:40a5aac5-7de6-4b6c-a6e9-0f8b6104a7b4@a30g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jul 27, 11:46 am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 27, 10:42 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Would you be so kind as to list, for me, WHICH of the Amendments to
>>>> the Constitution you wish to keep, and which you wish to have
>>>> repealed ?
>>>
>>> Does the constitution condone "Illegal Immigrants" coming here to
>>> have children? Or does it allow for "legal" immigrants
>>>
>>>> Born in this country, for example, = citizen.
>>>
>>> That's the law today, at least as it's currently interpreted. That
>>> can, and should, be changed.
>>>
>>>> "It was the parents choice," for another example, could easily
>>>> equal ... why hold that against their American-born kids ?
>>>
>>>> Hmm.
>>>
>>> I am not holding anything against the kids, the kids should blame the
>>> parents for not becoming legal. The parents are simply and from the
>>> beginning teaching the kids how to illegaly get benefits.
>>
>> Like the British who settled this country, you mean ?
>>
>> Okay. I'm with you.
>
>they came here *legally* as did most if not all immigrants from Europe.
>You recall Ellis Island?


I guess I didn't know that the Pilgrims came here, through Ellis
Island.

Please ... DO enlighten me.

Thanks.

On Jul 27, 11:24=C2=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/27/2010 10:04 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 8:55 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> *New Immigration Laws:
>
> > [snip]
>
> >> *The above rules are the current immigration laws of most =E2=80=A8Mus=
lim
> >> countries.
> >> =E2=80=A8=E2=80=A8=E2=80=A8So, why not here as well???
>
> > Why do so many right wingers aspire to be AS BAD AS the people they
> > believe to be our enemies, and among the least evolved nations on the
> > earth ?
>
> > Why do those who wave the inane flag of "patriotism" ... always want
> > this country to do WORSE THAN, rather than BETTER THAN ?
>
> > That's supposed to be love of country ?
>
> > Sounds fucking stupid, to me.
>
> What part of what he wrote is:
>
> a) Right Wing? =C2=A0Most of it used to be called "Common Sense".
> b) Bad? =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Where is the harm?
>
> Western Democracies live by social contract. =C2=A0You cannot make claims
> upon a contract to which you are not yet a party...
>

*Aghast* Well said, Tim. Seriously.

On Jul 27, 10:42=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:37ec2d6d-eccc-4807-ba7c-f6a21ec249f9@y11g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> *New Immigration Laws:
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .???
> Too strict?......???
> .
> .
>
> Not at all. =A0It pleases me to once again see =A0the media refer to =A0t=
he
> iilegal imigrants =A0as illegal immegrants rather than the "politically
> correct" term that was used in recent years.
>
> Add to that children born here will not be citizens unless the parents ar=
e
> legal. =A0It was the parents choice.

Would you be so kind as to list, for me, WHICH of the Amendments to
the Constitution you wish to keep, and which you wish to have
repealed ?

Born in this country, for example, =3D citizen.

"It was the parents choice," for another example, could easily
equal ... why hold that against their American-born kids ?

Hmm.

On 7/27/2010 10:04 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 27, 8:55 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> *New Immigration Laws:
>
> [snip]
>
>> *The above rules are the current immigration laws of most 
Muslim
>> countries.
>> 


So, why not here as well???
>
>
> Why do so many right wingers aspire to be AS BAD AS the people they
> believe to be our enemies, and among the least evolved nations on the
> earth ?
>
> Why do those who wave the inane flag of "patriotism" ... always want
> this country to do WORSE THAN, rather than BETTER THAN ?
>
> That's supposed to be love of country ?
>
> Sounds fucking stupid, to me.

What part of what he wrote is:

a) Right Wing? Most of it used to be called "Common Sense".
b) Bad? Where is the harm?


Western Democracies live by social contract. You cannot make claims
upon a contract to which you are not yet a party...


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]

On Jul 27, 12:32=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 1:17=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 12:14=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 27, 1:00=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 27, 11:48=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wr=
ote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 27, 11:46=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 27, 10:42=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > Would you be so kind as to list, for me, WHICH of the Amendment=
s to
> > > > > > the Constitution you wish to keep, and which you wish to have
> > > > > > repealed ?
>
> > > > > Care to explain what this has to do with the issue?
>
> > > > > > Born in this country, for example, =3D citizen.
>
> > > > > That's the law today, at least as it's currently interpreted. =A0=
That
> > > > > can, and should, be changed.
>
> > > > That's the 14th Amendment. =A0Born in this country =3D citizen.
>
> > > That's the current interpretation and can be changed. =A0If not, just
> > > deport the parents, with prejudice.
>
> > Here's the text that's being "interpreted."
>
> Idiot. =A0I'm fully capable of finding such things on my own.
>
> > "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
> > subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
> > and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
> > any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
> > of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
> > liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
> > person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
>
> > So ... which Amendments do you think we should keep, and which do you
> > think we should discard ?
>
> There are several that should be modified, certainly. =A0That is one,
> area where the implementation does not agree with the design.
>
> > Do you think the Framers had immutable wisdom, or do you think that
> > things could have changed, significantly, since their time ?
>
> You do know that the 14th was not written by the "framers", don't
> you? =A0The Constitution has been "modified" some 27 times. =A0Sometimes
> for the better, sometimes not.
>
>
>
> > It's a valid question. =A0Care to answer ?
>
> The question wasn't asked of me. =A0I have.
>
> > > > Please don't assume that -- because YOU can't figure out what I'm
> > > > talking about ... that means I don't know ;-)
>
> > > You don't, so that's easy.
>
> > I believe I just shot THAT piece of your idiocy right down :-)
>
> What you believe is not at all important.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > "It was the parents choice," for another example, could easily
> > > > > > equal ... why hold that against their American-born kids ?
>
> > > > > > Hmm.
>
> > > > > You really are some piece of work.
>
> > > > No response ?
>
> > > > Got it.
>
> > > ...all the response you deserve.
>
> > Nah. =A0All the response you can muster.
>
> > You're making that clearer and clearer.
>
> So much for your "logic".
>
> > So ... what about it: which Amendments would YOU interpret "strictly"
> > and ... for which would you impose a DIFFERENT standard ?
>
> Invalid question.

I'm using "framers" to include those who wrote the original document
AND its Amendments.

Somebody born here is a citizen. That's 14th Amendment stuff.

