PDA

View Full Version : More on Immigration, current . . .



large
01-13-2005, 05:32 PM
Today (Jan. 13th) there was an article on page 5a of the Chieftain by Peter Roper concerning a meeting held by more than 100 Pueblo-area residents on the subject of "Immigration Issues"

The discussion was about how we can do a better job of "Assimulating Undocumented famlies who work here into the community" One of the discussion points was how to ensure high school Graduates (of Illegal immigrant parents) so that they may attend college without facing the barrier of out of state tuition. (non-resident)

Other points were worker Safety, access to health care, and more Bi-lingual Signage.

HOLD THE PHONE! These prople are Illegals . . They are guilty of a FEDERAL OFFENSE! They pay no taxes, they aren't even "Non-Residents", how the Hell can one expect to pay state resident tuition when they aren't even citizens of this country? If they held a green card they would be expected to pay non-resident tuition, so just because they're actually fugitives, this entitles them to a break?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not even close to being a Racist, I speak Spanglish just like most of the other Puebloans who are bi-lingual, I eat Menudo when I have a hangover, and lots of other things that the Chicano Culture does . . And I wouldn't have it any other way . . Que, la Raza!

But I can't see Illegals getting better treatment than a Mexican Native who has stood in line, filled out ALL the forms and then waited for the paperwork to go through the Bureaucracy and while I don't know exactly how long it takes but obviously longer than it should, and when he finally gets to America, he finds out the illegals have the benefits and the jobs he can't get because he's a Native of Mexico . . here Legally!

What the Hell is wrong with the Americans who tolerate this lawbreaking? Do they not understand how much these Illegals cost the American Taxpayer? In California Alone, in 2002, it cost 7 billion dollars for special ed programs to teach the Illegal's children. It cost 2.7 billion dollars for medical care to the illegals, and another 1.3 billion to incarcerate illegals who have committed Felonies in that State. That's over 10 Billion Dollars for one state alone, and the illegal immigrant's contribution is less than a half of a per cent! The statistics above are from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2002.

Is there any sanity left?

User No Longer With Us
01-13-2005, 07:10 PM
I agree totally.

It's time to recall any and all city and county officials who are participating in catering to these "fugitives" and vote someone into office that will actually hold these people accountable rather than feeling sorry for them.

large
01-13-2005, 07:26 PM
Let's not get on the recall horse now . .

Recalls and the following elections are often no more than knee jerk reactions to something that should be remembered by the constituents at the regular election time.

All Politicians believe very strongly that the average voter's memory AND attention Span are equal and no longer than 7.5 minutes, the average time between commercials on TV.

And voting patterns in this country confirm that!

But I believe if pressure is brought to bear on both our local and Federal Represenatives, they will begin to see the light. But it must be a lot of pressure and this "Tolerance" Bulls--t that the people who were in attendance at this meeting espouse won't help it at all!

The D. A. and the Pueblo Chief of Police were there! And Spoke . .

Call and write your Local, State and Federal Represenatives . . raise Hell! this is something that needs correcting!

Zombiewire
01-27-2005, 09:18 AM
Homeland Security To Test RFID Tags At U.S. Borders Jan. 25, 2005
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE
PRINT THIS ARTICLE
DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE WRITE TO AN EDITOR
More Stories on:
Industries
Administration
Security



The department says RFID will improve its ability to match entries to exits without significantly increasing processing time.
By Eric Chabrow
InformationWeek



The federal government will test radio-frequency identification technology at ports of entry to improve its border-management system.

As part of the project, visitors entering the country will be issued RFID tags that will track their comings and goings at border crossings, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Initially, the government will test RFID tags at a simulated port this spring. After that, the government will test the technology at border crossings in Arizona, New York, and Washington state from the end of July through spring 2006. "Through the use of radio-frequency technology, we see the potential to not only improve the security of our country, but also to make the most important infrastructure enhancements to the U.S. land borders in more than 50 years," Asa Hutchinson, Homeland Security undersecretary for border and transportation security, said in a statement announcing the program. "We intend to see that it's done in the right way and at the right pace


http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=57703738

User No Longer With Us
01-27-2005, 09:40 AM
Recalls and the following elections are often no more than knee jerk reactions to something that should be remembered by the constituents at the regular election time.

I disagree with that.

Recall efforts can send a very strong message. Did we not just have a good one here this last election?

