the Immigrant workoutage on MayDay?

Please be truthful.  And humorous when and where applicable.

Were you inconvenienced in any way?  Or not?

-- Modified on 5/7/2006 5:26:37 PM

Not a thing was different.

I'd say I came out pretty well.  

It was all but impossible for me to effectively conduct my business which regularly takes me in and out of court houses and civic centers.  My job is neither salaried nor per hour and therefore the day was an economic washout thanks to forced PC sycophantic support for a segment of people that are CRIMINALS by definition.

Oh yeah; I'm just SOOO sympathetic to their horrible plight of exploiting every stinking welfare loophole and kissy-ass do-gooder this country has to offer.

 Just another meritable point of view.

-- Modified on 5/2/2006 8:24:29 AM

how we could avoid the problems.

Perhaps your world is too complicated for you.

But you first have to demonstrate that your not making money for one day should be something anyone could find sympathy with.  I could find a little more sympathy with people people who never make enough, and are loathed by everybody due to accident of birth.  

Hey, I took a paycut, too.  If they had let me go for the day, I would have taken it.  

By your expressed attitude though, I'd say we're at war.

It was like a holiday. My drive home through north Orange County took me only 35 minutes instead of the usual 55.
When is the next protest planned?

and once again he who should represent a bastion of logic is again shooting his pithy pejoratives.

 Go support the law breaking ILLEGALS with YOUR money; liberal PC pundits. This forced break in the GNP has only fueled my contempt and steeled my hatred for this malignant cancer of parasitic reprobates.
 
 Bring on the "Dog-pile". After all; it IS what liberals do best.

Personally, I noticed that the NYC subways were marginally less crowded, but noticeably quieter absent the constant babble of loud, braying non-indigenous voices.  And the ever-oppressive presence of malodorous foreign foods was considerably less than usual. [Sad to say indigenous types were as loud and as annoying as ever.  And their crappy food still stank as badly as ever].

I didn't have to wait any longer for my coffee and bagels and donuts at the deli.  Despite near-catastrophic warning about that potential inconvenience.

All non-indigenous ATFs were on duty. Go figure.

no and half my employees are Hispanic (all Legal Immigrants) and they all showed up for work Monday!

can't say I noticed.  but I was pleasantly surprised by MORE than usual cars on the highway, more accidents than normal on my daily commute... and oh yea, more dudes than normal coming up to me for a handout in the city....

humorous.... hummm.... nope can't say it was.  but then again, maybe they went home, which would be ok by me.

I remind you that almost all the people here are law-breaking.  And like the illegals, mostly it's a very specific set of laws.  A very specific set of very stupid laws.

I would say you have a problem besides law-breaking here.  It can't be the fact that they get educated and get healthcare because we all get that if we need it.  

No, I'd say your single problem is, bluntly speaking, racism.  You'd rather deny education and healthcare to everyone if it means that "those people" won't get it.  Malignant cancer and parasitic reprobates?  I started out life going to school on the "public dole" and dependent on my parents for healthcare however they got it.  I believe I was then what you'd have to call a parasitic reprobate, or a cancer.  So, I assume, were you.  

Except for the fact that these happen to be "those people."  So you use terms like malignant cancer.  

I don't give a dogpile for what you hate.  Your hatred is worthless.  At most, it will put you in prison.    

-- Modified on 5/2/2006 9:10:30 PM

You are castigating, demonizing and even inferring future violent criminal behavior from me because I dare not share the same sappy philanthropic compassion as you.

The "Politically Correct" and infinitely "tolerant" liberal left!

 What a fuck'n joke.  

Take a little responsibility.  I didn't bring that out into the forum.   After you made your hatred so clear, I was left with one of three conclusions: 1) You're bullshitting about it; 2) You have to express it sometime with an overt action; or 3) You are one disciplined hateful person and will never commit an action from it.

So, I have no crystal ball, you're right.  Tell me which is it?  Because you blame liberals for your hating a totally unrelated set of people, I can't believe it's the third one.  So, are you bullshitting for effect, or are you going to take some hateful and illegal action against immigrants?  To take you at your word, now, I'll believe you're bullshitting for effect.  

Because I emphatically oppose your point of view, you accuse me of stifling you?  Please! You have as much freedom and opportunity here to justify your position or undercut mine as I do vice-versa.  

