Guest bengalrick Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [url="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IMMIGRATION?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-27-20-11-48"]click here[/url] [i][b][size=3]Senate Panel Approves Immigration Bill[/size][/b] By DAVID ESPO AP Special Correspondent AP Photo/DENNIS COOK Other U.S. Video WASHINGTON (AP) -- [b]The Senate Judiciary Committee approved sweeping election-year legislation Monday that clears the way for 11 million illegal aliens to seek U.S. citizenship[/b], a victory for demonstrators who had spilled into the streets by the hundreds of thousands demanding better treatment for immigrants. [b]With a bipartisan coalition in control, the committee also voted down proposed criminal penalties on immigrants found to be in the country illegally.[/b] It approved a new temporary program allowing entry for 1.5 million workers seeking jobs in the agriculture industry. [b]"All Americans wanted fairness and they got it this evening,"[/b] said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who played a pivotal role in drafting the legislation. There was no immediate reaction from the White House, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. said he hoped President Bush would participate in efforts to fashion consensus legislation. "The only thing that's off the table is inaction," said Graham, who voted for the committee bill. The 12-6 vote broke down along unusual lines, with a majority of the panel's Republicans opposed to the measure even though their party controls the Senate. [b]Sen. Jon Kyl,[/b] R-Ariz., seeking re-election this fall in his border state, [b]said the bill offered amnesty to illegal immigrants, and sought unsuccessfully to insert tougher provisions[/b]. He told fellow committee members that the economy would turn sour some day and Americans workers would want the jobs that now go to illegal immigrants. They will ask, "how could you have let this happen," he added. Committee chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania was one of four Republicans to support the bill, but he signaled strongly that some of the more controversial provisions could well be changed when the measure reaches the Senate floor. That is "very frequently" the case when efforts to reach a broad bipartisan compromise falter, he noted. In general, the bill is designed to strengthen enforcement of U.S. borders, regulate the flow into the country of so-called guest workers and determine the legal future of the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally. President Bush, speaking to a group of 30 legal immigrants who'd just become naturalized U-S citizens, said he opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants. [b]The bill would double the Border Patrol and authorizes a "virtual wall" of unmanned vehicles, cameras and sensors to monitor the U.S.-Mexico border.[/b] It also allows more visas for nurses and agriculture workers, and shelters humanitarian organizations from prosecution if they provide non-emergency assistance to illegal residents. [b]The most controversial provision would permit illegal aliens currently in the country to apply for citizenship without first having to return home, a process that would take at least six years or more. They would have to pay a fine, learn English, study American civics, demonstrate they had paid their taxes and take their place behind other applicants for citizenship, according to aides to Kennedy.[/b] (what fucking incentive do they have to sign up, you fucking jackasses!!!!!!! either don't come to us and don't pay taxes or pay your taxes and come to us so we can track you better... trust us ) [b] "Well over 60 percent of Americans in all the polls I see think it's OK to have temporary workers, but you do not have to make them citizens," said Kyl.[/b] (bingo!!) [b]"We have a fundamental difference between the way you look at them and the way I look at them," Kennedy observed later.[/b] (the prevential "race" card... fucking idiot, its not b/c their mexican... its b/c they are here illegially you fucking schmuck ) Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, a potential presidential contender who worked with Kennedy on the issue, told reporters the street demonstrations had made an impact. "All those people who were demonstrating are not here illegally. They are the children and grandchildren" of those who may have been, he said. The committee met as several thousand demonstrators rallied at the foot of the Capitol. Many were members of the clergy who donned handcuffs and sang "We Shall Overcome," the unofficial anthem of the civil rights era. After a weekend of enormous rallies - a crowd of as many as 500,000 demonstrators in Los Angeles - thousands of students walked out of class in California and Texas to protest proposals to crack down on illegal immigrants. "Do you see the community? Do you see how many people didn't go to work today," asked Janet Padron, attending a rally in Michigan. Her remark underscored one of the issue's complexities. Senators on all sides of the issue agreed that illegal workers hold thousands of jobs that otherwise would go unfilled at the wages offered. The agriculture industry is "almost entirely dependent on undocumented workers," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. In purely political terms, the issue threatened to fracture Republicans as they head into the midterm election campaign - one group eager to make labor readily available for low-wage jobs in industries such as agriculture, construction and meatpacking, the other determined to place a higher emphasis on law enforcement. That was a split Bush was hoping to avoid after a political career spent building support for himself and his party from the fast-growing Hispanic population. "America should not have to choose between being a welcoming society and being a lawful society," Bush said at a naturalization ceremony for new citizens. "We can be both at the same time." Bush has said he favors a guest worker program, but it is unclear whether the administration would insist on a provision to require illegal immigrants already in the country to return home before they are allowed to apply for citizenship. At several critical points, committee Democrats showed unity while Republicans splintered. [b][size=2]In general, Graham, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio, who is seeking re-election this fall, voted with the Democrats.