But I will qualify my remark with this: You mentioned voting patterns. If people would learn HOW to vote and why they are doing it, it could very well keep future recalls from having to happen.

People need to vote for someone who will listen to them and be their voice, this means the person you vote for looks out for what YOU want, not what THEY want.

You want to vote for someone who will meet with the community on a regular basis and take the concerns of that community to where they need to be taken to be dealt with. You DON'T want to vote for someone who is going to take matters into his/her own hands on your behalf without consulting with you first. That is NOT a voice of the people, it's the voice of the politician.

We need "WE THE PEOPLE" in our elected offices, not "POLITICIANS". Politicians don't listen to the people, and it's the people who are supposed to make up the government. But because the people don't know how to nominate or cast a vote, then this is what we get stuck with.

large
01-27-2005, 10:09 AM
Lexi; A recall election is an admission that the voters Blew it!

While I felt that CP-K should've been recalled, pretty much the same people who voted for her the first time voted for her the second. Rodesovich (or whatever) was a Broom Pilot and was just "Collateral Damage" . . .

Same thing on the City Council Deal . . I voted no on the recall, but I voted for "Pack Rat" just the same . . And he got elected . . . And I voted for him because I know him personally.

Proves my point. The voters aren't rocket scientists. The recall Elections cost too much, and often prove nothing. You can "Un-Elect" them at the end of their terms if they prove to be either bad leaders or corrupt. But then, due to the voter's lack of memory, they often continue to hold office till they choose to retire . . . . said it before . . didn't I?

User No Longer With Us
01-27-2005, 10:21 PM
Lexi; A recall election is an admission that the voters Blew it!

Yes, I agree, which Is why I would advocate voters learning HOW to vote and participate in the government process in the first place...like i said, that should pretty much eliminate the need for recalls in the future.

The question is, how to go about doing that?

large
01-28-2005, 08:42 AM
Hmmmm, Barrel of snakes!

Voter education? Nawww, Nobody wants to take the time to look at the past history of the Candidates. If they did, they probably wouldn't vote for any of them. As humans we all have skeletons in our closets. Things we've done, things we've said. They come back to haunt you in close inspection.

Growing up, I lived in a Missouri Democrat Enviroment, If you didn't preface the word Republican with "Goddamned", you got cuffed along side the head! . . 30 years ago I was a liberal . . But learned to look at the "Man" and what he said he stood for . . . . Now, after being self employed or in a management position for a lot of years, I've learned that the best of the candidates will say almost anything to either get elected or to stay in office.

Today 90% of the candidates are elected by "Sound Bites", 15-20 second pieces of a speech or statement, completely out of context in most cases. This is something the media has created, and they love the close elections because it gets the candidates to spending millions . . . on the media!

Another would be to make the bar a little higher for the recall petitions, more signatures to validate the fact that a large number of voters feel the need to remove said "Civil Servant" (they are neither) so that it isn't an expensive "Fit" thrown by a minority. The Pueblo West Curmudgeon's suit to recall the PW Board of trustees or whatever . . good example . .

My feeling is this . . We elected them with a majority vote . . unless they do something to get themselves incarcerated, I say, let the constituency live with them for the length of their term . . IF they're as bad as the voters feel they are in the middle of their term, then just damned well remember it at the next election!

User No Longer With Us
01-28-2005, 09:31 AM
Voter education? Nawww, Nobody wants to take the time to look at the past history of the Candidates.

I see you could use a little of this education yourself...

It's one heck of a lot more than "past history of candidates".

Here's a thumbnail view for ya:

1. Voters need to be part of the nomination process. That's the beginning part, where candidates are selected in the first place. Always be thinking about who you think would be a good candidate and why. THEN...
2. They need to participate in caucuses. (They need to know what caucuses even are, come to think of it.)
3. They need to form committees that will meet regularly with their elected officials to discuss issues and have that official report to them how the issus are being dealt with at the legislative level. You know, keeping the people informed.
4. When nominating and voting for those officials in the first place, they need to stop asking, "What do you stand for?" and start assessing whether the candidate will ask how high on the way up when told to jump.
5. The people need to get together and choose their candidates carefully, because that candidate is their representative whom they choose to speak for them. This means, basically, they write the speech and he gives it (so to speak).
6. The candidates DO need to be concerned about the community they serve and the needs of the people. They are servants, though, not masters. The people are the collective master, the elected official is the servant.