Intolerance is if you can't answer because of censorship, or if you suffer some real-life punishment for your POV.  Neither one applies here.  

You are confusing disdain and rejection for intolerance, perhaps deliberately.  Just as tolerance doesn't mean approve, assent or concur.  The current style is for conservatives confuse these terms as it gives them a victim's edge.  Otherwise it would usually be clear that they are simply bullies.  

I'll admit castigating is true.  No doubt I did.  No argument here.  

Demonize?  As I've said in other posts, there's nothing demonic about racism.  It's quite human.  It goes back to our tribal roots.  Conservatives as well as liberals haven't come to terms with that.  Just because even racists don't consider themselves racists now doesn't mean that people have changed one iota.  

Yes, I know, you hate hispanic immigrants because they break the law by not having government approval.  I don't find that a compelling argument, especially from people who otherwise show contempt for government approval.  Before the late 20th century, arguments about immigrants were based on racism.  Now, people won't let themselves be racists, so they have to talk in code about it.

The difference is, conservatives will claim that racism has been defeated.  They take the head-in-the-sand approach.  

Actually, it will probably a few millennium before it's defeated.  If humankind survives that long...

who expects to shit on people, and not get the same thing back.

If you talk like Rush Limbaugh, people will reasonably believe you think like Rush Limbaugh, and reasonably believe they can only communicate with you by talking the same way back.

Tolerance does not require agreement.  It does not require being nice.   If you & yoour pals shit on people, remember that what goes around, comes around.   Turnabout is fair play.   If you disagree, expect disagreement.

It never ceases to amaze me how reactionaries pretend to be so tough, but the moment you disagree with them, they wilt or explode.   Sure, the freak left does the same, but they aren't pretending to be tough guys - they advertsie their dumbass delicacy.

I guess it's the hypocrisy of reactionaries that I love so much.

Had a late-ish lunch (around 2:00-2:30) with a provider friend (lover, mistress, whatever) of mine in a little sidewalk cafe - directly across the street from Union Square.

There were a few hundred, maybe a thousand, or so demonstrators gathered, waving Mexican, Dominican, etc. flags. A well behaved crowd, much less rowdy and disruptive than other demonstrations I have witnessed there. On 14th Street, there were a few tables manned by the usual Lyndon LaRouche loonies  - but then, avoiding those wackos is just a part of normal street life in New York.

After lunch, we took care of a few errands around the neighborhood - some grocery shopping, furniture shopping, etc. At the food emporium, things were perfectly normal - including a significant number of Spanish-speaking employees on the job. On the way to the furniture shop, a block away from the Square, we passed some fringe group of lefty moonbats with banners for international worker solidarity (or some such dreck) - a really big crowd! - about 20 or so - easy enough to get past on the other side of the street.

Around 4:00-4:30, heading back home, there were now hordes more illegals swarming out of the subways - judging by the clock, they probably just got off work. They made up the bulk of the crowd that marched down Broadway to the federal complex downtown at Foley Square - just your basic Joses-come-lately - join the "movement" after a normal day at work.

Even my friend, who is generally much more liberal than I, made a few observations along the lines of  "These people are protesting for their 'rights'? WTF - they have no damn right to be here! They're illegal, right?"

The overall effect of the day on New York City's economy was precisely nil. There was some minor effect on traffic as the march blocked Broadway heading downtown for an hour or so.

But other than that, well, how does the word "counterproductive" translate into Spanish?

For the record zin'; #3 is your answer for the multiple choice scenarios in your first paragraph.

I'm not hateful for reasons of racism or xenophobia. It is for reasons of special considerations and entitlements I see being given every day and yet THEY wish MORE. Too ad to my hatred; my terse but benign mentioning of personal frustrations and subsequent fiscal loss incurred initially in the thread garnered neither silence nor understanding but rather pejorative backlash.
I was not looking for sympathy, and am not looking for it now. However; when a group of criminals by definition steals from me directly or indirectly I don't feel I should be under some mandate of political correctness too side with the philanthropists and say "Thank you sir, may I have another".


-- Modified on 5/4/2006 7:53:03 PM

Do you seperate carefully the ones who marched from those who didn't?  No, the association you make is tied together by race.  You'll make the single exceptions now and then to satisfy yourself that it isn't so, but the only common thread you'll have is race.  

