100,000 Protestors... Angry mobs of students...

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

There was no such thing as illegal immigration until around 1880. It started with bans on Chinese immigrant labor, primarily to stop exploitation of them as cheap and abused labor. Wow....that sure sounds familar.

Sounds like Wal*Mart to me. Instead of bringing them here, we set up sweatshops over there.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Based on that, I would suspect that most - certainly not all - of those who oppose illegal immigration are here legally.

A majority of us here from somewhere else. (Well, I'm Hawaiian and a bit of Cherokee but that's a different story.) Now that we're here, we're telling everyone else how to come over here. How does that work? Does anyone making/voting for these laws think back and say, 'Hmmm, sounds kinda hypocritical doesn't it?'

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

A majority of us here from somewhere else. (Well, I'm Hawaiian and a bit of Cherokee but that's a different story.) Now that we're here, we're telling everyone else how to come over here. How does that work? Does anyone making/voting for these laws think back and say, 'Hmmm, sounds kinda hypocritical doesn't it?'

Wow - we're just disagreeing about everything this morning, aren't we?

Most certainly we are mostly here from somewhere else. But historically, why did we not even think about restricting immigration until the late 1800s? Because we had a vast amount of land to populate. Of course we are making different rules. Rules change all the time depending on the current situation. It is not hypocritical in the least.

If we wish to talk about hypocrisy, as I mentioned before, let's talk about the root of the problem, being the Mexican government, who demands open borders with the US and full access to social services, yet brutalizes Guatemalans who who cross their border with Mexico.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

...let's talk about the root of the problem, being the Mexican government, who demands open borders with the US and full access to social services, yet brutalizes Guatemalans who who cross their border with Mexico.

That's an interesting subject. Hmm. Of course, now that you've brought that up I can't say anything about the hypocrisy of sons of immigrants telling new immigrants not to come in. I'm so distracted now. Oy.

That's why we're tough on immigration? We're running out of land? I just drove across country. We still have lots of land. We're not running out.

This whole thing is a guise by the government to make everyone feel that they are doing something about our country's security. That's all it is. Rumsfeld just announced that gov't investigators smuggled dirty bomb material in at the Texas border and Washington border. Both borders failed the test. If it were real, there would be two dirty bombs in our country right now. Since 2001, Bush has done squat to protect us. It's all for show and all for not.

Two teams of government investigators using fake documents were able to enter the United States with enough radioactive sources to make two dirty bombs, according to a federal report made available Monday.

Source

[scaeagles]

I guess the anger thread is a good place for you today, GC.

So, you are critical of Bush for not doing more to secure the borders - and I'm with you 100% on that - but in the same breath you are basically saying it is not right to control the borders to stop the flow of illegals coming across.

I see an inconsistency here, unless I am misreading what you are saying.

You brought up the hypocrisy of those that are here not wanting anyone else to have a piece. I don't know anyone that opposes legal immigration. I know of them, like Pat Buchanen, but none personally. It's illegal immigration. So it isn't that we're trying to keep people out. We're trying to keep track of those getting in. Anyway, bringing up what you consider to be hyposritical made me want to point out the biggest hypocrisy out there.

You are falling for what the organizers of the protests want you to fall for, which is to confuse legal with illegal immigration. You mock my "land to populate" argument, but it is true. The growing US needed to have enough people to spread out across the new territories. Once that had been met and we were populated coast to coast, restrictions went into effect.

[Kevy Baby]

There are two separate issues being confused a bit here: immigration and border security. Yes, they are related, but they are different issues.

That the two shipments of material were brought in (as MBC posted) shows a strong lack of border security. That, to me, is a much larger problem than the illegal immigration issue.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

There are two separate issues being confused a bit here: immigration and border security. Yes, they are related, but they are different issues.

I believe they are inseparable. If you cannot control who is coming into the country, you have no border security.

[Not Afraid]

I come from all legal stock, tymv. My ancentors missed the laws by almost 200 years. But, I don't believe I have more of a right to be here than anyone else.

Border security is a huge problem. Our borders are immense and we rely on a sheer multitude of people to make decisions about individuals crossing the borders. I'm sure the right decisions is not made every time. Can you imagine the time it would take to get into the US if everyone was scrutinized in the same way? IT's a problem and I don't have the answer.

As far as language is concerned, I really hate ax for ask, pacific for specific and, it writing, I hate woot. What does woot mean anyways?

[innerSpaceman]

I love the evolvement of language. Woot is a perfect example of time moving on, new words being created. I don't much like lazy mispronunciation, but new words are fine by me ... as are fun, made-up words like "evolvement."


Not Afraid - have you considered how many new words have likely come into the lexicon since your great great great great great freaking great grandad was the pastor aboard the Mayflower? Evolvement, baby!


* * * * *

You can't have border security in a nation with 5,000 miles worth of border. Not till the 28th century when mountain-to-mountain force fields will be cheap enough to implement.



* * * * *

And along the line of impossibility ... and sorry to respond to something so last page...

scaeagles - if child abuse and murder were as widespread as illegal immigration, drug use and prostitution, I would be in favor of those things being legal as well. If tens of millions of people in a particular society are murderers, there is no sense in providing that society with legal protection from murder. And legal protection wouldn't work. You cannot eliminate anything that tens of millions of people do ... and yes, you heard me right, you shouldn't bother trying.

When tens of millions do it, it's no longer immoral. If murder is the order of the day in Freedonia, then Freedonia's morals allow for homocide.

[Alex]

Did you mean that last word the way you wrote it?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

scaeagles - if child abuse and murder were as widespread as illegal immigration, drug use and prostitution, I would be in favor of those things being legal as well. If tens of millions of people in a particular society are murderers, there is no sense in providing that society with legal protection from murder. And legal protection wouldn't work. You cannot eliminate anything that tens of millions of people do ... and yes, you heard me right, you shouldn't bother trying.

When tens of millions do it, it's no longer immoral. If murder is the order of the day in Freedonia, then Freedonia's morals allow for homocide.

Interesting.

I am really not trying to be ridiculous here, but I don't think these are far from thinking murder would be acceptable - meaning that preventing it should not be a focus of society - if the majority of the population was doing it.

Does this mean that should you have lived in the confederate states in the early 1800s you would have wanted to keep slavery legal? Or that no should bother trying to eliminate it?

If you lived in Rwanda, would you think genocide is acceptable because such a huge portion of the populace participates in it? Or that it is pointless to try to stop it?

If you lived in Germany, would the extermination of the Jews have been acceptable?