[/size][/b] That created a majority that allowed them to shape the bill to their liking. Feinstein won approval for the five-year program to permit as many as 1.5 million agriculture workers into the country. "It will provide the agriculture industry with a legal work force and offer agriculture workers a path to citizenship," she said. The vote was 11-5, with Republicans casting all the votes in opposition. Kennedy prevailed on a proposal to allow an additional 400,000 green cards for future immigrants, regardless of the industry where they find jobs. © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.[/i] unfuckingbelievable.... who the hell is going to sign up? why would they want to be found? why don't they make a law, that says "we will enforce the old immigration laws"... if they would fucking do that, instead of making up election year bullshit, we might actually get some work done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [b]how many times does Bush have to poop in Ricks cereal .... until he stops eating it [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/23.gif[/img] [/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Montana Bengal| Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='239496' date='Mar 27 2006, 09:12 PM'][url="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IMMIGRATION?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-27-20-11-48"]click here[/url] [i][size=3]Senate Panel Approves Immigration Bill[/size] [b]By DAVID ESPO AP Special Correspondent AP Photo/DENNIS COOK Other U.S. Video[/b] WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate Judiciary Committee approved sweeping election-year legislation Monday that clears the way for 11 million illegal aliens to seek U.S. citizenship, [b]a victory for demonstrators who had spilled into the streets by the hundreds of thousands demanding better treatment for immigrants. [/b] With a bipartisan coalition in control, the committee also voted down proposed criminal penalties on immigrants found to be in the country illegally. [b]It approved a new temporary program allowing entry for 1.5 million workers seeking jobs in the agriculture industry.[/b] "All Americans wanted fairness and they got it this evening," [b]said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who played a pivotal role in drafting the legislation.[/b] [b]There was no immediate reaction from the White House, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. said he hoped President Bush would participate in efforts to fashion consensus legislation. "The only thing that's off the table is inaction," said Graham, who voted for the committee bill.[/b] [b]The 12-6 vote broke down along unusual lines, with a majority of the panel's Republicans opposed to the measure even though their party controls the Senate.[/b] Sen. Jon Kyl, [b]R-Ariz., seeking re-election this fall in his border state, [/b] said the bill offered amnesty to illegal immigrants, and sought unsuccessfully to insert tougher provisions. [b]He told fellow committee members that the economy would turn sour some day and Americans workers would want the jobs that now go to illegal immigrants. They will ask, "how could you have let this happen," he added. Committee chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania was one of four Republicans to support the bill, but he signaled strongly that some of the more controversial provisions could well be changed when the measure reaches the Senate floor. That is "very frequently" the case when efforts to reach a broad bipartisan compromise falter, he noted. In general, the bill is designed to strengthen enforcement of U.S. borders, regulate the flow into the country of so-called guest workers and determine the legal future of the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally. President Bush, speaking to a group of 30 legal immigrants who'd just become naturalized U-S citizens, said he opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants.[/b] The bill would double the Border Patrol and authorizes a "virtual wall" of unmanned vehicles, cameras and sensors to monitor the U.S.-Mexico border. [b] It also allows more visas for nurses and agriculture workers, and shelters humanitarian organizations from prosecution if they provide non-emergency assistance to illegal residents.[/b] The most controversial provision would permit illegal aliens currently in the country to apply for citizenship without first having to return home, a process that would take at least six years or more. They would have to pay a fine, learn English, study American civics, demonstrate they had paid their taxes and take their place behind other applicants for citizenship, according to aides to Kennedy. [b](what fucking incentive do they have to sign up, you fucking jackasses!!!!!!! either don't come to us and don't pay taxes or pay your taxes and come to us so we can track you better... trust us [/b] "Well over 60 percent of Americans in all the polls I see think it's OK to have temporary workers, but you do not have to make them citizens," said Kyl. [b](bingo!!)[/b] "We have a fundamental difference between the way you look at them and the way I look at them," Kennedy observed later. [b](the prevential "race" card... fucking idiot, its not b/c their mexican... its b/c they are here illegially you fucking schmuck [/b] [b]Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, a potential presidential contender who worked with Kennedy on the issue, told reporters the street demonstrations had made an impact. "All those people who were demonstrating are not here illegally. They are the children and grandchildren" of those who may have been, he said. The committee met as several thousand demonstrators rallied at the foot of the Capitol. Many were members of the clergy who donned handcuffs and sang "We Shall Overcome," the unofficial anthem of the civil rights era. After a weekend of enormous rallies - a crowd of as many as 500,000 demonstrators in Los Angeles - thousands of students walked out of class in California and Texas to protest proposals to crack down on illegal