Saturday, June 02, 2007

WWJD? (Who Would Jesus Deport)

Oh, man is my blood boiling.

This LA Times article paints a sweet picture.

A mother's plight revives the sanctuary movement
Refusing to leave her U.S.-born son, an illegal immigrant from Mexico takes refuge in a Chicago church and leads a new crusade.
By Louis Sahagun, Times Staff Writer
June 2, 2007

Sanctuary, in antiquity the practice of providing refuge in a sacred place, has been revived in a rather dramatic fashion by an undocumented Mexican cleaning woman trying to evade deportation by holing up in a Chicago church.

Elvira Arellano, 32, said she invoked the ancient right of sanctuary in a desperate effort to avoid being separated from her 7-year-old son, Saul, an American citizen.
----

Hey, lady! Take your son with you!

132 comments:

WeWantTheFunk said...

* FIRST *

Snuff said...

Let he without sin cast the FIRST stone :)

flailing forward said...

I'm too depressed over IAFF being over to even say first. Or murst.

Mouse And Pencil said...

We've got to change the Constitution granting citizenship to children born here.

But in the meantime...what do we do with the ones here?

I don't have any answers.

Other than invade Mexico and install a democratic government, or make it a state. Hell, if I lived in Mexico, I'd want out, too.

I'd rather send troops for that, than in Iraq, honestly. Take out the drug dealers with tanks, and frog march the corrupt politicians out of town.

But we'd need to do that here, first.

Benoit™ said...

Allegedly, the Book of Revelations refers to the Anti-Christ as a light-skinned, blond man, who uses an organic hair wax....

Terrifying. ;-p

Rob Dawg said...

Mouse,
There's nothing in the Constitution about citizenship by birth. That's an interpretation. We could just as easily go the other way with a simple adminstrative finding.

Rob Dawg said...

What does the Book of Revelations say about the first shall be last and the last shall carry a murse?

Bemused Guy said...

Does anyone know how Mexico protects its southern border? Is it is porous as the US?

flailing forward said...

Sorry lady, that asylum thing only worked in Highlander.

As far as prophecy from Revelations, we've already seen a plague of locusts on the mortgage and housing industries. And if you're a Biblical scholar, you will of course be familiar with the fifth horseman that rode a blue orb and shot incompetence from his fingertips. (This horseman was of course deleted from the New Testament by the Catholic MSM in the 5th century A.D.)

OMIGOD, the real number of the beast: 2759

Long Time Murser, First Time Poster said...

If citizenship is not conferred based on location of birth, how should it be conferred?

If we pass a law saying that citizenship is based, for example, on the birth mother's citizenship, every country on the planet would have to agree and cooperate with our law in that case; if your Mom is an Australian and you're born in the US then you're an Australian. A birth certificate would have to be noted with place of birth and Embassy/home government's acknowledgment of the child's citizenship.

Lack of agreement means a stateless person; a victim of international politics who has no recourse whatsoever to become a citizen of ANY country.

Murses said...

Please tell me that Casey and Galina are not going to give birth to the anti-christ! Or Nigel and Casey...

I really need to listen to that final - last one EVER, I really mean it this time, I'm not kidding - talkcast...

BJ said...

On topic.

I think the most effective way to handle this, is to remove the automatic citizenship that a child receives should they be born on American soil. If a child is born to American citizens while on foreign soil, the child is not automatically a citizen (ie. military personnel serving overseas).

Basically:
1) Automatic citizenship should be granted to children of American citizens irregardless of where they are located at the time of birth.
2) Citizenship to children of parents where one of the parents is a US citizen should have first priority. This is not currently the case. A child born outside of the US, but where one of the parents is not a citizen, is not considered a citizen of the US.
3) A child born in the US to non-citizens is to be considered a non-citizen. If the parents later become citizens, the immediate decedents are can be included as citizens. Presently all that needs to happen here is an illegal to sneak across the border, drop a baby and the baby is now a citizen.. ahead of all those working through the citizenship process and ahead of descendents born overseas to US citizens.

lurker said...

If we denied citizenship to people born in this country. we would create a permanent underclass. We would not be able to ship them back to the country they came from so they would be here as a permanent underclass that would be used to keep the wages of the middle class down.

lurker said...

If Casey gave birth to the anti-christ, the anti-christ would nap instead of doing evil.

BJ said...

@Long Time Murser, First Time Poster

Most countries, if not all, allow parents to sponsor their children for citizenship. Some (including U.S.) allow children to sponsor their parents for citizenship.

@lurker

re: Underclass
You are making a statement that is both not supported by evidence, nor do you provide evidence to support it, nor do you support your conjecture with logic.

The underlying problem is that the person was here illegally to begin with! In most countries, including Mexico, if you are in the country illegally, you are jailed not deported!

flailing forward said...

@ Murses
Please tell me that Casey and Galina are not going to give birth to the anti-christ!
No need to worry, even on the off-chance that Casey's fleshy flipper got anywhere near Galina's endzone, just remember: laziest sperm ever.

Sprezzatura said...

Section 1 of Amendment 14 of the US Constitution reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Don't like it? You'll need to change the Constitution to change it.

lurker said...

@BJ

re: UNDERCLASS
Right now we are not deporting the illegals. Nor are we showing any signs of planning to deport the illegals. Where we have had a segment of the population with less rights than others (e.g. Jim Crow blacks, current illegals) The people with less rights were paid significantly less and drove down the wages of all but the rich

Murses said...

@ Flailing

No need to worry, even on the off-chance that Casey's fleshy flipper got anywhere near Galina's endzone, just remember: laziest sperm ever.

Thank you. I can stop praying so much now.

Murses said...

@ Lurker

If Casey gave birth to the anti-christ, the anti-christ would nap instead of doing evil.

True that!

Anonymous said...

Somebody call Janet Reno. She'll get that lady over the border.

I am sure she will get asylum. Chicago is a blue city with plenty of bleeding heart liberals to ensure this "poor unfortunate illegal" gets a second chance.

Anything else we can do to make your life easier ma'am? How about welfare money and free health coverage? Hell, jack up my taxes some more and squeeze our middle class to the breaking point. They are already underwater with their mortgage. A nice tax increase to pay for all the illegals should be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

Benoit™ said...

Fast forward to 2030 -- Casey and Galina are both 48 years old, with two children in their teens:

Kids: Mom and Dad, we've been living in this antique Jetta for our whole lives...

Casey: Hey, you know, I appreciate that criticism and I'll look into it.

Kids: But Dad......

Casey: What you're saying is that you don't like living in this car?

Kids: Why would you guys decide to have kids when you were hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt? Are you nuts??

Casey: Well, time to come clean -- the reason we had you guys is because I wanted to troll some Haterz with juicy anti-spam words and even more irresponsibility on my part. But it's all good.

Murses said...

We need to enforce the laws we already have regarding illegal immigration. Which would be to send this woman back from whence she came. Just because she managed the illegal act of crossing the boarder and staying in the United States and supporting herself doing housekeeping (by the way, her employers need to be punished also) and having a child in the country illegally ~ does that give her the right to stay?

So I can commit crimes, but if I give birth during and/or after them, I'm safe? I don't see the rationale.

Anonymous said...

I just love it when they quote just enough scripture to suit their purpose. The rest of it says the person, receiving sanctuary, has to remain there until the High Priest dies....and THEN face judgment. Since there's no High Priest....she's gotta stay put until...how long is forever?

Murses said...

People generally only involved God and church when it suites them.

flailing forward said...

She should go back, and the kid should either stay here with legal relatives (if there are any) or go back to Mexico with her until he's an adult, at which time he can return as a full citizen. That's fair. He's an American, she is not. And I'm kind of drunk.

BJ said...

