Re: Fuck the immigrants!

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:17:05 -0200, Gerhard Fiedler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>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.

What did you have in mind, specifically. 

>
>>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.?

No. The systems don't communicate with each other.

>
>>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.