immigrants. "Do you see the community? Do you see how many people didn't go to work today," asked Janet Padron, attending a rally in Michigan. Her remark underscored one of the issue's complexities. Senators on all sides of the issue agreed that illegal workers hold thousands of jobs that otherwise would go unfilled at the wages offered. The agriculture industry is "almost entirely dependent on undocumented workers," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. In purely political terms, the issue threatened to fracture Republicans as they head into the midterm election campaign - one group eager to make labor readily available for low-wage jobs in industries such as agriculture, construction and meatpacking, the other determined to place a higher emphasis on law enforcement. That was a split Bush was hoping to avoid after a political career spent building support for himself and his party from the fast-growing Hispanic population. "America should not have to choose between being a welcoming society and being a lawful society," Bush said at a naturalization ceremony for new citizens. "We can be both at the same time." Bush has said he favors a guest worker program, but it is unclear whether the administration would insist on a provision to require illegal immigrants already in the country to return home before they are allowed to apply for citizenship. At several critical points, committee Democrats showed unity while Republicans splintered. [/b] [size=2]In general, Graham, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio, who is seeking re-election this fall, voted with the Democrats.[/size] [b]That created a majority that allowed them to shape the bill to their liking.[/b] [b]Feinstein won approval for the five-year program to permit as many as 1.5 million agriculture workers into the country. "It will provide the agriculture industry with a legal work force and offer agriculture workers a path to citizenship," she said. The vote was 11-5, with Republicans casting all the votes in opposition. Kennedy prevailed on a proposal to allow an additional 400,000 green cards for future immigrants, regardless of the industry where they find jobs.[/b] © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.[/i] [b]unfuckingbelievable.... who the hell is going to sign up? why would they want to be found? why don't they make a law, that says "we will enforce the old immigration laws"... if they would fucking do that, instead of making up election year bullshit, we might actually get some work done...[/b][/quote] [size=3][color="#000000"][color="#CC0000"]Do any of you ever get the urge to invert the bolds on these longer articles to see how much the emphasis would change the posters meaning?[/color][/color][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Henrys Dealer Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='239496' date='Mar 27 2006, 11:12 PM'][url="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IMMIGRATION?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-27-20-11-48"]click here[/url] [/b] (what fucking incentive do they have to sign up, you fucking jackasses!!!!!!! either don't come to us and don't pay taxes or pay your taxes and come to us so we can track you better... trust us ) [/b][/quote] With regards to the Amnesty offer, history pretty much indicates that they are usually acted on. Be that in a matter of taxes, immigration, declaring income etc. While some people might choose to not pay taxes and register, I think you'd find the majority would. It removes a potential obstacle and more importantly to them, secures their family's future in the States legally. Canada had a ruling like this earlier, where a general amnesty was offered to people working in the country on expired student visas, illegal visas and such. There were some qualifications of course, depended on what industry you were in, a clean criminal record etc, the response was overwhelming for people taking advantage of the amnesty. You can argue that the chance to get free Canadian health care might have played a part, but they were also exposing themselves to fairly stiff taxes. When Putin came to power in Russia, he needed to expand the tax paying base. He offered a general amnesty on money inflows back into Russia, on people who had cheated on taxes, and instituted a flat 13% tax. The response was overwhelming. And this is Russia where a large fear of the state still persists. People flooded their money back, and despite the tax rate going down, tax revenues exploded for Putin due to more people paying them. The offer to completely legalise your stay / finances in a country is a big offer. I think most people would take advantage of it, and not stay under the radar screen (in case of criminals, maybe, but that would be a small percentage overall) These people are here to get a better life. I think in areas where qualification is possible, people would jump all over this shit. While they might take the hit in taxes, they know that it would safeguard and legalise their children's stay here. That's a huge factor for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='Montana Bengal' post='239636' date='Mar 28 2006, 01:28 AM'][size=3][color="#000000"][color="#CC0000"]Do any of you ever get the urge to invert the bolds on these longer articles to see how much the emphasis would change the posters meaning?[/color][/color][/size][/quote] are you happy about this "victory"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='BlackJesus' post='239510' date='Mar 27 2006, 11:39 PM'][b]how many times does Bush have to poop in Ricks cereal .... until he stops eating it [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/23.gif[/img] [/b][/quote] bush didn't poop in my cereal on this one (yet)... that would be the democrat members in the panel, and add on mike "i have no chance of reelection" dewine from ohio and sam brownback... this isn't law yet, but it is on its way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='Chris Henrys Dealer' post='239705' date='Mar 28 2006, 08:21 AM'][quote name='bengalrick' post='239496' date='Mar 27 2006, 11:12 PM'] [url="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IMMIGRATION?