Re: Fuck the immigrants!

The real reason for immigration is over population. Way back in the 70s
there was a "Zero Population Growth" attitude but that fell by the wayside
as employers demanded cheaper wages and those desperate to escape the
poverty of overpopulated countries pushed northward. They were welcomed by
many who were too greedy to pay fair wages to americans. The "middle class"
that was created by the labor union movement of the 30s to 50s began to
disappear after Reagan anniolated the Unions by his punative action against
the air traffic controlers. Labor was effectively casterated, opening up
opportunities for greed at the top, golden parachutes, inside traders,
savings and loan scandals, enron etc. To end the massive influx of desperate
workers populations must be brought under control. The Roman Catholic Church
is a major offender and we are having to deal with their failed policies,
That's the bottom line.
"Gerhard Fiedler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You would have made it easier if you hadn't posted in HTML. So here it
> goes...
>
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:57:40 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> >What I mean is that often it is easy to find a law that is being
> >violated so that you can ask for proper ID. For example, jaywalking.<br>
>
> I think that's exactly what police shouldn't do: use e.g. jaywalking
> to target people they don't like, like for example that guy who seemed
> to smile at his sister the other day in the park...
>
> ><blockquote type="cite"
> > cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]">In the aftermath
> >of the fall of the USSR, there was a huge possibility for the USA to
> >become the leader in democratization of the world. </blockquote>
> >Ah... we are...<br>
>
> Only within the USA, which doesn't count for much towards the
> credentials of being the leader of the _world_ (which, other than in
> the "World Series" actually includes the rest of the world). These
> must be earned internationally -- and the USA is not much of a leader
> currently. Definitely not in democratization. Or can you cite a
> significant portion of foreign opinions that would give the USA
> significant credentials in this area? After 50+ years of heavy support
> for almost every right-wing fascist dictator on the planet?
>
>
> > cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]">But instead, the
> >USA proved to be one of the major obstacles to more democratization of
> >the international sphere, together with China and a bunch of rogue
> >states.<br>
> ></blockquote>
> >Actually democracy in it's true form is a wolf and a rabbit deciding
> >what to have for dinner! We are a representative rebpulic...<br>
>
> Well, I've got news for you. A representative republic _is_ a
> democracy. It seems even the (republican) president agrees with me on
> that; or how would you explain the fact that he want to "bring
> democracy to Iraq"? He didn't say that he wants to bring a republic to
> Iraq :)
>
> I sometimes get the feeling that some Republicans can't swallow that a
> republic is a democracy, only because their major opponents are the
> Democrats :))
>
> >But immigration is not a phenomena that is indepedent of national
laws.<br>
>
> That's where you just don't see the real causes. The reasons why the
> immigration pressure is so high are largely independent of the US
> laws,
>
> >Nonsense.<br>
>
> Now this response is so full of good arguments that I rest my case.
>
> >If you look at the American model it is not the responsibility of the
> >rich to provide the poor anything, nor should it be.<br>
>
> Now look again, a bit closer. There are many elements in the US laws
> that have an equalizing effect.
>
> But I didn't say that it was the responsibility to provide anything.
> Maybe you take a class in text interpretation. Yours seems to lack
> sometimes, or maybe you just want to make an argument, no matter what
> I wrote.
>
> I said that in the end, that's a lot cheaper and much more effective
> than to try to fight the tide. But it seems you want to go the
> stubborn way. Your right, of course.
>
> >I'm not sure I would agree with that. This is an immigration group
> >about family based visas. I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that the
> >poster is the citizen inquiring on behave of their foriegn spouse or
> >spouse to be.<br>
>
> Actually, I'm responding in alt.visa.us, to where you crossposted.
> This is the full list of newsgroups to where this thread went (and
> continues to go): misc.immigration.misc, alt.visa.us.marriage-based,
> alt.visa.us, misc.immigration.usa. Only one is about marriage-based
> visa. That brings your percentage way down.
>
> >You seem to think that we should do more on provention, that we should
> >shift resources there. It'd be more efficient.
>
> At least start thinking about the huge importance of it. Yes.
>
> >Currently enforcement
> >(as I see it - the actual enforcing of the laws against current
> >violators that is) is failing as more and more illegals come into the
> >country.
