Re: Fuck the immigrants!

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> You would have
> made it easier if you hadn't posted in HTML. So here it goes...
It'd also be easier if you posted in HTML! 
;-) 
> 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...
Sorry dude but that's the law. 
> 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 
No they don't. The US is indeed the leader of the world in many
aspects, none of which need earning, just stats.
> -- and the USA is
> not much of a leader currently. Definitely not in democratization. 
Good. Cause we ain't no democracy. We're a representative republic.
True democracy is a pack of wolves and a rabbit deciding what to have
for dinner!
> Or can you cite a
> significant portion of foreign opinions that would give the USA
> significant credentials in this area?
Again, opinions of other countries do not matter with respect to the
leadership I was refering to. You clearly have another agenda here -
one I do not wish to engage in.
> > 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. 
Funny - their spelt differently! That's specifically why I say "in it's
true form".
> 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 :)
A lot of people screw it up (IMHO) and use democracy as a synonym for
representative republic and not what a true democracy is.
> 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 :))
Well I'm ont a republican.
> 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,
Yeah they just want our bucks...
> > 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. 
When laws are broken and/or rights violated - yes. But not to demand
charity.
> 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. 
Thank you for the admission.
> > 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.
I do not read, nor post to alt.visa.us. Any crossposting is a result of
other people's crossposting - not mine. I simply reply.
> 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.
Hey I know, and can see that - but it was not my doing.
> > 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.
The "real causes" is that aliens want to come here for the opportunity
and the bucks. If you really want to address the real causes perhaps we
should rid ourselves of our wealth, opportunity and freedoms - then
nobody'd want to be here. But it still seems to me that we have a huge
problem to start with and we need to first "stop the bleeding". If we
draw an analogy to somebody coming into the an emergency room with a
heart attack you'd be there screaming "We need to stop all the fast
food chains - that's what caused this man's heart attack" and I'd be
saying - "perhaps we should treat him first"!
> > 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. 
Sorry. Don't buy it. You have no proof that it'd work and it does
nothing for the current problem and encourages more people to violate
the laws because they think they won't get caught. Effectively it's an
amensty program because current violators are effective excused. We've
tried amensty programs before. It just makes the problem worse.
> 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.
You can't have it both ways. If you put more resources on prevention
you're gonna take resources from enforcement thus a more relaxed
enforcement of current violators which, to me, allows violators to get
off. 
> > 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? :)
And there are things and times when one should be serious. To me
illegal activing and illegal aliens is one of those things.
> > 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)?
Let's take away those resources you use for prevention!  :-)  Or we could simply
not forget!  ;-) 
> > 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"
Ah, that old PC thing. It'll be the death of us...
> This operation
> seemed to have been based on illegal practices, which ultimately was
> the reason why it got abandoned. 
Aren't immigrants supposed to be documented? What's illegal about
asking for such documentation? How else are you gonna know? It was
abandoned because it was unpopular due to PC.
> 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"?
I don't happen to think that the activity is, or should be, illegal.
I'm not convinced that it is illegal. Can you cite the law that says it
is? (And not "unreasonable search and seizure" 'cause I do not think it
is unreasonable).
> > 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. 
You sure should...
> > 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.
So then you agree - we should not be giving illegals a DL...
> There are
> immigrants that are working illegally, but otherwise are legal. 
There are bank robbers who are stealing money from banks - but
otherwise are law biding...
> 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.
A ah! You missed the immigrants who have commited crimes which make
them removable! In any event, all are violators of the law and should
be prosecuted. It is illegal to work here illegal (naturally). It is
illegal to overstay. It is illegal to come here illegal. It is also
illegal to commit fraud, robbery, murder, deal drugs, etc...
> > 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.?
Not to my knowledge...
> > 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.
Again, I do not think that the SS# gets zapped immediately, if at all.
And we all know how long government agencies take and how well they
communicate with each other.  ;-) 
> 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.
Do you know how easy it is to get a SS#? And many immigrants have
SS#'s. It's one of the first things they get - cause they need it to
work. But whether or not an alien is still legal is another matter. 
> > 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?
No. As in anything else security related - nothing is 100%. All you do
in security is throw up road blocks to keep honest people honest and to
catch "not to capable" dishonest people. If done right a national ID
would indeed help.
> 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 :)
Sounds like you were in a bad area or something. Do you really blame
the police for spotting something suspicious and checking it out?
> 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. 
But, WRT illegal aliens, shipping them out will...  ;-) 
> > 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 :)
You claim that "Americans use guns to do everything" is therefore
baseless...
> > <!---->"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.
No it's just a representative republic in action. Now is we were a true
democracy the law(s) would already have been changed..  ;-) 

-- 
Pentiums melt in your PC, not in your hand.