If people knew how our government is truly supposed to work and how to participate in that process, and were more concerned, which they should be but are ignorant and apathetic probably through no fault of their own, we'd have a smoother running government and the people's morales will rise. Their votes really WILL count in such cases.

The way I see it, candidate speaches are a waste of time and effort. I never pay attention to them. If they can't meet with their constituants and answer important questions rather than standing on a platform making this promise and that promise, I want nothing to do with them. They aren't in office to rule us, they are in office for us to rule them. (In a manner of speaking.) They are there to protect our rights, defend this nation, and preserve our way of life.

However, what it's turned into is a bureaucratic effort that is quickly turning fascist and socialistic. This is not the US as it was originally formed, and we're losing our rights because we're basically too ignorant of who we are and why to keep them. In essence, we're giving them away with the "ought to be a law" mentality.

There is a bible verse that can actually apply here quite loudly whether one is a bible believer or not. It says to be careful because the evil one prowles about like a hungry lion seeking whom he may devour.

Well, if you look at that from a democratic republic type of angle, you'll see that if you don't protect what you have, it will be taken from you and you'll be devoured in the process. (Think about what the terrorists are trying to accomplish at this very moment, and you'll have a pretty clear picture.) Once we completely lose our freedom, we'll have a heck of a time getting it back, IF we can get it back.

People don't believe that we are losing our freedom, but we are. Look at the Patriot Act. That's a perfect example. We're not under Martial Law here, there's no war being actively fought on our soil at this time. Therefore, the Government has no right to enact the Patriot Act. But they did. Did the people have anything to say about it? No. Did the people know they had a right to have anything to say about it? Probably not. And that's the people's fault for electing people into office who act on their behalf without consulting them first.

Our government is supposed to do what the people tell it to. The people initiate legislation, the legislators enact it. Funny, it doesn't happen like that anymore. The US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independance declare specifically that this nation is governed by the people, for the people, and of the people. It is not the other way around. The people are not to be governed by the government.

Once people catch wind of this, they may wake up and realize how important their roles in literally participating in the democratic process are, then perhaps this nation will be able to become, once again, what it once was in the first place, maybe with some slight improvements to keep up with the times.

Unless, of course, the people decide they don't want this...in which case, I hope I'm no longer here...

large
01-28-2005, 04:01 PM
Without being crass, Lexi you are the most Pessimistic Optimist I've ever conversed with . . . Heh, heh . . .

Less than 10% of the population that would vote has neither the time or inclination to become involved in their local Political party. On top of that, some of us don't agree with enough of either party line to belong. Probably a lot more of us than even I suspect. . . .

And "Voter Education"? Christ, we couldn't teach half of them to read when they were supposed to, now we're gonna edujamacate 'em to understand the functions of th' Guv'mint and how to translate Bushese and Kerrylingo into an understandable language that means something . .

Tall order! Most of the lower middle class doesn't even know they not only don't pay income tax, they actually get back more than they pay in! And they'll argue with you about it! These people shouldn't vote . . or even discuss voting! heh, heh . . . But, they do, and really, they should. Vote, that is . . .

But yes, if we ever figure out how to make the candidates tell us what they will do in case reality sets in, then we can educate the voters !

jetstream
01-30-2005, 04:24 PM
hi all.

very interesting topic. ? do any of you know the difference between a democracy and a republic ? In a republic the elected official must vote as his electors require. that would be the popular vote or majority. In a democracy your elected official can vote however he or she wants to. When i was in grade school (long time ago) I stood up and said the pledge of allegiance every day. and it meant something to me..

God bless the Republic, for which it stands, one nation under all.

jetstream
01-30-2005, 04:53 PM
hi all.

Actually the pledge, goes like this

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.

have a happy day.

User No Longer With Us
01-30-2005, 05:11 PM
*ahem*, Large;


Less than 10% of the population that would vote has neither the time or inclination to become involved in their local Political party.

First of all, those numbers are going to have to change if this country is to remain free, ESPECIALLY right now.

People will generally make time for things that are important to them. If they can't make time to preserve their freedom, then maybe they don't deserve it and this country going down the drain will be what we collectively deserve.


On top of that, some of us don't agree with enough of either party line to belong. Probably a lot more of us than even I suspect. . . .

Either party? Are you aware that there are more than two parties? Also, you make your party fit YOUR platform, not the other way around. You need to realize it's WE the PEOPLE who are supposed to be running this country, not the "democrats" or the "republicans".

