Passing on more internet info on the issue to point out in terms of the cost of ILLEGALS...

WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!

Subject: 14 Reasons to Deport Illegal Aliens


Hope these 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read by the majority of Americans. Then they will have something to yell at their U.S. Congressmembers.

14 Reasons to Deport Illegal Aliens...

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for
Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American
wages are caused by the illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the United States . http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine and marijuana, crossed into
the U. S. from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period." http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ". http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

So using the LOWEST estimates, the annual cost OF ILLEGAL ALIENS is $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR! So if deporting them costs between $206 and $230 BILLION DOLLARS

http://www.nationofimmigrants.org/

http://www.topix.net/forum/com/wpo/T5JMARNNGRQF4G1I0

Some counter-arguments just to even things out a bit. ;)

How much money would it cost to deport illegal aliens.  You have to find them, arrest them, detain them, determine whether they are in fact illegal, make preparations to deport them, and then physically deport them.  Every step costs money.  We're talking upwards of 12 million souls here.  That's a lot of people and a lot of processing. You can't just cattle-prod them into vans and haul them back to Mexico.  What's more, they're not all from Mexico.  Many of them come from Central and South America.  Others come from Eastern Europe and Asia.  It costs a lot of money to transport a person from New Bedford to Rio!

Unless it is palatable to you to set up extermination camps, it is going to cost the state far more to refuse to feed the hungry, heal the sick, and educate the children...even if they are here illegally.  You must think long term.  I shouldn't have to explain.

The two major parties--Republican and Democratic--represent the interests of commerce and of the wealthy.  It is giant corporations and super-rich people who set the political agenda in this country.  It is not in the interest of commerce or the wealthy to crack down on illegal immigration for that population provides a pool of vulnerable workers who have no rights.  The threat of arrest and deportation hangs over the head of each one.  This drives down wages and keeps a lid on organized labor for both native-born Americans and legal immigrants.  The benefit to the consumer of lower prices for certain goods and services is secondary.  

If illegal immigration affects YOU adversely in any way, it's a sure indication that you do not count in the world of economic and political elites.  That's why our beloved George Bush and Nancy Pelosi will shove through an unpopular "amnesty" reform and populists of both right-wing and left-wing stripes (Pat Buchanan, Senator Sanders) will denounce it.  

Of note, Congress has lower approval ratings than the President.  No wonder.  Everybody who hated Bush in '06 still hates him, and now the same people are hating Congress for failing to do anything about the outlaw Executive  Branch.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/06/madgo.gif

Here we go again.  ::)  Most of these people are just trying to make a better life for themselves & their families. So, they get hired by someone willing to pay them below minimum wage and then everyone blames the person who is working and NOT the person who is unwilling to pay a decent wage.

I'm not too sure if everyone has heard about the raid at the Del Monte plant in Oregon.

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=77424-del-monte-immigration-labor

I find it interesting that they arrest the workers but NOT the people who hired them or the people who provided them with false documents. Yeah, they said the investigation is still going on but my bet is these people won't even get a slap on the wrist and it will basically be business as usual.



Cat

Here we go again.  ::)  Most of these people are just trying to make a better life for themselves & their families. So, they get hired by someone willing to pay them below minimum wage and then everyone blames the person who is working and NOT the person who is unwilling to pay a decent wage.

I'm not too sure if everyone has heard about the raid at the Del Monte plant in Oregon.

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=77424-del-monte-immigration-labor

I find it interesting that they arrest the workers but NOT the people who hired them or the people who provided them with false documents. Yeah, they said the investigation is still going on but my bet is these people won't even get a slap on the wrist and it will basically be business as usual.



Cat


You know, Cat, I'm all for people making a better life for themselves and families. However, do not do it on my back and shoulders. I live in CA. I'm one of so many citizens/residents with broken backs from the desire of those illegally here wanting a better life. I'm trying to attain it here myself, but so much of what I have is being taken away (e.g. taxes). That argument is what will kill the American.

Oh, btw, use that argument when it's your Social Security Number, or other personal information, being utilized.

http://www.nationofimmigrants.org/

http://www.topix.net/forum/com/wpo/T5JMARNNGRQF4G1I0

Some counter-arguments just to even things out a bit. ;)


Read info on the PRO immigration bill comments...YES we could use immigrants WE JUST WANT THEM TO BE 'LEGAL' i.e. accounted for and registered to be here as our own members...

Also another site to look into is heritage.org  a guy named Chris has a great write up on the issue as well.

If we just GIVE 20 million(?) free admission to the great US..there will be another 30 million behind them that want in the same way...

Just enforce the laws we have...to get rid of the 12 million or so,even if we sent them back as we processed their info would take 10 years alone or even more!  Gotta do the best we can to combat it.

Read info on the PRO immigration bill comments...YES we could use immigrants WE JUST WANT THEM TO BE 'LEGAL' i.e. accounted for and registered to be here as our own members...

Also another site to look into is heritage.org  a guy named Chris has a great write up on the issue as well.

If we just GIVE 20 million(?) free admission to the great US..there will be another 30 million behind them that want in the same way...

Just enforce the laws we have...to get rid of the 12 million or so,even if we sent them back as we processed their info would take 10 years alone or even more!  Gotta do the best we can to combat it.


I'm going to assume your forefathers and mothers were the original Americans.  heritage.org is a crock of shhh, so you're going to have to do better than that to convince me.

You know, Cat, I'm all for people making a better life for themselves and families. However, do not do it on my back and shoulders. I live in CA. I'm one of so many citizens/residents with broken backs from the desire of those illegally here wanting a better life. I'm trying to attain it here myself, but so much of what I have is being taken away (e.g. taxes). That argument is what will kill the American.

Oh, btw, use that argument when it's your Social Security Number, or other personal information, being utilized.



I am saying that they do NOT go after the guys who perpetuate the situation-the ones who gives these people the false documents and the people who hire them. If they cracked down on those guys, then MAYBE word would get out in Mexico that this is not the land of opportunity as it is now. Right now, illegal immigrants CAN make a living (as meager as it is) because there are people willing to hire them. Why? Because of cheap labor. And that is what it boils down to. I do not blame these workers-they are doing what they think they have to do in order to survive. I blame the people who take advantage of these desperate people and exploit them. To me, THOSE are the real criminals and should be punished under the law.



Cat

I am saying that they do NOT go after the guys who perpetuate the situation-the ones who gives these people the false documents and the people who hire them. If they cracked down on those guys, then MAYBE word would get out in Mexico that this is not the land of opportunity as it is now. Right now, illegal immigrants CAN make a living (as meager as it is) because there are people willing to hire them. Why? Because of cheap labor. And that is what it boils down to. I do not blame these workers-they are doing what they think they have to do in order to survive. I blame the people who take advantage of these desperate people and exploit them. To me, THOSE are the real criminals and should be punished under the law.



Cat


I can your point. But without the demand, you can't supply. So no one's hand is dirtier than the other.

You know, Cat, I'm all for people making a better life for themselves and families. However, do not do it on my back and shoulders. I live in CA. I'm one of so many citizens/residents with broken backs from the desire of those illegally here wanting a better life. I'm trying to attain it here myself, but so much of what I have is being taken away (e.g. taxes). That argument is what will kill the American.

Oh, btw, use that argument when it's your Social Security Number, or other personal information, being utilized.


Hey Tanya these are the same people who take the jobs you'd be too "proud to take".  As for the SS# it's not only immigrants who are doing it.  Next time you pay a bill online remember that.

This is the age of GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, KAFKA and whatever else in in the alphabet soup of "free trade agreements."  Corporations and and their capital have exempted themselves from the strictures of the nation state.  Yet the working classes still don't get it.  International capital is out to screw YOU, whether you're Chinese, Indian, Mexican, American, Indonesian or whatever.  When those billionaire executives look down from their skyscraper fortresses, they don't have patriotism on their minds.  They have united worldwide capital.  Our only hope is to unite worldwide labor.

In the discourse our media presents us with

"Workers of the World Unite!"
is ridiculed.

"Capitalists of the World Unite"
is revered.

This is effed up!

Hey Tanya these are the same people who take the jobs you'd be too "proud to take".  As for the SS# it's not only immigrants who are doing it.  Next time you pay a bill online remember that.


I would be too proud to take those jobs considering my educational level. But you know, that's an unfortunate and unsubstantial generalization to make on Americans. Americans would take those jobs, if you paid them an actual wage that you could live on. They are not foolish to take them. They know better and aren't willing to be used as slave labor.

Tell me something I don't know, spaceace, about the SS# thing. In this discussion, I felt it should be brought up.

Lets think long term....

If it costs say, 2 billion a year for 10 years to round up all the illegals and send them back to where they came from, thats what, 20 billion dollars  spent on the round up??

OK, now, lets take that 300 billion/year figure, and not trying to factor in inflation, etc, see where we'll be in 10 years running the same old, same old like we've got now...how many trillions are we up to already, or are we already past that???

Like I have said before, give them green cards and union books.  At least they know how to have a rally.  The get the card, they get the book, they get the rate and pay the taxes.  Time for people at the bottom to stop fighting people at the bottom.  While everyone is at it, read up on the history of the great waves of immigration in the past.  Kinda sad how the rhetoric stays the same.  Hey Tanya, perhaps a fugitive slave law could help things out. 

Like I have said before, give them green cards and union books.  At least they know how to have a rally.  The get the card, they get the book, they get the rate and pay the taxes.  Time for people at the bottom to stop fighting people at the bottom.  While everyone is at it, read up on the history of the great waves of immigration in the past.  Kinda sad how the rhetoric stays the same.  Hey Tanya, perhaps a fugitive slave law could help things out. 


I was waiting for you to chime in.  I've gotta wonder how many immigrants that came to the U.S. during the potato famine were "legal immigrants"?  Not to mention the few who snuck in to avoid the Nazis?

Around here 9/10 of the Spanish-speaking population is Puerto Rican.  They're not even "immigrants" let alone "illegal."  But that doesn't stop the Archie Bunkers from bellyaching about 'em!
::)

I am saying that they do NOT go after the guys who perpetuate the situation-the ones who gives these people the false documents and the people who hire them. If they cracked down on those guys, then MAYBE word would get out in Mexico that this is not the land of opportunity as it is now. Right now, illegal immigrants CAN make a living (as meager as it is) because there are people willing to hire them. Why? Because of cheap labor. And that is what it boils down to. I do not blame these workers-they are doing what they think they have to do in order to survive. I blame the people who take advantage of these desperate people and exploit them. To me, THOSE are the real criminals and should be punished under the law.



Cat


I mostly agree with your post, Cat. The companies who offer jobs to illegals are the problem moreso than the people themselves. But, I've said this in the past, and I will say it again:

There is no such thing as cheap labor or products!

Cheap labor is a complete myth, an illusion. You get what you pay for. Ever buy crappy tools made in Taiwan? Sure you can get a 92 piece socket set for $9, but they suck for any real purposes (and by real, I mean actually being used on anything). I realized this when I was 14 years old and busted not one but 4 12mm sockets and a wrench trying to disassemble a motorcycle. I forked out quite a bit of money and bought my first Craftsman tool set. Guess what? Nearly 18 years later I still have that set, albeit one with some missing sockets. My conclusion: cheap tools are for fools.

Look at labor. McDonald's (as well as many other "fast food" restaurants) takes freaking forever to make your food. In many cases I can make my food faster, healthier, and for cheaper than McD's. Why is that? My guess is no one making minimum wage really gives a crap about their job. There is no concern on their end if you have to wait 28 minutes in the drive thru (yes, it has taken that long).

Going to illegal aliens, they are predominant in the construction industry here. The companies that employ them often undercut everyone else. So how do they do a job so quickly and cheaply? A crew of 10 men can re-roof a house in a day, or a big building (like our hotel) in a six weeks. That rate of speed comes at the expense of cutting corners, violating building codes, not adequately inspecting/designing the roof, shoddy worksmanship, etc, etc. If you think you're getting a great deal on construction now from an illegal crew/company, PM me in 4 or 5 years and I'll listen to you cry and complain that your "30 year roof" needs to be replaced asap, and that the water damage to your home requires other very costly repairs.

I'm not biased against illegals as people, nor do I think everything American built is the bomb, but allowing illegal aliens to continue to exist in America, or worse, giving them amnesty and encouraging others to illegally enter and hope for the same result, will make America a third world country in short order.

Also, while I'm on amnesty, I think it is a patently stupid idea. Would you offer amnesty to Jimmy the crack dealer down the street? After all, he's been breaking the law too, and for so long that we might as well give him the green light and official papers to deal crack.

While I'm on a good rant, I'd like to mention two more things:

When is English going to become the official language of the USA?

Also, back to saver's post: if you are in this country illegally and commit any crime, you should be deported immediately. A second offense should be an automatic capital case, with no chance of life in prison.

Going to illegal aliens, they are predominant in the construction industry here. The companies that employ them often undercut everyone else. So how do they do a job so quickly and cheaply? A crew of 10 men can re-roof a house in a day, or a big building (like our hotel) in a six weeks. That rate of speed comes at the expense of cutting corners, violating building codes, not adequately inspecting/designing the roof, shoddy worksmanship, etc, etc. If you think you're getting a great deal on construction now from an illegal crew/company, PM me in 4 or 5 years and I'll listen to you cry and complain that your "30 year roof" needs to be replaced asap, and that the water damage to your home requires other very costly repairs.



I would say 99% of the people who hire the companies that employ these workers know, absolutely, what the story is here.  The labor is ok when it is goes to their own bottom line.  Just as people justify buying at WalMart for the cheaper products, looking for a bargain while driving in in their SUVs.  I work in construction, it is not the worker in these companies that do the shoddy work. It is the citizen owner who buys the shoddy materials and skirts the zoning ordinances.  If anything we give the workers their due when it comes to putting in a days work for a days pay(common refrain"they gotta be nuts, I wouldn't do that sh*t").  We do fault the owners, who we see as using and abusing the workers who are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Blaming the immigrant for the shoddy work is like blaming the store clerk because of the price of milk.

I would be too proud to take those jobs considering my educational level. But you know, that's an unfortunate and unsubstantial generalization to make on Americans. Americans would take those jobs, if you paid them an actual wage that you could live on. They are not foolish to take them. They know better and aren't willing to be used as slave labor.

Tell me something I don't know, spaceace, about the SS# thing. In this discussion, I felt it should be brought up.



That is the point I have been trying to make-many people would take jobs these illegal immigrants take IF THEY WERE PAID A DECENT WAGE!!!! Employers don't WANT to hire legal immigrants/American citizens because they would HAVE to pay them. With illegals, they don't have to pay them and the workers can't fight them without the fear of being deported.

I understand your concern about the SS# issue-it is a VERY important issue but again, I don't think the workers are the ones to blame here-it is the people who give them the SS cards. If you are desperate and someone hands you papers that let you work, you are not going to question it. As I said before, THOSE are the people who should be behind bars, not the poor worker who is just trying to make it. And who are these people giving these workers false documentation? Personally, I think they are hired by big business so they can keep wages low and so the CEOs can have their big bucks.