Since the British citizens who took this nation, by force, BORE THEIR
children, here, and wanted THEM to BE citizens, then ... I'd betcha'
that -- under a doctrine of original intent, or strict construction,
the "framers" were not looking to EXCLUDE the kids of those who
walked, swam, or hid in gas tanks and were driven ... across the
border.

Would be another difficult bit of rank hypocrisy to explain away....

YMMV.

On 7/27/2010 11:53 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 27, 10:45 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 7/27/2010 11:22 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 27, 9:24 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2010 10:04 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 27, 8:55 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> *New Immigration Laws:
>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>
>>>>>> *The above rules are the current immigration laws of most 
Muslim
>>>>>> countries.
>>>>>> 


So, why not here as well???
>>
>>>>> Why do so many right wingers aspire to be AS BAD AS the people they
>>>>> believe to be our enemies, and among the least evolved nations on the
>>>>> earth ?
>>
>>>>> Why do those who wave the inane flag of "patriotism" ... always want
>>>>> this country to do WORSE THAN, rather than BETTER THAN ?
>>
>>>>> That's supposed to be love of country ?
>>
>>>>> Sounds fucking stupid, to me.
>>
>>>> What part of what he wrote is:
>>
>>>> a) Right Wing? Most of it used to be called "Common Sense".
>>>> b) Bad? Where is the harm?
>>
>>> a) all of it. And ... to your second point, under (a),
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
>>
>>> b) I didn't characterize it as "good" or "bad."
>>
>>> But ... it takes a blindly partisan idiot NOT to recognize that ...
>>> all sides seem to think illegal immigration offers them benefits:
>>
>>> - Democrats like the notion of new voters
>>> - Republicans like to exploit the cheap labor, for increased
>>> profitability
>>> - EVERY administration like the contribution to GDP MADE BY illegal
>>> immigration
>>
>>>> Western Democracies live by social contract. You cannot make claims
>>>> upon a contract to which you are not yet a party...
>>
>>> Which is REALLY what is meant by an Argument Ad Hominem.
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> There's nothing Ad Hominem about it. It's a simple statement of
>> fact.
>
>
> Ohhhhhh-Kay, Tim.
>
> What "social contract" do "Western democracies live by," and ...
> please support your assertion that I am "not yet a party" to it.
>
> Good luck. Been taking a page from Jack Stein's play(comic) book,
> huh ?
>
> Like I never noticed .....

cf John Locke's (I think it was..) "2nd Treatise" upon which Jefferson,
Madison, et al based a good deal of their ideas.

In principle, other Western democracies follow a similar model.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]

On Jul 27, 12:18=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/27/10 1:13 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 12:09 pm, -MIKE-<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> On 7/27/10 1:02 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> >>> On Jul 27, 11:53 am, -MIKE-<[email protected]> =A0 =A0wrote:
> >>>> On 7/27/10 11:25 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jul 27, 9:54 am, Robatoy<[email protected]> =A0 =A0 =A0wro=
te:
> >>>>>> On Jul 27, 11:24 am, "Dr.Deb"<[email protected]> =A0 =A0 =A0wro=
te:> =A0 =A0 =A0Robatoy, Neil is right and your list is much too long.
>
> >>>>>>> Lets just abide by the law and all get along. =A0;-)
>
> >>>>>>> Of course that means that the rights and priveledges extended to =
citizens of
> >>>>>>> this country would be restricted to citizens.
>
> >>>>>> There would still have to be refuge programs: "Yes, we will give y=
ou
> >>>>>> shelter, but do NOT rearrange the furniture."
>
> >>>>> So ... that "right" was reserved for white, European immigrants ?
>
> >>>>> Help me out, here....
>
> >>>> You mean those white European immigrants who got in line, signed the
> >>>> book, and basically did everything else required by law to become
> >>>> citizens? =A0 Those immigrants?
>
> >>> So ... if LEGAL (Latin) immigrants want to "impose their culture" on
> >>> this country ... is THAT okay ?
>
> >>> I'm having a HELL of a time rationalizing all these right-wing
> >>> contradictions.
>
> >>> I'm looking for the Wreck's loudest to help me navigate my way
> >>> through.
>
> >>> Can YOU help ?
>
> >>> Seriously.
>
> >> I don't get the "impose" thing, either.
> >> The whole melting pot metaphor seems to have served us well for 200 ye=
ars.
>
> >> I'm just wondering if you think everyone should follow the rules, or i=
s
> >> it ok to cut in line or sneak in the back door.
>
> > Wayyyyy too loaded a question, and Wayyyyyyy too either/or
> > phrasing ... for an issue that really IS as complicated as illegal
> > immigration ... really is.
>
> Really? =A0 I honestly don't think it is a complicated question.


I said just the opposite.

It's a loaded, and overly-simplified question.


> There are millions of people in this country going through the process
> legally.
> They don't seem to think it's too difficult to bypass.

And that ... again ... is "begging the question," or a "loaded
question."


"Have you stopped beating your wife yet," similarly, looks like a
perfectly simple question.

To perfectly simple people ;-)

On Jul 27, 9:24=C2=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/27/2010 10:04 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 8:55 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> *New Immigration Laws:
>
> > [snip]
>
> >> *The above rules are the current immigration laws of most =E2=80=A8Mus=
lim
> >> countries.
> >> =E2=80=A8=E2=80=A8=E2=80=A8So, why not here as well???
>
> > Why do so many right wingers aspire to be AS BAD AS the people they
> > believe to be our enemies, and among the least evolved nations on the
> > earth ?
>
> > Why do those who wave the inane flag of "patriotism" ... always want
> > this country to do WORSE THAN, rather than BETTER THAN ?
>
> > That's supposed to be love of country ?
>
> > Sounds fucking stupid, to me.
>
> What part of what he wrote is:
>
> a) Right Wing? =C2=A0Most of it used to be called "Common Sense".
> b) Bad? =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Where is the harm?

a) all of it. And ... to your second point, under (a),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

b) I didn't characterize it as "good" or "bad."

But ... it takes a blindly partisan idiot NOT to recognize that ...
all sides seem to think illegal immigration offers them benefits:

- Democrats like the notion of new voters
- Republicans like to exploit the cheap labor, for increased
profitability
- EVERY administration like the contribution to GDP MADE BY illegal
immigration

> Western Democracies live by social contract. =C2=A0You cannot make claims
> upon a contract to which you are not yet a party...

Which is REALLY what is meant by an Argument Ad Hominem.

Thanks.