>
> Agreed. That's exactly why I think that prevention (working on the
> real causes) is so much more important.
>
> >Seems to me that if you shift resources away from enforcing
> >the law against current violators you will be allowing more people to
> >be in violation of the law.
>
> Probably, until the prevention effect kicks in. Sometimes you have to
> take a step back in order to solve an issue. Of course you can go
> ahead and try to fix the symptoms without solving it, but there will
> often come a point where this won't work anymore
>
> >In my book that means that you're taking a
> >stance of more relaxed enforcement of current violators which I take to
> >me that you don't think the current laws should be enforced.
>
> That's taken out of context. I think spending more resources on
> prevention is essential, but I think that all the (remaining)
> available resources should continue with what you call law
> enforcement.
>
> >And your
> >crack that you thought it was funny that the INS "forgot" to pick up a
> >current violator says to me that you think it a joke to enforce the law
> >against a current violator. No you didn't say it directly but you
> >certainly are implying it.<br>
>
> Come on, lighten up. There are things that can only be taken with
> humor, or you lose it. (Have you lost it already? :)
>
> >Then let's round up the current violators and prosecute them so that we
> >can experience the strong detterent effect!<br>
>
> Again: how do you propose to "round them up" with the available
> resources (well, and laws, since enforcing them is the objective)?
>
> >Listening to talk radio I heard of a program called Operation Wetback
> >that the INS ran in the '50's where they rounded up many illegals and
> >processed them. The program was very successful. Why then are we not
> >doing such operations anymore?<br>
>
> Maybe you should follow up your talk radio sessions with some research
> of your own. Here's a historian's account of what happened then:
>
> "... adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on
> the street and asking for identification. This practice incited and
> angered many U.S. citizens who were of Mexican American descent.
> Opponents in both the United States and Mexico complained of
> "police-state" methods, and Operation Wetback was abandoned"
>
> This operation seemed to have been based on illegal practices, which
> ultimately was the reason why it got abandoned. So why would you, of
> all, propose this as a solution? Isn't your objective to uphold the
> law? Or is it only the immigration law that you want to uphold? Or
> uphold the law only insofar the person to be protected by it doesn't
> "look Mexican"?
>
> >Nor do you.<br>
>
> But I don't ask you why I'm doing this :)
>
> ><!---->IMO as long as the business owner doesn't hire the guy, I don't
> >think he should be compelled to turn that person in (and I believe I
> >said so earlier). I don't even think he could, because he doesn't know
> >whether that person is illegal. He just doesn't have proof that the
> >person is legal (which is something different).<br>
> ></blockquote>
> >But it would be efficient! <span class="moz-smiley-s3"><span> ;-)
</span></span><br>
>
> What would be efficient? At that point, there is not yet an illegal.
> There is only a person who didn't provide -- for whatever reason --
> the necessary documentation to get the job. That's not a crime, nor
> another type of violation of any law.
>
> ><!---->There are legal residents without a work permit. They are in
> >most states not only entitled to one, they are required to get a DL.
</blockquote>
> >Nobody is <b>required</b> to get a DL.<br>
>
> "...required to get one to drive," I should add. Tourists in most
> cases are allowed to drive with their home country license.
>
> >Ah but DLs can give about the appearance to most people that everything
> >is legit.<br>
>
> Exactly my point. The non-existence of a federal ID is a real problem
> for immigration issues.
>
> > cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]">(Which is not
> >meant ot say that I think completely illegal immigrants should be
> >allowed to get DLs.)<br>
> ></blockquote>
> >Completely illegal immigrants?!? What are they? Is that anything like
> >sorta pregnant! Either your an illegal immigratnt or your legal
> >immigrant.<br>
>
> There are immigrants that are working illegally, but otherwise are
> legal. There are other immigrants that are completely illegal (and of
> those there are still at least two categories that the law
> distinguishes: the overstayers and the ones who came in illegally).
> Since your objective is to uphold the law, you should really take more
> care in looking at it.
>
> >How do illegal immigrants get a SSN?<br>
> ></blockquote>
> >You get the SSN illegally. Or you get it legally then become an illegal
> >immigrant (overstay, criminal conviction, etc...)<br>
>
> ?? How can I get a SSN illegally? Don't get SSNs automatically
> canceled (or marked) after visa expiration, convictions, etc.?