Again, I think if the government cracks down on people who hire these illegal immigrants and the people who provide them with false documentation, I don't think that illegal immigrates will be such a major issue in this country. I really think that people are blaming the victims here-yes, these illegal immigrates are victims. They are victims of greed and exploitation. But the attitude is that it is their fault for being here to be exploited instead of blaming and holding those who are doing the exploiting accountable.



Cat

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070626/ts_csm/orefuge;_ylt=AtR8hepzgtJYHjNtW21rLOis0NUE

I think illegal immigrant is a "catchphrase" for people who don't like foreigners"Supposable" taking jobs away from "Red-Blooded" Americans.  Coincidentally some of these"illegals" have college degrees and had to leave their homelands because of political upheaval or war.  I believe that the mentality boarders on Nationalism in it's most negative form.

Most of the agricultural workers are AMERICANS..some people have fallen into the '(illegal)immigrants are taking the jobs because the Americans don't want to do it for that pay amount' group but it ISN'T all immigrants.

I also like the saying 'if you aren't able to ride the rides at the amusement park, would you still try to get in?'
WE MUST CLOSE THE PARK TO THE ONES WHO DID NOT ENTER PROPERLY....

Another letter on the matter(legit? well,..it's on the internet,s o who knows for sure)..:

Subject:  Orange County, California Newspaper


This is a very good letter to the editor. This woman made some good
points. For some reason, people have difficulty structuring their
arguments when arguing against supporting the currently proposed
immigration revisions. This lady made the argument pretty simple.

Newspapers simply won't publish letters to the editor which they either
deem politically incorrect (read below) or which does not agree with the
philosophy they're pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great
letter to the editor that should have been published; but, with your help it
will get published via cyberspace!

New Immigrants From: "David LaBonte"

My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC
Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to "print" it
myself by sending it out on the Internet.  Pass it along if you feel so inclined.
Dave LaBonte (signed)


Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange
County Register:

Dear Editor:

So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is
made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear
down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't
being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and
other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people
like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new
kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush
from all areas of Europe to come to the United States , people had to
get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented.
Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the
ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their
new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a
primary rule in their new American households and some even
changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a
new life and did everything in their power to help their children
assimilate into one culture.

Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws
to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had
brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity. Most of their
children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought
along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy ,
France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave
any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were
Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were
defending the United States of America as one people. When we liberated
France , no one in those villages was looking for the French-American
or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France
saw only Americans.

And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those
immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's
flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a
disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These
immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred
the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are in 2006 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the
same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing
with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and
a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's
not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants
who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than
that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations
to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching
for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used
as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statu e of Liberty , it
happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration
bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
(signed) Rosemary LaBonte

P. S. Pass this on to everyone you know!!!
KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING!!


I hope this letter gets read by millions of people all across the
nation!!



 

Immigrants illegal or not from different countries are treated different.  I suppose no one else has noticed this??? :-\\

I don't have the EXACT wording but have YOU(Spacace) or anyone else read about the country that says
if you are NOT  a citizen here you cannot work here.. along with a list of how all money goes to the country if you are caught, as well as you will be kicked out of the country if caught being there illegally?

IT TURNED OUT TO BE THE RULES OF MEXICO!

And THEY want US rights to bend for them???! We are more than kind to them so it must be others we are not treating the same... :-\\

I don't have the EXACT wording but have YOU(Spacace) or anyone else read about the country that says
if you are NOT  a citizen here you cannot work here.. along with a list of how all money goes to the country if you are caught, as well as you will be kicked out of the country if caught being there illegally?

IT TURNED OUT TO BE THE RULES OF MEXICO!

And THEY want US rights to bend for them???! We are more than kind to them so it must be others we are not treating the same... :-\\


Ummm I think you need to reword a little.  There is such a thing as a workers visa which is NOT citizenship.  Same thing goes for Mexico dearie.  So, I would think before you go jumping down my throat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like I have said before, give them green cards and union books.  At least they know how to have a rally.  The get the card, they get the book, they get the rate and pay the taxes.  Time for people at the bottom to stop fighting people at the bottom.  While everyone is at it, read up on the history of the great waves of immigration in the past.  Kinda sad how the rhetoric stays the same.  Hey Tanya, perhaps a fugitive slave law could help things out. 


And just what are the unions going to do with 12 million or so unskilled workers?  Is the union going to pay for the 5 year apprenticeship programs for each and every one of them??  Doubtful...

Are the Operating Engineers going to have room for a percentage of them???  How about the United Auto Workers??  Afl-Cio??  What would the Operating Engineers do if they suddenly got a million or so unskilled workers shoved down their throats and told to "deal with them"??

If the Unions are behind this proposal, and from doing a Google search I see some of them are...why aren't they taking a more positive action to this rather than just words??  Why don't they invite a few hundred thousand illegals to "become one of us" and make sure they take care of all the arrangements to get them certified, get their green cards, etc??

How do the unions who support this pipe dream propose to overcome the language barrier??  Send them all to english classes or will they require all existing union members to learn spanish or whatever foreign language the individual speaks??  Maybe one of the union  demands in the future be that a translator is mandatory on every job site...

And just what are the unions going to do with 12 million or so unskilled workers?  Is the union going to pay for the 5 year apprenticeship programs for each and every one of them??  Doubtful...

Are the Operating Engineers going to have room for a percentage of them???  How about the United Auto Workers??  Afl-Cio??  What would the Operating Engineers do if they suddenly got a million or so unskilled workers shoved down their throats and told to "deal with them"??

If the Unions are behind this proposal, and from doing a Google search I see some of them are...why aren't they taking a more positive action to this rather than just words??  Why don't they invite a few hundred thousand illegals to "become one of us" and make sure they take care of all the arrangements to get them certified, get their green cards, etc??

How do the unions who support this pipe dream propose to overcome the language barrier??  Send them all to english classes or will they require all existing union members to learn spanish or whatever foreign language the individual speaks??  Maybe one of the union  demands in the future be that a translator is mandatory on every job site...


The immigrants would do the same thing the non-English speaking Jews, Irish, Scottish, Poles, Germans, ad infinitum did.
Why not pick up a book and educate yourself on the past immigrants, how they came to this country, the conditions they lived under, how the same rhetoric was used against them.  That should answer all of your questions. I don't know what your heritage is, but if you have any Irish, Italian, Jewish, Spanish, Scottish, English, or any other ethnic mix, read up on what is was like for them, not the stories of the landed gentry which people for some reason choose to identify with.  Learn about the history of the working classes, and how they tend to be there own worst enemy when it comes to spouting this crap.  It is the same, and anyone who had any ancestors who came here from anywhere else in the world should be ashamed, for the arguments they spout, like the one above, are the same ones used on their ancestors.

Ummm I think you need to reword a little.  There is such a thing as a workers visa which is NOT citizenship.  Same thing goes for Mexico dearie.  So, I would think before you go jumping down my throat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


To keep my point of view straight..sorry if it sounded as if I may be against the 'documented' workers..the point I am addressing was the ILLEGALS...currently I am AGAINST the latest proposal for the AMNESTY bill and cannot see how it will be of good use...I am listening into a debate coming up which so far has so many flaws in the bill pointed out, I just hope all this exposure will encourage citizens to complain to their representatives to nix the approval.

3 other negative points to the bill include: 1) if the Govnmt. wants to deport an illegal, the illegal is provide legal assistance WITH OUR MONEY! 

2)If the illegal could prove residency by providing a 'receipt' signed by someone here to say they were here prior to the amnesty, they stay(Maybe a friend could just 'vouch' for them or a nifty computer could print one up for whatever they need)..
 
3)If they could claim a hardship that being deported would break up the family, they can stay....or the hardship of your choice...can't go back I'm afraid,can't readjust to the 'old' place of origin etc.. 

To immigrants having to 'learn' English..why not? My relatives would NOT let me speak our European tongue
or encourage it..WE WERE NOW AMERICANS!

The immigrants would do the same thing the non-English speaking Jews, Irish, Scottish, Poles, Germans, ad infinitum did.
Why not pick up a book and educate yourself on the past immigrants, how they came to this country, the conditions they lived under, how the same rhetoric was used against them.  That should answer all of your questions. I don't know what your heritage is, but if you have any Irish, Italian, Jewish, Spanish, Scottish, English, or any other ethnic mix, read up on what is was like for them, not the stories of the landed gentry which people for some reason choose to identify with.  Learn about the history of the working classes, and how they tend to be there own worst enemy when it comes to spouting this crap.  It is the same, and anyone who had any ancestors who came here from anywhere else in the world should be ashamed, for the arguments they spout, like the one above, are the same ones used on their ancestors.


Thats not the question I posed on here in my earlier post.

I asked what the unions were planning on doing with 12 million uneducated (for the most part) and unskilled (for the most part) people they want to suddenly give cards to and have them union members.

No mention made of how they plan to train them, or break the language barrier either...and to compare the situation today to 100-125 years ago when unions weren't part of our culture is apples to oranges.

A person a hundred years ago could work with their hands, because thats how the majority of work was still done, not the case today though, we have too much complex machinery and intricate details to deal with today.

And once again, if the unions (some of them) are behind this deal, why haven't they done something about it and taken the first step??

Ashamed??  I think not.

I'm pretty sure that it's not I that needs to read up on what our arriving ancestors did when they got here, because I have a pretty good idea..I also know that what they went through back then is NOT what our current bunch of illegals are going through, or demanding this country "do" for them.

I'm also pretty sure that a crappy ride here from Europe and then going through Ellis Island was a sacrifice the immigrants of the past were willing to endure for legal residency here, unlike the ones today who low crawl across the Rio Grande and just expect to hop onto the government dole....the key phrase being LEGAL residency.

low crawl across the Rio Grande

Not to take away from anything you wrote before exoslayer, but I kind of giggled at this.  I know what you meant by it, but I can picture them trying to low crawl in deep water.  ;D

Not to take away from anything you wrote before exoslayer, but I kind of giggled at this.  I know what you meant by it, but I can picture them trying to low crawl in deep water.  ;D


From what I saw of the Rio Grande, it is basically a mud pit (at least it is around Laredo).



Cat

Why not pick up a book and educate yourself on the past immigrants, how they came to this country, the conditions they lived under, how the same rhetoric was used against them. 


Perhaps this advice would (or should be) directed to those who wish to come to this country now.  Advise them to pay special attention to the chapters concerning the legal way to enter the country, how the European immigrants learned English as a language, how they pledged their allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, and how they even in many cases changed their names in order to more easily fit in...

I don't seem to recall any commentary about free health care, anchor babies and just expecting milk and honey to flow forth as an expectation of immigrants of the past...at least in any of the books I've read...or a guaranteed job for that matter....

Perhaps this advice would (or should be) directed to those who wish to come to this country now.  Advise them to pay special attention to the chapters concerning the legal way to enter the country, how the European immigrants learned English as a language, how they pledged their allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, and how they even in many cases changed their names in order to more easily fit in...

I don't seem to recall any commentary about free health care, anchor babies and just expecting milk and honey to flow forth as an expectation of immigrants of the past...at least in any of the books I've read...or a guaranteed job for that matter....


Then you haven't read enough.  The term "streets paved with gold" was taken literally by hundreds of thousands, and selling the Brooklyn Bridge to some who had plans to collect tolls wasn't a joke.  It happened.  Guaranteed jobs, absolutely.  Just as the Oakies in the dustbowl thought they would be guaranteed jobs in California, so did the immigrants coming to this country.  Desperate people grasp at hopes no matter what nationality.  The Oakies were just as vilified in California, and they were citizens.

Then you haven't read enough.  The term "streets paved with gold" was taken literally by hundreds of thousands, and selling the Brooklyn Bridge to some who had plans to collect tolls wasn't a joke.  It happened.  Guaranteed jobs, absolutely.


Yes, I know, and I also know "snake oil" duped many a person as well, but that still does not address the questions I asked earlier, does it??

Yes, I know, and I also know "snake oil" duped many a person as well, but that still does not address the questions I asked earlier, does it??


Yes.  You basically were saying that this wave of immigrants are different than the Europeans, if one delves into the history behind the problems, reasons, hopes, and realities you will find them all remarkably similar. 

Yes.  You basically were saying that this wave of immigrants are different than the Europeans, if one delves into the history behind the problems, reasons, hopes, and realities you will find them all remarkably similar. 


No doubt, but there is a major difference between standing up and being counted at someplace like Ellis Island, and sneaking in as seems to be the case in the majority of persons coming in today.  I don't question the similarities at all, but I do question the tactics used today, as I question the statements made about the Unions just giving them a free ticket and the questions I asked earlier, which I see apparently has been ignored....

Perhaps this advice would (or should be) directed to those who wish to come to this country now.  Advise them to pay special attention to the chapters concerning the legal way to enter the country, how the European immigrants learned English as a language, how they pledged their allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, and how they even in many cases changed their names in order to more easily fit in...


I wouldn't worry so much,US is loosing it's appeal to most immigrants anyway.
It's funny how when we talk about immigration,how the true colors come out,color indeed,if only those illegals were less tanned,less "loco",less "in your face" with their heritage...

If i was north european i could live and work wherever the hell i wanted to. But cause i'm kind of tanned and speak english with a funny accent,and my passport says Brazil,i should just stay in my corner of the world,right?

Follow the god damn rules if you want to come here....

USCitizenship.info is dedicated to teaching you how to become a U.S. citizen in the clearest, most accurate way possible. You will find the entire naturalization process is outlined below. Please keep in mind that depending on where and when you choose to file your application, the period of time between filling out the application and the interview to become a U.S. citizen can vary from 5 months to more than 2 years!

The Naturalization process takes time. The swearing-in ceremony for receiving the naturalization certificate will take place from 1 to 180 days after the interview, although in a few U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly known as the INS) district offices, it can take another 1 or 2 years.

The time length depends on the number of applications the U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services(formerly known as the INS) offices have in different states from people who want to become citizen. Making a mistake on your application can cast you even more time. However, using our unique services will assist you throughout the entire process—producing a flawless application. When you follow our expert advice on how to become a U.S. citizen, you can be absolutely sure that everything was filled out correctly the first time.

I wouldn't worry so much,US is loosing it's appeal to most immigrants anyway.
It's funny how when we talk about immigration,how the true colors come out,color indeed,if only those illegals were less tanned,less "loco",less "in your face" with their heritage...

If i was north european i could live and work wherever the hell i wanted to. But cause i'm kind of tanned and speak english with a funny accent,and my passport says Brazil,i should just stay in my corner of the world,right?


Close, or almost...

I could care less what country you are coming in from, and could care less what color your skin is, or what accent you have....what I care about is coming in here legally(the forgotten word in this case) and starting out as the vast majority of people from Europe did...

I find it strange that you mention "speak english with a funny accent" since the majority of immigrants coming in today don't speak english, period...