On Jul 27, 9:54=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 11:24=A0am, "Dr.Deb" <[email protected]> wrote:> Robatoy, N=
eil is right and your list is much too long.
>
> > Lets just abide by the law and all get along. =A0;-)
>
> > Of course that means that the rights and priveledges extended to citize=
ns of
> > this country would be restricted to citizens.
>
> There would still have to be refuge programs: "Yes, we will give you
> shelter, but do NOT rearrange the furniture."

So ... that "right" was reserved for white, European immigrants ?

Help me out, here....

On Jul 27, 11:24=A0am, "Dr.Deb" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy, Neil is right and your list is much too long.
>
> Lets just abide by the law and all get along. =A0;-)
>
> Of course that means that the rights and priveledges extended to citizens=
of
> this country would be restricted to citizens.
>
There would still have to be refuge programs: "Yes, we will give you
shelter, but do NOT rearrange the furniture."

On Jul 27, 11:53=A0am, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/27/10 11:25 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 9:54 am, Robatoy<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> On Jul 27, 11:24 am, "Dr.Deb"<[email protected]> =A0wrote:> =A0Roba=
toy, Neil is right and your list is much too long.
>
> >>> Lets just abide by the law and all get along. =A0;-)
>
> >>> Of course that means that the rights and priveledges extended to citi=
zens of
> >>> this country would be restricted to citizens.
>
> >> There would still have to be refuge programs: "Yes, we will give you
> >> shelter, but do NOT rearrange the furniture."
>
> > So ... that "right" was reserved for white, European immigrants ?
>
> > Help me out, here....
>
> You mean those white European immigrants who got in line, signed the
> book, and basically did everything else required by law to become
> citizens? =A0 Those immigrants?


So ... if LEGAL (Latin) immigrants want to "impose their culture" on
this country ... is THAT okay ?

I'm having a HELL of a time rationalizing all these right-wing
contradictions.

I'm looking for the Wreck's loudest to help me navigate my way
through.

Can YOU help ?

Seriously.

On Jul 27, 12:41=C2=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/27/2010 11:53 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 10:45 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 7/27/2010 11:22 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 27, 9:24 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On 7/27/2010 10:04 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jul 27, 8:55 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> *New Immigration Laws:
>
> >>>>> [snip]
>
> >>>>>> *The above rules are the current immigration laws of most =E2=80=
=A8Muslim
> >>>>>> countries.
> >>>>>> =E2=80=A8=E2=80=A8=E2=80=A8So, why not here as well???
>
> >>>>> Why do so many right wingers aspire to be AS BAD AS the people they
> >>>>> believe to be our enemies, and among the least evolved nations on t=
he
> >>>>> earth ?
>
> >>>>> Why do those who wave the inane flag of "patriotism" ... always wan=
t
> >>>>> this country to do WORSE THAN, rather than BETTER THAN ?
>
> >>>>> That's supposed to be love of country ?
>
> >>>>> Sounds fucking stupid, to me.
>
> >>>> What part of what he wrote is:
>
> >>>> a) Right Wing? =C2=A0Most of it used to be called "Common Sense".
> >>>> b) Bad? =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Where is the harm?
>
> >>> a) all of it. =C2=A0And ... to your second point, under (a),
>
> >>> =C2=A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
>
> >>> b) I didn't characterize it as "good" or "bad."
>
> >>> But ... it takes a blindly partisan idiot NOT to recognize that ...
> >>> all sides seem to think illegal immigration offers them benefits:
>
> >>> =C2=A0- Democrats like the notion of new voters
> >>> =C2=A0- Republicans like to exploit the cheap labor, for increased
> >>> profitability
> >>> =C2=A0- EVERY administration like the contribution to GDP MADE BY ill=
egal
> >>> immigration
>
> >>>> Western Democracies live by social contract. =C2=A0You cannot make c=
laims
> >>>> upon a contract to which you are not yet a party...
>
> >>> Which is REALLY what is meant by an Argument Ad Hominem.
>
> >>> Thanks.
>
> >> There's nothing Ad Hominem about it. =C2=A0It's a simple statement of
> >> fact.
>
> > Ohhhhhh-Kay, Tim.
>
> > What "social contract" do "Western democracies live by," and ...
> > please support your assertion that I am "not yet a party" to it.
>
> > Good luck. =C2=A0Been taking a page from Jack Stein's play(comic) book,
> > huh ?
>
> > Like I never noticed .....
>
> cf John Locke's (I think it was..) "2nd Treatise" upon which Jefferson,
> Madison, et al based a good deal of their ideas.
>
> In principle, other Western democracies follow a similar model.


And that's .... what, now, Tim ? A social contract to which I don't
subscribe ??

Whew. I have NO idea WTF you're talking about ... which ... makes TWO
of us ;-)

On Jul 28, 9:18=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:206a3429-9eb9-407d-886b-
> [email protected]:
>
> > One man's $ 230,000+ S 65 AMG Mercedes is another man's bank repo's S
> > 65 AMG $ 75,000 Mercedes. There are many bargains to be had.
>
> Probably, but I'm not there, and I wouldn't buy a German car anyway. =A0Y=
ou
> know why, born in 1944.
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid

Interesting. Is there any car made anywhere which country of origin
hasn't committed some sort of atrocity somewhere?
A Spyker maybe?... or a DAF? (Then again, we Dutch aren't very well
liked in Indonesia, Africa etc... we were bad people back then.)
The British, Japanese, Italians, French and many more all have a bit
of a track record somewhere.
After years of playing with the technology of a twin-turbo V-6 S4
Audi, I dropped the hobby as parts became insane. But I always admired
the engineering skills of those Germans.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:10:24 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>It is not unreasonable to expect others that wish to come here to
>simply follow the very direct and clear legal process to do so. But
>then again, without a regular importation of slaves, however would
>the liberals get votes to renew their dying numbers?

What utter BULLSHIT! Try applying that crap to the democrats who live
to profit where they can and don't hesitate to use those 'slaves' to
bolster their bottom line ~ the exact line to which you subscribe to
on a daily basis with your mantra - "How much is it going to cost me?"

I wonder Timshit, how many times have you uttered that statement here?
I'm tempted to go count how many times you've said it, but I'm just
not inclined to spend several weeks counting that high.