@lurker

Don't associate Jim Crow blacks with illegals. They are not the same thing.

Illegals are here illegally! period!
Jim Crow blacks were not illegals, they were actually citizens according to the constitution(though not in the eyes of some). The process for 'establishing' them was illegal and racist!

Why should a person who is violating the law of the land have the same right as a citizen?

As for the depressed wages, this has to be broken down into two parts. Exploitation and the creation of an underclass.

Exploitation:
Illegals can be exploited by the mere fact that they are here illegally and deign to report their exploitation for fear of deportation. There are laws in place to the effect that if an illegal is being exploited and they turn states evidence, they may not be deported and that they may have a chance at a route to citizenship.

Creation of an Underclass:
This is not occurring through the existence of illegal aliens. This is occurring because there is a glut of 'cheap' labor. As with anything in a capitalistic economic structure, wages are exchanged for the productivity of the individual and their associated availability. Basic supply and demand.

If you have 5 job openings that have to be filled and 4 people are willing to work at that pay level on that job, you will have raise the offered wage level to get the jobs filled. On the other hand, if you have 5 job openings and 20 people available to work at that pay level, you as a company, can improve your profit margin by dropping the wage until 5 people are willing to work at that wage level..

This comes full circle to what is going on with the current immigration situation. Granting the current illegals citizenship will not automatically cure the problem of an underclass. It will actually create a blue collar underclass for at least a full generation. This is why all the corporations are interested in granting illegals citizenship. It allows them to suppress wages because there will be more people available at a given wage rate than available jobs.

Murses said...

@ Flailing

Are you drinking because you miss Casey? It's going to be ok, he'll be back.

As far as the mother and child. When that child is 18, he can petition to have the mother brought in legally. However, I don't think anyone who has been deported can ever 'legally' come back... Correct me if I'm wrong.

FlyingMonkeyWarrior said...

@ Flailing Fwd.
I wish I was drunk.

FlyingMonkeyWarrior said...

Credit market 'bubble' may be at bursting point

By Mark Gilbert Bloomberg News
Published: May 18, 2007

LONDON: Calling the turn in the cycle of the credit markets has been a losing strategy in recent years. War, pestilence, leveraged buyouts and the collapse of the U.S. subprime mortgage market have all been unable to derail the rally in corporate debt.

As the reasons for concern accumulate, strategists are starting to reach for their bear suits.

"We are growing extremely negative on credit markets, which we see as in a bubble," Tim Bond, head of asset allocation at Barclays Capital in London, wrote this week. "U.S. companies are releveraging aggressively in an attempt to substitute earnings-per-share growth for earnings growth. 2008 should see a fairly savage bear market for credit, a large rise in defaults and an end to easy liquidity conditions."

Dresdner Kleinwort's analysts, led by Willem Sels, the head of credit strategy, in London, scrutinized U.S. earnings growth in the past quarter. They concluded that the average figure of 12.5 percent was misleading because it measured earnings per share and was distorted by stock buybacks.

Profit growth for the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index is just 9 percent, and 3 percent for all U.S. companies. "With net debt growing at 10 percent, leverage ratios are deteriorating," the Dresdner team wrote in a report this week. "Clearly this is not in line with unchanged credit spreads."
Today in Marketplace by Bloomberg
S&P 500 may have hit a record, but stocks are still cheap
Wachovia to buy A.G. Edwards for $6.8 billion
Around The Markets: Malaysian stocks look set to continue winning streak

U.S. corporate bonds yield an average of about 0.96 percentage point more than government debt, down from as high as 2.46 percentage points in October 2002 and a five-year average of 1.11 percentage points, according to indexes compiled by Credit Suisse Group. The smaller yield difference suggests that investors consider the corporate bonds less risky than before.

Spreads on high-yield debt are down to a record low of about 3 percentage points, compared with a 20-year average of more than 5.5 percentage points, the indexes show. Spreads on euro-denominated bonds are also near their lowest level ever, at about 0.31 percentage point.

Investors' appetite for junk bonds shows no signs of waning. Seven years ago, Thai Petrochemical Industry defaulted on its bonds and was declared insolvent with debts of $3.5 billion in the biggest Thai bankruptcy ever. This month, the company, now called IRPC, plans to sell $400 million of new bonds.

The chorus of senior bankers warning that there is danger ahead grows almost daily, with Bank of America's chief executive, Ken Lewis, adding his voice this month.

"We need a deal to go bad, as long as we're not in it," he told the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce in Zurich last week. "We are close to a time when we'll look back and say we did some stupid things. We need a little more sanity in a period when everyone feels invincible and thinks this is different."

The 2007 value of global mergers and acquisitions topped $2 trillion this week, about 60 percent ahead of the total at this time in 2006, a year that ended with a record $3.5 trillion in deals. Investors, though, do not seem to be deterred by takeovers anymore.

"Credit spreads continue to go tighter, with the market seemingly learning to live with the constant speculation surrounding possible bid targets," said Suki Mann, senior credit strategist at Société Générale in London. "We're either heading for a spectacular collapse, which would likely be brought about by a major event impacting the global financial system, or we are going to stay like this for a while. We go for the latter."

Economists' forecasts and the shape of the U.S. Treasury yield curve are still suggesting there is a risk of U.S. recession this year, which would typically hurt credit and corporate bond spreads. The performance of the equity market, however, indicates otherwise. The Dow Jones industrial average is at a record level, up almost 8 percent this year, while the S&P 500 index has gained more than 6 percent.

But it might not last. "You are seeing mergers and acquisitions tittle-tattle that makes me concerned," Anthony Bolton at Fidelity International said this week. "I can't tell you when it's coming, but I can tell you the precursors are there."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/17/bloomberg/bxatm.php

PMSPMS™©® said...

Sorry Rob - I respect you a lot and yeah I know I'm not from the US but I can't agree with your editorial on this post....

Some of the responses are correct;

1. Help fix Mexico... (in the same way Australia tries to help Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam etc... a long hard process I know).
2. Change the constitution (my son is dual Singapore / Australia - as guaranteed by the Aust const but as petitioned by us for the Sgp part).

Unfortunately the world is very global now - my ex wife is Singaporean, I'm an Aussie, my fiance is a US Citizen, my son is Sgp/Oz - where will I be ABLE to retire is actually being spoiled by over-reactions to these types of incidents reducing my choices. As a consequence I'm much more of a believer in letting market forces, economics and peoples desires determine migration patterns - I hate having choices restricted and I know this is unrealistic...

Finally: I'm alway a bit shocked at how virulently angry normal folk are in the US are about this problem (R - my fiance - is from El Paso... and although calm in many things she'd be siding with Rob). I guess continual exposure to the problem has made you/them this way? The problem for me with regards to this particular case is the religious aspect... Jesus did say (paraphrased) - "I could be the beggar at your door" - and for that reason alone I believe a true Christian is obliged to provide succor, sanctuary and assistance for those who request it. If - as many do - you claim the US or yourself if a x'tian then you are obliged to do this... sorry....

lurker said...

The question was whether the child should be allowed his citizenship.

Jim Crow blacks were used to depress wages, just like illegals currently are.

Illegals are here illegally. I agree. Enforcing our laws, would do a lot to reverse the decline of the middle class. I just don't see it happening.

Why should a person who is violating the law of the land have the same right as a citizen? They should be subject to the rule of law which does include certain rights (Habeous Corpus) but not others; e.g. lockup, deportation.

Creation of an underclass:
This occurs when you limit the abilty of people to rise or lower themselves. It especially occurs when you limit childrens status to the status of their parents

Granting the current illegals citizenship does not automatically cure the problem of an underclass.
Agreed. Especially if you don't close the borders. If I were king, I would tighten the borders and then reevaluate. I suspect without a constantly renewing supply of illegals, the current foreigners would assilimate. This has happened multiple times in our past where we have opened immigration, which has lead to rapid growth followed by problems with assimilation. We then restrict immigration assimilate the immigrants and repeat.