I wouldn't worry so much,US is loosing it's appeal to most immigrants anyway.
It's funny how when we talk about immigration,how the true colors come out,color indeed,if only those illegals were less tanned,less "loco",less "in your face" with their heritage...

If i was north european i could live and work wherever the hell i wanted to. But cause i'm kind of tanned and speak english with a funny accent,and my passport says Brazil,i should just stay in my corner of the world,right?



http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/happy0030.gif



Cat

No doubt, but there is a major difference between standing up and being counted at someplace like Ellis Island, and sneaking in as seems to be the case in the majority of persons coming in today.  I don't question the similarities at all, but I do question the tactics used today, as I question the statements made about the Unions just giving them a free ticket and the questions I asked earlier, which I see apparently has been ignored....


I never said anything about unions giving them a free ticket.  I said that basically tongue in cheek because of the great rallies they were able to pull off in a moments notice.  That is something sorely lacking in unions in the USA today, but you were looking for a scramble and got your panties in a wad.  I do think that every one in the USA should have some sort of union representation, but that is another story.  I don't go for all the demonizing "speak English or get the f out" crap.  Most speak better than any good ole boy off the range.  When they do, they are criticsized for the accents just because there are people who need to criticize.  I also think the reasons they are here are the same reasons that past immigrants have come here, that looking for a free ticket, welfare, all that crap happens, but it is not the majority. I don't see very much difference in the cast and character of the people coming in today, I do see the same charges being leveled against them by the descendants of people who came in the same way.  Everyone is up in arms about the "amnesty" but no one raised a stink about the Irish lottery a few years back for Irish illegals.  It was greeted with open arms, I thought it was patently unfair. What, pray tell, did you think of it?

I wouldn't worry so much,US is loosing it's appeal to most immigrants anyway.
It's funny how when we talk about immigration,how the true colors come out,color indeed,if only those illegals were less tanned,less "loco",less "in your face" with their heritage...

If i was north european i could live and work wherever the hell i wanted to. But cause i'm kind of tanned and speak english with a funny accent,and my passport says Brazil,i should just stay in my corner of the world,right?


You write English better than the majority of Americans, and you probably speak it better too. 

Did all immigrants 100 years ago enter the U.S. legally?

Did all immigrants whose names were changed or truncated volunteer for the altered appellation?

Did all immigrants 100 years ago cast off their language and culture when they became U.S. citizens?

Was the public health of our cities better when we had no social welfare programs 100 years ago?

What percentage of the "unskilled" labor force is unionized today?

Is the desperate poverty in Latin America disconnected from U.S. foreign policy?
???

Follow the god damn rules if you want to come here....

USCitizenship.info is dedicated to teaching you how to become a U.S. citizen in the clearest, most accurate way possible. You will find the entire naturalization process is outlined below. Please keep in mind that depending on where and when you choose to file your application, the period of time between filling out the application and the interview to become a U.S. citizen can vary from 5 months to more than 2 years!

The Naturalization process takes time. The swearing-in ceremony for receiving the naturalization certificate will take place from 1 to 180 days after the interview, although in a few U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly known as the INS) district offices, it can take another 1 or 2 years.

The time length depends on the number of applications the U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services(formerly known as the INS) offices have in different states from people who want to become citizen. Making a mistake on your application can cast you even more time. However, using our unique services will assist you throughout the entire process—producing a flawless application. When you follow our expert advice on how to become a U.S. citizen, you can be absolutely sure that everything was filled out correctly the first time.


Are you talking to me? i'm not interested in coming to the land of the brave and free,thank you anyway :)


Close, or almost...

I could care less what country you are coming in from, and could care less what color your skin is, or what accent you have....what I care about is coming in here legally(the forgotten word in this case) and starting out as the vast majority of people from Europe did...

I find it strange that you mention "speak english with a funny accent" since the majority of immigrants coming in today don't speak english, period...

Legally is just easier depending where you come from,though.
Don't they? I bet they speak more english than most americans speak any other language,question mark ???

Then you haven't read enough.  The term "streets paved with gold" was taken literally by hundreds of thousands, and selling the Brooklyn Bridge to some who had plans to collect tolls wasn't a joke.  It happened.  Guaranteed jobs, absolutely.  Just as the Oakies in the dustbowl thought they would be guaranteed jobs in California, so did the immigrants coming to this country.  Desperate people grasp at hopes no matter what nationality.  The Oakies were just as vilified in California, and they were citizens.


Must be the "Okies" have held a grudge:

Subject: Oklahoma no longer OK for illegal aliens


Signed by the Govenor Tuesday, June19, 2007


Subject: Oklahoma no longer OK for illegal aliens

House Bill 1804 was passed by overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate of the Oklahoma Legislature. The measure's sponsor, State Representative Randy Terrill, says the bill has four maintopical areas: it deals with identity theft; it terminates public assistance benefits to illegal's; it empowers state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws; and it punishes employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

Oklahoma is no longer "O.K." for illegal aliens, Terrill observes. "When you put everything together in context," he contends, "the bottom line is illegal aliens will not come here if there are no jobs waiting for them, they will not stay here if there is no government subsidy, and they certainly won't stay here if they know that if they ever encounter our state and local law enforcement officers, they will be physically detained until they're deported. And that's exactly what House Bill 1804 does."

The Oklahoma legislator is pleased the bill he sponsored into law was signed by Governor Henry and believes it will go a long way to curb the illegal immigration problem in the state. "I would remind people that states are separate sovereigns in our federal system," Terrill points out. "Anyone who doesn't understand that needs to go back and take an American federal government class in college," he says.

As a result of that sovereignty, the Oklahoma lawmaker insists, "we have as much right - in fact, I would argue, a responsibility - to protect our taxpayers against that sort of egregious waste, fraud and abuse as the federal government should have a responsibility to protect that international border, but doesn't do that."

Terrill says as long as the federal government refuses to do its job of protecting the international borders of the United States, states like Oklahoma must take action to deal with the problem that is costing taxpayers in the state $200 million a year in public benefits, law enforcement costs, and other resources.

Must be the "Okies" have held a grudge:

Subject: Oklahoma no longer OK for illegal aliens


Signed by the Govenor Tuesday, June19, 2007


Subject: Oklahoma no longer OK for illegal aliens

House Bill 1804 was passed by overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate of the Oklahoma Legislature. The measure's sponsor, State Representative Randy Terrill, says the bill has four maintopical areas: it deals with identity theft; it terminates public assistance benefits to illegal's; it empowers state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws; and it punishes employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

Oklahoma is no longer "O.K." for illegal aliens, Terrill observes. "When you put everything together in context," he contends, "the bottom line is illegal aliens will not come here if there are no jobs waiting for them, they will not stay here if there is no government subsidy, and they certainly won't stay here if they know that if they ever encounter our state and local law enforcement officers, they will be physically detained until they're deported. And that's exactly what House Bill 1804 does."

The Oklahoma legislator is pleased the bill he sponsored into law was signed by Governor Henry and believes it will go a long way to curb the illegal immigration problem in the state. "I would remind people that states are separate sovereigns in our federal system," Terrill points out. "Anyone who doesn't understand that needs to go back and take an American federal government class in college," he says.

As a result of that sovereignty, the Oklahoma lawmaker insists, "we have as much right - in fact, I would argue, a responsibility - to protect our taxpayers against that sort of egregious waste, fraud and abuse as the federal government should have a responsibility to protect that international border, but doesn't do that."

Terrill says as long as the federal government refuses to do its job of protecting the international borders of the United States, states like Oklahoma must take action to deal with the problem that is costing taxpayers in the state $200 million a year in public benefits, law enforcement costs, and other resources.



Where was the Oklahoma legislature during the dustbowl when people lost multigenerational homesteads, were starving to death and leaving the state in droves to become the problem of other states where they believed they would be guaranteed work?
They weren't welcome in California, but by the same token, my father who was in Fresno at the time when there was a great influx of Oakies to that area said they were also very racist and fiqured no matter how bad off they were figured "at least we aren't (add the expected euphamism)", when people of darker hues tried to help, or tried to get them to work together to make conditions better. It seems that Oklahoma isn't ok for anyone, including people from Oklahoma.

I never said anything about unions giving them a free ticket.  I said that basically tongue in cheek because of the great rallies they were able to pull off in a moments notice.  That is something sorely lacking in unions in the USA today, but you were looking for a scramble and got your panties in a wad.  I do think that every one in the USA should have some sort of union representation, but that is another story.  I don't go for all the demonizing "speak English or get the f out" crap.  Most speak better than any good ole boy off the range.  When they do, they are criticsized for the accents just because there are people who need to criticize.  I also think the reasons they are here are the same reasons that past immigrants have come here, that looking for a free ticket, welfare, all that crap happens, but it is not the majority. I don't see very much difference in the cast and character of the people coming in today, I do see the same charges being leveled against them by the descendants of people who came in the same way.  Everyone is up in arms about the "amnesty" but no one raised a stink about the Irish lottery a few years back for Irish illegals.  It was greeted with open arms, I thought it was patently unfair. What, pray tell, did you think of it?


Perhaps you did mention the unions "tongue in cheek" but when I did a quick Google search, some of the Unions are trying to get them all as card carrying members, so the questions I asked to you, since you are a union member, and since you did bring it up in the first place, was what the unions intent was to do, and for which I received no answer.

There is no doubt that they are here indeed for the same reasons as in the past, but that still does not address the tactics they've used to gain a foothold here, does it??

I'm amazed at the number of people who refuse to listen to a person who differentiates between an "illegal" immigrant and one who comes here and works through proper channels in order to become a US citizen, for some reason certain individuals on here feel that if they come here illegally or legally they should all reap the same benefits...

I don't know how much time Danoota you've spent in either Oklahoma, Texas or New Mexico, but I for one have worked and lived down there and I can tell you that the illegals don't speak english worth a damn and refuse to make the attempt.  I can also tell you that the illegals have also brought down the wages themselves, and if anybody on this forum ever feels like you'll unionize the residential home building industry, then your smoking some good stuff.  All this talk about "liiving wages" and they're the ones who are driving the wages down.  Mexican drywall crews come into an area and hang and finish drywall for .20-.23 cents per square foot...knocking out the white, licensed, established crews who have done it for years for .50-.60 cents per square foot.  Granted, the builders themselves are partly to blame for hiring them in the first place, but I watched many times down there, especially around the OKC area where if a Mexican crew wasn't hired, within a night or two, partially completed homes were vandalized, building materials were stolen or destroyed, in some cases even burned...so please don't lay all the blame on the builders hiring these crews.

I'm pretty sure that the Unions who want to assimilate all these amnesty given illegals into their ranks have no idea what to do with them all once they get them, at least no plan that will actually work with a crap unless all jobs big and small suddenly become union jobs.  I base that on what the unions did up here back when the St Lawrence Seaway was built.  When the project was underway, the unions was taking every person they could get their hands on and making them union members in order to have a  sufficient sized workforce.  That was great, until the project was completed, and then there were a few thousand card carrying union members who were locked into not working on non-union jobs, and the unions who had no work available for them, but were ready to draw and quarter the individual who dared to go work non union in order to feed his family.  I see no logical way that any union is going to bring in 12 million individuals and have sufficient work for all of them...

Unions have always puzzled me when it comes to Illegal Immigration.  And when you think about it, it is an oxymoron.  After all, we are talking about people who move into this country, and illegally take jobs away from US Citizens and those who have immigrated legally.

And in cities all across the country, the majority of "Scab Work" is going more and more often to Illegal Aliens.  Just look at the tens (if not hundreds) of non-Union construction workers that are illegals.  Look outside any Home Depot in LA and you will see hundreds of them willing to do work as long as there are "no questions asked".  If anything, this should be a serious threat to all of the people involved in construction onions.

But when you look at it in the form of "members", now it makes sense.  Sadly, Unions often are no longer looking out for the rights of their members.  They have become greedy self-serving organizations that only seek to get  as much money and power as possible.  And this corruption has even extended to the point where they are willing to put the intereest of Illegal Immigrants in front of their own members.  And why?  Simply as a way to extort more money (excuse me, "collect Union Dues").

Personally, I strongly endorse immigration.  And even "illegal immigration" does not bother me a lot.  However, my main criteria is "are these people honestly wanting to become part of the American Dream, or are they simply taking advantage of us?"

You have people which enter the country for various reasons.  Some flee oppression in other countries, some flee from extreme poverty.  Some actually have a dream of "Becomming an American".  And for people like this, I am more then willing to offer amnesty.  These are people who often make the best citizens, even better then a lot of those who were born here.

However, I have no interest in offering citizenship to those that are not willing to "give back".  Those that avoid paying taxes, but collect welfare and other forms of aid.  Those that cause problems, and then skip town before anything happens to them.  Those that forge identities, and change names as often as I change underwear.  These are not "good citizens", these are parasites.  Offer them a form of "guest worker", and send the rest back home.

And as for sending money home, so what?  If anything, that is a good thing!  Sending US currency overseas actually strengthens the value of the US Dollar.  In many areas of the world, the US Dollar is actually more desired then their own national currency.  This is because of it's stability, and worlwide worth.  You can take a $20 bill to Japan, Korea, Russia, and Hong Kong and find people that will take it.  Good luck finding many places in the US that will take the Peso, Ruble, or Yen.

And there are a handfull of countries that do not even have their own currency.  Instead, they use ours.  Panama has been an independent nation for over a Centruy, but their standard currency is still the US Dollar.  And because of this, it has one of the most stable economies in Central America.  It has never suffered the staggering inflation that Argentina did in the late 1970's and early 1980's.

So if they want to send money home, so what?  It does not harm us in any way, and does not make the dollar worth any less.  After all, if you send $5,000 to your brother in another state, does it make the currency in your own area any less valuable?  Does it hurt the economy of your home town because it is being spent "there" instead of "here"?

I am one of the strictist you would probably find when it comes to immigration.  But that is because I want it controlled, not eliminated.  And I think periodic amnesties are a good thing, because it gives us a chance to weed out the "good illegals" from the "bad illegals".  The good ones will take advantage of the chance, and become legal US Residents.  And you can round up those that did not or would not take advantage of the opertunity, and send them home.

My ex and most of her family at one time were "Illegals".  They fled up here from the "Dirty Wars", and only the father had a long-term visa (6 year work visa, the rest had 6 month visitor visas).  Because he was afraid of sending them home, he hid this fact from them for over 5 years.  He even obtained illegal Social Security cards so his daughters could get work when they got old enough.  None of this was discovered until we were assembling the paperwork needed to get married.

But there was an amnesty at the time, and my ex got her Alien Resident card within 6 munths of us getting married.  And within another 6 months, both her mom and sister were also legal residents.  None of them ever desires to go back to Argentina.  Her sister tried that about 15 years ago, and they tried to detain her there.  It was only because her husband was a US Citizen and she was 5 months pregnant that we were able to get her released.  Both are hard working honest citizens, who are proud to be living in this country.  My ex is an RN, and her sister is a bus driver in LA.  They have come a long ways from the Spanish only speaking Illegals of 25 years ago.