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-27-20-11-48"]click here[/url] [/b] (what fucking incentive do they have to sign up, you fucking jackasses!!!!!!! either don't come to us and don't pay taxes or pay your taxes and come to us so we can track you better... trust us ) [/b][/quote] With regards to the Amnesty offer, history pretty much indicates that they are usually acted on. Be that in a matter of taxes, immigration, declaring income etc. While some people might choose to not pay taxes and register, I think you'd find the majority would. It removes a potential obstacle and more importantly to them, secures their family's future in the States legally. Canada had a ruling like this earlier, where a general amnesty was offered to people working in the country on expired student visas, illegal visas and such. There were some qualifications of course, depended on what industry you were in, a clean criminal record etc, the response was overwhelming for people taking advantage of the amnesty. You can argue that the chance to get free Canadian health care might have played a part, but they were also exposing themselves to fairly stiff taxes. When Putin came to power in Russia, he needed to expand the tax paying base. He offered a general amnesty on money inflows back into Russia, on people who had cheated on taxes, and instituted a flat 13% tax. The response was overwhelming. And this is Russia where a large fear of the state still persists. People flooded their money back, and despite the tax rate going down, tax revenues exploded for Putin due to more people paying them. The offer to completely legalise your stay / finances in a country is a big offer. I think most people would take advantage of it, and not stay under the radar screen (in case of criminals, maybe, but that would be a small percentage overall) These people are here to get a better life. I think in areas where qualification is possible, people would jump all over this shit. While they might take the hit in taxes, they know that it would safeguard and legalise their children's stay here. That's a huge factor for them. [/quote] you may be right.... but there is no hiding that this is amnesty.. it may not officially be called that, but it is... do you guys hear that... that is the bull rush of people coming into america illegially, so they can be on the fast track to citizenship... history speaks for itself... everytime a form of amnesty is passed, the illegial immigration rates sky rocket, for obvious reasons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Let's just kill all the beaners... If they come to this county illiagley=they want to take our jobs=destroy our ecomnomy. Im ready to join up with the Minute Men=Patroits. </sarcasm> Anyone think that maybe if the Mexican econonmy was good they wouldnt be heading here? Perhaps if those who are commenting on the fall of the US economy are right well all be heading to Canada. Then our canuck friends will be espouting "get rid of them yankees" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='239781' date='Mar 28 2006, 12:08 PM']Let's just kill all the beaners... If they come to this county illiagley=they want to take our jobs=destroy our ecomnomy. Im ready to join up with the Minute Men=Patroits. </sarcasm> Anyone think that maybe if the Mexican econonmy was good they wouldnt be heading here? Perhaps if those who are commenting on the fall of the US economy are right well all be heading to Canada. Then our canuck friends will be espouting "get rid of them yankees"[/quote] that very well might be so, jamie... but our national security is on the line here... the long term solution is to promote the mexican economy... problem is, the mexican government are not trying to do the same... instead, they are giving out brochures about how to sneak into our country... we can't promote the mexican economy, while mexico is promoting their citizens to leave their country, go to america, and send home their earnings to their family... i am for a work permit program, b/c i see the benefits of having these workers in our country... but we better do it right, or we will pay for it... if we don't fix our problems now, imagine what our country will do, if another attack hits us on our soil and we find out that they entered through either the mexican or canadian border? things will hit the fan, and i could see a 300 mile wall being constructed... lets attack this problem now, before its too late... and for the record, i know your against the wall, and you know that i am somewhat for the wall (in strategic spots... not just a wall)... but the last thing i want, is a huge wall on the northern and southern borders... only is spots that would be hard to patrol or use our technology... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='239792' date='Mar 28 2006, 12:18 PM'][quote name='Jamie_B' post='239781' date='Mar 28 2006, 12:08 PM'] Let's just kill all the beaners... If they come to this county illiagley=they want to take our jobs=destroy our ecomnomy. Im ready to join up with the Minute Men=Patroits. </sarcasm> Anyone think that maybe if the Mexican econonmy was good they wouldnt be heading here? Perhaps if those who are commenting on the fall of the US economy are right well all be heading to Canada. Then our canuck friends will be espouting "get rid of them yankees"[/quote] that very well might be so, jamie... but our national security is on the line here... the long term solution is to promote the mexican economy... problem is, the mexican government are not trying to do the same... instead, they are giving out brochures about how to sneak into our country... we can't promote the mexican economy, while mexico is promoting their citizens to leave their country, go to america, and send home their earnings to their family... i am for a work permit program, b/c i see the benefits of having these workers in our country... but we better do it right, or we will pay for it... if we don't fix our problems now, imagine what our country will do, if another attack hits us on our soil and we find out that they entered through either the mexican or canadian border? things will hit the fan, and i could see a 300 mile wall being constructed... lets attack this problem now, before its too late... and for the record, i know your against the wall, and you know that i am somewhat for the wall (in strategic spots... not