I'll bet you'd enjoy reading some of the history upon which our country was founded. You can start by reading the Declaration of Independence and going from there. Terrific reading, ask yourself why these were put into place, and notice the similarities of those days with these days as you read it. You'll be quite amazed.


And "Voter Education"? Christ, we couldn't teach half of them to read when they were supposed to, now we're gonna edujamacate 'em to understand the functions of th' Guv'mint and how to translate Bushese and Kerrylingo into an understandable language that means something . .

LMAO! And YOU think I'm a pessimist? *giggle*

I'm already working on this effort. Not everyone in the US is illiterate, there are some rather intelligent people out there. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the difference between freedom and bondage.

Smart or not, we all have a general working idea of what we want in this country, and that is freedom, peace, and security (economical and other wise).

Since it's no longer being taught in school who we are and what our government is made of and how it runs, how to vote, etc, then people actually don't know. I'm working on a plan to put that education back into the schools where it belongs.


Tall order! Most of the lower middle class doesn't even know they not only don't pay income tax, they actually get back more than they pay in! And they'll argue with you about it! These people shouldn't vote . . or even discuss voting! heh, heh . . . But, they do, and really, they should. Vote, that is . . .

We all have a right to be informed, many don't know it. They will soon, though, if what I'm working on is put into action, and I do have the interest of many concerning this.

And, don't say who or who should not vote...anyone who is a legal citizen of the US should vote. It's our right and responsibility, and it's the backbone of what keeps this nation free.


But yes, if we ever figure out how to make the candidates tell us what they will do in case reality sets in, then we can educate the voters !

Again, you have the wrong idea here. The candidates don't tell US what they're going to do, WE tell them, and they report to us on their progress. Period.

User No Longer With Us
01-30-2005, 05:13 PM
By the way, Jetstream....welcome to the board!

large
01-30-2005, 05:39 PM
Lexi: I have read our Constution, many times. I, like others, read it for what it says, unlike most Judges and Lawyers, who read it for what it doesn't say, then try to convince us with their arguments, that they know better than the Founding Fathers.

Unfortunately, a very large share of the people who write our laws and the laws that retain the legislators are . . . Lawyers. In any other context, this would be a "Conflict of Interest". Not so in the Government.

In our present case our Legislators are not governed by what they tell us they're going to do, but what the do for the Lobbiests (?) that give them the millions of dollars in Campaign Contributions they use to maintain their jobs. As I've said before, they retire, they don't get Un-elected. And they listen only to the constituent when the background noise gets so loud they can't hear the Contributors.

Also, why is it, that a middle class job holder can be elected to Congress, spend several terms there, "Serving us" and retire a Millionare? And only on a $145,000 year job! Now that's some savings plan, huh?

Truth is, Lexi, probably most Legislators could no more care about our individual peccadellos than the man in the moon . . unless, it'll get his name in the paper as a Humanitarian. If your cause is on his agenda, it'll get congressional attention, if it isn't, sorry . . .

User No Longer With Us
01-30-2005, 07:03 PM
Truth is, Lexi, probably most Legislators could no more care about our individual peccadellos than the man in the moon . . unless, it'll get his name in the paper as a Humanitarian. If your cause is on his agenda, it'll get congressional attention, if it isn't, sorry . .

This is precisely why voters need to learn how to vote...and participate...perhaps then those types of people will not be the ones holding office.

People should also know, you don't have to be a lawyer to qualify to be nominated and run for office... :wink:

ogar
02-03-2005, 05:53 PM
If I understood Pres. Bush in his state of the union address last night, his solution is quite pragmatic. He proposes to allow more and different types of work permits for immigrants. Which would effectively then make the illegals, legals. Then, no problem, right? I think his words were something like, they supply the labor force with work that Americans are no longer willing to do. This certainly isn't the solution I would favor, but does start to get at the problem of "illegals". I might have missed some of this as I was getting depressed over his social security reforms.

User No Longer With Us
02-03-2005, 06:19 PM
This is one place where our President is in the wrong. Coddling the illegals is doing nothing good whatsoever for our country OR our economy.

large
03-28-2005, 02:59 PM
Last week, There was a "Trade Conference in Canada, and the three Prez's were there, Actually the Canadian Prime Minister, the President of Mexico and GWB, our Pol really In Charge. (PRIC)

The Canadian had several Beefs, mostly about Beef,and a couple of whimpers about Trees.

GWB Beefed about the Beef, discounted the subsidized Timber sales, and grumbled about wetbacks . .