And I am willing to give that chance to anybody else who wants it.  But I am not interested in giving it to those that are not willing to give back in the form of good citizens.

Perhaps you did mention the unions "tongue in cheek" but when I did a quick Google search, some of the Unions are trying to get them all as card carrying members, so the questions I asked to you, since you are a union member, and since you did bring it up in the first place, was what the unions intent was to do, and for which I received no answer.

There is no doubt that they are here indeed for the same reasons as in the past, but that still does not address the tactics they've used to gain a foothold here, does it??

I'm amazed at the number of people who refuse to listen to a person who differentiates between an "illegal" immigrant and one who comes here and works through proper channels in order to become a US citizen, for some reason certain individuals on here feel that if they come here illegally or legally they should all reap the same benefits...

I don't know how much time Danoota you've spent in either Oklahoma, Texas or New Mexico, but I for one have worked and lived down there and I can tell you that the illegals don't speak english worth a damn and refuse to make the attempt.  I can also tell you that the illegals have also brought down the wages themselves, and if anybody on this forum ever feels like you'll unionize the residential home building industry, then your smoking some good stuff.  All this talk about "liiving wages" and they're the ones who are driving the wages down.  Mexican drywall crews come into an area and hang and finish drywall for .20-.23 cents per square foot...knocking out the white, licensed, established crews who have done it for years for .50-.60 cents per square foot.  Granted, the builders themselves are partly to blame for hiring them in the first place, but I watched many times down there, especially around the OKC area where if a Mexican crew wasn't hired, within a night or two, partially completed homes were vandalized, building materials were stolen or destroyed, in some cases even burned...so please don't lay all the blame on the builders hiring these crews.

I'm pretty sure that the Unions who want to assimilate all these amnesty given illegals into their ranks have no idea what to do with them all once they get them, at least no plan that will actually work with a crap unless all jobs big and small suddenly become union jobs.  I base that on what the unions did up here back when the St Lawrence Seaway was built.  When the project was underway, the unions was taking every person they could get their hands on and making them union members in order to have a  sufficient sized workforce.  That was great, until the project was completed, and then there were a few thousand card carrying union members who were locked into not working on non-union jobs, and the unions who had no work available for them, but were ready to draw and quarter the individual who dared to go work non union in order to feed his family.  I see no logical way that any union is going to bring in 12 million individuals and have sufficient work for all of them...


The wages aren't being driven down by the workers, the wages are being driven down by the people who pay the wages.  The immigrants are working for what they get, and not complaining because what good would that do.  That is a scenario that has been repeated in labor history (if you took my suggestion and studied labor history you would know that).  Vandalization for hiring the wrong crew?  They probably learned that from the history books, too.  I live in the Boston area, that tactic is just so.....Irish.  People think for some reason once they have a union card they are guaranteed work all the time.  Anyone with any sense knows that the work is cyclical and you have to be prepared for the lean times as well as the good.  The union guarantees wages and conditions that are spelled out in the book that one carries, and just as in everything else a union is only as good as its members. One union will not absorb 12 million members, (jeez I can't imagine why I should have to explain that) but Unions fight for benefits outside of the unions such as prevailing wage and safety legislation.  Companies who use and abuse immigrants without green cards take advantage of the vulnerability of the workers, which in turn threatens the gains made in the areas I mentioned above.  That is why it would be better to either enforce the immigration laws, which doesn't happen, or give the immigrants legal status so they can be represented.

The wages aren't being driven down by the workers, the wages are being driven down by the people who pay the wages.  The immigrants are working for what they get, and not complaining because what good would that do.  That is a scenario that has been repeated in labor history (if you took my suggestion and studied labor history you would know that).  Vandalization for hiring the wrong crew?  They probably learned that from the history books, too.  I live in the Boston area, that tactic is just so.....Irish.  People think for some reason once they have a union card they are guaranteed work all the time.  Anyone with any sense knows that the work is cyclical and you have to be prepared for the lean times as well as the good.  The union guarantees wages and conditions that are spelled out in the book that one carries, and just as in everything else a union is only as good as its members. One union will not absorb 12 million members, (jeez I can't imagine why I should have to explain that) but Unions fight for benefits outside of the unions such as prevailing wage and safety legislation.  Companies who use and abuse immigrants without green cards take advantage of the vulnerability of the workers, which in turn threatens the gains made in the areas I mentioned above.  That is why it would be better to either enforce the immigration laws, which doesn't happen, or give the immigrants legal status so they can be represented.



That is exactly what I have been trying to say. People want to blame the workers who are just trying to make a living instead of blaming the employers who exploit these people. And you are definitely correct that it is same thing that has happened throughout the history of this country. 

BTW, applause to you.

Modified to add:

An Error Has Occurred!
Sorry, you can't repeat a karma action without waiting 24 hours.

(Sorry)


Cat

That is exactly what I have been trying to say. People want to blame the workers who are just trying to make a living instead of blaming the employers who exploit these people. And you are definitely correct that it is same thing that has happened throughout the history of this country. 

BTW, applause to you.

Modified to add:

An Error Has Occurred!
Sorry, you can't repeat a karma action without waiting 24 hours.

(Sorry)


Cat


Thanks( I needed that) Sometimes when I say over and over that what people percieve as a new occurence is not new at all, I wonder if I am talking to that statue in my garden. The issue that is before us today, is the same issue that has occurred over and over.  The attitudes are also the same. People who are working every for a decent life are fighting other people who are doing the same.  I would say that everyone here, if they were in the shoes of the immigrants that are coming here would do the same thing(most everyone here as an ancestor who did)

The wages aren't being driven down by the workers, the wages are being driven down by the people who pay the wages.


Actually it is the other way around.  It is really a simple matter of "Supply & Demand".

At one time, good Computer Techs were rare.  There were very few people that knew and understood the new technology, and they could get away with charging almost insane fees for their work.  I clearly remember those days.  In the late 1980's, I could get away with charging $100 for making a simple house call (that was just to show up, not including the work I performed).  Network Techs were even more in demand, with fees of over $100 an hour being fairly normal.

But by the mid 1990's, there were diploma mills churning "Certified Network Engineers" out by the hundred.  And everybody and their brother was suddenly working part-time building or fixing computers.  And with this flood of people, the prices dropped sharply.  In 1994, Hughs could not get enough Desktop Techs for a roll-out project, and they were offering $25 an hour plus training to anybody who knew the basics.

In 2001, I went back to work for Hughes, but how things had changed.  Now the starting rate was only $18, and there were normally 20 applicants for every position.  Out of a class of 25 in my MCSE course, only 3 of us were able to get work in the computer field.  The market was simply flooded with techs, and the wages offered were often half of what they were just 5 years previously.

My mom went through the same problem a decade earlier.  She was a programmer, back when there were very few computer programmers.  With only a high school diploma, she was able to get incredible job offers because of her skills and experience.  But by the late 1980's, the market was saturated with programmers.  And when you have a budget of $20k, you can either hire 1 good programmer like my mom, or 4 less qualified ones.  Most companies simply choose to hire less qualified ones, with the hope that together they will get the work done faster then 1 highly skilled one.

In the last decade, the largest growth market for illegal workers has been in construction.  It is a job that is highly skilled, but can be learned quickly by almost anybody.  It is also very transitory and seasonal.  And with the large number of contractors and subcontractors, it is not hard to get work.  One guy I know has found it harder and harder to get work as a framer.  Because of his experience, he asks roughly double what the illegals are willing to work for.  And he recently told me that he is seeing more and more illegals getting into construction all the time.  Once they mostly did foundation work, laying utility lines, and the like.  Now they are doing framing, roofing, even plumbing and electrical.  And because they are willing to do the work for far less then an American, they get larger percentages of jobs.

And the illegals are also not union workers.  In fact, they really could not care less about unions.  So if some construction workers tried to strike, you can bet dollars to doughnuts that within a day, the work would be continued with illegal scabs.  And in reality, nothing short of eliminating the flood of excess workers can reverse this trend.  Only then will wages rise again in order to attract the skilled workers back.

Mexican drywall crews come into an area and hang and finish drywall for .20-.23 cents per square foot...knocking out the white, licensed, established crews who have done it for years for .50-.60 cents per square foot.  Granted, the builders themselves are partly to blame for hiring them in the first place, but I watched many times down there, especially around the OKC area where if a Mexican crew wasn't hired, within a night or two, partially completed homes were vandalized, building materials were stolen or destroyed, in some cases even burned...so please don't lay all the blame on the builders hiring these crews.

Sounds pretty bad.  What do you want the government to about it?  Anything?
???

The wages aren't being driven down by the workers, the wages are being driven down by the people who pay the wages.  The immigrants are working for what they get, and not complaining because what good would that do.  That is a scenario that has been repeated in labor history (if you took my suggestion and studied labor history you would know that).  Vandalization for hiring the wrong crew?  They probably learned that from the history books, too.  I live in the Boston area, that tactic is just so.....Irish.  People think for some reason once they have a union card they are guaranteed work all the time.  Anyone with any sense knows that the work is cyclical and you have to be prepared for the lean times as well as the good.  The union guarantees wages and conditions that are spelled out in the book that one carries, and just as in everything else a union is only as good as its members. One union will not absorb 12 million members, (jeez I can't imagine why I should have to explain that) but Unions fight for benefits outside of the unions such as prevailing wage and safety legislation.  Companies who use and abuse immigrants without green cards take advantage of the vulnerability of the workers, which in turn threatens the gains made in the areas I mentioned above.  That is why it would be better to either enforce the immigration laws, which doesn't happen, or give the immigrants legal status so they can be represented.

Remember the round-up in New Bedford?  ICE can come in and haul away 200 or so illegals only to find families torn asunder and chaos in the offing. 
When standards of living decline and labor unions have little say in the private sector, you get misery.  It reminds me of the "Grapes of Wrath." 

Perhaps unionizing all the illegals in an IWW spirit might help stabilize the situation.  If you could get white drywallers and Mexican drywallers to join together instead of fight....
Well, that's never going to happen.  God forbid people who work for a buck from either side of the Rio Grande realize they have more in common with eachother than with the corporatocracy.  No, the government-media complex will keep showing that damn fence and running stories of illegal alien drunk drivers.  They won't do a damn thing to stem the tide of illegal immigration, they'll just make sure they keep the attention off of themselves!

Did all immigrants 100 years ago enter the U.S. legally?

Did all immigrants whose names were changed or truncated volunteer for the altered appellation?

Did all immigrants 100 years ago cast off their language and culture when they became U.S. citizens?

Was the public health of our cities better when we had no social welfare programs 100 years ago?

What percentage of the "unskilled" labor force is unionized today?

Is the desperate poverty in Latin America disconnected from U.S. foreign policy?
???




Were we just as stupid 100 years ago....guess not..we learned from our mistakes, do we still have MUSKETS so we let EVERYONE carry a gun whenever and wherever...

Do we still owe 40 acres and a mule to all relatives of slaves..uh I don't think so..
:o :o

 

In the last decade, the largest growth market for illegal workers has been in construction.  It is a job that is highly skilled, but can be learned quickly by almost anybody.  It is also very transitory and seasonal.




And the illegals are also not union workers.  In fact, they really could not care less about unions.  So if some construction workers tried to strike, you can bet dollars to doughnuts that within a day, the work would be continued with illegal scabs.  And in reality, nothing short of eliminating the flood of excess workers can reverse this trend.  Only then will wages rise again in order to attract the skilled workers back.



Illegals are not union workers because you have to prove residency to get a union book, but the legal immigrants who have books are much more active than the home grown union people who in many cases got books because daddy got them for them.  Illegals don't cross picket lines, homegrowns do.

The wages aren't being driven down by the workers, the wages are being driven down by the people who pay the wages.  The immigrants are working for what they get, and not complaining because what good would that do.  That is a scenario that has been repeated in labor history (if you took my suggestion and studied labor history you would know that).  Vandalization for hiring the wrong crew?  They probably learned that from the history books, too.  I live in the Boston area, that tactic is just so.....Irish.  People think for some reason once they have a union card they are guaranteed work all the time.  Anyone with any sense knows that the work is cyclical and you have to be prepared for the lean times as well as the good.  The union guarantees wages and conditions that are spelled out in the book that one carries, and just as in everything else a union is only as good as its members. One union will not absorb 12 million members, (jeez I can't imagine why I should have to explain that) but Unions fight for benefits outside of the unions such as prevailing wage and safety legislation.  Companies who use and abuse immigrants without green cards take advantage of the vulnerability of the workers, which in turn threatens the gains made in the areas I mentioned above.  That is why it would be better to either enforce the immigration laws, which doesn't happen, or give the immigrants legal status so they can be represented.


Really??  So, the employer is to blame when approached by a crew who offers to do the job for cheaper than an established crew??  It has nothing to do with the crew that comes onto the site and offers to do the job for less??  Amazing.

What would you do if you were a builder and had 4-5 houses that needed the concrete work, framing, drywall and roofing completed?  Go with the higher bid when you could save 50-60% on the labor??  Wow....

It sounds so "Irish"??  Actually, from some of the stuff I've read about, it sounds so "Union" to me.  I guess after seeing and hearing about how the unions so rabidly squawk about crossing picket lines (and the violence/property damage that ensued), choosing union labor over non union labor, et al, the big question is..did the unions mimick the Irish or did the Irish mimick the unions ??

Union scale is paid to all employees on any job that is receiving state or federal monies regardless if they are union members or not, that is law and is regulated by certified payroll sheets to ensure compliance...so why should anybody in the trades who works on commercial projects be a union member??  Are there some people foolish enough to believe that even IF all the illegals were granted amnesty, became union members etc., that there still would not be undercutting of prices in attempts to get jobs and force out the other guy??

Are there some people foolish enough to believe that even IF all the illegals were granted amnesty, became union members etc., that there still would not be undercutting of prices in attempts to get jobs and force out the other guy??


Sure there are.  These are the same people who foolishly believe that the unions give a rats arse about the "rights of the worker".

For the most part, I have absolutely no use for unions.  I see them as nothing but greedy blood-suckers, who get rich exploiting the workers in a way that is much worse then any corporation can.  At least when you work at General Motors, they do not require you to tithe part of your earning back to the company.

And I have seen the dirty tricks that unions will do in order to get companies to unionize.  In 1991, I knew a guy that was basically put out of business because of union pressure.  He did Earthquake Retrofitting in the San Francisco area.  He had 10 employees, most of them friends and family.  But when it was found out his workers were "non-union", he suddenly had picket lines going up in front of his office.  Never mind that these people had never worked for him, and that none of his employees had a problem with him or the pay.  They started to follow them to job sites, where some delivery companies would refuse to cross the fake picket-line to drop off materials.