>
> >Further you stated that employers should not be compelled to turn
> >in illegals because have no way of knowing that they are indeed
> >illegal.
>
> They have no way of knowing before they hire them. After they hired
> them without requiring a proper SSN, for example, the employer has
> done something illegal.
>
> >Here you stated that people knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
> >How can both of these statements be considered a consistent viewpoint?
> >They can't. And you're attempting to sing and dance your way out of
> >this inconsistency.<br>
>
> Thanks for the compliment! (Idon't consider myself a good dancer, but
> any compliment makes me happy.) There is no inconsistency. After I
> hire somebody who wouldn't give me a SSN, I pretty much know that
> there's something wrong. And go on accepting (and possibly knowingly
> making a profit out of) that.
>
>
> >A federal ID will be as forgable as any other document.<br>
>
> Hum... Are you saying we should abandon any type of ID and DL and
> passport and money due to it being forgeable?
>
> Why do we go through the effort to check all those forgeable passports
> at the border, even make the decision whether to let that person in or
> not based on that forgeable passport?
>
> ><!---->private firearms:<br>
> >US: 200+ million, ~0.7 arms/person<br>
> >Germany: ~20 million, ~0.2 arms/person<br>
> >  <br>
> >That's what I'm talking about. Pure numbers. I don't need to actually
> >see them. </blockquote>
> >I submit than many (most) gun owners have multiple guns. <br>
>
> Those 200+ million firearms in the US are owned by 60+ million owners.
> That leaves enough room to claim that nobody in CA owns any of them...
> :)  But not really plausible.
>
> > cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]">As a side note:
> >it was here in the USA when I first saw a gun on the street, after 25
> >years in Germany without that experience. (And it was aimed at me, but
> >that is a different story... :)<br>
> ></blockquote>
> >Who was aiming it?<br>
>
> Police. I've had had some encounters with law enforcement before (like
> traffic checks, or terrorism related "events" in the 80ies), but never
> really had to face a gun. Police in Germany don't usually do this.
>
> Here I was sitting on the porch of an empty house somewhere in the LA
> area, getting ready for the night (something really common in Europe,
> I've done it countless times in many countries over there), when a
> police car stopped, a really bright spot was pointed at me, and two
> police officers stepped out. One remained at the car, with some kind
> of big gun aimed at me, the other came slowly towards me with his
> handgun ready to fire. I didn't feel too well... But after some
> document checking and a short conversation, they were convinced that I
> was harmless, and just told me to leave and not to do this here
> anymore. Which I did :)
>
>
> >homicides per year per 100k habitants<br>
> >US: approx 5 <br>
> >Germany: approx 1<br>
> ></blockquote>
> >All gun homicides? You don't need a gun to kill somebody.<br>
>
> No, not all gun homicides. But if you take the gun-related deaths, the
> difference is more pronounced still. (I'm just too lazy now to look it
> up, but it is a known fact.)
>
> ><blockquote type="cite"
> > cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]">prisoners per
> >100k habitants:<br>
> >US: about 600 <br>
> >Germany: about 100 <br>
>
> The point is that the US has more serious crimes and more prisoners.
> It seems that putting people in prison is not really the most
> efficient way to get the numbers down. Maybe look at some other
> countries, how they manage to get the lower crime (and prison
> population) rates. It is IMO a real possibility that somebody in the
> US could learn something from somebody from somewhere else. A
> revolutionaly concept for some, but a real one.
>
>
> >And you didn't answer the question about your claim that American's use
> >guns to do everything.
>
> You are right -- they don't poke their nose with guns, to my
> knowledge.
>
> >You didn't name one thing that Americans use a
> >gun for (except perhaps commit a crime - which is not the majority of
> >Americans).<br>
>
> AFAIK, they use it usually for shooting :)
>
> ><!---->"Debatable" is a good start. Unluckily not many see it that way
> >-- even though the experience with the drug alcohol is pretty
obvious.<br>
> ></blockquote>
> >Actually I believe more see it that way than do not.<br>
>
> That would mean that there's something seriously wrong with the way
> laws get made.
>