Mexican Presidente Fox whined about the Arizona Citizens setting up a Militia called the "Minutemen" who say they're going to set up posts in the desert and inform the INS where the Mujows are, so that the INS can intercede and capture said illegals . . Pres. Fox doesn't think that's fair! He compares it with "Big Game hunting" and claims it's "Inhumane" . . .

Hmmm . . I guess he didn't see the news about the truck driver convicted of "Cooking" 17 illegals in his Trailer last summer in Oklahoma . .

Now Condy Rice has condemned the "Militia" idea as have all the Bushies and most of the Dems . . 'Spose they're pandering for votes?

So what's the opinions out there? We havent even scratched the surface on this thread yet!

User No Longer With Us
03-28-2005, 08:00 PM
It's our right, guaranteed by the US Constitution to set up militias. If the Prez of south of the border doesn't like it, tough noogies to him. He doesn't run our country, we do.

Zen Curmudgeon
03-28-2005, 09:04 PM
It's always tricky to read the Constitution - the language is SOOO retro and the ideas aren't always what I'd expect. Here's Section 8, Clause 16, regarding the authority of Congress to establish militias:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

This is, I believe, the clause that enables Congress to use the National Guard for active duty purposes, i.e., in Iraq. Some militant folks have advocated militant interpretations of this clause ("Power to the People") while others, like the American Friends Service Committee, have taken opposite views ("Killing is Wrong") . It's always a touchy subject.

Here's my only applicable joke:

What do you call 18 heavily armed lesbians?

Militia Etheridge.


Take Care -

ZC

large
03-29-2005, 07:34 AM
We're engaged in a similar discussion over on forum X . .

My feeling on militias are these . . Too often the road to Hell is paved with good intentions . . And while I don't personally believe a citizen of another country is entitled to the same protections the U.S. Constution gives a Citizen . . what could evolve into vigalante justice could start taking place with a lot of shoot first and ask later . . Kind of "Wolf Pack Mentality" . . That can't happen.

Better the militias hunt down the Chickens--t politicians who refuse to use common sense and legislate an end to the problem.

A fence would be nice, I guess . . but I bet the same guys who want to go out, hunt and shoot mexicans wouldn't want tp go out and patrol the fence line repairing it and notifying INS of any breech of same. No Hero crap in that! And if you're gonna have a fence you need to keep it in repair.

User No Longer With Us
03-29-2005, 10:41 AM
ZC, actually, "militia" used to be the word used for military.

Of course, you probably already knew that.

Congress has the right to establish a militia, yes, as do private citizens. It is supposed to be for checks and balances in the event that the US Government oversteps it's bounds, which it has for years and years now without We The People having the balls to stand up against it in according with our rights afforded us by the US Constitution.

Additionally, though, we have the right to form private militias for the cause of defending our country against other countries as well, for example at the borders. That's actually a perfect example of why militias are important today.

I really love our US Constitution and it's accompanying documents, the bill of rights and the Declaration of Independence. They're the beating heart of this nation. The wording doesn't bother me at all, but that may be because I'm used to "formal" language. Too bad they don't teach it in school anymore.

User No Longer With Us
03-29-2005, 10:59 AM
Say, CZ, I'd like to discuss your "Killing is wrong" phrase. You may have touched on something here.

I think that people are confusing killing with murder. Do you know what the difference is? There is one. (Of course the end result is still the same.) One is taking a life. The other is maliciously taking a life. If you're defending yourself, the intent of your adversary is obviously malicious. If you take your adversary's life, you've killed him. If you're angry or psychotic and take a life as an expression of that anger or psychosis, you've committed murder.

(In law it's refered to as malicious intent. If there is no malicious intent, it's not murder but may be considered as manslaughter.)

I also think that people who are hellbent on the "killing is wrong" perception aren't realizing that death is final, and when your enemy comes at you with airplanes, guns, bio-warfare, etc, it's not with the intention of sitting down to tea and gossiping about the latest hair styles on their favourite celebs. I do not think that killing out of self defense is "wrong". If it can be helped, then let it be, but if you have to do what you have to do to preserve your own life and protect your family (or country), then it's not wrong. It's not something we should be dancing over, either, though. Taking a life is a serious matter and shouldn't be done unless it's a last resort and absolutely can't be helped. In the case of war, if you don't do what you have to do, they'll overtake you and your country.