And it was even worse when I worked at Six Flags Magic Mountain.  This is the last non-union theme park in Southern California, and the only one where a lot of the employees are minors.  The pay was always decent for a "no experience needed" type of job.  I remember starting in 1993 at $8 an hour, well above minimum wage.  And probably half of the workers in stores were minors, 16 year old kids on their first job.

And yes, we had "Union Agitators".  They would go to these kids, and tell them to vote union, because their wage would immediately jump to $12 an hour or more.  And they would talk about the benefits of "Being Union".  I would go along behind them and let the kids know that if the park went union, they would be instantly fired.  For some reason, the Union people failed to mention that you have to be 18 to work in a union.

In short, unions no longer care about anything but getting more members.  With more members come more union dues.  And along with that comes more vacations and huge paychecks for the officers in the union.  And does anybody really think that if Illegals were allowed to join unions, that it would make things any better for the members?

No, not at all.  You will simply have even more union members fighting for the few jobs that come their way.  And you will still have illegals working as scabs for lower wages.  But instead of sending all of the money home, part of it will be sent to feed greedy union bosses here in the US.

Really??  So, the employer is to blame when approached by a crew who offers to do the job for cheaper than an established crew??  It has nothing to do with the crew that comes onto the site and offers to do the job for less??  Amazing.




Yes, if the employer is looking for a quality job the employer does his research and makes sure that the company or people performing the job are dependable, reputable, and preferably bonded.  If they just go for the cheapest than they will get what they pay for and shame on them. 



Union scale is paid to all employees on any job that is receiving state or federal monies regardless if they are union members or not, that is law and is regulated by certified payroll sheets to ensure compliance...so why should anybody in the trades who works on commercial projects be a union member??  Are there some people foolish enough to believe that even IF all the illegals were granted amnesty, became union members etc., that there still would not be undercutting of prices in attempts to get jobs and force out the other guy??


The prevailing wage comes into play on jobs that recieve government funding and applys only to wages, not benefits.  The only reason that non-union company employees receive the prevailing wage is because of unions, they can thank the unions for the extra money in their pockets.
I don't know where you have gotten the idea that I expect all the illegals granted amnesty would become union members.  I explained to you and will again... slowly,  It -was- a- tongue- in- cheek- comment.  I also think that you may be surprised to know that shoddy construction is not something new.  It is not something specific to illegals( I know hard to believe, but homegrown scams have been going as long as there has been a US of A).  To point a finger and equate undocumented aliens and shoddy workmanship is just plain wrong.

I'd give an answer to the union thing Mushroom, but that is such a whole other topic.  I will say that I know that there are lots of problems with unions.  Serious problems.  But all unions, just like all businesses are not cut of the same cloth.  You have unions run like Enron, and unions run like, well maybe like Hewlett Packard use to be, or like Stride Right, Malden Mills, or New Balanceuse to be.  There are thousands of unions in the USA some are run poorly, some run very well, it all comes down to the membership.  I know that until I got my book things chugged along, but now I have a home, food, clothes, once a year vacations, pension, annuity, health insurance, and it is looking good for a comfortable, not extravagant, but comfortable, retirement. 

I find it very interesting that the biggest employer of illegal immigrants is the government. That's right, the U.S. Government employs more illegals. That is main reason why they don't want to crack down on people who employ them.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1858019/posts



Cat

I find it very interesting that the biggest employer of illegal immigrants is the government. That's right, the U.S. Government employs more illegals. That is main reason why they don't want to crack down on people who employ them.


That is a very different classification.  The people in question are allowed to be in the country, they are simply not allowed to work.

It is totally different from the 100% undocumented aliens who have no legal right to be in the country in the first place.

That is a very different classification.  The people in question are allowed to be in the country, they are simply not allowed to work.

It is totally different from the 100% undocumented aliens who have no legal right to be in the country in the first place.



If they are not allowed to work, why is the government employing them?



Cat

Vandalization for hiring the wrong crew?  They probably learned that from the history books, too.  I live in the Boston area, that tactic is just so.....Irish.


That's OK, say anything you want about the Irish, use any stereotype against the the Irish, It's all good, but say
a tongue in cheek comment about about a women's basketball team and all hell breaks loose.  ???

That's OK, say anything you want about the Irish, use any stereotype against the the Irish, It's all good, but say
a tongue in cheek comment about about a women's basketball team and all hell breaks loose.  ???

Aye, did ye see them ginger-haired colleens?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/02/beerchug.gif

That's OK, say anything you want about the Irish, use any stereotype against the the Irish, It's all good, but say
a tongue in cheek comment about about a women's basketball team and all hell breaks loose.  ???


hmmm "nappy headed ho's(whores)" and "jigaboos"  on national radio by a major figure who engages banter with heavy weight politicos.

Comment on tactics used by an ethic group in not so big, not so small website by a person without any sponsors.....I know there must be a big difference there somewhere

I will explain that I used that reference because I am from the Boston area, and those tactics are still employed today.  Boston-Irish-Control-Union are pretty much interchangeable terms, as Max can attest. 




Aye, did ye see them ginger-haired colleens?

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/02/beerchug.gif



flashing them pretty blue eyes and smiling, felt like a kiss at the end of the rainbow

hmmm "nappy headed ho's(whores)" and "jigaboos"  on national radio by a major figure who engages banter with heavy weight politicos.

Comment on tactics used by an ethic group in not so big, not so small website by a person without any sponsors.....I know there must be a big difference there somewhere

I will explain that I used that reference because I am from the Boston area, and those tactics are still employed today.  Boston-Irish-Control-Union are pretty much interchangeable terms, as Max can attest. 




Disparaging remarks are hurtful and insensitive no matter what forum is used to get the message across. Vandalizing workplaces
sounding so Irish is an insinuation that all Irish are vandals. Vandalizing the workplace is perpetrated by union and nonunion alike,
and by all ethnicities, it is a mob mentality not an Irish one.

hmmm "nappy headed ho's(whores)" and "jigaboos"  on national radio by a major figure who engages banter with heavy weight politicos.


hmmmm, similar quotes on Top 10 songs played constantly on national radio.  Similar quotes even as far back on national TV shows like "In Living Colour".

Now excuse me while I take a break to watch a Genesis video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7q1H3VKdp0

So I guess that means we can use the term "nappy headed ho's" on this not so big, not so small website without worrying about it??

hmmmm, similar quotes on Top 10 songs played constantly on national radio.  Similar quotes even as far back on national TV shows like "In Living Colour".

Now excuse me while I take a break to watch a Genesis video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7q1H3VKdp0


It's the same old, same old...Imus makes a comment heard by thousands, and then must apologize, give up his 1st and 2nd born, and get fired and publicly immolate himeslf, and justice still is not done...Sharpton and Jackson can spew whatever filth they wish , (Tawana Brawley, Duke rape case) et al., to every news station and radio station who will shove a microphone in front of them, and never have to apologize for being wrong...

hmmm "nappy headed ho's(whores)" and "jigaboos"  on national radio by a major figure who engages banter with heavy weight politicos.

Comment on tactics used by an ethic group in not so big, not so small website by a person without any sponsors.....I know there must be a big difference there somewhere

I will explain that I used that reference because I am from the Boston area, and those tactics are still employed today.  Boston-Irish-Control-Union are pretty much interchangeable terms, as Max can attest. 


Ain't it the truth!

What made me roll my eyes about Imus is the way his turdball producer justified Don's remarks: "We make fun of everybody!"  That's what the National Lampoon used to say (you know, P.J. O'Rourke, John Hughes, et al.).  Yes, but ridicule is not egalitarian.  You have to consider the way the object of your ridicule has been treated through history.  NatLamp in the '70s used the most godawful stereotypes about African-Americans.  For instance, they ran a comic strip called "Goobers: Featuring Bad Bad Leroy Brown." 

Oh sure, P.J. O'Rourke loved to skewer his WASP classmates from Harvard....but, uh, they have all the money and run the country and have done so for 300 years!

"Tee-hee-hee, yes, yes, aren't we a goofy lot!  I say, Witherspoon, you're not going to let Cabot, Lodge, and Lowell start you at $110,000 are you?  You don't have to take that kind of abuse!"
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/tophat.gif

I remember when Imus said of NYT reporter Gwen Ifill: "Isn't the Times wonderful? It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House."

You know and I know he wouldn't have said "cleaning lady" if Gwen Ifill was white!

OH YEAH?  Well...Jesse Jackson called New York City "Hymietown" once 24 years ago!
:D

So I guess that means we can use the term "nappy headed ho's" on this not so big, not so small website without worrying about it??


The comment I made is about being so "Irish" was aimed at a union in Boston that is known as the "Irish Local" among everyone, the members of that local dub it that themselves.  It is Ironworkers Local 7, located in Southie, the most Irish of Irish enclaves, and they have been known to use this tactic up until this day, something they themselves are proud to acknowledge. The are proud of being of Irish descent, proud of being union, proud of being ironworkers, and proud of being known as the kind of guys who still will go onto a construction sight and tear it apart if the ironworkers aren't Local 7 ironworkers.
I would dare say that the ladies of the basketball team that Imus and Company slurred do not proclaim themselves "nappy-headed" or "ho's" or "jigaboos".  If you were to come to Boston and call the Local 7 guys "fighting Irish" they would clap you on the back and buy you beer and a meal at "The Quiet Man".  There is context.  By the by I don't approve of that tactic, but I tend to have a very soft spot for Local 7.

http://www.the-flag-center.com/store/images/fightinirish350px.jpg

I remember when Imus said of NYT reporter Gwen Ifill: "Isn't the Times wonderful? It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House."



The question is why Katie Couric and not Gwen Ifill,  anyone like to hazard a guess?  This so far off topic it'll take a bridge in Boston to get us back to the original discussion(just make sure Local 7 busts the rods for it or you may be in for a fight  ;D )

The question is why Katie Couric and not Gwen Ifill,  anyone like to hazard a guess? 

I remember seeing a TV pundit panel debating why Katie Couric's ratings were down the hopper.  After a few rounds of insufficient speculation, one of them--I forgot who--blurted, "Well, this the anchor chair...and...and...people would just rather see a man in the anchor chair, and that's just the way it is!"

Well, Gloria Steinem, it looks like you should have kept that gig at the Playboy Bunny club, 'coz apparently it was all for nothing!
:D

I remember seeing a TV pundit panel debating why Katie Couric's ratings were down the hopper.  After a few rounds of insufficient speculation, one of them--I forgot who--blurted, "Well, this the anchor chair...and...and...people would just rather see a man in the anchor chair, and that's just the way it is!"

Well, Gloria Steinem, it looks like you should have kept that gig at the Playboy Bunny club, 'coz apparently it was all for nothing!
:D



Man oh Man!!! ;D

I don't have the EXACT wording but have YOU(Spacace) or anyone else read about the country that says
if you are NOT  a citizen here you cannot work here.. along with a list of how all money goes to the country if you are caught, as well as you will be kicked out of the country if caught being there illegally?

IT TURNED OUT TO BE THE RULES OF MEXICO!

And THEY want US rights to bend for them???! We are more than kind to them so it must be others we are not treating the same... :-\\


   The laws of this country are set up so that it is impossible to avoid violating them.  I think the figures are that, on the average, each of us violates one every hour.  They're just bullsh*t set up by people in power to keep the rest of us in our place.  Don't get hung up on them.  They change them every time they feel like it, and it has very little to do with "right" and "wrong," and even less to do with what any of us actually wants...

   Have you noticed that the Religious Redneck Retard in the White House routinely violates the Law of the Land, the Constitution, and doesn't even bother trying to cover it up?  The Supreme Court has not upheld the Constitution since FDR began using it for toilet paper in 1933.  Eisenhower, a player in the "Republican" Conference of the Republocrat League, established the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, completing FDR's dream of making the entire 1929 Communist Party platform a reality and effectively supplanting the Constitution and turning America into a socialist worker's paradise with all laws open to subjective interpretation by those in power.  With role models like that, how can you pontificate to any individual - inside or outside the country - that the law, nonetheless, applies to him..?

  The laws of this country are set up so that it is impossible to avoid violating them.  I think the figures are that, on the average, each of us violates one every hour.  They're just bullsh*t set up by people in power to keep the rest of us in our place.  Don't get hung up on them.  They change them every time they feel like it, and it has very little to do with "right" and "wrong," and even less to do with what any of us actually wants...

  Have you noticed that the Religious Redneck Retard in the White House routinely violates the Law of the Land, the Constitution, and doesn't even bother trying to cover it up?  The Supreme Court has not upheld the Constitution since FDR began using it for toilet paper in 1933.  Eisenhower, a player in the "Republican" Conference of the Republocrat League, established the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, completing FDR's dream of making the entire 1929 Communist Party platform a reality and effectively supplanting the Constitution and turning America into a socialist worker's paradise with all laws open to subjective interpretation by those in power.  With role models like that, how can you pontificate to any individual - inside or outside the country - that the law, nonetheless, applies to him..?


Do as I say, not as I do.  Laws apply to everyone BUT us. ::)

   The laws of this country are set up so that it is impossible to avoid violating them.  I think the figures are that, on the average, each of us violates one every hour.  They're just bullsh*t set up by people in power to keep the rest of us in our place.  Don't get hung up on them.  They change them every time they feel like it, and it has very little to do with "right" and "wrong," and even less to do with what any of us actually wants...

   Have you noticed that the Religious Redneck Retard in the White House routinely violates the Law of the Land, the Constitution, and doesn't even bother trying to cover it up?  The Supreme Court has not upheld the Constitution since FDR began using it for toilet paper in 1933.  Eisenhower, a player in the "Republican" Conference of the Republocrat League, established the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, completing FDR's dream of making the entire 1929 Communist Party platform a reality and effectively supplanting the Constitution and turning America into a socialist worker's paradise with all laws open to subjective interpretation by those in power.  With role models like that, how can you pontificate to any individual - inside or outside the country - that the law, nonetheless, applies to him..?

An 18th century document unaltered was not sufficient for 20th century problems. 

If we were an agrarian society of four million souls, we wouldn't need the bureaucracy.  I hate the bureaucracy, you hate the bureaucracy, we all hate the bureaucracy.  But strip us back down to our 1790 government and I guarantee a complete and utter collapse of democracy.
At the same time, I agree with you about laws and law enforcement. 

  The laws of this country are set up so that it is impossible to avoid violating them.  I think the figures are that, on the average, each of us violates one every hour.  They're just bullsh*t set up by people in power to keep the rest of us in our place.  Don't get hung up on them.  They change them every time they feel like it, and it has very little to do with "right" and "wrong," and even less to do with what any of us actually wants...


"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris.  "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against-then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it.  You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.  There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

- One of Rand's villains, in Atlas Shrugged

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris.  "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against-then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it.  You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.  There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

- One of Rand's villains, in Atlas Shrugged


Who was Dr. Ferris in Atlas Shrugged again?  Registrar of Motor Vehicles?
:P

I mean you have egregious criminal code in which, for instance, you have to let murders out of prison to make room for pot-heads on the mandatory minimum, but there's also civil code where they can pry all sorts of money out of you via fines--such as traffic citations and vehicle registration requirements!