Casey Fannnnn said...

I have read the complete test of the website of the Project For A New American Century. I don't know why. I have the whole 60+ meg site archived.

Somewhere in the mess, Dick Cheney urges the continued development of ethnic-specific nerve and bacteriological agents. If you're a caucasian American, you can hope these evil weapons exist, and the Cheniac lets them loose on hispanics, asians, blacks, and so on. Russians have a large asian DNA chunk, so whatever takes out the Chinaman persons will also get many of the Caseys. The African AIDs problem will be solved forever, and so on. Bingo! Immigration into the US becomes a non-issue, and we have several new frontiers to re-conquer. There could be many wild, wild wests at once! Outlaws. Settlers. Massive corpse cleanup. The birth of new lores. The race to choose a new group to oppress. The gentle tasks of un-mining the Saudi oil fields and pissing on the dead sheiks. The challenging design of a bold new economy.

Of course, if Cheney is working with the Chi-neeners to develop a killer gas for non-asians...

BJ said...

@lurker:
Jim Crow blacks were used to depress wages, just like illegals currently are.
Wrong. The Jim Crow laws were "separate but equal". They were not used or intended to depress wages. Yes the result was often inferior treatment. The problem is your analogy breaks. Illegals are law breakers. We are not inviting them in, the law has told them to go. If they are found, they are deported. Their condition is a direct result of their behavior. (Just like fliptard's condition is a direct result of his behavior)

Enforcing our laws, would do a lot to reverse the decline of the middle class. I just don't see it happening. That is because the established upper class is trying the portray the illegals as poor immigrants, so that we, as citizens, ignore what is really occurring, and end up being victims of our own compassion.

Why should a person who is violating the law of the land have the same right as a citizen? .. cont What happens, is that an illegal has the right to free medical care, while a citizen doesn't. Hospitals are picking up the tab for their care, which gets pushed over on to the paying citizenry. Yes, basic human rights should be there, but it should not occur at the cost of the basic rights of the citizenry, nor should the rights of the illegal superceed or exceed the rights of the citizenry.

It especially occurs when you limit childrens status to the status of their parents
Again, your analysis breaks. Again I repeat, they are here illegally, yet we treat their children better than the children of our own citizens. I am not limiting, key word limiting, the children to the status of their parents. This status is where they start. Where they end up, is up to them. I am not saying that the children could not apply for citizenship. They just have to take the same route as everyone else.

TV Rots Your Brain said...

Does anyone know what happened after the nationwide Hormel & Swift meat packing raids to the illegal immigrant parents of children born in the USA? I remember there was some uproar at the time (unfairly separating children from parents, etc) but then it's as if the story just died.

Anyway I find it interesting that some people here get upset about Casey (and possibly also Galina) breaking laws right and left but then change their tune just because children are involved. Would we be more sympathetic to Casey and Galina if they did have kids?

Back in 1986 when we did our first round of immigration law reformation had the chance to amend the Constitution to fix this very problem we didn't. If you want to go after someone, go after the spineless legislators who killed off the proposed amendment that would have prevented the heartache we face now.

flailing forward said...

@ PMSPMS
I think the Christian assistance angle you're talking about applies to an asylum situation, but not so much an illegal immigration situation. If going back means somebody is going to get killed, then we as semi-Christians have to take them in. If going back means they're back where they were to begin with, then we as semi-assholes (we are imperialist swine after all) can send them back with a clear semi-vegan semi-conscience. I'm not a Mexican haterz. I just feel that everybody* should have to obey the law.

* Casey Serin excluded, obviously

@ Casey Fannnnn
I don't believe Cheney is a white supremacist. He's a Cheney supremacist. He would have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about gassing my lily-white albino ass if it equated to money in his checking account and he knew he could get away with it.

blahbityblahbityblah said...

http://www.idexer.com/citizenship.htm

"We are fortuante to have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the Citizenship Clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]"

El Gabo Gringo said...

I blogged this a while ago.

http://elgabogringo.blogspot.com/2006/12/illegal-immigrant-still-hiding-behind.html

Excerpt:

"I don't know enough details about Elvira's case to form a strong opinion, but from what I do know I'm less sympathetic than I'd be generally. Elvira wasn't someone who had been living here with a steady job when she gave birth. Her son is eight, which means he was born no earlier than 1998, yet Elvira had already been deported a year earlier in 1997. She knew she was coming here illegally, she knew first-hand that she could be sent-back, yet only a year after her first deportation she returned and gave birth to a child. She was well aware of the situation she was putting herself in and she should take responsiblity for it.

Yet what we see isn't an adult taking responsibility for her actions."

Not "taking responsiblity for her actions." Hmm... Her and Snowflake have alot in common.

El Gabo Gringo said...

I'm glad the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause has been brought up.

I suppose this is a case where it would ultimately depend on the Supreme court to rule, were a law ever passed. I'm not a legal scholar , so I have no idea how the court would rule.

El Gabo Gringo said...

Folks,

About Blacks and suppressing wages...

Jim Crow laws weren't about suppressing wages using black labor, but slavery was. In fact, there is quite a parrellel between slavery and illegal immigration.

Slaves were imported because neither white nor indians were willing to work on sugar plantations at wages which made the business profitable, so slaves were brought in.

Ogg the Rather Appalled Caveman said...

As usual on the weekend, Blogger's giving me hell. Normally if I'm about to post something ranty the time needed to work around posting problems lets me cool down, and I end up heavily editing or abandoning my comment altogether. Not this time around. I'm still pretty pissed off.

I will absolutely not, under any circunstances, support a proposal that would create stateless people. Anyone proposing to do away with automatic citizenship of those born in the US needs to prove that that will never happen, no matter the circumstances and the nationaltiy of the kid's parents.

Let's spell out what we're talking about: denying a child the right to be in the US, whether or not any other country will take him, because of what somebody else did. The kid didn't immigrate illegally, his parents did. In the worst case we're talking about creating a situation where the kid has no right to be in any country, when he hasn't done anything wrong.

One of the bedrock principles of this country is that we are responsible for our own actions, not those of our ancestors. Is illegal immigration such a threat to the fabric of our society that we are willing to throw that away? I hope not, because the world's been down that road before and it wasn't pretty.

Once again, it's not enough to say that Mexico will take the kid (I don't know if they will or not). If there is any country out there that doesn't grant automatic citizenship to children of its citizens born in the US, this proposal will eventually create stateless people. Remember, these are people who have committed no crime other than being born to somebody who crossed illegally.

I sincerely hope that those who propose eliminating citizenship by birth have not thought things through all the way. Otherwise, some of you are in danger of losing my respect. All Casey did was con people out of their money. Anyone willing to screw a kid that over because of who he was born to is lower than Casey.

Surely we can find a way to deal with illegal immigration without hurting the most innocent of the people involved.

NoVa Sideliner said...

"However, I don't think anyone who has been deported can ever 'legally' come back... Correct me if I'm wrong."

Friend of mine was deported back in about 1992. She's back and a citizen now. It was hard as hell, not because she'd been deported before, but seems she had the disadvantage of being educated and speaking English as her native language. No points for that, sadly.

She went through all the right H1B, Green Card, citizenship process properly the second time around. And I'm more than happy to have more educated people like her here, working, paying taxes, and assimilating just fine. Which is what steams me about this whole process as the US rejects good people from all over and offers amnesty to the very lowest educated.

BJ said...

so slaves were brought in

Key difference! They were brought in by force, not of any choice of their own. By the time they became citizens (Civil War 1861-1865), the Jim Crow laws(1876-1965) where being written. This all breaks the parallel with illegal immigrants, who came here of their own will.. breaking laws in the process and breaking laws staying here.