Just remember, no matter how good some white men regarded some indians, finally the good ones were as screwed as the bad ones, and died violently in equal numbers.      

As for their being lawbreakers, I believe they are marching because you both want the same thing.  They don't want to be lawbreakers, and you don't want them to be lawbreakers either.  Unless of course, you are racist, and then you automatically regard them as lawbreakers, and you're unwilling to change the law.  

It's similar to the conservative argument over  marijuana laws.  Why is it wrong?  It's wrong because it's illegal.  So, can we make it legal?  No, because it's illegal.  Am I unreasonable in saying that there's another agenda hidden in that?

You feel as though they stole from you.  Would you feel the same way, for example, if you took a stock loss because Warren Buffet sold that day?  Would you conclude that he had intent to steal from you personally?  The results could certainly be the same.  You take a loss.  Not every loss is the moral equivalent of a mugging.  You can't put Warren Buffet in jail because he sold at a financially inconvenient time for you.  

I took a loss that day, and I am damn close to the poverty line right now.  I mean, till shortly before I wrote this, I hadn't had solid food for 36 hours.  However, I think that the cause is important enough.  

You unlike me, certainly have a right to grumble over it though.  Yes, political battles are often inconvenient.  However, politics are a substitute for war, and if it were war instead, your losses could conceivably be a lot higher.

Simple answer is naturalize, learn English or suffer the consequences.

 If what you say is true about being close to the poverty line we have more in common than you think.

 I occasionally smoke pot and in better times I hobbied. This makes me a perpetrator of victimless crimes. If I'm caught by the fascist automaton doing either I must however take my lumps.

 The illegal (criminal) aliens were gathered en-mass this past Monday and Law enforcement did NOTHING. When these human Xerox machines squirt out a larvae the kid is instantly a natural born citizen presenting the moral conundrum of how do we deport the illegal parent without indebting ourselves to foster the offspring. The illegals know this and consequently squirt out more kids then pinci moskas on stagnant water. They are gaming our system for all it has got. Then to ad insult they parade their flag, flaunt their foreign tongue, demand special rights by skillfully playing the "race card" every chance they get and all while practicing uncontrolled, irresponsible procreation and having you & me pay for everything from pre-natal care to having their teeth capped.

I got no problem with ‘legal” immigrants. I do however take umbrage to invading armies.

The man has told you what these people are demonstrating about:  the law DOES NOT ALLOW them to naturalize.

Why does he need to tell you?  Aren't you listening to the news?

Who is "intending to incite"?  With eg, terminology like "human Xerox machines squirt out a larvae"  which you know would start a fight in any face-to-face.   Your prescription is that, because you submit to "the fascist automaton", that they should.

I suspect that they are more assimilated than you think, because real Americans do not submit to facist automatons.   Looks to me like they might be more Americanized than you.   Or maybe just more normal.

And exactly who, or what, is the fascist automaton here?  The govt that is trying to figure out what to do?  Or the ignorant fucks like you, who do nothing but pitch hatred?

Zin may be unwilling to give you back your own meedicine; but I am.  You are talking like a latter-day Joe Goebbels, and that makes you either or both a blowhard or murderous asshole.

They have to be in the US at least 10 years illegally or be married to a citizen for three years.  

Sex workers have had their rallys and LE did nothing at all either.

Yes, indeed, if they **break** the law for 10 years they can then become legal.  In what other area of law could that be true?  It seems to me that a law where you can't exist except illegally is inherently absurd.

So, what "special right" are they demanding above and beyond the rights that you have?  The right to have children appears to be your right as well.  You yourself could, in theory, put 20 children through the public school system yourself at my expense.  I wouldn't and shouldn't have any say in it.  You've chosen not to exercise that right.

What I asked was only a trick question because it got you.  It incited you only because 5 seconds of thought looking at yourself would outrage you.  So, your only choice is to change subject and express your outrage at those people, and in a flagrantly racist way.  

Yes, I know if you're caught by the LE fascists you would so willingly take your lumps...

"They have to be in the US at least 10 years illegally or be married to a citizen for three years".

Sorry, no.  We don't want to go to the effort to provide citations (at least until you ask), but the short story is (a) naturalization requires holding a green card 1st, for 3-5 years, and also that a person has "good moral character", speaks English, passes the history test, etc.