On Jul 27, 1:17=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 12:14=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 1:00=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 27, 11:48=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrot=
e:
>
> > > > On Jul 27, 11:46=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 27, 10:42=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > Would you be so kind as to list, for me, WHICH of the Amendments =
to
> > > > > the Constitution you wish to keep, and which you wish to have
> > > > > repealed ?
>
> > > > Care to explain what this has to do with the issue?
>
> > > > > Born in this country, for example, =3D citizen.
>
> > > > That's the law today, at least as it's currently interpreted. =A0Th=
at
> > > > can, and should, be changed.
>
> > > That's the 14th Amendment. =A0Born in this country =3D citizen.
>
> > That's the current interpretation and can be changed. =A0If not, just
> > deport the parents, with prejudice.
>
> Here's the text that's being "interpreted."

Idiot. I'm fully capable of finding such things on my own.

> "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
> and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
> any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
> of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
> liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
> person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
>
> So ... which Amendments do you think we should keep, and which do you
> think we should discard ?

There are several that should be modified, certainly. That is one,
area where the implementation does not agree with the design.

> Do you think the Framers had immutable wisdom, or do you think that
> things could have changed, significantly, since their time ?

You do know that the 14th was not written by the "framers", don't
you? The Constitution has been "modified" some 27 times. Sometimes
for the better, sometimes not.

>
> It's a valid question. =A0Care to answer ?

The question wasn't asked of me. I have.

> > > Please don't assume that -- because YOU can't figure out what I'm
> > > talking about ... that means I don't know ;-)
>
> > You don't, so that's easy.
>
> I believe I just shot THAT piece of your idiocy right down :-)

What you believe is not at all important.

> > > > > "It was the parents choice," for another example, could easily
> > > > > equal ... why hold that against their American-born kids ?
>
> > > > > Hmm.
>
> > > > You really are some piece of work.
>
> > > No response ?
>
> > > Got it.
>
> > ...all the response you deserve.
>
> Nah. =A0All the response you can muster.
>
> You're making that clearer and clearer.

So much for your "logic".

> So ... what about it: which Amendments would YOU interpret "strictly"
> and ... for which would you impose a DIFFERENT standard ?

Invalid question.

"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> But ... it takes a blindly partisan idiot NOT to recognize that ...
> all sides seem to think illegal immigration offers them benefits:

> - Democrats like the notion of new voters

First, illegal immigrants cannot vote. Second, legal immigrants tend to
vote for the party in power when they arrived/became citizens, no reason to
think illegals wouldn't do the same if they became legal--which is perhaps
what the Bush admin had in mind when it proposed a guest worker program and
path to legalization for illegal immigrants (something some folks bitterly
complain is an Obama/Dem plan).

> - Republicans like to exploit the cheap labor, for increased
> profitability
> - EVERY administration like the contribution to GDP MADE BY illegal
> immigration

Exactly, everyone knows where the illegal workers are, but governments tend
to leave them there because they are a source of cheap labor for industries
with lobbying clout. However it is worth noting the Obama administration
has sharply increased audits of firms suspected of hiring illegal aliens (as
well as sharply increasing deportations) which probably doesn't fit well
with the predictable right-wing view that Democrats never do anything about
illegal immigration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html?hpid=topnews

>> Western Democracies live by social contract. You cannot make claims
>> upon a contract to which you are not yet a party...

> Which is REALLY what is meant by an Argument Ad Hominem.

I have no problem with illegal immigrants being deported, "illegal" means
just what it says. And while illegal immigrants do a lot of work most
Americans won't do at a wage industry wants to pay, they also represent a
heavy drain on medical care, schools and so on. However that raises the
question of whether or not we should let an illegal immigrant bleed to death
on the hospital steps since he isn't a party to our social contract. Does
our social contract require us to behave like rat-bastards to anyone who
hasn't yet joined the club?

A guest worker plan makes sense to me. At least that way such workers will
be documented, will have health and auto insurance, will have a driver's
license, won't be afraid to report crimes to the cops and so on. But so
long as even a mention of such a plan stirs many folks to a frothing rage I
can't see it happening, especially if the Dems lose control of Congress in
the mid-terms election.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:40a5aac5-7de6-4b6c-a6e9-0f8b6104a7b4@a30g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 27, 11:46 am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 10:42 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

> Would you be so kind as to list, for me, WHICH of the Amendments to
> the Constitution you wish to keep, and which you wish to have
> repealed ?

Does the constitution condone "Illegal Immigrants" coming here to have
children? Or does it allow for "legal" immigrants

> Born in this country, for example, = citizen.

That's the law today, at least as it's currently interpreted. That
can, and should, be changed.

> "It was the parents choice," for another example, could easily
> equal ... why hold that against their American-born kids ?
>
> Hmm.

I am not holding anything against the kids, the kids should blame the
parents for not becoming legal. The parents are simply and from the
beginning teaching the kids how to illegaly get benefits.

Robatoy, Neil is right and your list is much too long.

Lets just abide by the law and all get along. ;-)

Of course that means that the rights and priveledges extended to citizens of
this country would be restricted to citizens.





Robatoy wrote:

> *New Immigration Laws:
>
> 1 There will be no special bilingual programs in the
schools.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 3. All government business will be conducted in our
language.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter
how long
> they are here.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political
office
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the
taxpayers. No welfare, no
> food stamps, no health care, or
other government
assistance
> programs. Any burden will be deported.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 7.
Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an
amount
> at least equal
to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 8. If foreigners
come here and buy land... Options will be
> restricted.
Certain parcels,
including waterfront property, are
> reserved for citizens
naturally born into this country.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no
demonstrations, no waving of
> a foreign flag, no political
organizing, no
bad-mouthing our head
> of state or his/her policies. These
will lead to deportation.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be
actively
> hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until
your deportation can be
> arranged. All assets will be taken
from you.
>
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> Too strict?......
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> *The above rules are the current immigration laws of most
Muslim
> countries.
> So, why not here as well???

"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2f8a2574-7f8b-4bd8-9c29-cbbecfe5fbaa@z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> The fact that you're a rock-and-roll fan is offensive enough, on its
> face, but ... are ... are ... are you one of those damned DEADHEADS,
> too ????
>
> Pitiful.

Heh. I like rock n' roll, I like jazz, I like classical, blues, various
traditional and contemporary music from around the world. That's the kind
of household I grew up in, one day my folks were playing classical records,
the next it was jazz or country--I'm grateful for that exposure to so many
styles of music. As Duke Ellington said, there are just two kinds of
music--good and bad. I really do pity those who are locked into just one
kind of music, especially those who actively reject music they aren't
familiar with--what a self-limiting policy!

