The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Fuck you back. How does whatever bill you are talking about strengthen border security? Because it seems like the bill that people are strongly protesting is one that makes employing or giving any aid to immigrants a FELONY. The bill that people high up in the Roman Catholic church have said they will instruct their people to ignore, if it becomes law. I don't see how that is strengthening the security of our borders. And that is the bill that RT was talking about -- the bill that has sparked huge protests.

If you are talking about a different bill, please provide details on it, and how it makes our nation more secure. Is it that you support Brian Billbray (or whatever his name is) and you are all defensive on this?

ETA saying "make sure that the ones who get in are ones we want" really does not make you sound good. I'm not saying (and I don't really think) that you (consciously) think what many people would think you were saying, but it sounds like you are a racist fuck. Or classist. Really, probably both, but with an assumption that people of some races are not the class we would want, until they prove that they actually come from quite an aristocratic family and went to Harvard.

EATA this started because Spanky was in favor of the Bilbray guy. Someone said, I'm surprised you like him, his take on immigration seems different from yours. RT talked about the walkouts, which are in reaction to a particular bill that is very punitive. You responded, oh, you aren't into border security?

To me, the punitive House bill and this type of stuff http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer...pdf?docID=681, which is what the organization Bilbray is co-chair of (which seems to be something he thinks is a big point for him) are not really about Homeland Security. They are about different issues. And calling it a "security" issue is disingenuous and really the only reason I can see for doing it is that then you can say that people who oppose you want America to be weaker and, really, can't be distinguished from terrorists.

If you can't understand it, you're more of a complete fucking idiot than I've thought all these years.

Do me a favor, stop responding to my posts and stop insinuating that I'm a racist, classist, etc. I'll do the same and we can all live happily ever after.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
950,000. What's a few zeros among friends?

Who do you want to immigrate?

I have a knee-jerk reaction to that statement because it usually translates into "we'll take Europeans but not those dark-skinned people". I say give us the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and lift our lamp to the homeless and tempest-tossed.

If you look here , you'll find a treasure trove of statistics on immigration. Basically, we're letting in raw numbers today comparable to those we let in 100 years ago, even though our population is four times greater. We've pulled up the ladder.

It's more a question of who I don't want to immigrate. I really don't want "bad" people here. Pretty simple.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I don't think this is a fair assumption based on Club's past posts.

But I think he'd probably prefer highly educated people (regardless of race) with skills sets that are needed in the country over people with no resources and no skills (regardless of race).

Thanks for getting my back. This is partially true, but I also would put a premium on those that want to become Americans because of our ideals, rather than those that want to be here for convenience because they can make more money here.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's more a question of who I don't want to immigrate. I really don't want "bad" people here. Pretty simple.

Do you think we have been letting "bad" people immigrate? Where's the problem we're trying to fix, and what solution are we talking about to that problem?

Again, the terrorists on 9/11 came in on student and tourist visas, not immigrant visas. And I'm not sure why future terrorists would bother with an immigrant visa, since they are hard to get and have a big crapshoot element to them, as long as we're pretty open with student visas and give out tourist visas with ease.

Connecting immigration and terrorism seems to be about as easy as linking Sadaam to a.Q.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Do you think we have been letting "bad" people immigrate? Where's the problem we're trying to fix, and what solution are we talking about to that problem?

Again, the terrorists on 9/11 came in on student and tourist visas, not immigrant visas. And I'm not sure why future terrorists would bother with an immigrant visa, since they are hard to get and have a big crapshoot element to them, as long as we're pretty open with student visas and give out tourist visas with ease.

Connecting immigration and terrorism seems to be about as easy as linking Sadaam to a.Q.

By "letting" I'm assuming you mean not inforcing our borders. And the answer is yes. I'm don't recall the exact statistic, but at least in CA there is a high percentage of illegals in our prison system (for crimes other than being illegals). It may not be a greater percentage than the general population as a whole, but it is something that could be curtailed if there was a diligent system in place.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
By "letting" I'm assuming you mean not inforcing our borders. And the answer is yes. I'm don't recall the exact statistic, but at least in CA there is a high percentage of illegals in our prison system (for crimes other than being illegals). It may not be a greater percentage than the general population as a whole, but it is something that could be curtailed if there was a diligent system in place.

It seems to me that the costs of immigration are factored in without the benefits. I read a study a few weeks ago that stated that 5% of the workforce in the US are undocumented aliens. They're actively contributing to the economy, including paying taxes for the prison system. Aggressively arresting them and their employers, solely because of their undocumented status will have a massive impact on the economy.

The study did not examine income among illegal immigrants. But it did find that that among males who are not authorized to work here, 94 percent had jobs, compared with 83 percent for native-born American men.

The study found a large number of illegal immigrants in certain sectors: Twenty-four percent of all farming jobs are held by people who are not authorized to work in the United States, while such workers hold 17 percent of jobs in cleaning, 14 percent in construction and 12 percent in food preparation. Whereas 16 percent of native-born American workers toil in service jobs, 31 percent of the undocumented workers do, the study found.