(b) Green cards can be had several ways, but the common ones include close family relationships, employment in a proven labor shortage situation, and refugees.   ALL of those except marriage to a US citizen, or being the parent or child of a US citizen, require waiting for quotas which vary by category and country, usually anywhere from 5-15 YEARS.  Some Mexican and Philippine quotas are often over 20 years, and you should figure ANY process will eat 6-12 months in paper pushing time.

(c) Green cards MUST be denied if a person is in an undesirable category.  Common problems include any crime of moral turpitude, any misleading statement to US officers, failure to make 125% of the Federal poverty level, any illegal presence over 6 months, or any ATTEMPT to re-enter the USA illegally after a deportation or year of illegal presence.    Green cards cannot be processed in the USA unless a person is legal, or entered legally and is married to a US citizen.

So, for example, let's assume Bill Clinton were to apply for a green card, and tell an agent that "I held a joint, but didn't inhale".  That's an admission to a crime that would disqualify him.   Or, let's assume GW Bush was applying for a green card, and said, "I've never been arrested".  Well, that's a lie, and he'd be disqualified for a green card.

But the basic question here is, how long does a person have to be illegally in the USA, before they can legalize?  The answer to that question is, they have to prove they maintained continuous residence since January 1, 1972, AND be a person of good moral character, meaning, no crimes of moral turpitude during that time.  See, 8 USC 1259.   The real problem is, if you've been illegal and hiding under a bush for 34 years without a social security number, how the hell are you gonna prove you've been here?

In fact, a common threshold problem is simply proving who a person is, in the absence of identifying documents.   You can't even get into court, any court, if there is a question of identity - you become a nobody.  This is precisely the reason the Mexican consulates issue IDs, and the reason the antis oppose IDs - they would prefer them to stay nobodies, because if you can't even get into court, there's no way you can become legal.

Now all that being said, it is not at all clear to us what sort of right a person like that has to an easement to walk around & live in the USA.

But we are fairly sure that question is not likely to be resolved by some of the common assumptions we have seen, eg that anybody can hop across the border and become legal; or that Mexicans breed like cockroaches.  

Actually, I can think of a couple Mexicans (and a couple of many nationalities) I would not at all mind breeding, assuming of course no liability was involved - nevertheless, the cockroach style is a bit too kinky for me, and more than a little insulting to Selma.

-- Modified on 5/5/2006 4:58:34 PM

The law does not allow them to naturalize?  Spock, you slay me.

It's a general principle of law that no one ought to benefit from his/her wrongdoing.  Illegally entering the US, and finding that an official welcome mat has not put out for them ought to surprise then not a bit. And finding out that many indigenous US types look askance at their collective lawbreaking [even though it's only a civil wrong] and are not exactly overwhelmed by the better angels of their nature with regard to the present and future presence of the undocumented immigrants. What surprises me is that a man of your obvious intelligence would try to build an arguement around this point.

The law does allow them to apply to immigrate through established channels and procedures, just like, prosaic point that it is, tens of millions have done so before, hundreds of thousands do every year and will continue to do so as long as there be a USA.  Just as my miserable forebearers did lo those years ago, as probably did yours, and Zinaval's, and BizarroSuperdude's, and Robbed... and the rest of the Board.

It's bad enough to have your head pissed upon, but it's additionally insulting and mortifying to be told by the urinator [is that a word?] that it's not pee, it's raindrops.

by hiring someone

just hope her SS# is good...hehe.

just for one day, to one person i was not the white devil...

Read the code.    You may find that your intuition is wrong.

Now, perhaps what you mean is, "that's what we want, ie., a Catch-22".   You could save a lot of bandwidth by just saying that.

On the contrary, it does appear that many people believe that naturalization is as easy as say, standing in line a couple days, although those who have actually done that, and believe their experience is universally applicable, seem to think that's pretty onerous, an extreme hardship.

So we could just cut to the chase and just say, we don't care about the details, these folks are fine to make our clothing and cut our lawns, but we want to retain the right to disrupt their lives and summarily deport their asses if they get as resentful as we are.

What I'm saying here is that what we choose to do is a matter of policy.   But for us to be resentful, given our position in the world, is a sign of incredible ignorance and immaturity.   Might not hurt us to share a little, then, hmmm?