just a wall)... but i am scared of what could happen if we don't fix this now... [/quote] How about we fix the issues within the FBI. That would go a long way in securing the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengaljet Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 So I called Sen. Dewine's office in Columbus(614-469-6774). I asked the guy that answered what does "illegal" mean? He said "illegal" means illegal,so I gave him the definition that "illegal" means against the law-holy hell we had a meaning that we could agree on. I had to do most of the talking(I probably wasn't the 1st to call). He was pretty quiet and didn't have a lot to say to a peon. He said he'll pass on the information to Dewine + Voinovich=Mission Accomplished.lol I said things like: 1. The US is a land of laws,what happens when you brake the law 2. months ago the US slapped the illegals on the wrist by giving them free healthcare 3. If I go rob a bank(it's illegal) will I get amnesty 4. I've got an uncle at Leavenworth-he only committed 1 crime,but killed 3 people,will he get amnesty 5. IF the US is going to be consistent then ALL prisoners in US should be given amnesty Before I'm attacked,3-5 were to "piss" on his Cheerios. The only information he came up with was "illegal" means illegal. No explanations given by him for amnesty. I think he had an "agree" + "disagree" list and that's all the information that he recorded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalSIS Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='239792' date='Mar 28 2006, 12:18 PM'][quote name='Jamie_B' post='239781' date='Mar 28 2006, 12:08 PM'] Let's just kill all the beaners... If they come to this county illiagley=they want to take our jobs=destroy our ecomnomy. Im ready to join up with the Minute Men=Patroits. </sarcasm> Anyone think that maybe if the Mexican econonmy was good they wouldnt be heading here? Perhaps if those who are commenting on the fall of the US economy are right well all be heading to Canada. Then our canuck friends will be espouting "get rid of them yankees"[/quote] that very well might be so, jamie... but our national security is on the line here... the long term solution is to promote the mexican economy... problem is, the mexican government are not trying to do the same... instead, they are giving out brochures about how to sneak into our country... we can't promote the mexican economy, while mexico is promoting their citizens to leave their country, go to america, and send home their earnings to their family... i am for a work permit program, b/c i see the benefits of having these workers in our country... but we better do it right, or we will pay for it... if we don't fix our problems now, imagine what our country will do, if another attack hits us on our soil and we find out that they entered through either the mexican or canadian border? things will hit the fan, and i could see a 300 mile wall being constructed... lets attack this problem now, before its too late... and for the record, i know your against the wall, and you know that i am somewhat for the wall (in strategic spots... not just a wall)... but the last thing i want, is a huge wall on the northern and southern borders... only is spots that would be hard to patrol or use our technology... [/quote] Ok, a rant for a second...NOT ONE SINGLE FREAKING TERRORIST from 9/11 entered the US through the Mexican or Canadian border. Good ol USA let em straight in. I'm all for securing the borders, but we have more problems than people sneakin in. And rick, you keep sayin that we are better by improvin mexican economy, third world economies, etc. Why don't we just focus on our own for the moment? We are doing such a good job giving other countries jobs, we suck at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 i don't know much about the FBI's problems, but i assume there needs to be some things fixed there too... but this alone, wouldn't fix the problem imo... this would only help fix the enforcement of the law, once they are already here.. i treat this solely as a national security issue... therefore, we have to be on the offense of this problem, instead of the defense... i don't want to wait until they get here illegially, and then deport them... i want to stop them from coming in, and punish those that are screwing our system, by hiring people under the table... jamie, i'm confussed on your position here... are you against what the minutemen did for our borders? do you see the borders as a national security issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='239808' date='Mar 28 2006, 12:35 PM']i don't know much about the FBI's problems, but i assume there needs to be some things fixed there too... but this alone, wouldn't fix the problem imo... this would only help fix the enforcement of the law, once they are already here.. i treat this solely as a national security issue... therefore, we have to be on the offense of this problem, instead of the defense... i don't want to wait until they get here illegially, and then deport them... i want to stop them from coming in, and punish those that are screwing our system, by hiring people under the table... jamie, i'm confussed on your position here... are you against what the minutemen did for our borders? do you see the borders as a national security issue?[/quote] [url="http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/sep05/1455"]http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/sep05/1455[/url] Start there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='BengalSIS' post='239805' date='Mar 28 2006, 12:33 PM'][quote name='bengalrick' post='239792' date='Mar 28 2006, 12:18 PM'] [quote name='Jamie_B' post='239781' date='Mar 28 2006, 12:08 PM'] Let's just kill all the beaners... If they come to this county illiagley=they want to take our jobs=destroy our ecomnomy. Im ready to join up with the Minute Men=Patroits. </sarcasm> Anyone think that maybe if the Mexican econonmy was good they wouldnt be heading here? Perhaps if those who are commenting on the fall of the US economy are right well all be heading to Canada. Then our canuck friends will be espouting "get rid of them yankees"[/quote] that very well might be so, jamie... but our national security is on the line here... the long term