Slaves were imported because neither white nor indians were willing to work on sugar plantations at wages which made the business profitable, so slaves were brought in.

Correct (sort of), but then if we make illegals - legal, we have established downwards pressure on the lower wage bracket. If we enforce the laws on illegal aliens, we actually create upper pressure on the lower wage bracket. The wage will have to be raised until people are willing to work at the job. With the plantation, they didn't want to pay any wages. They were maximizing their profit. People would have worked on the plantation, and it would have been profitable.. but not as profitable.

BJ said...

In the worst case we're talking about creating a situation where the kid has no right to be in any country, when he hasn't done anything wrong.
wrong. The creation of the condition was the result of the parents. Most countries state that children of their citizens are also citizens of their country. At the worse which happens, is that the parents have to sponsor the child for their native country.

If there is any country out there that doesn't grant automatic citizenship to children of its citizens born in the US, this proposal will eventually create stateless people.
Statement not supported by evidence on hand, nor by any logic you have provided. The only country that I can think of that may not grant citizenship to children born out of country may be Norway and is.. ::trumpets:: The United States.

Which is what steams me about this whole process as the US rejects good people from all over and offers amnesty to the very lowest educated.
Bingo. This is why I brought up the creation of an underclass issue with 'amnesty' and illegal immigration angle. I would also add criminals and those with flagrant disregard for our laws. The proper mechanism is made excessively hard, while the illegal mechanism is excessively easy.

Anonymous said...

Neither of you are citizens. Get the fuck out of my country.

BJ said...

I find the subject to the jurisdiction thereof and interesting statement.

Question: Are illegal aliens subject to any military draft should one be done? Answer: No.

Thereby, illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

QED.

flailing forward said...

As a typical occasionally Christian imperialist American infidel, I've been basing my opinions off of an assumption without doing any research whatsoever (the American way). I assumed that a child born in the US to Mexican citizens would be both an American and Mexican citizen. If that's not the case, then we should do whatever is best for the child (meaning if the kid has no other relatives here then mommy should get to stay, at least until the kid turns 18.)

And Ogg is a little biased. His parents immigrated here illegally across the Bering land bridge.

BJ said...

@Anon:

Wrong, and go away troll. My citizenship was proved by DSS, as well as my 'trustworthiness'.

El Gabo Gringo said...

@BJ

There is a key difference between slaves and illegals, but there is also a parallel in that we allowed them to be here for cheap labor.

I'm not sure about your comments on wages. The pressure on the lower wage bracket exists now *with* illegal aliens. Removing illegals will raise wages for those citizens in the lower wage bracket and encourage capital investment.

It's not really fair to say all those employing illegals are maximizing profit. Some (as dawg has pointed out) are just deferring capital investment which would, in many cases, maximize profits.

The bigger question is whether we should allow illegal immigration simply because it allows some employers to enjoy higher profits. To anyone favoring that argument, the question I would pose is "at what cost?" When does maximizing profits for certain labor intensive, low-tech costs not work as a justification for a certain course of action?

In the bigger picture we aren't really discussing illegal immigration, but whether or not to legalize illegal immigrants (ie. Amnesty.) When you make someone legal, the incentives to work at very low-cost are mitigated, therefore, if profits are a motivation, Amnesty isn't the answer.

lurker said...

Cheney is not a white supremacist. He is a Persion supremacist. He is doing everything in his power to expand the influence of Iran and destroy the power of the US in the middle east.

flailing forward said...

Goddammit! A mouse just illegally immigrated into my room! I'm going to attempt a show box apprehension and deportation.

flailing forward said...

*shoe not show

BJ said...

I assumed that a child born in the US to Mexican citizens would be both an American and Mexican citizen.

See this
Marriage to a Mexican national may allow Citizenship without the residency requirement.

@El Gabo Gringo
The illegals are allowing profits to be maximized because it does defer the capital investment. The investment would have something known as opportunity cost. The money for capital investment could be invested elsewhere in the mean time.

Personally, I don't think illegal immigration should be allowed for any purpose. My personal take would be to remove the automatic grant of citizenship to any child born of non-citizens within the US borders, followed by creating a work-visa passport and regulating the number we produce and their duration.

When you make someone legal, the incentives to work at very low-cost are mitigated, therefore, if profits are a motivation, Amnesty isn't the answer.
Not supported by evidence on hand. What actually makes the difference is education and skill set.

Ogg the Caveman said...

@ BJ:

wrong. The creation of the condition was the result of the parents.

It's the laws of the US that determines who is and who is not a citizen, and therefore those who would change the law bear some responsibility for the consequences of the change.

Bottom line: I will not accept any proposal to base a person's rights in the US off of who their parents are or what their parents did. Such a proposal is not compatible with the basic principles of freedom. I'll be treated the way I deserve to be, not the way my father or his father did.

@ flailing:

And Ogg is a little biased. His parents immigrated here illegally across the Bering land bridge.

In all seriousness, my ancestors came to this country legally, but going further back, many of them lived in a state of hereditary serfdom.

Now I'm going to leave this thread before I start cursing people by name.

lurker said...

Illegals do not get preferential treatment over citizens. Anyone can walk into a hospital emergency room and say they do not have an ID. Citizenship has nothing to do with it. Children of illegals are not treated better either. In most areas they get the same treatment as legals, but I know of nowhere that treats them better.

And it is probably time for me to leave the thread as well

El Gabo Gringo said...

@BJ

I understand your point on capital investment. I agree on a basic micro level, but at a macro level, I think there are too many assumptions to say this is necessarily the case. Take housing for example. We have a glut of houses. We'd have less if illegal labor wasn't so cheap. If construction costs are higher, capital may have been invested more efficiently.

Regarding this, I disagree:

"What actually makes the difference is education and skill set."

There are many reasons an illegal would work cheaper than a legal person with the same education and skill-set. I'd like to go into it more, but unfortunately I'm trying to close a deal at my looser W2 job and have to work on some contracts, even though commenting at EN is so much more fun.

By the way, did we ever reach consensus on whether Galina was a cyclops-midget or a midget-cyclops? Or maybe just a regular-height cyclops?

PMSPMS™©® said...

WWJD.... well no one actually.

The answer (IMHO) is in Matthew 25:35) - "I was a stanger and you invited me in". The Son of God's words himself. (Oh - and he didn't say you'll only get a H1B or temporary asylum only).

Not - I'm not a bible basher - just a heavily indoctrinated former MK (missionary kid). Rob - if you're going to invoke the name of a diety you will have appropriate responses sent back.

BJ said...

Bottom line: I will not accept any proposal to base a person's rights in the US off of who their parents are or what their parents did.
So anybody is already a US citizen? Because if you are not born to US citizens and you were born outside of the US.. you are still not a US citizen. By not immediately granting US citizenry to everyone no matter who they are, we are still basing what you perceive is a person's right in the US to who their parents are or did.

Such a proposal is not compatible with the basic principles of freedom.
Wrong. Laws always effect freedoms. I would like to drive on the freeway 130mph, and the speed limit affects my rights to that freedom! My real question on this.. is why do these people feel like they have to commit an illegal act to gain freedom? What is interesting, is that most of the illegal immigration is for $money$ not freedom. My personal opinion on this last part, is that the US should be taxing goods (and income) coming from Mexico at a rate just sufficient to offset the costs incurred by illegals from Mexico. We as a nation, should also be pushing Mexico to solve its problems and help it citizenry instead of being just a cheap source of labor for companies that wish to exploit it.

El Gabo Gringo said...

@7:00 PM, lurker

"Anyone can walk into a hospital emergency room and say they do not have an ID. Citizenship has nothing to do with it."