If we choose not to, then I suggest we should at least have the minimal class to at least find out what our own law says about the matter.   Might be a good idea to find out where we are, before we launch off to parts unknown...

Now, what does it take for a person to naturalize?  Do you know?  Read the code, please.   You will find that the code has very narrow qualifications, and the US economy demands a lot of unskilled workers without those qualifications.  

Now, what we should do about this is a matter of policy.   Personally, I am quite sure that the reason we do not pay more for enforcement is that, thru experience, we have found the cure worse than the disease.  Whether some sort of amnesty or other accomodation should be made, is also an issue of policy.

BUT, to get up on a political high horse, and call these people assholes and cockroach breeders, who could naturalize if they only chose, is recklessly ignorant at best, more likely plain disingenuous.
(Please note the immigration code is not common law, and not all that intuitive.)
Deportable they may be - although we suggest that inability to speak English is not grounds of deportability, and lucky for our President, too.      

That we choose not to deport them is not something we should blame them for.   It does seem to me that we could at least be courteous to people whose primary offense is trespass in search of work, even if we choose to evict them.  I could understand you might want to be rougher if you see their primary offense as being small brown and ignorant; but that's not my appraoch here.

Meanwhile, the 1st amendment is not limited to legal residents; it protects all humans within the jurisdiction.   That is the law, and IMHO a wise policy.

-- Modified on 5/7/2006 10:29:14 AM

(1) Any person who has been illegally in the USA for 6+ months is disqualified from legalization, see 8 USC 1182(a)(9)(B).  

(2)  People who are OUTSIDE the USA must fit into VERY narrow qualifying categories to come to the USA legally.  If you want those cites, we can provide them.   The typical process for proving employment eligibility (in the narrow circumstances where and when it can be proven) runs about 4 years and oh maybe $10,000+.  The typical blue collar workers that the economy demands cannot be legalized under the existing law, which is the prerequisite to naturalization.

  (a)  Americans can ship those jobs overseas, or we can pay more, probably a lot more, which means we do less of other things, like hobbying.  Without a command economy, we can't have it both ways.  Guess which one is going to happen?   Most likely neither.  Most likely we will carry on as we have, ie., bitching about our choices.    Choosing a command economy, especially one commanded by people who don't know WTF is going on, does not seem very wise.

   (b) Mr. Spock further seems to say, if you want it that way, ie, that they should not be able to legalize, you could just say so.   It could be that you don't know enough about the subject to know the impact of your advice.

Reo not take my word for it

Spock, if they don't qualify, they don't qualify.
[I think your argument OUGHT TO BE in favor of a massive change in the immigration laws, not a blashe acceptance of a massive defiance of the current ones.] You seem to think that's it's OK in that case for them to enter illegally, pull upon our heartstrings by publicizing the difficult circumstances under which they exist in El Norte, and wait us out and receive some sort of amnesty or defacto, if not de jure, legalization of status.  I cannot agree.  I'll pay a little more for my produce if that's the alternative.  I'll mow my own grass, etc...

Hey, I wanted to go to Yale, but my SATs just didn't qualify me to do so.  So I settled for other options and didn't try to sit in on the classes in New Haven, hoping by the fact of my sheer obstinant, unyielding presence to be admitted.

Please post the regs, just out of curiosity.

Naturalization ain't easy, but again, so what?  All gov't bureacracies are difficult and time-consuming to maneuver through.  That's the cost they have to pay.  You like your physician to have gone through all the proper ropesand routines and procedures to obtain a medical liscense, don't you? Why not the same concern re your fellow newly-minted US countrymen?

Whether they make my clothes, pick my produce, etc.. is of little concern to me.  That's under the control of transnational corporate entities, which you and I do frightfully little to influence. I'm not trying to disrupt their lives by threatening to deport them, but you seem to never notice that they're disrupting the lives of native born citizens by their massive and continued illegal presence in esto pais.  Spock, your priorities, sometimes I wonder...?

Let me be as clear as possible:

1. they are free to apply LEGALLY using the established procedures and channels.  If the procedure is diffucult and time-consuming, that's the nature of he beast;

2. if they do not qualify, they don't qualify.  Life's tough;

3. if they enter the US illegally, they have no right to be here, and if/when apprended, are to be deported;

4. success in evading detection, even if decades-long, does not in my mind qualify then for some sort of soft-hearted and soft-headed consideration of amnesty/naturalization, etc... And if, as you write, illegal residence in the US of 6+ months disqualifies that person from legalization, so be it. Case closed.  What could be more simple?