solution is to promote the mexican economy... problem is, the mexican government are not trying to do the same... instead, they are giving out brochures about how to sneak into our country... we can't promote the mexican economy, while mexico is promoting their citizens to leave their country, go to america, and send home their earnings to their family... i am for a work permit program, b/c i see the benefits of having these workers in our country... but we better do it right, or we will pay for it... if we don't fix our problems now, imagine what our country will do, if another attack hits us on our soil and we find out that they entered through either the mexican or canadian border? things will hit the fan, and i could see a 300 mile wall being constructed... lets attack this problem now, before its too late... and for the record, i know your against the wall, and you know that i am somewhat for the wall (in strategic spots... not just a wall)... but the last thing i want, is a huge wall on the northern and southern borders... only is spots that would be hard to patrol or use our technology... [/quote] Ok, a rant for a second...NOT ONE SINGLE FREAKING TERRORIST from 9/11 entered the US through the Mexican or Canadian border. Good ol USA let em straight in. I'm all for securing the borders, but we have more problems than people sneakin in. And rick, you keep sayin that we are better by improvin mexican economy, third world economies, etc. Why don't we just focus on our own for the moment? We are doing such a good job giving other countries jobs, we suck at home. [/quote] i didn't say they did... but there are supposidely 14 million people in our country right now, that are here illegially... and only one of those people had to bring a nuke or dirty bomb in with them, to do massive amounts of damage... there are problems accrossed the board.... i am only talking about one, in this post... this isn't something i continually harp on, but i saw that we passed a law that says we can't arrest people that come here illegially, and we are going to make it easier to become an american citizen for those same people that broke into our country... and sis, it was jamie's idea to stop this problem by promoting mexico.. i simply said that that is a long term solution, b/c the problem isn't that our security sucks so bad... its b/c there is a huge gap in wealth from the US to mexico, and the real way to stop the problem, is prop up mexico... i know many don't agree w/ me on here about our economy, but i call 90-95% of the population working, wages continually rising, inflation kept in check, and GDP continally rising, and i think our economy is actually pretty damn strong... i know about the dollar problems we might be having in the future, but as of now, we aren't doing horrible... and propping up other countries helps us too economically... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 And to answer your question about borders being a security issue. Of course they are, but the solutions some are espouting like the Minutemen and a wall are too simplistic and very much against what this country stood (and I hope still does) for and what is written on the statue of liberty... [quote]"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door. "[/quote] We have to walk this fine line of not going back on our beliefs while securing the county and there are better ways to do it than the solutions the fearfull are providing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalSIS Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 I don't disagree about the illegal immigration problem rick. I don't like em getting in either. Nor do I like treating them as citizens when they aren't. Just so you know I wasn't disagreeing with that part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='239813' date='Mar 28 2006, 12:38 PM'][quote name='bengalrick' post='239808' date='Mar 28 2006, 12:35 PM'] i don't know much about the FBI's problems, but i assume there needs to be some things fixed there too... but this alone, wouldn't fix the problem imo... this would only help fix the enforcement of the law, once they are already here.. i treat this solely as a national security issue... therefore, we have to be on the offense of this problem, instead of the defense... i don't want to wait until they get here illegially, and then deport them... i want to stop them from coming in, and punish those that are screwing our system, by hiring people under the table... jamie, i'm confussed on your position here... are you against what the minutemen did for our borders? do you see the borders as a national security issue?[/quote] [url="http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/sep05/1455"]http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/sep05/1455[/url] Start there. [/quote] damn, we got beant over on that one... [i]Fine concluded that four years after terrorists crashed jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the FBI, which had been criticized for not "connecting the dots" in time to prevent the attacks, still did not have the software necessary to connect any new dots that might come along. And won't for years to come.[/i] if our government was caught up w/ the technologies that are available, we would be much, much more safe... point taken... i guess your point (correct me if i'm wrong) is there are problems accrossed the board... i couldn't agree more... but i am simply looking at one vulnerablity, in this case, instead of looking at all the holes we have in national defense... but it doesn't hide the fact, that a bill was just passed that: [i]the committee also voted down proposed criminal penalties on immigrants found to be in the country illegally[/i] ... this makes zero sense to me... i take that back, it makes no common sense, but it makes sense to them b/c there were alot of voters out there, in those protests.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='BengalSIS' post='239817' date='Mar 28 2006, 12:43 PM']I don't disagree about the illegal immigration problem rick. I don't like em getting in either. Nor do I like treating them as citizens when they aren't. Just so you know I wasn't disagreeing with that part.[/quote] sorry if i came accrossed as an asshole... but, i must admit, i am surprised at the reactions on this thread so far... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='239819' date='Mar 28 2006, 12:49 PM'][quote name='Jamie_B' post='239813' date='Mar 28 2006, 12:38 PM'] [quote name='bengalrick' post='239808' date='Mar 28 2006, 12:35 PM'] i don't know much about the FBI's problems, but i assume there needs to be some things fixed there too... but this alone, wouldn't fix the problem imo... this would only help fix the enforcement of the law, once they are already here.. i treat this solely as a national security issue... therefore, we have to be on the offense of this problem, instead of the defense... i don't want to wait until they get here illegially, and then deport them... i want to stop them from coming in, and punish those that are screwing our system, by hiring people under the table... jamie, i'm confussed on your position here... are you against what the minutemen did for our borders? do you see the borders as a national security issue?[/quote] [url="http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/sep05/1455"]http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/sep05/1455[/url] Start there. [/quote] damn, we got beant over on that one... [i]Fine concluded that four years after terrorists crashed jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the FBI, which had been criticized for not "connecting the dots" in time to prevent the attacks, still did not have the software necessary to connect any new dots that might come along. And won't for years to come.[/i] if our government was caught up w/ the technologies that are available, we would be much, much more safe... point taken... i guess your point (correct me if i'm wrong) is there are problems accrossed the board... i couldn't agree more... but i am simply looking at one vulnerablity, in this case, instead of looking at all the holes we have in national defense... but it doesn't hide the fact, that a bill was just passed that: [i]the committee also voted down proposed criminal penalties on immigrants found to be in the country illegally[/i] ... this makes zero sense to me... i take that back, it makes no common sense, but it makes sense to them b/c there were alot of voters out there, in those protests.... [/quote] I have quazi-intimate knowlege of that project as I was offered a job on it, and it was on the same campus I was on before my former company lost the contract Im currently on. It was a mess..and it was so because of two things that run rampid in Washington on both sides of the isle. Hubris and Arrogance. Now you want to get really pissed off? This kind of thing is more common than most realize, as a matter of fact it probabally happens more often than naught. (As Im sure Bung's dad would attest to) Start doing some research into contracts getting lost and money wasted. You do have to look at the grand scheme of things rather than just one issue, because often one issue effects other issues. Got to look at the big picture my man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='239816' date='Mar 28 2006, 12:42 PM']And to answer your question about borders being a security issue. Of course they are, but the solutions some are espouting like the Minutemen and a wall are too simplistic and very much against what this country stood (and I hope still does) for and what is written on the statue of liberty... [quote] "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door. "[/quote] We have to walk this fine line of not going back on our beliefs while securing the county and there are better ways to do it than the solutions the fearfull are providing. [/quote] the best way to do it, is to secure the borders, promote the mexican economy, attack the business owners who hire illegial's, and give a good reason for the illegial immigrants to sign up for working permits... we can't use force to get them out of country, but we have to to us force to keep them out... its more complicated than that, but the best way to stop them from coming in, is make it harder to come it, and then harder to get a job w/out a permit... and for the ones that don't sign up in a reasonable amount of time, when we find them, we deport them... if we do it all right, there won't be too many that didn't sign up, so it will be more feasable than simply deporting everyone here illegially... some intersting facts about our founding fathers (who were all immigrants) take on immigrations: [url="http://oriole.umd.edu/~mddlmddl/791/legal/html/immi1700.html"]click here[/url] [i]The founding fathers were aware of the benefits of encouraging immigrants to settle in the American colonies, but even with the benefits, many of our political leaders had their suspicions concerning immigrants. Benjamin Franklin had his concerns over the rising number of German immigrants who were pouring into Pennsylvania. He had "misgivings about Germans because of their clannishness, their little knowledge of English, the German press, and the increasing need of interpreters. Speaking of the latter he said, ‘I suppose in a few years they will also be necessary in the Assembly, to tell one-half of our legislators what the other half say.'" (Keely 1979, 9) On July 7, 1775, the General Washington had issued a General Order that no man should be appointed a sentry who was not a ‘native of the country,’ and three days later he approved an order to the recruiting service ‘not to enlist any person who is not an American-born, unless such person has a wife and family and is a settled resident in this country.’ For service in his own military guard the General permitted only native-born Americans. He inveighed against the relatively large number of foreign officers and adventurers among his troops. ‘My opinion, with respect to emigration,’ he advised John Adams, ‘is that except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement, while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.’ (Bennett 1963, 7) Thomas Jefferson favored immigration restriction. In 1782 he stated in part in his Notes on Virginia: ‘But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against any advantage expected form a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which of necessity they must transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours, perhaps, are more peculiar than those of any other. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English Constitution with others derived from natural right and reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants. They will bring with them the principles of governments they leave, or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as usual, from one extreme to the other. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely atthe point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers they will share legislation with us. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp or bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.’ (Bennett 1963, 8) Once the Revolutionary War began with Great Britain, the Continental Congress assumed political authority for the thirteen colonies. The Continental Congress approved in 1781 The Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States. In regards to immigration laws, the Continental Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, did not claim its authority to regulate immigration. The authority for immigration continued to be at the state level. "Under Article 4 of the Articles of Confederation adopted in 1778, the citizens of each state were made citizens of every other state, but each state retained its own naturalization and immigration laws and standards. This resulted in continued confusion and ineffective legislation concerning immigration." (Bennett 1963, 9) [/i] our founding fathers were not as "pro immigration" as we make them out to be... even franklin, who said the infamous: "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" was skeptical about german immigrants... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Rick you agree with me that helping getting the Mexican econonmy improved is a solution, long terms perhaps, but we arent even talking about it at all on the national level as any kind of solution. If you understand the problem as to why they want to come here in the first place then you can start on a solution. Imagine a not too distant future in which the US is struggling and people cant find jobs and they have not just theirs but their family's mouths to feed....and the Cananda's econonmy is good and there are jobs (maybee you have to clean a bathroom, but you have work)...dont you think you'd go to Canada? Canadians arent comming to this county in those kind of numbers. Why is that? Perhaps because they have a good econonmy. And here is another thing...what happens if we kick all these guys out and piss them off? (You saw the numbers in that protest rally)...Do they become the next terrorist country? If so we would really have a huge problem, even moreso than some middle eastern county, due to their close proximity. The worker program isnt a bad soltution. The H1-B visa isnt a bad solution. Perhaps if we look also at using the money they are getting and taxing it and then earmarking it towards solutions to help the mexican econonmy it might do wonders not just for our relations, but for their people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Montana Bengal| Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='239736' date='Mar 28 2006, 08:17 AM'][quote name='Montana Bengal' post='239636' date='Mar 28 2006, 01:28 AM'] [size=3][color="#000000"][color="#CC0000"]Do any of you ever get the urge to invert the bolds on these longer articles to see how much the emphasis would change the posters meaning?[/color][/color][/size][/quote] are you happy about this "victory"? [/quote] Relax Rick, it was a late night post that I couldn't get through. I do think that I asked an interesting question. I do agree with sis. We should be getting our own crap together. I'm all for helping others, but we can't take care of our own. How can we be a world leader if we aren't leading but two things "jack and shit, and jack (has) left town." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 but jamie, canada is currently making laws that promote their economy... we are helping canada, but they are doing it for themselves... we can't do it, if the mexican gov't is not trying to do the same... imo, promoting their economy is the ultimate goal, but in the mean time, we have to plug up other holes... i'm not sure you understand my position on this... i don't want to just deport everyone in illegially in america, out of here... not only is this not feasible, but its racists (unless we round up all races and not just mexicans) and its harmful to our overall goal... we should attack the business owners, while better securing our borders... that way, the incentive to sneak in is lower... if both of these goals are accomplished, then teh last part will be the easy part... if they can't get work w/ a permit, they will come to get their permit... the key to this whole equation though, is step 3 is only as good as how well you accomplished step's 1 and 2... the incentive has to be gone and the work has to be scarce... otherwise, they will continue doing it how they are now... <edit> for spelling nazi's, please forgive my spelling of illegal... i knew it was wrong, but i finally looked it up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='Montana Bengal' post='239841' date='Mar 28 2006, 01:35 PM'][quote name='bengalrick' post='239736' date='Mar 28 2006, 08:17 AM'] [quote name='Montana Bengal' post='239636' date='Mar 28 2006, 01:28 AM'] [size=3][color="#000000"][color="#CC0000"]Do any of you ever get the urge to invert the bolds on these longer articles to see how much the emphasis would change the posters meaning?[/color][/color][/size][/quote] are you happy about this "victory"? [/quote] Relax Rick, it was a late night post that I couldn't get through. I do think that I asked an interesting question. I do agree with sis. We should be getting our own crap together. I'm all for helping others, but we can't take care of our own. How can we be a world leader if we aren't leading but two things "jack and shit, and jack (has) left town." [/quote] it was an intersting post, in it that it shows how someone can thwart a persons thinking but making them focus on certain parts of an article... it also shows us that there are some really good things in that bill... however, imo, the bad far outweighs the good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.