Who was Dr. Ferris in Atlas Shrugged again?  Registrar of Motor Vehicles?


Worse.  Director of the State Science Institute.  Rather than working to apply technology to solve the problems of greedy businessmen, suppose you believed that technology could be better applied to... well, let's just call them "non-profit ventures", for who can argue with projects undertaken not for profit, but for the common good?

Worse.  Director of the State Science Institute.   Rather than working to apply technology to solve the problems of greedy businessmen, suppose you believed that technology could be better applied to... well, let's just call them "non-profit ventures", for who can argue with projects undertaken not for profit, but for the common good?

There is no such thing as the "common good."  If it's not for profit, it can't be good!

Commie rats!

I'll give you 12 reasons.

The 12 illegal mexicans who are sitting in my county jail right now, for selling black tar heroin.

I'll give you 12 reasons.

The 12 illegal mexicans who are sitting in my county jail right now, for selling black tar heroin.


Oh please!!  Society has made them that way !!  It's not their fault, it's OUR fault !!  (Big time sarcasm implied)....

I'll give you 12 reasons.

The 12 illegal mexicans who are sitting in my county jail right now, for selling black tar heroin.


uh, oh!  Put them in the Paddywagon(tell it to Al Capone)

I'll give you 12 reasons.

The 12 illegal mexicans who are sitting in my county jail right now, for selling black tar heroin.


Why don't we just lynch them all for selling drugs that cause constipation and sluggishness.  :P

I'll give you 12 reasons.

The 12 illegal mexicans who are sitting in my county jail right now, for selling black tar heroin.

Yeah, when their customers could have bought the pure white stuff for cheaper from a decent American dealer up the block!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/01/bandit.gif

There is no such thing as the "common good."  If it's not for profit, it can't be good!
Commie rats!


In an earlier thread, you asked how the free market could provide a $50K MRI scans from a $2M MRI machine, or some such.

I posit that a free market could do so quite easily.  If you saw two patients a day, you could work five days a week, and see 400 patients a year.  The thing would pay for itself in a year at just $5K per use.  If the machine lasts five years before it's obsolete, and interest rates are 5%, you could make a pretty dang good ROI at $2000/patient.  Then dump it on the surplus market and get a new one.  (And some nonprofit can start providing 5-year-old-tech medicine to poorer patients for free in just 5 years.)

By contrast, consider all our new surveillance and weapons programmes.  That's the sort of undertaking that can only be done by a government.  For the common good.  Or our current war.  Even when there's consumer demand for a war (early 2003), a business model of using capital to build Humvees, ship  them halfway across the world, and watch them get blown up... well, short of pets.com, that sort of thing doesn't really fly in the private sector.  After the first few billion  (never mind trillion) dollars go up in smoke, someone with a better business plan shows up, buys out what's left of the company at a fire-sale price from disgruntled shareholders, fires existing management, and does something more profitable with the money. 

In an earlier thread, you asked how the free market could provide a $50K MRI scans from a $2M MRI machine, or some such.

I posit that a free market could do so quite easily.   If you saw two patients a day, you could work five days a week, and see 400 patients a year.  The thing would pay for itself in a year at just $5K per use.  If the machine lasts five years before it's obsolete, and interest rates are 5%, you could make a pretty dang good ROI at $2000/patient.  Then dump it on the surplus market and get a new one.  (And some nonprofit can start providing 5-year-old-tech medicine to poorer patients for free in just 5 years.)


I was referring more to government subsidies that allow hospitals and clinics to purchase extremely expensive equipment without killing themselves wtih massive bank loans (most hospitals run in the red as it is).  After all, the U.S. healthcare system is a blend of free market and government subsidized management.

This spurs some interesting questions I don't pretend to be able to answer off the top of my head.  Your answer is bound to be simplistic because it's one paragraph of general assumptions under ideal conditions. 

I will postpone a more detailed response until I get the necessary figures in front of me.

I would like to see a simple free market solution, but if there was one, we would have applied it by now.  That is, unless you indeed have a workable free market solution, in which case you must pack for Washington D.C. and leave tonight!
::)

An 18th century document unaltered was not sufficient for 20th century problems. 

If we were an agrarian society of four million souls, we wouldn't need the bureaucracy.  I hate the bureaucracy, you hate the bureaucracy, we all hate the bureaucracy.  But strip us back down to our 1790 government and I guarantee a complete and utter collapse of democracy.
At the same time, I agree with you about laws and law enforcement. 


   The movement has gotten so caught up in the (utterly futile) quest of trying to change the government, that I often lose track of the ramifications of the philosophy in a non-governmental context...

   To organize a society on libertarian principles, and have it actually function and survive, requires that the price we pay for freedom from the stifling, poorly crafted, inflexible order of a powerful government is tolerance of a certain disorder at the individual level.  We presume that the flaws, errors, and sorrows inherent in this disorder will, on the average, be lesser in number and degree than those of government-imposed order...

  People who give up the predictable environment provided by zoning laws are going to have to put up with neighbors they don't like and sudden fluctuations in property values. Judging from a random sample of text in any libertarian magazine, one would assume that most libertarians are male, curmudgeonly, and don't get out much.  We probably don't water our own lawns so we don't care much about property values, and we probably don't get up from our computers often enough to notice the traffic...

   If a group of us who have been living together congenially in a community don't like some interlopers who suddenly appear nearby, we might go out and tell them so.  If they choose not to cooperate because there is no zoning law to force them to, we will remind them that this is a libertarian society and that is a private road, and that we who own the road have not given them permission to disport themselves on it inside parked cars.  One party in each car is, oh, let's say a paid participant hired from the strip club, who has a strong incentive to continue plying their trade in this location without having their customers turned off by homeowners throwing rocks at trespassers on their private road...

   Eventually an uneasy but durable truce will prevail.  The strip club will build little rooms upstairs or in the back where the patrons can engage the employees in comfort and without any danger of being hit by rocks.  The homeowners will hire tough-looking guys to sit quietly on the berm between the houses and the private road (libertarians probably won't bother building sidewalks), discouraging people from doing anything there except driving.  These extra services will enrich the club, its employees, and the tough looking guys, boosting the economy and making everybody happy...

   You have to think way outside the box to successfully imagine a libertarian society.  We're so used to things like public roads that we forget they won't exist.  People will be free to form homeowners associations and maintain and patrol their own roads...

   I maintain that they must even be free to form larger communities, the size of towns, and run them any way they like.  If people want to experiment with socialism or hippie communes or ashrams or Ayn Rand-style pay-as-you-go relationships, that's their right.  This gets into some thorny issues as the towns get larger and their inhabitants find their freedom limited by circumstance, but that's a subject for another post...

   The disparaging remarks about libertarian males, like myself, are not entirely snide and not entirely my own.  My girlfriend (who votes libertarian because "somebody has to") assures me that she will never live in an actual libertarian community unless there are plenty of other women there.  Frankly I don't think I would either..!

Here we go again.  ::)  Most of these people are just trying to make a better life for themselves & their families. So, they get hired by someone willing to pay them below minimum wage and then everyone blames the person who is working and NOT the person who is unwilling to pay a decent wage.

I'm not too sure if everyone has heard about the raid at the Del Monte plant in Oregon.

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=77424-del-monte-immigration-labor

I find it interesting that they arrest the workers but NOT the people who hired them or the people who provided them with false documents. Yeah, they said the investigation is still going on but my bet is these people won't even get a slap on the wrist and it will basically be business as usual.



Cat
Okay,but to be fair,i read this article,in o i think,about this lady whose parents who came from Mexico LEGALLY.She used to be a social worker and saw first hand the abuses of the system by illegals.Like having more babies to collect more welfare,rapists and drug dealers sneaking in--she saw it all.She decided to become a border guard.

  People who give up the predictable environment provided by zoning laws are going to have to put up with neighbors they don't like and sudden fluctuations in property values. Judging from a random sample of text in any libertarian magazine, one would assume that most libertarians are male, curmudgeonly, and don't get out much.  We probably don't water our own lawns so we don't care much about property values, and we probably don't get up from our computers often enough to notice the traffic...
A libertarian is a person who wishes to be free to tell others what to do but that others be proscribed from telling him what to do.  It's an order of fascism for one.  Inevitably, what you would find in a libertarian societ are the same problems you find in a society run by Republicans, just amplifed by a factor of 10.  In a libertarian society, your liberty would be commensurate solely with the amount of money and property you own. 

   If a group of us who have been living together congenially in a community don't like some interlopers who suddenly appear nearby, we might go out and tell them so.  If they choose not to cooperate because there is no zoning law to force them to, we will remind them that this is a libertarian society and that is a private road, and that we who own the road have not given them permission to disport themselves on it inside parked cars. 
Sounds like the posh coast of Long Island, or the swanky towns of the Connecticut panhandle.  That's how they operate.  I assure you, many of them are into libertarian chic and would have nothing but contempt for the likes of you because you are not rich.


   You have to think way outside the box to successfully imagine a libertarian society.  We're so used to things like public roads that we forget they won't exist.  People will be free to form homeowners associations and maintain and patrol their own roads...
Or you could just impose an arbitrary toll for passage enforced by a machine gun-toting guerilla troop.  This would work for you swimmingly until the villagers from the next town march in with a bigger, better armed guerilla troop than yours.  You find this sort of thing in paragons of human liberty, such as Uganda and El Salvador.

Your freedom means freedom to close the road, my freedom means freedom to travel where I like.  Who shall win?  The stronger party of course!  Pretty primal, Davester!

   I maintain that they must even be free to form larger communities, the size of towns, and run them any way they like.  If people want to experiment with socialism or hippie communes or ashrams or Ayn Rand-style pay-as-you-go relationships, that's their right.  This gets into some thorny issues as the towns get larger and their inhabitants find their freedom limited by circumstance, but that's a subject for another post...
That's the sum total of the problem.  Freedom to or freedom from.  If there is no compulsary education, for instance, the Thee Temple ov Thee Acid Goddess community might go completely dysfunctional because they don't believe children should have to go to school or adults should have to work.  If they live in squalor and starvation, that's their problem, right?  How do you stop Thee Acid Temple denizens from wondering into your prosperous community and begging for change and foraging for food?  Build walls surrounded by your armed militia to shoot them on sight?  Is your community that prospers now any more "free" than their community that failed?  How much human suffering and violence is palatable to you?


   The disparaging remarks about libertarian males, like myself, are not entirely snide and not entirely my own.  My girlfriend (who votes libertarian because "somebody has to") assures me that she will never live in an actual libertarian community unless there are plenty of other women there.  Frankly I don't think I would either..!

I don't disparage libertarians per se.  I do say the libertarian vision is corrupted by what I call "business libertarians," or crypto-fascists whose goal in life is to pay no taxes and own as many guns as possible.
::)

A libertarian is a person who wishes to be free to tell others what to do but that others be proscribed from telling him what to do.  It's an order of fascism for one.  Inevitably, what you would find in a libertarian societ are the same problems you find in a society run by Republicans, just amplifed by a factor of 10.  In a libertarian society, your liberty would be commensurate solely with the amount of money and property you own. 
Sounds like the posh coast of Long Island, or the swanky towns of the Connecticut panhandle.  That's how they operate.  I assure you, many of them are into libertarian chic and would have nothing but contempt for the likes of you because you are not rich.

Or you could just impose an arbitrary toll for passage enforced by a machine gun-toting guerilla troop.  This would work for you swimmingly until the villagers from the next town march in with a bigger, better armed guerilla troop than yours.  You find this sort of thing in paragons of human liberty, such as Uganda and El Salvador.

Your freedom means freedom to close the road, my freedom means freedom to travel where I like.  Who shall win?  The stronger party of course!  Pretty primal, Davester!



    Liberals generally believe that governments can solve all of the world's economic problems by redistributing our money.  Taxes, welfare, subsidies, scholarships, affirmative action...

  Conservatives generally believe that governments can solve all of the world's moral problems by regulating our behavior.  Whom we can marry, what kind of risks we can take, what substances we can put into our bodies, what we can do in our bedrooms...

  There were lots of people who believe both of those things.  Hitler, Stalin, Mao, all of their followers.  We have various names for them: totalitarian, despotic, statist.  They're people who believed that governments can solve ALL of the world's problems by regulating EVERYTHING...

  In a Libertarian society, the poor would almost certainly have more than they do today.  A voluntary society would more efficiently provide aid and actually give the poor an opportunity to become rich.  Ironically, free societies have a more even distribution of wealth than those which try to redistribute wealth forcibly.  The reason is simple: free societies provide the best opportunities for the poor to work and grow rich.  Conversely, a highly-regulated society creates poverty by destroying jobs, especially those of the disadvantaged...

  Don't you think government regulations, meant to help the disadvantaged, create poverty for them instead?  Liberty promotes prosperity, especially for the needy.  Liberty empowers the poor with the opportunity to work and grow rich, just as penniless immigrants did in the early days of our nation...


That's the sum total of the problem.  Freedom to or freedom from.  If there is no compulsary education, for instance, the Thee Temple ov Thee Acid Goddess community might go completely dysfunctional because they don't believe children should have to go to school or adults should have to work.  If they live in squalor and starvation, that's their problem, right?  How do you stop Thee Acid Temple denizens from wondering into your prosperous community and begging for change and foraging for food?  Build walls surrounded by your armed militia to shoot them on sight?  Is your community that prospers now any more "free" than their community that failed?  How much human suffering and violence is palatable to you?



  Compulsory education laws force children and parents to consume the government's version of education-as-we-see-it whether it meets kids' needs or not.  Values are the very essence and starting point of any worthwhile education, yet politically-determined school policies foist the lowest acceptable common denominator of values upon all.  Or, worse, when influential political groups predominate schools, minorities are forced to disown their own heritage.  Compulsory education violates the fundamental of all philosophy, science, and morality - free choice.  Any child mature enough to think for him/herself can spot this hypocrisy a mile off...



I don't disparage libertarians per se.  I do say the libertarian vision is corrupted by what I call "business libertarians," or crypto-fascists whose goal in life is to pay no taxes and own as many guns as possible.
::)


  Sounds like you got hold of a leftist treatise on "Why Libertarians are Wrong."  If you'd got the conservative version it would have a totally different set of accusations.  ("Libertarians want to abolish the drug laws, make churches pay their share of the taxes, and stop giving subsidies to corporate tobacco plantations.")  Like every other philosophy, it relies on balance.  If you look at just one half of any principle it doesn't make sense groove ;) on, Maxwell...

 

 

    Liberals generally believe that governments can solve all of the world's economic problems by redistributing our money.  Taxes, welfare, subsidies, scholarships, affirmative action...
Not all, but some.  Anybody who believes he can solve all the world's problems is dangerously naive OR dangerously cynical.  Let us not forgot, the Right has no problem with "redistribution of wealth" so long as it's a reverse Robin Hood scheme.  As Jim Hightower said of the Bushies, "Never have so few done so much for so few." 