That bill in the House wants to arrest of 24% of the people who farm, and probably every single farmer in the United States as well. Has anyone bothered to explain how that work will get done while we're kicking 12 million productive people out of the country? 94% of the undocumented men have jobs.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I also would put a premium on those that want to become Americans because of our ideals, rather than those that want to be here for convenience because they can make more money here.

Must make for an interesting questionnaire.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
By "letting" I'm assuming you mean not inforcing our borders. And the answer is yes. I'm don't recall the exact statistic, but at least in CA there is a high percentage of illegals in our prison system (for crimes other than being illegals). It may not be a greater percentage than the general population as a whole, but it is something that could be curtailed if there was a diligent system in place.

I'm more focused on legal immigration because it's what we can regulate. I also think the heavy restrictions on legal immigration are part of what create illegal immigration - if we let more people in the front door, we'd have an easier time controlling the back door.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Thanks for getting my back. This is partially true, but I also would put a premium on those that want to become Americans because of our ideals, rather than those that want to be here for convenience because they can make more money here.

Clearly, we're a capitalist democracy, and making more money is a fundamental part of our ideals. That having been said, I suspect you'd find most immigrants from Asia and America having huge respect for our Democratic institutions.

In terms of numbers, can I count you in on raising legal immigration from 1 million to 3 million over the next few years, just because it's the right thing to do? And we'll ask them all their views on the constitution on the way in?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Must make for an interesting questionnaire.

Whatever the questionairre is, I'd like to have all Presidential candidates and top members of the administration in DC fill out the same one.

I'd bet we'd be kicking Rumsfeld's ass all the way to China after reading his.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Clearly, we're a capitalist democracy, and making more money is a fundamental part of our ideals. That having been said, I suspect you'd find most immigrants from Asia and America having huge respect for our Democratic institutions.

In terms of numbers, can I count you in on raising legal immigration from 1 million to 3 million over the next few years, just because it's the right thing to do? And we'll ask them all their views on the constitution on the way in?

That FAIR place that Spanky's (and club's? not clear -- he still won't say exactly WHAT it is that he's in favor of, or if he supports the candidate, or anything really other than "I don't want 'bad' people to come in" which is kinda a tautology) candidate is co-chair of wants to push it down to like 800k or lower.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Thanks for getting my back. This is partially true, but I also would put a premium on those that want to become Americans because of our ideals, rather than those that want to be here for convenience because they can make more money here.

Isn't freedom to work (i.e., make more money) part of our ideals?

I mean this seriously. The ability to make more money -- to work hard, and to keep the fruits of your labor -- is an inherent part of the ideal of freedom.

And even if you could separate the two, I suspect a whole lot more immigrants to the US over the course of history came here for the ability to make more money than did purely for other freedoms.

Sure, there are the Pilgrims, Puritans, and Hugenots, but the belief that America was the "Land of opportunity," with "streets paved with gold" attracted untold numbers.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
By "letting" I'm assuming you mean not inforcing our borders. And the answer is yes. I'm don't recall the exact statistic, but at least in CA there is a high percentage of illegals in our prison system (for crimes other than being illegals). It may not be a greater percentage than the general population as a whole, but it is something that could be curtailed if there was a diligent system in place.

This is true, but I would rather see our efforts and resources devoted to preventing and punishing crime (of the non-immigration variety) than to rounding up and deporting 12 million people, the vast, vast majority of whom abide the laws, work hard, and pay taxes.

And in any event, the alternative Senate bill, which would allow an "amnesty" (though far less generous than the 1986 amnesty program) would address your concern too; people who'd committed other crimes would not be eligible.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Isn't freedom to work (i.e., make more money) part of our ideals?

I mean this seriously. The ability to make more money -- to work hard, and to keep the fruits of your labor -- is an inherent part of the ideal of freedom.

And even if you could separate the two, I suspect a whole lot more immigrants to the US over the course of history came here for the ability to make more money than did purely for other freedoms.

Sure, there are the Pilgrims, Puritans, and Hugenots, but the belief that America was the "Land of opportunity," with "streets paved with gold" attracted untold numbers.

"34. What do you think of the works of Francis Fukuyama?

(a) Great American Writer
(b) Best American Writer

35. Same question, but as applied to the works of Charles Krauthammer."

[taxwonk]

He's not a racist. He's perhaps a bit of a classist, but no more so than many of us here, whether conscious of the fact or not. I can see his point, although I don'tagree that the bill currently under discussion does much of anything to increase the security of our borders.

What Club has failed to address is that the people coming in to the US to do harm come through legal channels. We have done virtually nothing to secure our ports, railroads, and highways. Of course, the main question is how we can secure the ports, etc. without massive infringments on the rights of all the people and property coming through.

It's a Catch-22, and Club's frustration has led him inot a corner he really doesn't belong in.