If you ask these folks, "If they invaded your home with intent to kill you, would you let them do it, or would you fight to save your life?", what would they say?

(How many people who think killing is wrong own a gun for protection?)

Personally, my attitude is this: If I have to fight to the death to protect my children and home, I hope my adversary dies quickly and without too big of a mess for me to clean up because I'm a busy woman and don't want to have to take time out of my schedule for his sh*t. (In other words, don't mess with the Mama!)

Zen Curmudgeon
03-29-2005, 08:09 PM
Say, CZ, I'd like to discuss your "Killing is wrong" phrase. You may have touched on something here.

I think that people are confusing killing with murder. Do you know what the difference is? There is one. (Of course the end result is still the same.) One is taking a life. The other is maliciously taking a life. >>snip<<
Actually, I was referring to those people who believe all killing is wrong, such as the Quakers, Buddhists, and some varieties of Hindus. To many of these, life has a sacred quality that must be respected, even if the cost of is one's own life. It's a standard I'll never reach, but they do have some good arguments on their side (depending on your religiosity, of course).

But to return to the origin of this discussion, I'd guess some would argue that people in danger deserve the help of those who aren't, even if the dangerous circumstances are of their own making. The people who cross the border without permission and end up stranded in the Arizona desert are still people in need - there's plenty of time, it seems to me, to adjudicate their legal situation once their lives have been saved.

I have no problem extending American charity to them - after all it is that charitable nature of this country that, in part, makes us so attractive to those seeking freedom, opportunity, and a future. But I do not understand our government's "directional" policy toward illegal immigrants. If the arrivals are from the south efforts are made to capture and deport, but people arriving by boat, raft, or inner tube from the east, i.e., Cuba, are granted a sort of leniency. And if an illegal immigrant from the north so wishes, he can blend into the population fairly easily with minimal expense and a modicum of forgery. I don't hear Tom Tancredo proposing a sea wall or a northern border barricade. I guess I should study the topic more and develop an informed opinion. But as the grandchild of four immigrants, I have some familial sympathies toward those who think this is just the damn best place to live the planet has ever seen.

Take Care -

ZC

User No Longer With Us
03-29-2005, 08:40 PM
Those illegally crossing the border wouldn't be in need if they weren't trying to illegally cross the border. They're fully aware of what they're doing and the risk they're taking. They're also fully aware that the US will enable their activity by "feeling sorry for them" and they're counting on that to get what they want.

If we weren't the pushovers that we are, there'd be less immigrants illegally crossing the borders.

I don't want to sound mean, but they're bringing their neediness on themselves, and I don't think we should be enabling it. We have enough on our own plate to deal with as it is.

User No Longer With Us
03-29-2005, 08:42 PM
I have nothing against immigrants.
It's ILLEGAL immigrants that I have a problem with.

Zen Curmudgeon
03-29-2005, 11:14 PM
ZC, actually, "militia" used to be the word used for military.

Of course, you probably already knew that.

Congress has the right to establish a militia, yes, as do private citizens. >>snip<<

Umm...actually, I don't see that in the Constitution. It looks to me that this is reserved for Congress, acting as representatives of the people. Of course, I am no scholar and may have missed the pertinent clauses. Please refer me to the appropriate sections supporting private citizens forming militias.

Take care -

ZC

User No Longer With Us
03-29-2005, 11:45 PM
Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Zen Curmudgeon
03-29-2005, 11:49 PM
Those illegally crossing the border wouldn't be in need if they weren't trying to illegally cross the border. They're fully aware of what they're doing and the risk they're taking. They're also fully aware that the US will enable their activity by "feeling sorry for them" and they're counting on that to get what they want.

If we weren't the pushovers that we are, there'd be less immigrants illegally crossing the borders.

I don't want to sound mean, but they're bringing their neediness on themselves, and I don't think we should be enabling it. We have enough on our own plate to deal with as it is.

Geez, Lexi, again I can't find evidence that agrees with you. Please do let me know where I've overlooked a source. The AP reports that about 500,000 (roughly 5 times the population of Pueblo County) illegal immigrants make it into the USA every year. I don't defend their legality, but the number does suggest that one person (that's you, Lexi) speaking for this large group of people you don't know ("They're fully aware of what they're doing and the risk they're taking") might be a little presumptuous. See http://www.dailycollegian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/03/22/423fb00bb9794 .

You also state that the fates of these illegals is really their own doing and perhaps (if I understand you correctly) they deserve what they get. That's the "I don't want to sound mean, but they're bringing their neediness on themselves" sentence.