I have a tough time with hip-hop however, I don't find much there that bears
repeated listening (and I've tried). I'm also not too big on much current
country music, it strikes me as slick and disposable. Most of today's pop
is IMO highly forgettable--I feel sorry for kids today who instead of The
Beatles and the Stones and The Who and the Dead and Hendrix and Dylan and so
on have the Black Eyed Peas and Eminem and Ludacris to listen to. I just
can't see much of today's pop music still being heard fifty years from
now--but maybe that's because I'm an old fart carrying on the ancient
tradition of lamenting Kids These Days.

"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> You may be surprised to find out how much of NYC is owned by foreign
> companies. Some years back US real estate was cheap compared to other
> countries and gobbled up. You are probably correct about they typical
> low wage immigrant though, they are not buying up housing.

That last statement may not be true everywhere, Ed. I don't have a quote,
but heard that in Spain many immigrants, legal or not, drove their
Mercedeses to the airport to go "home" (South America??), leaving the banks
with their mortgages and autoloans. I think Spain is hit almost harder
with this crisis than the US.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:206a3429-9eb9-407d-886b-
[email protected]:

> One man's $ 230,000+ S 65 AMG Mercedes is another man's bank repo's S
> 65 AMG $ 75,000 Mercedes. There are many bargains to be had.
>

Probably, but I'm not there, and I wouldn't buy a German car anyway. You
know why, born in 1944.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in news:[email protected]
september.org:

> I think that U.S. citizenship should be automatic for any child who is
> either:
> a) born anywhere in the world to parents who are both U.S. citizens; or
> b) born in the U.S. to parents who are both legal residents of the U.S.,
> regardless of their citizenship.
>

Doug, you saved my kids' citizenship.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

John <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Actually I wouldn't be surprised. I would guess that a lot of the
> money in the US stock market is also foreign in origin. But I'm
> pretty sure it's not the illegal immigrants who are doing the
> investing or the real-estate buying.

During the housing boom, anyone with some initiative and indeed hard work
could have made a bundle. Why not invest that in a home? Or a car? How
illegal would the possession of that property then have been?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Jul 27, 11:04=C2=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 8:55=C2=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > *New Immigration Laws:
>
> [snip]
>
> > *The above rules are the current immigration laws of most =E2=80=A8Musl=
im
> > countries.
> > =E2=80=A8=E2=80=A8=E2=80=A8So, why not here as well???
>
> Why do so many right wingers aspire to be AS BAD AS the people they
> believe to be our enemies, and among the least evolved nations on the
> earth ?
>
> Why do those who wave the inane flag of "patriotism" ... always want
> this country to do WORSE THAN, rather than BETTER THAN ?
>
> That's supposed to be love of country ?
>
> Sounds fucking stupid, to me.

Sounds to me you're off your meds, Neil... or off your rocker, but
coherent you're not. I was going to ask you to elaborate, but
preferred the option of poking a stick in my eyes.

I just happen to believe that when an immigrant comes here, they want
a better life for themselves and their loved ones. Unfortunately, a
few will then try to make the place operate the same way as the places
they left behind. I say: "nay, nay!"
That's a bit like taking in a homeless person who then wants to paint
my interior in HIS colour, rearrange MY furniture, and then he wants
to put a rag over my daughter's head. He then tries to forbid my
enjoyment of a ham sandwich to boot. Again, I say: "nay, nay."
Then they worry about racial profiling by the cops...now that NEVER
happens now?

On 7/27/2010 2:17 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 27, 12:41 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 7/27/2010 11:53 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 27, 10:45 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2010 11:22 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 27, 9:24 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/27/2010 10:04 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 8:55 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> *New Immigration Laws:
>>
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>
>>>>>>>> *The above rules are the current immigration laws of most 
Muslim
>>>>>>>> countries.
>>>>>>>> 


So, why not here as well???
>>
>>>>>>> Why do so many right wingers aspire to be AS BAD AS the people they
>>>>>>> believe to be our enemies, and among the least evolved nations on the
>>>>>>> earth ?
>>
>>>>>>> Why do those who wave the inane flag of "patriotism" ... always want
>>>>>>> this country to do WORSE THAN, rather than BETTER THAN ?
>>
>>>>>>> That's supposed to be love of country ?
>>
>>>>>>> Sounds fucking stupid, to me.
>>
>>>>>> What part of what he wrote is:
>>
>>>>>> a) Right Wing? Most of it used to be called "Common Sense".
>>>>>> b) Bad? Where is the harm?
>>
>>>>> a) all of it. And ... to your second point, under (a),
>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
>>
>>>>> b) I didn't characterize it as "good" or "bad."
>>
>>>>> But ... it takes a blindly partisan idiot NOT to recognize that ...
>>>>> all sides seem to think illegal immigration offers them benefits:
>>
>>>>> - Democrats like the notion of new voters
>>>>> - Republicans like to exploit the cheap labor, for increased
>>>>> profitability
>>>>> - EVERY administration like the contribution to GDP MADE BY illegal
>>>>> immigration
>>
>>>>>> Western Democracies live by social contract. You cannot make claims
>>>>>> upon a contract to which you are not yet a party...
>>
>>>>> Which is REALLY what is meant by an Argument Ad Hominem.
>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>
>>>> There's nothing Ad Hominem about it. It's a simple statement of
>>>> fact.
>>
>>> Ohhhhhh-Kay, Tim.
>>
>>> What "social contract" do "Western democracies live by," and ...
>>> please support your assertion that I am "not yet a party" to it.
>>
>>> Good luck. Been taking a page from Jack Stein's play(comic) book,
>>> huh ?
>>
>>> Like I never noticed .....
>>
>> cf John Locke's (I think it was..) "2nd Treatise" upon which Jefferson,
>> Madison, et al based a good deal of their ideas.
>>
>> In principle, other Western democracies follow a similar model.
>
>
> And that's .... what, now, Tim ? A social contract to which I don't
> subscribe ??
>
> Whew. I have NO idea WTF you're talking about ... which ... makes TWO
> of us ;-)

Since I don't know where you live, I haven't a clue about your form of
government. If you live in the US, you're part of this social contract
whether you like it or not.

It's tragic that people like you with such strong opinions about politics
and policy know so little about the actual history of the formation of
our legal system (assuming you live in the US, of course).