Right, but illegals don't care about paying their bill, while citizens do. (There are little things called FICA scores and collections agencies that us W2 loosers have to worry about.)

MIDGET-CYCLOPS!!!!

El Gabo Gringo said...

@BJ

I think it would be great to garnish remittances, the problem is, to do so we'd have to place restrictions/verifications on all money sent, even if it was sent legally by US citizens. (Of course if we could find a way, it would be worth exploring.)

Another example of how the refusal to enforce existing law against law-breakers ultimately results in costs and/or less freedom for the rest of us. Kind of like what would happen if we bail out forclosure loosers like Casey.

OK... I really gotta go, not because I'm pissed, but because I need a big number on my W2.

Regarding passive income... What's so wrong with un-passive income? Oh, that's right, it's called WORK!

BJ said...

Take housing for example. We have a glut of houses. We'd have less if illegal labor wasn't so cheap.

I disagree with this one.. I have built some houses, the biggest cost is already not labor! Also note that with all of these houses, and the 'cheap labor', they still are not cheaper!! Companies are maximizing their profits... Lets say we have 20% tax rate. The builder can pay the illegal $4000/month and that is all take home. To the legal, the builder will have to pay $5000 to get the same take home for the legal.

Re: Difference is education, that has been proven (not by me).

Re: cyclops, I didn't think Galina was a cyclops, though I think she is definitely small of stature. If the images were still up at flicker, I could give you a link to picture that shows Galina in the same frame as Casey's youngest sister. Galina is smaller.

Casey Fannnnn said...

Re:
>>[Cheney] would have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about gassing my lily-white albino ass if it equated to money in his checking account<<

Thus my last sentence about the possibility of gassing a relatively small number of annoying caucasians to please the ChinaMasters. I remember the Eric Idle song I Like Chinese, which wisely cautioned us. I have also seen Blade Runner, in which the entirety of the west coast was overrun with the yellow menace, and the only whiteez left were replicants and crazy scientists. I am well-studied regarding the matter, thanks to science-fiction movies and comedy from Britain. I merely extrapolate to pass the time.

flailing forward said...

The consensus is that Galina is "stunning." Ask LMP.

By the way, the mouse shoe box deportation was unsuccessful. He done outmaneuvered me with evasive action. The little fucker also apparently invaded my sovereign winter clothes drawer and was making a nest.

BJ said...

I think the amount of garnishment would not be much, nor hard. Companies operating with subsidiaries or maquiladoras have to state income on their taxes from where sourced (already). Add a small tax on it directly (not dependent upon repatriation of the funds). Imports from Mexico have a small import duty (0.1%).. or so. Low enough to make trying to get around the law unprofitable. It might also make Mexico wake up and decide to deal with some of the problem instead of trying to export it.

El Gabo Gringo said...

@Flailing

You mean "stunning for a midget-cyclops", right?

flailing forward said...

I guess I meant "stunning to creepy old men with 20 years in the loss mitigation business and perpetual boners."

Anonymous said...

'Cheney is not a white supremacist. He is a Persion supremacist. He is doing everything in his power to expand the influence of Iran and destroy the power of the US in the middle east.'

Only if you mean by default (due to the strategic disaster in Iraq) then maybe this could be one by-product of that war. Otherwise, he's a Judeo-supremacist like all the rest of the neocons.

BJ said...

Flailing forward
There are humane, no kill traps for mice, and they seem to do a good job. They use a rocker/tumbler door on them. If you are interested, I may see if I can locate the name of one. You definitely want to get the fur-ball out of there. They like to pee and shit all over the place as well as chewing into fluffy stuff to create bedding.

--

I was listening to the last Casey Podcast while typing all of the previous.. really gives one a headache. His RealityDistortion Field™ really makes concentration hard. The reality distortion exhibited by Casey is really pretty bad.

RE: Galina.. It might be interesting to fix the blurred images of her (without her sunglasses) to see what the person behind the glasses really looks like. My W-2 takes precedence though.

El Gabo Gringo said...

@BJ,

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think G's eyes are so close together they might be one eye. When she gets older her eye-brows will probably merge together as well. One eye, one brow.

Hey, maybe there is upside to being a cyclops, maybe KC looks better without depth perception. That would explain alot.

BJ said...

re: Galina. Considering who was taking pictures.. I don't trust the image until I can correct the problems caused by fliptard attempting to use a simple Point-and-shoot camera.

@Flailing forward.
The mouse trap I have used successfully is 'Tin Cat repeating live Catch trap'. It is fairly large, but it is also metal and resistant to chewing. It uses an unbalanced teeter-totter door.
Use heavy gloves when opening it though. Mice may be a little hyper when releasing..

Lost Cause said...

I think a better question is:

Why do we continue to obey and pay taxes to a criminal leadership that draws imaginary lines on maps?

El Gabo Gringo said...

BJ, you are starting to sound like a Galina sympathizer... hmmm...

Anyway, notice how she wears sunglasses all the time... Maybe it's to hide her "condition."

OK, I've given up on any more W2 looser WORK tonight. Going to get up at 6AM (For REAL! No cold showers though) and start work again.

Will go to sleep listening to Snowflakes "final" Fraudcast. Sweet Dreamz™!

El Gabo Gringo said...

@Lost Cause...

It's not an "imaginary line." Cross it and you'll see the line is very real.

Casey Fannnnn said...

Re:
>>Galina.. It might be interesting to fix the blurred images of her (without her sunglasses) to see what the person behind the glasses really looks like<<

Thanks to the miracle of modern, rocket-assed science, your wish is granted. Long live Jambi!

goonpatrol said...

Chris Pronger should be suspended for the remainder of the playoffs.

BJ said...

@ El Gabo Gringo
Not a Galina sympathizer.. just a realist who grew up under someone with a RealityDistortionField™ like Casey's.

There are some pictures of Galina w/o sunglasses, but they were taken by an uncoordinated fliptard.

I would not recommend trying to go to sleep listening to that final fraudcast. If you do, you might wake up thinking like him, quitting your W-2 and trying to make SweetDealz™.

I did it tonight with enough time to recover and gain some normalcy before going to bed.. now I just have to deal with this raging headache!

BJ said...

@casey fannnn
That image is corrected (sort of) for color balance, but using an unsharp mask (sharpening filter) does not fix blur caused by movement or being out of focus.

You have to use FFTs to do this kind of correction. Even 'vaunted' Photoshop can't do it. GIMP has a plug-in for refocus, but not image drag.

flailing forward said...

@ Casey Fannnn
Stunning! Except their eyes keep following me!

flailing forward said...

Fast Fourier Transform for the winwin!

Sorry, got excited because I knew an acronym for once.

Rob Dawg said...

Jesus was absolute in his admonitions to obey the laws of man and God. And what was it his earthly parents were doing when he was born?


The US does not recognise dual citizenship. That the children born of foriegn nationals here illegally are granted citizenship in their parents country fails the tests for citizenship by birth in the US.

Enough of Galina. We've let this go from taunts and specualtion to ca-ca pee-pee humor.

Where I live illegals get special treatment and I get stuck with the bill. Anyone out there care to cover some recent additions to my tax burden? The special medical emergency response team to combat outbreaks of whooping cough and... gee... anyone hear about this one? Drug resistant TB? Any guesses where that came from? Too expensive for you to offer to pay? Fine how about the 24 translators the county hired last year? English to? No. Mixteca to Spanish. Yep, there are 10,000 Mixteca speaking only residents who were having trouble getting free community services that are delivered in Spanish. Just ask the 14yo who showed up 7 months pregnant with her by now full citizenship child. Maybe you'd just like to cover her medical bill? Translation services at my daughters' high school costs more than a new laptop for every student every year would instead. I won't even get into the lax law enforcement polices that just let them go because the paperwork is too complex when they'll just disappear and come back as their "cousin" in 6 months. Maybe you'd like to buy the city the extra anti-graphitti wagon necessary to combat the rise in turf spray? This is the tip of my iceberg.