There might be reasons to reconsider. According to Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151314,00.html , a truck driver illegally transporting Mexican immigrants left the refrigeration turned off in his truck, leading to the deaths of 19 people, a number exceeding Charles Manson's total. The interior of the cargo compartment reached 173 degrees, leading to death. The driver pocketed the $7,500 fee he was paid. It's hard to see how these dead people were "fully aware" of their danger and accepted the risk nonetheless. Since the driver, Tyrone Williams, was convicted of murder, it seems to me that the courts and laws of Texas, a state known for willingness to execute criminals, might also not agree with your position on this issue. But again, I am willing to be shown evidence supporting an alternative view.

Take Care -

ZC

User No Longer With Us
03-30-2005, 12:10 AM
ZC, I know plenty of them, and believe me, not one of them is ignorant. Give them some credit. They know what they are doing. They usually have help crossing (smugglers) who inform them of their risks. It's a huge money making operation. Do you even know the half of it?

Coulter45
03-30-2005, 10:12 PM
How did we get off the subject of illegal immigrants? Listen as it turns out this has been a hot button in this community since march 3 when an innocent professor was accused of some nasty things. It is my belief that tightening the border will do very little to the overall problem. I say this only because they are humans too and capable of being very creative. How exactly is the border patrol going to stop a legal immigrant from remaining in this country after their VISA's have expired?

What I think we need as a solution is to find a way of effective and efficient location. An agency would need to be built specifically for the purpose but if we could find a way of locating these aliens alot of the other problems would subside.

Why? because we have good laws in place to fight this thing but without people getting caught they mean nothing. Once farmer joe realizes that his 'employees' are going to get him into trouble he'll stop hiring them. Once we are able to efficiently capture and deport these people they won't be having so many babies on our soil giving them legal weight for staying. It all boils down to finding and removing the people. If only it were as easy to do.

large
03-31-2005, 11:22 AM
Actually we have a mixture of terms here, names which describe several situations . . .

Illegal Immigrant, someone who has gotten within the borders of this country, without due process, and seeks to make their home here.

Illegal Worker, someone who has gotten within the borders of this country, without due process, and seeks work to enable him/her to send support money back to their native country in order to support their families there.

Illegal Alien, Someone who has gotten within the borders without due process, whose intent is not known.

How many of the 11 million Illegals (estimated) in this country are actually people wanting to establish permanent citizenry here is unknown . . probably about half or them. the rest intend, or hope, at some time to return to Mexico, or their homes in other South American Countries . . . And a minority are "Aliens" who come here with usually more than "Working for a living" on their minds.

The bottom line is, though, the fact that upon entering without documentation, they become "Federal Fugitives" and part of an "Underground Economy" as well as an "Underground Society" . . .

In our Country, we have individual identification, and this entitles our government to know who and where (roughly) you are, one of the oddities of being in a "free" society. And that should be the rule for the people who visit our country as well . . we should know who, and where.

And if they choose to work, while they visit, then with proper documentation, they could participate in another thing all of the Citizens are priviledged to do, pay taxes . . help support our wonderful infrastructure! And if you immigrate, and document same, then you are making a payment on your future with the taxes you now pay.

Becoming part of America, either as a visitor, worker, or potential Citizen would enable these people to participate in our society openly, rather than living life, literally, on the run.

And we need them . . There is absolutely no danger of any, currently "Illegal" holding a job and causing an American Citizen to be without one. . . Contrary to popular belief, if an American wanted that job, they probably wouldn't have hired a person who doesn't speak English. That Mexican is there because no American wanted that job! 90% of the jobs held by Illegals currently are "Hard Work", Skilled or Semi-Skilled work that requires plain old sweat . . Something a lot of our "Citizens" won't do . . . so if you carted them all off, Back to the Mexican Border . . who'd do their work?

You remove even 5 million illegals from the work force in the USA, trust me, you'll notice it the next day! Immediatly, shortages of a lot of things, Beef, Chicken, Pork, Roofers, Concrete Finishers, Construction labor, just to name a few industries who depend on these people . . . . .

Soooooo, whatcha gonna do? I've sent a probable solution to all of my senators, and represenatives, to President Bush . . and the only one who answered was GWB . .really, not a form letter either. But his argument is a political one, basically a Republican attempt to get more Chicano voters . . . as are both sides of the argument . . no solution, just pandering . .