5. Many of these folks will no doubt have kids who are native-born citizens.  In that case, I'm willing to "parole" them temporarily in the US until the oldest child reaches legal age.  At that point the kid can "sponsor" his parents for citizenship under whatever regs exis for that.  If the kid cannot fulfill the sponsorship requirements, we MUST wave adios to the parents, and any other kids who are US citizens have the option of leaving the US to be with their parents [with he full right to return] OR becoming wards of the state.

A general principle of law is that someone should NOT benefit from his wrongdoing -- the position of you and Mr. Spock re these individuals seems to be totally innocent of any recognition of that long-standing principle of law.  Enter the US illegally, break the law, hang around long enough and we'll be silly enough to give you the very thing you could not qualify to earn legally?  I think not.  I hope not.

and that could be from, well, ignorance.   And it strikes us as incredibly peculiar and perhaps telling that people make this mistake.

As we have pointed out, there are 2 major aspects to the problem:  1st, the factual demographic/economic issues.   The awkward issue is that does merge with values, that are harder to  value or describe.  The 2nd issue is the law itself, which is how we propose to manage the demographics.  That of course is complicated by an unspoken aspect of the law, the BUDGET.

If your position is that a person who does not qualify should go back, then you need to say so, instead of adopting another person's argument to the effect that legalization/naturalization is simple, and the fact that illegal Mexicans don't do it is proof of malice.   Not so.

We believe that the present situation is the result of American policy to balance the cure and the disease; and the collective judgment to date has been that more of the obvious cure (ie enforcement) would be worse than the disease.   IMHO, that is a reasonable judgment; just as there is a wide range of reasonable choices - more or less enforcement, or other modifications might be reasonable.  Arguing from ignorance that the problem is simple is one of the few unreasonable choices.

Interestingly, your prescription (that a parent of a US citizen child should be paroled until the child's 18th birthday) is incredibly more generous than the existing law, and probably unworkable.   While the location of many births are more or less accidental, remember, this is economics, and people do adapt.  Your prescription would provide a powerful incentive to enter illegally, and drop kids without planning for their support.  While it sounds nice, we would have to recommend against it.

We suggest you try this a little at a time, and not make radical changes, because you may find that you like the result even less than Mexican flags.

We notice that you would rather not disrupt their lives except as necessary, but resent their disruption of your life.  What we would like is for you to identify exactly how they disrupt your life:  remember they came for work, and got it.  Presumably they are fitting voluntarily into a free (as free as it gets) market.  So what is the disruption to your life?  They occupy a trolley seat, stink & speak Spanish?  Anybody that occupies a trolley seat may stink.   We are thinking that your complaint comes down to personal comfort, much like Beverly Hills zoning laws, and while there is nothing wrong with that, it is important to be honest, and put your cards on the table.   Do you think that other groups of lower class people who do a lot of necessary jobs would be more acceptable to you if they were legal?  Eg, historically, blacks and other identifiable groups have done a lot of this sort of work, and people find other reasons to complain about them.   Just some thoughts, you know.

Now, as to the regs:  The "regs" are at 8 CFR, and in print are about an inch thick.   If you want regs on a specific subject (remembering that there is interplay among them, and a dozen provisions may apply to a given situation) we may oblige - remembering this takes time, and we should all be working.   Meanwhile, check Findlaw:

What we think you may be asking for is the statute, which is just about as long, see
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/8/toc.html

Another note:  Many people make assumptions about the status or interest of the demonstrators, but we have not seen any clear or convincing information that would lead us to generalize about their status or capacities.  We assume their motives are as they state; and you should be alert enough to know that their beef was HR 4437, which proposed to make illegal presence OR any assistance to an illegal (including housing your girlfriend or immediate relative, or helping her/them file papers to legalize themselves) into a felony.  This would make eg Catholic Charities into felons, and while we have little truck with most parts of the Church, there are places where they are as good as their word, and do provide maintenance for the lower classes - which, we remind you, are necessary to the upper classes.   We often seem to ignore the social environment here.  Personally, while we think you are more generous in the law than you realize, that is from ignorance, and we could not support your generosity in any case.