La Raza are unquestionably aggitating for for Aztlan. This is not migration.

As to the Catholic Church. I wonder if the next time there is vandalism what the reaction would be if the police refused to investigate on the grounds that their pursing crimal activites on holy ground would be considered a sacred defilment.

Casey spawning. Ain't gonna happen. He was intending to procreate but never closed the deal. Even if a little swimmer showed enough initiative to do the task poor Galina would be preggers for at least 15 months and in labor for two weeks. The birth certificate would be full of lies and the kid would be repossed by the hospital for nonpayment. Indeed there was a great old sci-fi story on that very topic.

BJ said...

@flailing forward

Yep.. take a FFT of the image in the intensity space to try to get a characteristic of the lens and movement. Then invert the FFT and apply it to RGB component space.

Rob Dawg said...

Kai of Photoshop Plug-In fame had some fairly awesome FFT transforms but unblurr for movement requires an exact tensor of the translation (speed, magnitude and coords along a continous path).

El Gabo Gringo said...

@Dawg

Good points, but you forgot to mention the inner city hospitals that are closing in LA because so many of their patients are illegals who don't pay their bills.

...Or the public hospital in Dallas where 65% of births are to illegal aliens who don't pay. (don't have a link, but shouldn't be too hard to google.)

...Or our yearly increase in the uninsured motorist portion of our car insurance in border states. Why? Because illegals don't pay for insurance. If you don't know someone who has had their car totalled by an uninsured illegal, you aren't really a californian (or Texan!)

BJ said...

The US does not recognize dual citizenship.
Wrong, it does.
For clearance purposes though, you can't have dual citizenship.

and how about
this In particular when schools need more money for children of US citizens.

Re: Casey Spawning.. instead of getting to the ca-ca-pee-pee state. I just have to say, I hope she is smart enough to get the hell out now before there are children. From personal experience: My mother stayed married to my father who had Casey's kind of RealityDistortionField™ for 16 years. She did this "for the sake of the kids". She shouldn't have. It was hell (from a kids point of view). Result: One kid with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (moderate), One with Anorexia-Nervosa Bulemia. One seems to have a personal identity disorder, not related to NPD. One who really had to work shit out for years.

BTW: My father did not work, by choice, for about 8 years of that 16 (later half). He was too 'special'.

Ahh.. just what I need, original "House of New Orleans".. playing in the background..

BJ said...

@Rob Dawg.

You can derive the exact tensor for movement by using the FFT of intensity space of the image.

After which, you can just to an inverse 2D FFT to correct.

I suspect that this is how some of the newer cameras (with out moving film-planes/Minolta-Sony, moving lens segments/Canon-Nikon) accomplish image stabilization.

The Real Wagga™ said...

Had a mouse in the house yesterday. You would think that with 6 cats total, it would be a mouse-hostile area. Anyhow, a few minutes ago I found Radar playing with a recently deceased mousy. Is that necrophilia?

BJ said...

Don't mention uninsured Mexican drivers to me..

My mom had a classic 1963 Chevy Impala in cherry(show) condition, totaled an uninsured Mexican illegal. Illegal was driving so fast on the city street that the Impala was totaled and shoved up onto someones porch (T-bone accident). Estimated speed of the illegal, greater than 55mph.. on city streets. Driver was a female.

My mother did not get any reimbursement for the Impala. The illegals did not have the funds, and because the Impala was an 'old' vehicle.. insurance book was lower than the going market value for the car.

Rob Dawg said...

Had a mouse in the house yesterday. You would think that with 6 cats total, it would be a mouse-hostile area.

Fresno is full of "mouse gangs." In order to earn your whiskers you've got to do something really mouse stupid. Just like in human gangs.

Anyhow, a few minutes ago I found Radar playing with a recently deceased mousy. Is that necrophilia?

Depends on how you cook it.

Uzbecki Durak said...

I had a car totaled by probable illegals about ten years ago - van ran a red light at 50 MPH and destroyed the passenger side of my car (no passenger,fortunately). The five young Hispanics in the van ran for it. According to the cops, the inside of the van smelled like "a brewery".

BJ said...

spooky...
Decided to look up '63 Impalas.. Found a '64 that looks just like the one the illegal totaled (before they totaled it). Big Heavy Car

Same style, color, interior etc. (driver's seat was in better condition though).

The Dude said...

"Ahh.. just what I need, original "House of New Orleans".. playing in the background.."

Do you mean "House of the Rising Sun"?

BJ said...

Do you mean "House of the Rising Sun"?
Sorry, yep..

Still coming out of the RealityDistortionField™ resulting to trying to type and listen to the mp3 from the last Casey Podcast.

Rob Dawg said...

Do you mean "House of the Rising Sun"?

Which one? I have "The Animals," "Tracy Chapman," "Moody Blues" and "Woody Guthrie" versions.

Casey Fannnnn said...

Re:
>>using an unsharp mask (sharpening filter) does not fix blur caused by movement or being out of focus.
You have to use FFTs to do this kind of correction.<<


Yes, yes, you can talk about math junk all day, but it was I who clicked the 'sharpen' button!

Barbie said...

Math is hard.

Bakersfield Bubble said...

Crisp & Cole Real Estate, close family members and staffers have received default notices on more than $11 million in loans.


A year ago, it was all about image: a Gulf Stream jet, bodyguards, a half million-dollar car, Armani suits.

Now, 27-year-old David Crisp is floating in default notices. So are family members and employees, current and former




http://www.bakersfield.com/hourly_news/story/155905.html

Mouse And Pencil said...

@BJ
The higher end Nikon stuff actually uses two small gyros that communicate with the camera, and it moves the prism in the opposite direction and speed you are. Not sure about the lower end, it's probably either one gyro or a combination of shutter/flash/iso/filtering onboard to compensate.

All an unsharp mask would do to a blur is make it a sharper blur, as it's supposed to. All sharpen is, is an adjustment of the contrasts of neighboring pixels, it doesnt remove or add anything.

I've fixed blur in shots for publication, and it's one of the harder tasks to do - it would take pages to explain the process, and it's rarely very effective.

The only real solution to blur is to shoot better. :)

As for Kai, I started my adventures in Photoshop waaaaaaaay back when on AOL, before AOL could talk to the rest of teh internet (I was using a Mac II at the time, to date it), and I found a Photoshop forum on there where this guy Kai posted photoshop tips, abouit these things he called CHOPS - channel operations. (This was version 2.0 of Photoshop). I talked with him occasionaly, and I found out he was working with Roger Dean, the artist who did all the Yes and Asia album covers, at Roger Dean's studio called "Curved Space" in L.A. at the time. I do that too, so we started chatting. Nothing exciting, but I remember him telling me he was working on plug ins for Photoshop, which ended up being Kai's Power Tools. If you want to see the AOL stuff, google Kai's Power Tips. Cool stuff, and we did things by hand back then. :) Layers have made channel ops a thing of the past, but learning how Photoshop does it math, and learning how to use that, gives you great power. I still use the stuff I learned from his Power Tips today, like using the curves adjustment to modify the grey scale ramp to get chrome effects.

(I later got to meet Roger, and I still have a Curved Space business card, on my prized mementos. :))

If you put up a Photoshop thread, I have a lot to share - as you can tell. It's a true passion and obsession of mine! :)

king friday the 13th said...

reminds me of a rocky and bullwinkle episode, where a senator wanted to
revoke automatic citizenship to people born in the USA.

Politically Incorrect said...

WWJD?