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:55:14 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>*New Immigration Laws:
>
>?1 There will be no special bilingual programs in the? schools.
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>?2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
>?* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>3. All government business will be conducted in our ?language.
>?* * * * * * * * * * * * *
>4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter ?how long
>they are here.
>?* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political? office
>?* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the?  taxpayers. No welfare, no
>food stamps, no health care, or?other government?  assistance
>programs. Any burden will be deported.
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>?7.?  Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an? amount
>at least equal?  to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>?8. If foreigners?  come here and buy land... Options will be
>restricted.? Certain parcels,? including waterfront property, are
>reserved for citizens ?naturally born into this country.
>?* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no?  demonstrations, no waving of
>a foreign flag, no political ?organizing, no?  bad-mouthing our head
>of state or his/her policies. These ?will lead to deportation.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be? actively
>hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until? your deportation can be
>arranged. All assets will be taken ?from you.
>
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.??? 
>Too strict?......??? 

Yes, too strict. Illegal aliens are still entitled to the basic
rights afforded in the Constitution, which generally does not speak of
"citizens" but only of "persons." That means they have the right to
speak out and protest and criticize the government (#9) and the right
not to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law (#10)

However, they should not have the right to vote or hold office or
obtain a driver's license, or to such government largesse as food
stamps, health care or education for their children.

As to investments or property ownership, I don't think that's a common
enough problem to worry about.

And the wisdom (or not) of bilingual education, bilingual ballots and
the like is, IMO, unrelated to whether the beneficiary is legal or
not.

As a broad generalization, I don't think we need more laws or stricter
laws to deal with immigration. We just need to enforce the laws that
are already on the books.

Just my $0.02

On Jul 27, 9:37=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sounds to me you're off your meds, Neil... or off your rocker, but
> coherent you're not. I was going to ask you to elaborate, but
> preferred the option of poking a stick in my eyes.


Nah. Rather than attack my argument, it's just much easier for you to
attack me.



> I just happen to believe that when an immigrant comes here, they want
> a better life for themselves and their loved ones. Unfortunately, a
> few will then try to make the place operate the same way as the places
> they left behind.

They are ?

Who ?

How many ?

In what way ?

You mean ... many try to retain their culture ... just as immigrants,
from all nations, have always done ?

On Jul 27, 2:16=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 12:32=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 1:17=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 27, 12:14=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrot=
e:
>
> > > > On Jul 27, 1:00=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 27, 11:48=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> =
wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 27, 11:46=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 27, 10:42=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > > Would you be so kind as to list, for me, WHICH of the Amendme=
nts to
> > > > > > > the Constitution you wish to keep, and which you wish to have
> > > > > > > repealed ?
>
> > > > > > Care to explain what this has to do with the issue?
>
> > > > > > > Born in this country, for example, =3D citizen.
>
> > > > > > That's the law today, at least as it's currently interpreted. =
=A0That
> > > > > > can, and should, be changed.
>
> > > > > That's the 14th Amendment. =A0Born in this country =3D citizen.
>
> > > > That's the current interpretation and can be changed. =A0If not, ju=
st
> > > > deport the parents, with prejudice.
>
> > > Here's the text that's being "interpreted."
>
> > Idiot. =A0I'm fully capable of finding such things on my own.
>
> > > "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
> > > subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United State=
s
> > > and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
> > > any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
> > > of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
> > > liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
> > > person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
>
> > > So ... which Amendments do you think we should keep, and which do you
> > > think we should discard ?
>
> > There are several that should be modified, certainly. =A0That is one,
> > area where the implementation does not agree with the design.
>
> > > Do you think the Framers had immutable wisdom, or do you think that
> > > things could have changed, significantly, since their time ?
>
> > You do know that the 14th was not written by the "framers", don't
> > you? =A0The Constitution has been "modified" some 27 times. =A0Sometime=
s
> > for the better, sometimes not.
>
> > > It's a valid question. =A0Care to answer ?
>
> > The question wasn't asked of me. =A0I have.
>
> > > > > Please don't assume that -- because YOU can't figure out what I'm
> > > > > talking about ... that means I don't know ;-)
>
> > > > You don't, so that's easy.
>
> > > I believe I just shot THAT piece of your idiocy right down :-)
>
> > What you believe is not at all important.
>
> > > > > > > "It was the parents choice," for another example, could easil=
y
> > > > > > > equal ... why hold that against their American-born kids ?
>
> > > > > > > Hmm.
>
> > > > > > You really are some piece of work.
>
> > > > > No response ?
>
> > > > > Got it.
>
> > > > ...all the response you deserve.
>
> > > Nah. =A0All the response you can muster.
>
> > > You're making that clearer and clearer.
>
> > So much for your "logic".
>
> > > So ... what about it: which Amendments would YOU interpret "strictly"
> > > and ... for which would you impose a DIFFERENT standard ?
>
> > Invalid question.
>
> I'm using "framers" to include those who wrote the original document
> AND its Amendments.
>
> Somebody born here is a citizen. =A0That's 14th Amendment stuff.
>
> Since the British citizens who took this nation, by force, BORE THEIR
> children, here, and wanted THEM to BE citizens, then ... I'd betcha'
> that -- under a doctrine of original intent, or strict construction,
> the "framers" were not looking to EXCLUDE the kids of those who
> walked, swam, or hid in gas tanks and were driven ... across the
> border.
>
> Would be another difficult bit of rank hypocrisy to explain away....
>
> YMMV.

As long as you're willing to concede that your "logic" includes your
personal "dictionary", you can have your own little world. ...all to
yourself.

BTW, what color is the sky in your universe?

On Jul 27, 11:48=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 11:46=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 10:42=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Would you be so kind as to list, for me, WHICH of the Amendments to
> > the Constitution you wish to keep, and which you wish to have
> > repealed ?
>
> Care to explain what this has to do with the issue?
>
> > Born in this country, for example, =3D citizen.
>
> That's the law today, at least as it's currently interpreted. =A0That
> can, and should, be changed.

That's the 14th Amendment. Born in this country =3D citizen.

Please don't assume that -- because YOU can't figure out what I'm
talking about ... that means I don't know ;-)

> > "It was the parents choice," for another example, could easily
> > equal ... why hold that against their American-born kids ?
>
> > Hmm.
>
> You really are some piece of work.

No response ?

Got it.

On Jul 27, 8:50=A0pm, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:19:10 -0400, John <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, too strict. =A0Illegal aliens are still entitled to the basic
> >rights afforded in the Constitution, which generally does not speak of
> >"citizens" but only of "persons." That means they have the right to
> >speak out and protest and criticize the government (#9) and the right
> >not to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
> >law (#10)
>
> What part of "illegal" does your retarded brain not understand.


Illegal ... isn't even accurate, "legally."