All ideas that start as good ideas in theory easily get corrupted in the political arena.  For instance, subsidized housing for the poor.  We ended up with hellscapes such as Cabrini-Green, Pruitt-Igoe, and Jordan Downs.  Libertarian ideals require a benign state that will not get into bed with big business and will not encourage industry through subsidies to move their operations out of the country. 

I believe the best anti-poverty program is a job, but that means there has to be real job opportunities that will allow a family to rise out of poverty.  The welfare department didn't close all those factories.  Workfare is a good idea, but if the best you can get with a GED is Wal-Mart sales clerk, the program is bound to fail.  Young entrepeneurs could make lots of cash selling drugs because they don't sell crack at Wal-Mart!
::)

   Conservatives generally believe that governments can solve all of the world's moral problems by regulating our behavior.  Whom we can marry, what kind of risks we can take, what substances we can put into our bodies, what we can do in our bedrooms...
But I think this belief is oversold.  Conservatives are public scolds about private behavior as a feint at blaming economic problems on the moral failings of individuals and taking the heat off the captains of industry.  Every time some preachy right-winger gets caught with his pants down people act all shocked and indignant.  It never surprises me in the least. 

Conservatives like top-down authoritarianism, especially when they're on top and talking down.  They like moral absolutism (as opposed to moral relativism) because they are going to define the absolute and tell the rest of us to obey it.  They do not need to lead by example because they can summon force.

   There were lots of people who believe both of those things.  Hitler, Stalin, Mao, all of their followers.  We have various names for them: totalitarian, despotic, statist.  They're people who believed that governments can solve ALL of the world's problems by regulating EVERYTHING...
Left or Right makes no difference once you start rounding people up and herding them into prison camps.

   In a Libertarian society, the poor would almost certainly have more than they do today.  A voluntary society would more efficiently provide aid and actually give the poor an opportunity to become rich.
"Rich" is a relative term.  I'm rich compared to most of the human race, but in America, I'm not rich at all.  I am less concerned with individual wealth than I am with collective stability.  Without the latter, the former becomes immoral and oppressive.

   Ironically, free societies have a more even distribution of wealth than those which try to redistribute wealth forcibly.  The reason is simple: free societies provide the best opportunities for the poor to work and grow rich.  Conversely, a highly-regulated society creates poverty by destroying jobs, especially those of the disadvantaged...
However, collective stability in conjunction with free enterprise creates a healthier, happier society.  Japan, Finland, and France have better "quality of life" for the average person, better overall health, better education, lower infant mortality rates, and longer life expectancy than the U.S., though they have far fewer millionaires per capita.  The United States puts corporate profit-taking before human well-being, and that fosters neither freedom nor opportunity.  If you want to kill the welfare state and foster individual entrepeneurship, you will have to use government power to do so, even though it makes your stomach turn.  Corporations believe even less in the individual than the government does.  They want obedience, not initiative. 

   Don't you think government regulations, meant to help the disadvantaged, create poverty for them instead?  Liberty promotes prosperity, especially for the needy.  Liberty empowers the poor with the opportunity to work and grow rich, just as penniless immigrants did in the early days of our nation...
In the early days of our nation, the teeming masses who arrived came as indentured servants and slaves.  Indentured servants had about a 3 to 7-year life expectancy from the time of their arrival, fairing even worse than slaves.  In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, penniless immigrants worked 14 hours a days in dangerous conditions as meat-packers, seamstresses, and factory workers, often starting as young a 9 years old.  They lived in fire-trap tenements ridden with tuberculosis, cholera, lice, and influenza.  Their unschooled children roamed the streets in rags, ate rotten residuals, and joined gangs.  Many turned to organized crime finding no other way out of poverty and powerlessness in the rigged system of so-called laissez-faire.  Milton Friedman sold the unregulated free market as a novel concept.  It wasn't. It existed in London and New York City 100 years earlier and it was a disaster for the working classes.  The welfare state post-New Deal was terribly flawed, but what preceded it was far worse.  The world has always been a f**ked up place.  I would love to join you in your faith in the innate goodness of mankind, but history does not allow me. 

   Compulsory education laws force children and parents to consume the government's version of education-as-we-see-it whether it meets kids' needs or not. 
This is a problem, but not one rich parents have to face.  Certainly, public education has serious problems, but even they are 100 times better than sending a 9-year-olds to work in coal mines because their folks don't have the bucks for private school!  BTW, a libertarian government would not need child labor laws.

Values are the very essence and starting point of any worthwhile education, yet politically-determined school policies foist the lowest acceptable common denominator of values upon all. 
The right-wing has been foisting this line of hogwash on us all for decades.  The public schools are iniquitous dens of secular progressivism.  What they really mean is they don't want poor kids to start asking why they are poor and getting the idea that George Washington was imperfect and the boss is not always right.

Or, worse, when influential political groups predominate schools, minorities are forced to disown their own heritage.  Compulsory education violates the fundamental of all philosophy, science, and morality - free choice.  Any child mature enough to think for him/herself can spot this hypocrisy a mile off...
I certainly did and I'm sure you did too.  How did you attain the ability to spot hypocrisy?  Education.  You present a circular argument here.  My father went to 12 years of pre-Vatican II catholic school---talk about shoving values down your throat--and he rejected Catholic doctrine, but he learned how to think.  My gripe with the public schools is not whether they're too liberal or too conservative, but that they do not teach young people how to think.  If you teach a child how to think, he or she can choose to accept or reject the aegis under which you tought him or her to think later in life. 

Furthermore, "free choice" is not the fundamental of ALL all philosophy, science, and morality.  I don't know where the Sam Hill you got that idea.   

   Sounds like you got hold of a leftist treatise on "Why Libertarians are Wrong."  If you'd got the conservative version it would have a totally different set of accusations.  ("Libertarians want to abolish the drug laws, make churches pay their share of the taxes, and stop giving subsidies to corporate tobacco plantations.")  Like every other philosophy, it relies on balance.  If you look at just one half of any principle it doesn't make sense
I am a philosophical liberal, not a lifestyle liberal.  Do not blindly follow tradition.  Indeed, try new things, but if the new things don't work, quit trying them!  I'm not as interested in Left or Right as I am in what works and what does not work.  I reject the "conservative" idea of supply side economics because I do not believe it works.  I reject the "liberal" idea of "no fault divorce" and "open marriages" because I do not believe they work.  I believe some libertarian ideas will work and some libertarian ideas will not work.  You seem to be selling the idea that all libertarian ideas will work so long as they are applied in a pure libertarian environment.  I turned my back on my Marxist-Leninist friends 15 years ago because they believed the same thing about Marxist-Leninism.  Idealogues want to deny the complexity of modern man.

 

Not all, but some.  Anybody who believes he can solve all the world's problems is dangerously naive OR dangerously cynical.  Let us not forgot, the Right has no problem with "redistribution of wealth" so long as it's a reverse Robin Hood scheme.  As Jim Hightower said of the Bushies, "Never have so few done so much for so few." 

All ideas that start as good ideas in theory easily get corrupted in the political arena.  For instance, subsidized housing for the poor.  We ended up with hellscapes such as Cabrini-Green, Pruitt-Igoe, and Jordan Downs.  Libertarian ideals require a benign state that will not get into bed with big business and will not encourage industry through subsidies to move their operations out of the country. 

I believe the best anti-poverty program is a job, but that means there has to be real job opportunities that will allow a family to rise out of poverty.  The welfare department didn't close all those factories.  Workfare is a good idea, but if the best you can get with a GED is Wal-Mart sales clerk, the program is bound to fail.  Young entrepeneurs could make lots of cash selling drugs because they don't sell crack at Wal-Mart!
::)



  Yeah, Max, that's the thing.  Adam Smith NEVER envisioned the concept of the corporation.  A small group of businessmen raising capital, not the honorable way, by borrowing it and pledging their homes and horses and yachts as collateral, but by selling stock certificates that they NEVER have to pay off if they don't feel like it.  Creating an "artificial person" that takes on a life of its own, with most of the rights of citizenship, few of the obligations and risks, and a whole new level of power that individuals could never achieve.  "Did the naughty corporation break a law?  Well gee, there's no way to execute it or even throw it in jail, it's only an "artificial" person.  So I guess all we can do is levy a fine...",  which it promptly passes on to its customers in the form of higher prices.  Shall we get busy and pass some new laws to curb the power of corporations?  Uh-oh, some corporations have more money than God and almost as much power.  We elect the legislators but the corporations provide the bulk of their income and therefore get to tell them what to do.  Many of them exist in multiple countries at the same time, so you can't even get hold of a piece of it to negotiate with, much less punish...

  But the "holding company," is what must have Adam Smith turning in his grave.  A corporation that exists solely for the purpose of (not producing a product or a service for us pee-ons) owning OTHER CORPORATIONS and skimming off their profits.  Remember that you (or the nice friendly corporation across the table from you) only has to own 51% of the stock of another corporation in order to have complete control over it.  Yet another corporation owns 51% of that corporation's stock, etc., etc.  By the time you get to the top of the pyramid of holding companies, you've got some twerp with an M.B.A. in Organizational Theory or something vapid like that, who actually owns less than one percent of the stock of the company you work for, and incidentally doesn't even know what your company makes or sells, but he has complete control over its operations and its future.  Oh, I've got a hot deal on a power company in Lithuania, I'll raise the cash by liquidating that little company I just bought in Indiana - heck I don't even remember its name.  You wake up the next day and not only do you not have a job but your entire town no longer has the company that employed 3/4 of its residents.  And all the people who loved the llama fiber bicycle seats you made suddenly have to settle for naugahyde...



 But I think this belief is oversold.  Conservatives are public scolds about private behavior as a feint at blaming economic problems on the moral failings of individuals and taking the heat off the captains of industry.  Every time some preachy right-winger gets caught with his pants down people act all shocked and indignant.  It never surprises me in the least. 

Conservatives like top-down authoritarianism, especially when they're on top and talking down.  They like moral absolutism (as opposed to moral relativism) because they are going to define the absolute and tell the rest of us to obey it.  They do not need to lead by example because they can summon force.
Left or Right makes no difference once you start rounding people up and herding them into prison camps.

 "Rich" is a relative term.  I'm rich compared to most of the human race, but in America, I'm not rich at all.  I am less concerned with individual wealth than I am with collective stability.  Without the latter, the former becomes immoral and oppressive.

 However, collective stability in conjunction with free enterprise creates a healthier, happier society.  Japan, Finland, and France have better "quality of life" for the average person, better overall health, better education, lower infant mortality rates, and longer life expectancy than the U.S., though they have far fewer millionaires per capita.  The United States puts corporate profit-taking before human well-being, and that fosters neither freedom nor opportunity.  If you want to kill the welfare state and foster individual entrepeneurship, you will have to use government power to do so, even though it makes your stomach turn.  Corporations believe even less in the individual than the government does.  They want obedience, not initiative.



  This "free market" economy coupled with a democratic political system have worked for us because decentralization of both economic and political power is the most efficient environment for good products and good ideas to succeed.  We have seen a frightening concentration of both economic and political power with a concomitant explosion of crappy products (e.g. Windows) and stooopid ideas (e.g. Evolution Denial)...

  You can't be a "free-market authoritarian" or a "socially liberal despot."  Today's Nanny-State "liberals" are hardly leftists.  They are authoritarians who believe that the government knows what's best for you both in your financial affairs and in your family life.  Nor are today's tax-and-spend "conservatives" (as you pointed out) true right-wingers.  They don't even maintain the illusion of a free market, the government has a stranglehold on the economy through taxation, regulation, tariffs, and immigration controls.  There is no "free market" in the U.S. or in any other major industrial nation.  All we have is a new aristocracy, consisting of corporations rather than noblemen in castles.  The result is the same.  They get what they want and we get what they want us to get... 

   

  This is a problem, but not one rich parents have to face.  Certainly, public education has serious problems, but even they are 100 times better than sending a 9-year-olds to work in coal mines because their folks don't have the bucks for private school!  BTW, a libertarian government would not need child labor laws.



      I think you're missing the point.  Is it better for children to mine coal or starve?  I know that's a tough one.  Just think about it.  Certain death vs. a pretty good chance at getting by...

  It's up to the parent to make that decision.  It's not your decision, and it's not mine.  I can understand why kids, at one point, worked in coal mines.  I also understand why in the US, the supply of and demand for child labor in the coal mining industry would be non-existent, and it’s not because of the laws that have been passed...

  I know we don’t live in a perfect world and there are no perfect solutions.  We’re offering long-term solutions that we think will create the best possible world.  There’s nothing utopic about it...

  I hope that’s satisfactory.  I would like to ask a question.  Is all child labor immoral?  Mowing lawns?  Lemonade stands?  Should farmers be allowed to use their kids in the field..?

  And while we’re at it, I have another question.  How can we best address the conditions that create the supply of and demand for child labor.  I hold that the best and only way is through the market system.  That means private enterprise coupled with voluntary charity...

  The reason the children work in such places is only because it's their best choice.  Should your magical democratic government step in to help, you will most likey find some children, indeed, having higher wages.  At this point you will pat your self on the back, oblivous to the silent majority who will neither work nor thrive, but just starve to death... 
 


I am a philosophical liberal, not a lifestyle liberal.  Do not blindly follow tradition.  Indeed, try new things, but if the new things don't work, quit trying them!  I'm not as interested in Left or Right as I am in what works and what does not work.  I reject the "conservative" idea of supply side economics because I do not believe it works.  I reject the "liberal" idea of "no fault divorce" and "open marriages" because I do not believe they work.  I believe some libertarian ideas will work and some libertarian ideas will not work.  You seem to be selling the idea that all libertarian ideas will work so long as they are applied in a pure libertarian environment.  I turned my back on my Marxist-Leninist friends 15 years ago because they believed the same thing about Marxist-Leninism.  Idealogues want to deny the complexity of modern man.



  Some of the 100% pure philosophical positions that derive from an academic libertarian point of view do seem like they might cause hardship or environmental damage, if only because the transitional period would be chaotic.  Most in the movement are pragmatic enough to leave that stuff for later, there are much more obvious win-win targets to work on now.  Like abolishing the welfare bureacracy and letting groups like the Salvation Army give about 90% of the money they collect to genuinely poor people, instead of 65% to administrators and 20% to people who are lying about being poor.  Like halting the War on Drugs, which causes more death, suffering, crime, corruption and economic loss than the drugs themselves.  Like building a society that honestly does not even notice what color each other's skins are...

Okay,bu to be fair,i ead this article,in o i think,about this lady whose parents who came from mexico LEGALLY.She used to be a social worker and saw first hand the abuses of the system by illegals.Like having more babies to collectect more welfare,rapists and drug dealers sneaking in--she saw it all.She decided to become a border guard.