Is that Jesus as in Gee-zus, or Jesus as in Hay-sooz?

Big Cheese said...

Casey come back
You can blame it all on G
I was wrong
and I just can't live without you.

BJ said...

@Mouse And Pencil
The higher end Nikon stuff actually uses two small gyros that communicate with the camera, and it moves the prism in the opposite direction and speed you are.

Actually, Canon, Nikon, and Minolta, Sony all use a form of gyro. It is what is known as a MEMS device. It is actually a very sensitive angular accelerometer. This way panning will work with antishake (panning with constant angular velocity). Its not your typical spinning piece of metal.

Most of my experience has been outside of Photoshop, ..um.. having to do with imagery 'cleanup' and analysis etc. Work was done at a low level, writing tools to do the work.

Casey Fannnnn
Probably a bunch of others did too.. but I felt the result was not up to snuff.. If I get time to resurrect my old algorithms.. I may try to see what I come up with. I might forward the result to Rob Dawg.. but don't hold your breath. W-2s are very time consuming, particularly when under contract.

@Barbie
Math is hard.
Sorry.. but it largely makes the world go round.. or at least allows you to accurately express the rotational momentum!!

Anonymous said...

frog march the corrupt politicians out of town.

Why do we think it's OK to "frog march" another country's corrupt politicians, but leave ours untouched?

flailing forward said...

Children born in the US to Mexican parents automatically are dual citizens of the US and Mexico.

The US does not specifically endorse dual citizenship, but it tolerates it.

There is no reason why deporting parents means that the family MUST be broken up. The children can go to Mexico with them and are free to return to the US at any time as citizens. This woman is using separation from her child to sensationalize her case, when really whether she is separated from her child is her own decision.

Even if the quality of life in Mexico is worse, it's still better for the child to live there with family than to be a ward of the state in the US. The woman knew that there was risk of deportation when she came here illegally. When she had a child, she knew that she could be facing this situation someday. She's not a victim anymore than Casey is. And the system isn't racist unless it applies only to Mexicans, which it does not.

El Gabo Gringo said...

@Flailing

FF, not only did she know the risk of deportation, she had just been deported the previous year. In fact, when you look at the time-line, you have to wonder if she timed her 2nd crossing just so she'd give birth on this side of the border.

My post at 6:07pm has a few more details.

Anonymous said...

RACIST BASTARDS,

How do you think America was formed in the first place? Rob Dawg, you can do better than this. The Casey saga has warped your mind.

Anonymous said...

I betcha the Native Americans would have liked to deport all the first generation Europeans born in this country.

0 Comment Swaby said...

@ 6:03 anon "I betcha the Native Americans would have liked to deport all the first generation Europeans born in this country."


-I think you just made the case for the other team.

Anonymous said...

Importing a ethnically distinct, servile underclass is always a horrible idea (blacks into America, hindus into Sri Lanka, Turks into Germany) that ends badly for both the servants and the masters. Very high costs for temporary cheap labour. Look at how far the nigger underclass has held back America. And people want to bring in a mexcrement underclass on top of it!

flailing forward said...

@ El Gabo
That's interesting that she had been deported once before. I guess it shows how this whole discussion is moot. Even if she gets deported again, she'll be back within a year.

@ anon 6:01
Regardless of whether you think this discussion is racist (I don't think it is), it's an interesting one. There's only so much housing and transportation news I can take. It's good to hear views on other topics sometimes. If you think we're a bunch of racist assholes, then say why. Otherwise you aren't adding much. I've still got a semi-open mind on immigration stuff. I can be persuaded to see the error in my views.

If an American couple is in Mexico on a work visa and has a child, they don't get to stay in Mexico after the visa expires simply because their child is a Mexican citizen. And Mexico isn't going to forbid them from taking the child back to the US either. Why is this any different?

flailing forward said...

@ anon 6:17
I realize you're just trolling, but what's the point of your last two sentences other than to discredit any point you were trying to make?

Spaceman said...

Rob Dawg -

The comment AT 6:17 is WAAYYY
overboard. This isn't Camp Idiot, for god's sake.

flailing forward said...

What I hate about discussing issues with a racial component like immigration, welfare, public housing, etc. is that not only do you immediately get pegged as a racist if you take a position not beneficial to whatever minority is being benefitted, but the actual racists like anon 6:17 immediately think you're on their team. We're not.

Anonymous said...

@ flailing forward

Its trolling when I lay out the plain ugly facts of the matter? If you can't get past the "racism" complex that society has drilled into you since birth, you can never have a real discussion on the immigration issue.

lurker said...

The discussion itself is not racist. However, discussions like this tend to draw racists. Do you get labeled a racist if a racist agrees with you. No more than you would be labeled a fraudster if Casey agreed with you.

The difficult part is the racists are as impervious to facts and logic as Casey is

Spacy Casey said...

@Anonymous

How can one expect to have a real discussion with someone who's education stopped at the 3rd grsde?

lurker said...

@anonymous

To refute your argument, we imported Irish, Swedes, Italians, and Hispanics and they have all assimilated within a couple of generations. The Hispanics that have not assimilated are 1st generation

El Gabo Gringo said...

The problem with "Anon" posts on a thread like this is I can't figure out which "anon" is which, so don't know who to reply to. Are all the recent "Anon's" the same person?

There is certainly a cultural aspect to the illegal immigration fight. Mexico has never been our ally. They are virulently anti-American, with the exception of a small group of middle/upper class northerners (Mostly those from Monterrey.)

I fail to see the argument, however , that opponents of illegal immigration are racist. In fact, it's the proponents of illegal immigration that are most likely to be using race as a factor in their decision making.

Were we to choose immigrants based on their merits (rather than family ties) we would have lots of East-Indians, Asians and Europeans, but very few Latin Americans. So the current system favors one race over a myriad of others on the basis of proximity and, if you look at immigration proponents in CA, Race.

As Andres Oppenheimer points out in his latest column, if immigration were merit-based and color-blind, Latin Americans would be the biggest loosers and Asians, Indians, Euros would be the winners.

FlyingMonkeyWarrior said...

@ Dawg,
I just sent you an e-mail with the information about Greg Swan. Soooo funny, so just saying.

FlyingMonkeyWarrior said...

Just Posting a contrary View.
FMW
-------------------------


In defense of immigration bill

U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez | Special to the Sentinel
Posted June 3, 2007


Mel Martinez is a Republican United States Senator for Florida and the only immigrant currently serving in the Senate.

Immigration reform is very personal to me. As an immigrant to this great country, I am a product of the American Dream. I understand what it means to stand, raise your right hand, and swear allegiance to the United States. I respect the enormity of that commitment, our traditions, and our language. I know the value of not only learning English but more importantly learning and living the spirit of being an American. As Congress moves forward with reforming our nation's immigration laws, it is essential we remember the American spirit as part of our immigration discussion.

At its core, illegal immigration is a problem born of the success of our nation. The American Dream is a worldwide attraction, and many are willing to risk their lives to gather even a glimpse of it. We have a booming economy and a huge demand for all levels of labor. These realities plus our failed immigration policies and porous border have resulted in a 20-year flow of illegal immigration amounting to an estimated 12 million people. As lawmakers, it is not only our duty but our responsibility to address this problem. As a sovereign nation, we must arrive at a solution that satisfies the security of our borders.

First and foremost, the bill we are debating will make our border more secure. It calls for the completion of several specific border-security measures before any other aspect of the bill is implemented. Among the measures: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must have a total of 20,000 border security agents; build at least 370 miles of additional and strategic border fencing and 200 miles of vehicle barriers; must create and implement effective identification tools using biometric technologies to verify identity and employment eligibility. These measures must be met or else immigration reform will not move forward.