It's a civil matter ... akin to a speeding ticket.


> Winson Churchill must have talked to you shortly before he said "The
> best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the
> average voter."


Now don't YOU look stupid :-)

On 7/27/2010 1:12 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 27, 12:33 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snipped for brevity]
>
>> For the most part, fine. Is there something that makes Muslims always
>> wrong?
>
> I don't know. Is there? Where does it state that?
>
>> Are you really that much of a racist?
>
> I won't dignify that with a response because you are an antagonistic
> cocksucker just looking for a place to hurl your bile.

You're using naughty language again. Besides being very bad manners,
there's another reason not to do this: When you use vulgarity, you're
removing one of the very few mechanisms for defending progressive/left
ideology. Leave them a little something to play with, will you please?



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Jul 28, 6:41=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's fortunate for him that socialists like GB Shaw didn't convince us
> to gas worthless "geniuses" like Neil...

Your intellectual insecurities (well founded, by the way) have done
MUCH to form your personality, haven't they ?

That's what's at play when you hear people use the term "liberal
elite." It's usually 'code' for smarter and better educated people.

Funny: I'm not at all insecure around really smart people. I
figure ... I can learn from them .. and do.

Remember: your ignorance is something you COULD change, if you chose
to.

Incidentally, I'm of Jewish descent. Ignorant cretins like yourself
DID choose to gas folks like me.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:37ec2d6d-eccc-4807-ba7c-f6a21ec249f9@y11g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
*New Immigration Laws:
.
.
.
.
.???
Too strict?......???
.
.




Not at all. It pleases me to once again see the media refer to the
iilegal imigrants as illegal immegrants rather than the "politically
correct" term that was used in recent years.

Add to that children born here will not be citizens unless the parents are
legal. It was the parents choice.

On Jul 27, 8:55=C2=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> *New Immigration Laws:

[snip]

> *The above rules are the current immigration laws of most =E2=80=A8Muslim
> countries.
> =E2=80=A8=E2=80=A8=E2=80=A8So, why not here as well???


Why do so many right wingers aspire to be AS BAD AS the people they
believe to be our enemies, and among the least evolved nations on the
earth ?

Why do those who wave the inane flag of "patriotism" ... always want
this country to do WORSE THAN, rather than BETTER THAN ?

That's supposed to be love of country ?

Sounds fucking stupid, to me.

On Jul 27, 12:28=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/27/10 1:21 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 12:18 pm, -MIKE-<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> On 7/27/10 1:13 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 27, 12:09 pm, -MIKE-<[email protected]> =A0 =A0wrote:
> >>>> On 7/27/10 1:02 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 27, 11:53 am, -MIKE-<[email protected]> =A0 =A0 =A0wrote=
:
> >>>>>> On 7/27/10 11:25 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Jul 27, 9:54 am, Robatoy<[email protected]> =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 11:24 am, "Dr.Deb"<[email protected]> =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0wrote:> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Robatoy, Neil is right and your list is much too =
long.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Lets just abide by the law and all get along. =A0;-)
>
> >>>>>>>>> Of course that means that the rights and priveledges extended t=
o citizens of
> >>>>>>>>> this country would be restricted to citizens.
>
> >>>>>>>> There would still have to be refuge programs: "Yes, we will give=
you
> >>>>>>>> shelter, but do NOT rearrange the furniture."
>
> >>>>>>> So ... that "right" was reserved for white, European immigrants ?
>
> >>>>>>> Help me out, here....
>
> >>>>>> You mean those white European immigrants who got in line, signed t=
he
> >>>>>> book, and basically did everything else required by law to become
> >>>>>> citizens? =A0 Those immigrants?
>
> >>>>> So ... if LEGAL (Latin) immigrants want to "impose their culture" o=
n
> >>>>> this country ... is THAT okay ?
>
> >>>>> I'm having a HELL of a time rationalizing all these right-wing
> >>>>> contradictions.
>
> >>>>> I'm looking for the Wreck's loudest to help me navigate my way
> >>>>> through.
>
> >>>>> Can YOU help ?
>
> >>>>> Seriously.
>
> >>>> I don't get the "impose" thing, either.
> >>>> The whole melting pot metaphor seems to have served us well for 200 =
years.
>
> >>>> I'm just wondering if you think everyone should follow the rules, or=
is
> >>>> it ok to cut in line or sneak in the back door.
>
> >>> Wayyyyy too loaded a question, and Wayyyyyyy too either/or
> >>> phrasing ... for an issue that really IS as complicated as illegal
> >>> immigration ... really is.
>
> >> Really? =A0 I honestly don't think it is a complicated question.
>
> > I said just the opposite.
>
> > It's a loaded, and overly-simplified question.
>
> >> There are millions of people in this country going through the process
> >> legally.
> >> They don't seem to think it's too difficult to bypass.
>
> > And that ... again ... is "begging the question," or a "loaded
> > question."
>
> > "Have you stopped beating your wife yet," similarly, looks like a
> > perfectly simple question.
>
> > To perfectly simple people ;-)
>
> Wrong application.
> "Do you think it's ok for people to beat their wives" isn't a difficult
> question to answer.


Right.

If you FIX a loaded question, it ceases to BE a loaded question.

We agree.

On Jul 27, 12:09=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/27/10 1:02 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 11:53 am, -MIKE-<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> On 7/27/10 11:25 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 27, 9:54 am, Robatoy<[email protected]> =A0 =A0wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 27, 11:24 am, "Dr.Deb"<[email protected]> =A0 =A0wrote:> =
=A0 =A0Robatoy, Neil is right and your list is much too long.
>
> >>>>> Lets just abide by the law and all get along. =A0;-)
>
> >>>>> Of course that means that the rights and priveledges extended to ci=
tizens of
> >>>>> this country would be restricted to citizens.
>
> >>>> There would still have to be refuge programs: "Yes, we will give you
> >>>> shelter, but do NOT rearrange the furniture."
>
> >>> So ... that "right" was reserved for white, European immigrants ?
>
> >>> Help me out, here....
>
> >> You mean those white European immigrants who got in line, signed the
> >> book, and basically did everything else required by law to become
> >> citizens? =A0 Those immigrants?
>
> > So ... if LEGAL (Latin) immigrants want to "impose their culture" on
> > this country ... is THAT okay ?
>
> > I'm having a HELL of a time rationalizing all these right-wing
> > contradictions.
>
> > I'm looking for the Wreck's loudest to help me navigate my way
> > through.
>
> > Can YOU help ?
>
> > Seriously.
>
> I don't get the "impose" thing, either.
> The whole melting pot metaphor seems to have served us well for 200 years=
.
>
> I'm just wondering if you think everyone should follow the rules, or is
> it ok to cut in line or sneak in the back door.