Spock will show his hand for once: Spock is not an advocate for much of anything except accurate information.   The primary difference between Spock and most facial anti-immigrants is that Spock has no need or desire to use these people as straw men for American troubles.  Deport them, fine.  Keep them out, fine.   Bitch that they are the cause of our troubles about our choices, unrealistic and immature.    

Spock believes (along with the Border Patrol) that walls are not unviversally effective.  In some areas, they are.   The areas where they don't exist are probably better covered by electronic surveillance.  These Border Patrol folks do alright with what they have.

A question arises, what is our real concern?  Is it keeping out criminals generally?  If that is the case, then we suggest the focus should be on criminals, and enforcing agreements with the Mexicans to keep tabs on criminals.  Of course, this is a matter of disagreement, but part of the problem is that Americans provide strong demand for narcotic drugs, and then blame other governments when their citizens supply that demand.  We think it may be smart to understand our own role in this, and that foreign governments may not be able to control their own criminals any more than we can control ours.

So if we want to keep out terrorists, a wall on the Canadian border would be more in order.  Spock's opinion is that (a) border security should be enhanced, but (b) the wall talk is a distraction, and almost certainly misuse of assets that should be used instead for electronic surveillance, and defense against criminals, in depth.

Spock thinks that it may be wise to change policy incrementally, to observe its effects - that we should focus on excluding bad people - including the ignorant, economically useless and criminal; and be more generous in legalizing those people who have proven value, ties and track records.  We are dubious about major sudden changes, simply because this has not worked well in the past, and the reason for them now is unclear.   We think that we must be brutally honest in sanctioning those who do not measure up, and understand that will come down hard on some native born people.   We do not think that a nation can be strong or even survive by making excuses for non-performance.

That would mean, Spock believes no amnesty, no major changes just yet.  Perhaps more budget for enforcement, particularly to international police functions and criminals, and perhaps some low-key, long term programs to allow narrow categories (narrower than you prescribed, and more focused on personal economic and family history) to avoid deportation temporarily - a sort of probationary period.

The real difference in views is that Spock understands that every Nobel Prize winning babe has ugly ass retards in her family, and she ain't gonna function without her baggage, and the choices are hard to make, and perhaps not the proper subject for recipes.

We apologize that our understanding of the subject disturbs the certainty of those posters who need to throw stones at something believable.  We suggest you take it to the wrestling matches.

Spock, i've put my card son the table -- if they don't qualify, they don't qualify.  I think that's plain enough.

I've not adopted a position of other posters [and I think you're referring incorrectly to Bizzaro Superdude] that immigration is an easy process.  I imagine it's one of the more difficult gov't bureaucratic mazes to navigate.  So what?  That's the nature of the beast.

Demographics?  Hey, the marketplace will make up someway for the missing bodies, you can be sure of that.  But it seems you ONLY perfer market operations when it attracts low-cost labor. C'mon is the price of lettuce and grapes and lawn care really that crucial to you?  If that's your position, state it.  And please, no nonsense about how they're here doing me a favor by doing essential work.  They're here as a consequence of the operations of transnational capitlal, operations which care nothing abut me, you, or them.  For a smart guy you're sometimes incredibly dense.

Inconveniencing the native-born?  I'm thinking about stuff like trampling accross people's property while entering El Norte [not a major wrong, to be sure], hanging around in groups in public to get picked up for day labor, depressing the wage rates of native born Americans, and the like.  But despite your protestations that you are a funky chap of modest means, you somehow must have mamanged to insultate yourself from all of that.

I wonder, are you just a very intelligent and well-spoken eccentric or do you represent a significant chunk of public opinion on this point?

than a wetback walking across somebody's lawn.

Ya know what?  Native born neighbors leave dogshit on each other's lawns, and somehow manage to work it out - the community survives.

But let a wetback actually WALK on your lawn, and the fucking world is gonna end.

What about dinks rummaging thru your garbage for soda cans?   Is that a threat to the social order, too?

We think you're disguising racism as logical argument.

As we have pointed out, that means we don't expect reasonable answers.

if description is advocacy, because you don' need no steenkin facts, then do we call the ignorance you prefer?

Racism?  

Not that there's anything wrong with that, understand.   We just think that there's better ways to do it, because it doesn't hurt our head to take the time to get it right the 1st time.