Our nation has record-low unemployment levels and the demand for all levels of labor remains consistently high. There are jobs for every willing American, but given the dynamic sustained growth of our economy, there still is a need for additional workers. This imbalance creates unsustainable pressure at our borders.

This is why, once certain border-security requirements are met, the bill institutes a temporary-worker program to provide the labor America desperately needs. Workers from other countries will have a clear understanding before coming here that they're coming to work for a limited period of time. Combined with the DHS identification verification system and steep sanctions against employers who hire unverified workers, the demand for undocumented workers will decrease dramatically.

Regarding the 12 million people who are here today illegally, this bill provides an opportunity for them to come out of the shadows and for the U.S. government to know who is in our country. It is imperative we find a fair and practical solution to this problem; it is vital to our society and our national security.

As a nation of immigrants, we must arrive at a humane policy that is aligned with the rule of law. Those who play by the rules are rewarded; those who break our laws will pay penalties. Under the Senate bill, illegal immigrants coming forward will be on probation; they will submit to a background check; they will agree to pay fines; they will prove employment and must maintain employment for as long as they wish to reside in our country. Failing to follow this course or failing any of the requirements will result in deportation.

Those coming forward must be law-abiding and contributing members of our society, and they will know they are our guests. For those individuals who pay fines, maintain employment, obey the law and learn English, they can have a path forward to stay here and continue to work. If they go back to their home country, they can then apply for permanent residence and go to the back of the line as any fair system would dictate.

For those concerned about the fiscal impact associated with border security and immigration reform, the Congressional Budget Office reported on May 23rd that the solution we have drafted "would result in a net increase in revenues of $70 billion to $75 billion over the 2008-2017 period."

To those who choose to ignore the problem, call any effort to address it "amnesty," or politicize potential solutions, I would say, provide a solution; provide an idea for securing the borders, bringing 12 million people out of the shadows, and answering the labor needs of our nation.

We, as Americans, must decide whether we want to live in a society where there is a permanent underclass of 12 million people hidden from the law, often paid less than living wages, and disenfranchised from our culture, or we can embrace the spirit that has made America so great and bring people out of the shadows, give them an opportunity to live within the law and become responsible, contributing members of our society. Those who choose humanity over divisive rhetoric will be rewarded with a country that is stronger, more productive and more enduring as we forge ahead in this great experiment of democracy.

El Gabo Gringo said...

@Flying.

Mel is just plain wrong. The illegal immigration problem isn't born out of our success, but Mexico's failure. He, as a Cuban, should be well aware of that relationship.

Any encouragement we give to illegal immigration is encouragement we give to Mexico's failed policies. Until we stop illegal immigration, Mexico will have no hope of pulling itself out of the hole it is in.

lurker said...

The 2 problems I have with the bill.

Temporary worker program. These people are not being brought in for temporary jobs. The only reason to use temporary workers is to keep wages low.

Going back to home country to pay a fine and wait in line. They aren't going to do it.

Things I like about the bill.

Increased border control. Even though I have doubts that this will be funded over the long term, it is a good idea.

point system for immigration. This is a more rational approach than our current mess.

Employment as a requirement for immigration. Most countries require it and it just makes sense.

FlyingMonkeyWarrior said...

Mel is delusional if he thinks that this will bring to light the aliens that have evil intent. They will stay in the shadows.
The 'good' illegals will not be able to afford the so called fines and will also stay in the 'shadows', imo.
What a mess.

@ lurker,
I put together the Greg Swan Dive information as promised and sent it to Dawg as a courtesy. Too fuuny. I
Will post it around 9;oo pm e.s.t unless Dawg wants to do something else (thread?)
ltr, the sun and brunch pool side are calling me. (:

FlyingMonkeyWarrior said...

@ gringo,
Yes, Mel is Cuban and just wrong.

Anonymous said...

@ 6:03 anon "I betcha the Native Americans would have liked to deport all the first generation Europeans born in this country."


-I think you just made the case for the other team.


Right, I see what you're saying.

Well, tell me then, so I can understand for once and for all:

I was brought up indoctrinated with a number of principles that I thought was supposed to be intrinsic to the American value system, to the extent that many of them are actually enshrined in the Constitution. Principles regarding egalitarianism, equal rights, equal opportunity, a certain affinity for the downtrodden and the underdog, a chance for the disenfranchised to finally for once in history to have a decent go at it, etc. etc.

Tell me if this is valid or just a story that adults were making up to make themselves feel good (notwithstanding the irony since they basically stole the land from the Indians), and if we are truly a nation of laws founded on fairness or if, in contrast, it's all a matter of who you know and how powerful you are (which is the way most of the rest of the world works).

I would just like to know so that I can understand which system I'm working in going forward. It's confusing trying to straddle both of these mutually exclusive positions at one time. I can thrive in either system; I just don't want to be the only fool adhering to some pollyannish ideals that everyone elses mouths the words to but actually chuckles at as they do.

I'm painting with an extremely broad brush but this is indeed the dichotomy in a nutshell and speaks to many of the posts here.

Since there are many Anons here, you may refer to me as AnonAlongADong. Thank you.

lurker said...

@AnonAlongADong

I desperately want the fairy tale of America as a good country standing up for its ideals and am naively disappointed everytime we don't (and it is quite often we don't). If it can only be one system or the other, I would recommend going for the corrupt one because otherwise you will continously be blindsided by it. If you have a chance to survive in both, please stay with us in the fools brigade

Thanks, lurker

Sad said...

I'm jonesing for a Casey fix

El Gabo Gringo said...

@Casey Fix

Read the article about Crisp that is in this thread.... It's good.

And who is Greg Swan???

Rob Dawg said...

Addressing illegal immigration as an illegal act is preserving the American Dream not hindering it.

We are a nation laws not men. Does anyone object to park rangers telling you to stay out of the sensitive meadow habitat because too many would destroy the ecosystem? Dammit I want to go there and enjoy the pretty flowers and pick some if I want. It is public land not even private property.

flailing forward said...

@ anon 6:21
I said trolling because you made a point and then started with the "mexcrement" bullshit. All that does is inflame people and distract from what can be an interesting discussion.

@ anonalongadongadonga
You paint things in such ideal terms when we still had slavery about a 100 years after the Constitution was written and didn't give blacks the right to vote until almost 200 years later. Yes, the Constitution is a great document, but we've never lived up to the ideals in it. Your two extremes aren't mutually exclusive, in fact they're impossible. As Casey would say, reality is a gray area. We're a real nation with lots of real problems, and illegal immigration is one of them.

@ FMW
That bill sounds like the usual bureaucratic procedure of taking a big mess and making it into an even bigger one. Requiring immigrants to maintain employment is good going forward, but how would that apply to the ones here now illegally? There's an entire underground economy based on using their labor off the radar. Once they're legitimized, their wages have to go up, and demand for their labor will go down. The ones that then can't get jobs would get deported anyway under this plan.

El Gabo Gringo said...

WORST INVESTMENT EVER?

Anybody read the article on yahoo right now? Looks like the MSM is changing their tune. Whichever way the wind blows, I guess.

WORST INVESTMENT EVER!

flailing forward said...

El Gabo, this is Greg Swann.

0 Comment Swaby said...

@ 8:15 AM, Anonymous:

The American Dream you refer to is just that, American. Is this a place where an immigrant can thrive? Absolutely, and it can be done within the bounds of our laws and generally requires a certain willingness to assimilate into our culture.

Our laws were written to protect Americans. Don't mistake the fact that we have been an historically generous nation to mean that we should be bound to indiscriminately afford the same rights and protections that we enjoy to anyone who is disenfranchised, disillusioned or impoverished.

To attempt to "level the field" is a slippery slope and would eventually make this a less desirable place to live for us and those who seek to come here to improve their lot.