Wayyyyy too loaded a question, and Wayyyyyyy too either/or
phrasing ... for an issue that really IS as complicated as illegal
immigration ... really is.

And THAT ... is a perfectly honest answer.

But ... what ABOUT those who resent the imposition of culture on us
(descendants of illegal immigrants, ourselves) -- whether by legal OR
illegal immigrants.

How DOES one square that circle ?

With some true and amazing mental gymnastics, I'd assume.

I think the US has EVERY right to secure its borders and control who
immigrates here.

I've detailed some very powerful factors for why there's NO political
will to do so.

So ... do I want to punish the latest crop (pun ?) of "slaves" (note
the quotation marks), exploited by America, to do its dirty work ?

Not particularly.

I'm definitely for a path to citizenship -- the details of which could
come in a billion forms.

On 7/27/2010 10:10 PM, Steve wrote:
> On 2010-07-27 11:24:21 -0400, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> said:
>
>> What part of what he wrote is:
>>
>> a) Right Wing? Most of it used to be called "Common Sense".
>> b) Bad? Where is the harm?
>
> Way to aim for the lowest common denominator!

I am aiming for the rule-of-law and civil society. If it's
the LCD you're looking for, look at the Western political
left ... they're poster children for it.

>
> "When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and
> carrying a cross.”
> -- Sinclair Lewis (American Writer, 1885-1951)

Lewis was wrong. Fascism has been wrapped in a cloak of do-gooding
with other people's money and the saviors of the left. There isn't
a more oppressive voice in the culture than the screeching minority
of lefties howling about how all he rest of us should act.

>
> And, just so you can't punk him:
>
> “Intellectually I know that America is no better than any other country;
> emotionally I know she is better than every country”
> -- Sinclair Lewis (American Writer, 1885-1951)
>

So ... we just suspend the rule of law, listen to the oh so emo
lefties, and have different rules for different people? I'm not
remotely interested in your emotional distress. I'm interested in
a rule-of-law that is sustainable intergenerationally.

I *am* an immigrant to the US. I'm a huge fan of immigration. It
renews the ideas and ideals of the nation. But, I followed the rules.
It is not unreasonable to expect others that wish to come here to
simply follow the very direct and clear legal process to do so. But
then again, without a regular importation of slaves, however would
the liberals get votes to renew their dying numbers?



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 7/27/10 11:25 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 27, 9:54 am, Robatoy<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 11:24 am, "Dr.Deb"<[email protected]> wrote:> Robatoy, Neil is right and your list is much too long.
>>
>>> Lets just abide by the law and all get along. ;-)
>>
>>> Of course that means that the rights and priveledges extended to citizens of
>>> this country would be restricted to citizens.
>>
>> There would still have to be refuge programs: "Yes, we will give you
>> shelter, but do NOT rearrange the furniture."
>
> So ... that "right" was reserved for white, European immigrants ?
>
> Help me out, here....

You mean those white European immigrants who got in line, signed the
book, and basically did everything else required by law to become
citizens? Those immigrants?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/27/10 1:02 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 27, 11:53 am, -MIKE-<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 7/27/10 11:25 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 27, 9:54 am, Robatoy<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 27, 11:24 am, "Dr.Deb"<[email protected]> wrote:> Robatoy, Neil is right and your list is much too long.
>>
>>>>> Lets just abide by the law and all get along. ;-)
>>
>>>>> Of course that means that the rights and priveledges extended to citizens of
>>>>> this country would be restricted to citizens.
>>
>>>> There would still have to be refuge programs: "Yes, we will give you
>>>> shelter, but do NOT rearrange the furniture."
>>
>>> So ... that "right" was reserved for white, European immigrants ?
>>
>>> Help me out, here....
>>
>> You mean those white European immigrants who got in line, signed the
>> book, and basically did everything else required by law to become
>> citizens? Those immigrants?
>
>
> So ... if LEGAL (Latin) immigrants want to "impose their culture" on
> this country ... is THAT okay ?
>
> I'm having a HELL of a time rationalizing all these right-wing
> contradictions.
>
> I'm looking for the Wreck's loudest to help me navigate my way
> through.
>
> Can YOU help ?
>
> Seriously.

I don't get the "impose" thing, either.
The whole melting pot metaphor seems to have served us well for 200 years.

I'm just wondering if you think everyone should follow the rules, or is
it ok to cut in line or sneak in the back door.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/27/10 1:13 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 27, 12:09 pm, -MIKE-<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 7/27/10 1:02 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 11:53 am, -MIKE-<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/10 11:25 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 27, 9:54 am, Robatoy<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 27, 11:24 am, "Dr.Deb"<[email protected]> wrote:> Robatoy, Neil is right and your list is much too long.
>>
>>>>>>> Lets just abide by the law and all get along. ;-)
>>
>>>>>>> Of course that means that the rights and priveledges extended to citizens of
>>>>>>> this country would be restricted to citizens.
>>
>>>>>> There would still have to be refuge programs: "Yes, we will give you
>>>>>> shelter, but do NOT rearrange the furniture."
>>
>>>>> So ... that "right" was reserved for white, European immigrants ?
>>
>>>>> Help me out, here....
>>
>>>> You mean those white European immigrants who got in line, signed the
>>>> book, and basically did everything else required by law to become
>>>> citizens? Those immigrants?
>>
>>> So ... if LEGAL (Latin) immigrants want to "impose their culture" on
>>> this country ... is THAT okay ?
>>
>>> I'm having a HELL of a time rationalizing all these right-wing
>>> contradictions.
>>
>>> I'm looking for the Wreck's loudest to help me navigate my way
>>> through.
>>
>>> Can YOU help ?
>>
>>> Seriously.
>>
>> I don't get the "impose" thing, either.
>> The whole melting pot metaphor seems to have served us well for 200 years.
>>
>> I'm just wondering if you think everyone should follow the rules, or is
>> it ok to cut in line or sneak in the back door.
>
>
> Wayyyyy too loaded a question, and Wayyyyyyy too either/or
> phrasing ... for an issue that really IS as complicated as illegal
> immigration ... really is.
>

Really? I honestly don't think it is a complicated question.
There are millions of people in this country going through the process
legally.
They don't seem to think it's too difficult to bypass.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply