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

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's what I'm calling it. I'm not focused on just our southern border - I'm concerned about both, plus the ports on the coasts. I don't think the bills only pertain to our southern border, but I do think it's rational for people to focus there because it is my understanding that more people cross the southern border illegally than the northern one.

Are you more concerned about keeping terrorists out, or about keeping people out in general? Is "border security" to you kind of a stand-in for "severely limiting the number of people we allow to come into the country, and in order to enforce that, especially on our southern border where people are coming into the country in large numbers, we need to build a Great Wall of China except twice as high and equally far down underground so it can't be tunnelled under and have people stationed every 200 feet with guns to shoot people who try to come over it"? Or is it just security as in keeping terrorists and other threats to the nation's security out of the country, but not an immigration issue?

Because if it's really about immigration, call it that, don't try to make it sound like you are only worried about it because of direct national security threats to the lives and limbs of the American people.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Boarders with metal detectors are not open.

There also has to be some order to the way our country is organized. How else do we determine who gets to vote, who pays taxes, who is entitled to government assistance, etc.

And stop playing devil's advocate.

It's pretty easy on votes. Citizens can vote. Some even do. Those who are immigrants almost always do.

On taxes, it's pretty easy, too. Anyone who is resident in the US owes taxes, legal or illegal.

Last year, there about 950 million immigrants. About 400,000 were spouses or children of US citizens, about 150,000 came in under special family preferences, about 150,000 came in for employment related reasons, and the remaining roughly quarter million came in under lotteries.

Why not just open up those lotteries to a couple million people? I'd be all in favor of it. It would be a vastly less significant immigration than any of the waves most of our families came in on, and if you want to be a stickler about government benefits, limit them to education for the first few years. But I'd have no qualms about educating a couple million immigrant kids and seeing what they can add to our economy after that.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Are you more concerned about keeping terrorists out, or about keeping people out in general? Is "border security" to you kind of a stand-in for "severely limiting the number of people we allow to come into the country, and in order to enforce that, especially on our southern border where people are coming into the country in large numbers, we need to build a Great Wall of China except twice as high and equally far down underground so it can't be tunnelled under and have people stationed every 200 feet with guns to shoot people who try to come over it"? Or is it just security as in keeping terrorists and other threats to the nation's security out of the country, but not an immigration issue?

Because if it's really about immigration, call it that, don't try to make it sound like you are only worried about it because of direct national security threats to the lives and limbs of the American people.

For me, it's first and foremost a security issue, but the immigation issue is very important as well. America was built on immigrants and needs to continue to be able to attract immigrants to this country for all sorts of purposes, especially as our population base begins to age. However, immigrants need to be assimilated, taxes collected, government assistance and benefits tracked, etc., and that cannot be done without some sort of system in place.

eta: and fuck you for what you are insinuating above.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Last year, there about 950 million immigrants. About 400,000 were spouses or children of US citizens, about 150,000 came in under special family preferences, about 150,000 came in for employment related reasons, and the remaining roughly quarter million came in under lotteries.

Why not just open up those lotteries to a couple million people? I'd be all in favor of it. It would be a vastly less significant immigration than any of the waves most of our families came in on, and if you want to be a stickler about government benefits, limit them to education for the first few years. But I'd have no qualms about educating a couple million immigrant kids and seeing what they can add to our economy after that.

I assume you mean 9.5 million or 950,000?

This is not a question or whether or not I'm in favor of immigation. It's a question of the immigration occurs and making sure those that we allow to immigrate are those that we want to immigrate.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
For me, it's first and foremost a security issue, but the immigation issue is very important as well. America was built on immigrants and needs to continue to be able to attract immigrants to this country for all sorts of purposes, especially as our population base begins to age. However, immigrants need to be assimilated, taxes collected, government assistance and benefits tracked, etc., and that cannot be done without some sort of system in place.

eta: and fuck you for what you are insinuating above.

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Brian Bilbray is your candidate? The guy whose website front page says:

• "Over the past several years I have served as a Co-Chair of the Federation for American Immigration reform (FAIR), working to convince Congress to toughen our laws against illegal immigration. We cannot wait one day longer to protect ourselves from illegal immigration and in Congress that issue will be my number one priority."

Doesn't seem like he'd be your guy, but hey.

This is a Republican district. Every Republican is running hard to the right on the immigration issue. You can't be tough enough on illegal immigration right now.

Bilbray is much better than Kaloogian. I may not agree with Bilbray a hundred percent of the time, but the only person I agree with one hundred percent of the time is a women I am trying to sleep with.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
The SAT is not a test of whether someone can read, write and do math (although all of those things are necessary to acheive above a minimum score).

At a basic level it is. While Affirmative Action has nothing to do with testing anything.

Originally posted by baltassoc It is a test of ones ability to reason, along with, at the high end, a test of one's vocabulary, with a emphasis on vocabulary common to east coast elites.

"Common to east coast elites". What exactly is an east coast elite except for a rich liberal who doesn't understand economics. This is such crap. I am sorry if the SAT doesn't contain the latest slang. Can you not see how that is not practical?

Originally posted by baltassoc I think her data is valid; at least as valid as the anecdotal evidence you present. At any rate, it would be surprising if AA admissions were able to fully keep up, at least initially.

You just contradicted yourself and her. If AA admissions are not able to keep up fully, AA is by definition not a good as a determiner of merit as the SAT, now is it?

Originally posted by baltassoc I don't see it as absurd that someone from a blue collar background, who won their place in college against tougher odds, wouldn't be more successful in life after college, nor does it seem absurd that such a person would donate more to the institution that made them what they are than someone who was otherwise advanatged and who would therefor value the contribution of their university somewhat less.

It is absurd because it is just not accurate. This women uses faulty statistical methods. Always has and I assume she always will. And even if the stats were accurate, students should be chosen based on merit and nothing else.

Originally posted by baltassoc
Can you imagine why my high school classmates who went to segregated elementary schools might disagree with you?

Why does it have to be your high school classmates that went to segregated schools? Why can't it be just anyone who went to segregated schools? Oh wait - if that weren't the case then you wouldn't get to inform us that you went to school with some kids who went to segregated elementary school. OK - well you get two gold stars for going to a school with children that suffered under segregation. We will now defer to you as the expert on this subject because "you have shared their pain".

Originally posted by baltassoc Keep a boot on someone's neck long enough, and they'll never get back up without a hand. One fucking full generation is all I ask.

Why would you even want it for ten seconds if every study has shown that affirmative action is more harmful than helpful to the group it is trying to help?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I note that if we would just annex Canada and Mexico already, we would have a much smaller border to monitor. So it turns out Spanky was correct on the Mexico annexation argument. Maybe his politician of choice in San Diego County (Riverside County?) is only on stage 2 of the larger Annex Mexico agenda.

I'd support that. Hell, no more birth certificate/passport requirement for my somewhat regular Cabo trips. Sign me up.

Being that they are our neighbor, Mexico's problems are our problems. The only way to solve the illegal immigration problem is for the Mexicos economy to grow. What is one of the quickest ways to grow an economy: integrate it with a larger more developed economy. It worked for Portugal, Spain and Ireland. Could work with Mexico.

We need to integrate our economy more closely with Mexicos, not try and cut ourselves off even more.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm a Texan first and whatever country we happen to be in second.

I thought I was going to puke when I read this. And the young nation of Texas was so accomodating to the hispanics that helped win the revolution from Mexico? Didn't I read somewhere that after the revolution the new government helped disposses all the hispanic of their land and gave that land to the Anglos.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is a Republican district. Every Republican is running hard to the right on the immigration issue. You can't be tough enough on illegal immigration right now.

Bilbray is much better than Kaloogian. I may not agree with Bilbray a hundred percent of the time, but the only person I agree with one hundred percent of the time is a women I am trying to sleep with.

A women? Are we talking orgies or something more like the Big Love arrangement?

I've read some of your arguments on this here board, and I'm glad you didn't try to claim that you agreed with yourself 100% of the time.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
I thought I was going to puke when I read this. And the young nation of Texas was so accomodating to the hispanics that helped win the revolution from Mexico? Didn't I read somewhere that after the revolution the new government helped disposses all the hispanic of their land and gave that land to the Anglos.

Why thank you, I never knew that the entire history of the state can be generalized in the 11 years it was an independent nation.

That particular war was about slavery, in part, as well. Didn't you want to highlight that? Or maybe the part where we seceded from the United States. Again, because of slavery? Or how the new state of Texas would levy taxes in English, in Austin, on Hispanics in South Texas and then sieze the land for failure to pay taxes that no one had ever heard of? Or maybe the part about the Spanish slaughtering Indians wholesale? Or the part where the Texas Rangers used to shoot Hispanics for sport? Or the part about the Jim Crow laws and segregation that balt was talking about earlier? The ones that lasted until the mid-80s.

I know much, much more about the history of Texas than you ever will, including the godawful things. My family has been here since 1753. They haven't managed to kick us out yet, no matter how much they try. The only country that's dispossessed my family of land was Mexico in 1936, when Cardenas repatraited any property owned by foreigners, including 300,000 acres on the other side of the river owned by my great-grandfather, an American citizen.

If I had said the same thing about the US, you wouldn't have batted an eye, even though the US hasn't particularly been kind to Hispanic people in it's history.

Seems to me that this whole debate is based, in part, in the sudden horror some people have that parts of this country aren't going to be Anglo dominated in less than half a century. There's no majority ethnicity in Texas right now. I suspect that'll change by 2020, and those kids walking out of school right now are the ones that will be taking over.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I assume you mean 9.5 million or 950,000?

This is not a question or whether or not I'm in favor of immigation. It's a question of the immigration occurs and making sure those that we allow to immigrate are those that we want to immigrate.

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.

[baltassoc]

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.

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).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb


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.

OK, so Fringey already made my point. I wonk'd.

But to get back to basics, Clubby, just who is it you want to let in and keep out? And remember, so far the terrorists who don't come from Michigan seem to be satisfied with non-immigrant visas rather than immigrant visas. Somehow, you don't need a long term visa if you're going to engage in a suicide attack.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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).

I was reacting to the statement and what it usually translates to; I'll let Clubby tell us himself what he means.