You are always going to have people who abuse the system-no matter what system it is and it doesn't matter whether it be illegal immigrants, legal immigrants or natural born citizens-and especially big business and the government. To me, the biggest culprits of this mess is big business and the government. If they really wanted to stop the deluge of illegal immigrants into this country, they should punish whoever hires them. I don't mean just a $2000 fine and slap on the wrist (which I believe is punishment now), but it should be VERY harsh so people would be afraid to hire illegals. If word gets out that there are no jobs to be had, they won't come here but the fact of the matter is that there ARE jobs for people who come here illegally. Yeah, the government says that it wants to crack down on illegal immigration but the fact is that they really don't want to because it is a form of cheap labor.


Cat

   Yeah, Max, that's the thing.  Adam Smith NEVER envisioned the concept of the corporation. 
Not as the no count beast as we know it today.  Prior to the late 19th century, a corporation was a limited charter that the shareholders understood would be dissolved once the poject for which it was chartered was complete.  Abraham Lincoln envisioned what the corporate state would do to our republica, and he was right.  In Smith's day the only entity that could cause unseen human suffering for its own enrichment was the imperialist government.  Tom Paine did not call George III a "royal brute" for nothing.  The limited liability corporation empowered individuals to invest collectively in a venture, which in the early days of republic truly was liberating.  But as I always say, how quickly our liberators can become our jailers.

   You can't be a "free-market authoritarian" or a "socially liberal despot."  Today's Nanny-State "liberals" are hardly leftists.  They are authoritarians who believe that the government knows what's best for you both in your financial affairs and in your family life. 
Actually, this is more "leftist" than "liberal."  Nobody would call Fidel Castro a "liberal"! 

The welfare state was created in response to the human needs private enterprise would not and could not fulfill.  Unfortunately, power corrupts.  The centralized bureaucracies became malignant.  However, it was never the corporations that objected to the welfare state, for the welfare state allowed the corporations to behave malignantly while the taxpayers picked up the tab for the consequences of corporate recklessness.  What annoys me so much about the right-leaning populism is it bashes big government but lets big business off the hook.  The corporations have no trouble putting their expenses on the taxpayers' tab.  The Right argues--sometimes correctly--that corporations benefit the people.  However, you'd be hard pressed to tell me how the taxpayer bail out of the Savings & Loans scammers benefited anybody.  I don't think it's beneficial to the people for corporations to move their operations to China where no wage, occupational safety, or environmental standards apply.  I suppose you could call cheap and shabby throw-away products from Wal-Mart a "benefit" because now the consumer has less money to be well-crafted domestic products you can send in for repair!
::)

Nor are today's tax-and-spend "conservatives" (as you pointed out) true right-wingers.  They don't even maintain the illusion of a free market, the government has a stranglehold on the economy through taxation, regulation, tariffs, and immigration controls.  There is no "free market" in the U.S. or in any other major industrial nation.  All we have is a new aristocracy, consisting of corporations rather than noblemen in castles.  The result is the same.  They get what they want and we get what they want us to get... 
The "conservatives" practice "borrow-and-spend," which is anything but conservative.  This gives the illusion of prosperity.  It's like living the high life by maxing out your credit cards.  Is it any surprise Americans do this when we are bombarded by advertising that tells us happiness is just a purchase away and our government exercises no fiscal discipline at all? 

Not to go on too big a tangent, but these a-holes keep comparing Iraq to WWII.  Well, in the Second World War, our forebears sacrificed.  Taxes went sky high, everything from butter to gasoline was rationed, and citizens planted "victory gardens" in any parcel of soil they could spare.  When we attacked Iraq, Dubya cut taxes and told us to go shopping.  Beyond the insane fiscal policy, Dubya sent a message that we can have it all and sacrifice nothing.  My grandparents socked all their money away and bought cheap economy cars when they could easily afford Cadillacs.  My grandmother boiled every last bit of marrow for her chicken soup.  That was the ethos those who lived through the Great Depression and WWII developed. 

Discounting education, housing, and healthcare debt, the reasons so many Americans are enslaved to the man is because they happily surrender surrender their wealth to the corporations and when they have no more money, the borrow until they're in debt up to their eyeballs.  You gotta have that new SUV, don't want to look like a cheapskate in front of the neighbors!

When I was in junior high, you got ridiculed to high hell for wearing no-name attire.  You've got money.  The Nike corporation wants it and they'll say anything to get it.  13-year-old kids don't understand that and neither do 33-year-old adults. 

It's certainly not the whole reason for the corporatocracy, but it is significant.  We have corporate overlords because we fork over the money to let them become such.

    
      I think you're missing the point.  Is it better for children to mine coal or starve?  I know that's a tough one.  Just think about it.  Certain death vs. a pretty good chance at getting by...
Sometimes they mined coal and starved!  Why should I accept the choice of children either performing hard labor or dying just because some ivory tower economic theorists thinks the health and well-being of the citizenry is none of the government's business--even when we the citizens elect the government to do our bidding?  Please, this is absurd.  Perhaps I'm the one who's absurd; another victim of effete 20th century collectivism!
:D

   It's up to the parent to make that decision.  It's not your decision, and it's not mine.  I can understand why kids, at one point, worked in coal mines.  I also understand why in the US, the supply of and demand for child labor in the coal mining industry would be non-existent, and it’s not because of the laws that have been passed...
Oh, it's because consumers would realize 14-year-olds were working 14-hour shifts down the mine, so they'd tell the coal companies they'll go cold and hungry until the companies amended their practices.  Oh...wait a minute...it's because 14-year-olds don't possess the technical skill to work in nuke plants.  Hmmm.....
;)

   I know we don’t live in a perfect world and there are no perfect solutions.  We’re offering long-term solutions that we think will create the best possible world.  There’s nothing utopic about it...
Or ectopic about it for that matter...

   I hope that’s satisfactory.  I would like to ask a question.  Is all child labor immoral?  Mowing lawns?  Lemonade stands?  Should farmers be allowed to use their kids in the field..?
Now, I don't have to explain the difference between a beef rendering plant and a lemonade stand to you, do I?
;D
Child labor is immoral when it poses a significant threat to life and limb due to occupational hazards or when it threatens the future prospects of the individual because it's the factory and not the schoolhouse.

Agricultural accidents do injure and kill lots of kids every year.  I'm not ready to say the government should forbid a family farmer from allowing his 12-year-old son to work on the combine, but I wouldn't recommend it.  It's not 1850 anymore.  The family is not going to starve if they don't take the kids out of school for the harvest. 

   And while we’re at it, I have another question.  How can we best address the conditions that create the supply of and demand for child labor.  I hold that the best and only way is through the market system.  That means private enterprise coupled with voluntary charity...
This combination did not stanch the demand for child labor one and two centuries ago.  What makes you think it would do so today?
???

   The reason the children work in such places is only because it's their best choice.
"Best choice" requires three or more viable options.  When children worked in mines and factories in this country and where they still do today, I can assure you the children do not have three or more viable options.  First, it's not the child's prerogative.  Second, if a family must send the children to work or go homeless and hungry, "choice" is a meaningless concept!

  Should your magical democratic government step in to help, you will most likey find some children, indeed, having higher wages.  At this point you will pat your self on the back, oblivous to the silent majority who will neither work nor thrive, but just starve to death...   
It's not magic.  It's pragmatic and humane.  These sentences make no sense.
:-\\
 

   Some of the 100% pure philosophical positions that derive from an academic libertarian point of view do seem like they might cause hardship or environmental damage, if only because the transitional period would be chaotic. 
It wouldn't cause hardship for the chairman of the Objectivist Society and his family, you can bet your sweet azz!
Sure, Marxist-Leninist academics said the same just as smugly in 1920 and the chaotic transitional period for the Soviet Union lasted 75 years until the USSR died with a whimper and transitioned into plutocratic criminal syndacalism!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/homework.gif

Not as the no count beast as we know it today.  Prior to the late 19th century, a corporation was a limited charter that the shareholders understood would be dissolved once the poject for which it was chartered was complete.  Abraham Lincoln envisioned what the corporate state would do to our republica, and he was right.  In Smith's day the only entity that could cause unseen human suffering for its own enrichment was the imperialist government.  Tom Paine did not call George III a "royal brute" for nothing.  The limited liability corporation empowered individuals to invest collectively in a venture, which in the early days of republic truly was liberating.  But as I always say, how quickly our liberators can become our jailers.

   Quite true...

Sometimes they mined coal and starved!  Why should I accept the choice of children either performing hard labor or dying just because some ivory tower economic theorists thinks the health and well-being of the citizenry is none of the government's business--even when we the citizens elect the government to do our bidding?  Please, this is absurd.  Perhaps I'm the one who's absurd; another victim of effete 20th century collectivism!
:D

    As shocking and morally repugnant as it is, it may just a fact of life for some children.  Are we talking child labor or child abuse or shock value..?

    So similarly, isn’t the child, then, unable to choose whether he/she should attend school in lieu of working?  If a child is incapable of determining his/her own self-interest, whether that be school, manual labor, or prostitution, somebody must be charged with the responsibility of making those decisions on his/her behalf...

   I believe it to be a commonly held, and just belief that the parent(s) of the children in question ought to have the most input with regards to whether the child works, or toils.  It is defenseable from a libertarian viewpoint, as well - the parents have the greatest incentive to see that child’s existence is bettered (aside from perhaps, the child, who we have deterined is unable to rationalize his decisions.)  They also benefit from having the most complete knowledge with regards to the child/family’s specific situation.  This does not eliminate, but certainly mitigates a problem that is exacerbated by the myriad degrees of separation in any bureaucracy...

   Let the parents raise the children...

Or ectopic about it for that matter...

   Or plastopic...

   (I just made that one up...)

   People often misstate the libertarian position, I don't know why, "The solution to bad government is no government."  The position actually is, "The solution to too much government is less government."  The libertarian code is actually one that operates at the constitutional level.  The government has no right to control the behavior of its constituents so long as they don't violate the basic code...

Now, I don't have to explain the difference between a beef rendering plant and a lemonade stand to you, do I?
;D
Child labor is immoral when it poses a significant threat to life and limb due to occupational hazards or when it threatens the future prospects of the individual because it's the factory and not the schoolhouse.

Agricultural accidents do injure and kill lots of kids every year.  I'm not ready to say the government should forbid a family farmer from allowing his 12-year-old son to work on the combine, but I wouldn't recommend it.  It's not 1850 anymore.  The family is not going to starve if they don't take the kids out of school for the harvest. 

  This combination did not stanch the demand for child labor one and two centuries ago.  What makes you think it would do so today?
???

    We come from opposite assumptions regarding the family and the state. My assumption is that in general the family is the best source of advice to rely on to make such decisions as about when to work and why; and under what conditions.  I say that grossly inept parenting is the exception, and diligent honest caring and beneficial state assistance is also the exception.  I will always place my bets on the family, parents and free markets over the state, coercion, compulsion, legalized theft and violence...

   My bet is that you would help your 3 year old daughter to eventually make a better decision of when and where to work than some state bureaucrat or federal administration ever could or would.  Your assumption is that there are many inept and uncaring parents out there and that the children need state protection from these dangerous people.  I'm not with you on this assessment....

   Presently, our own government is torturing detainees and saying it is ok, and burning to death others with white phosphorus and saying that is ok.  They regularly kill civilians with bombs and bullets and call these crimes a “tragedy".  They will meddle with lives until they extinguish them.  And then they will meddle some more...

"Best choice" requires three or more viable options.  When children worked in mines and factories in this country and where they still do today, I can assure you the children do not have three or more viable options.  First, it's not the child's prerogative.  Second, if a family must send the children to work or go homeless and hungry, "choice" is a meaningless concept!
It's not magic.  It's pragmatic and humane.  These sentences make no sense.
:-\\

   Okay, I agree, given the scenario, the child has the right to private protection.  We agree on the end.  The question is means: private or state action..?

   The simple fact is that it is very unnatural (not impossible) for parents to not care for the best for their children.  There are libertarian means of dealing with unfit parents that do not involve restricting the property rights of struggling yet caring families.  The state is just not qualified for the job...

   Historically children were expected to work and their roles were societally programed as you already know.   It had little to do with what the child or the parent decided.  If you were in an agricultural society, children would work to plant and harvest food.  Aside from the farmer, the children and some hired help, there was no one else to do the work, so there was little choice.  This went on until fairly recently.  Now with mechanization and everything available cheap at the store this is no longer necessary...

   How would farm chores such as picking cotton and making canned goods keep a young person from getting a college education?  Remember that summer vacation was originally so kids could help with the harvest.  In other countries, the role of children will obviously vary according to circumstances, so it’s not one size fits all.  Anyway, what is so great about our child rearing practices?  Children in America have no immediate function, other than to be like ill behaved pets or parental projects to develop perfect humans.  Mostly they sit watching TV and getting fat.  It would be better for them if they did do some work...

You are always going to have people who abuse the system-no matter what system it is and it doesn't matter whether it be illegal immigrants, legal immigrants or natural born citizens-and especially big business and the government. To me, the biggest culprits of this mess is big business and the government. If they really wanted to stop the deluge of illegal immigrants into this country, they should punish whoever hires them. I don't mean just a $2000 fine and slap on the wrist (which I believe is punishment now), but it should be VERY harsh so people would be afraid to hire illegals. If word gets out that there are no jobs to be had, they won't come here but the fact of the matter is that there ARE jobs for people who come here illegally. Yeah, the government says that it wants to crack down on illegal immigration but the fact is that they really don't want to because it is a form of cheap labor.


Catit's true--you don't have to be foreign-born to abuse the system.But this woman's parents waited to apply legally.In the meantime,people snuck in,probably because they knew the U.s. wouldn't allow them in.Drug dealers,murderers,swindlers,wife beaters,child molesters--as well as people who had children with close relatives--they all got in before her parents.When she became a social worker,she met some of these people first hand.I can understand why she was pissed off!

Catit's true--you don't have to be foreign-born to abuse the system.But this woman's parents waited to apply legally.In the meantime,people snuck in,probably because they knew the U.s. wouldn't allow them in.Drug dealers,murderers,swindlers,wife beaters,child molesters--as well as people who had children with close relatives--they all got in before her parents.When she became a social worker,she met some of these people first hand.I can understand why she was pissed off!



Seems to me she is should aim her vitriol at the people who let this happen.  What is with lumping people who had children staying with close relatives with drug dealers, murderers, swindlers, wife beaters, and child molesters?

Seems to me she is should aim her vitriol at the people who let this happen.  What is with lumping people who had children staying with close relatives with drug dealers, murderers, swindlers, wife beaters, and child molesters?
Eeeewww---you think an adult who has kids with their 13 year old half sister or niece isn't a child molester??? :o

Eeeewww---you think an adult who has kids with their 13 year old half sister or niece isn't a child molester??? :o


I mis understood, I thought, since she already mentioned child molesters, she meant people who had children here in the states and wanted to join them

I mis understood, I thought, since she already mentioned child molesters, she meant people who had children here in the states and wanted to join them
Okay.Well,someone in the states who's mom or dad applied to come here legally would be pretty mad knowing people sneak here all the time.