Did the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 create the situation we find ourselves in now?
“How do we remain a country that is both diverse but also has a firm integration policy?”, asked Igor Tymofeyez, director of immigration policy and senior advisor for refugee and asylum affairs at the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. This question of U.S. identity has occurred since the early 20th century. At this time, immigration was based upon a quota system. Immigration from Northern and Western Europe was encouraged, while Jews and Latin Americans were discouraged from coming to the United States. As Stephen Pitt, professor of history and American studies at Yale University noted, “there was a fear of cultural assimilation”. In the 1960’s, with the passage of the Hart-Celler Immigration Bill of 1965, family unifcation became the overriding principal of immigration. This focus continued in the Immigration Reform and Control(IRCA) of 1986, the basis of our current immigration policy.
Panelists argue that IRCA put polices into place that led to the current large population of illegal immigrants in the United States today. While the law offered amnesty to anyone how had resided in the United States since before 1982, it cut off any future flow of legal immigrants. Yet people were still drawn to the United States for jobs that were readily available. The magnet was work says Myers. In addition, political turmoil and revolutions in Central America, massive structural adjustments in Mexican economy, and the increased numbers of foreign owned factories along the U.S. - Mexican border that employ Mexican workers, all acted as “push factors”, driving people into the United States.
Because U.S. immigration policy made it so difficult to gain citizenship, it artificially built up an undocumented population.
These are excerpts from an article on an immigration symposium. I found the article very informative and truly gained insight into the dynamics of this complicated issue. What I liked best, was that a need was identified to have an open process regarding immigration a need to flexible. Immigration policy is not a one time fix, but most be monitored constantly to ascertain, what policies are working and what is no longer effective.
http://www.cfr.org/content/meetings/immigration_symposium_summary.pdf
“Immigration Commission to Meet in Fairfax”
http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/local/article/immigration_commission_to_meet_in_fairfax/15111/
“Free Speech Value of Sign is Debated”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050700141.html
Like I said in my previous post, the demand for illegal labor is the “pull” factor for illegal aliens. From prostitution to construction work. Amnesty and increased immigration quotas will not quench that demand.
Fortify the border and severly punish those that use black market labor and then we can talk amnesty and increasing immigration quotas. Otherwise, as long as the demand for illegal labor exists and the supply can find a way in, there will be illegal aliens flooding the borders.
Mando:
“From prostitution to construction work”
I will agree with your mention of construction, but prostitution? Come on…
“severly punish those that use black market labor ”
And THAT right there is the KEY. Dry up the source!
I am wondering, with an unemployment rate of less than 6% nationally and less than 4% in PWC, how do you reconcile that with your belief there is an overabundence of workers?
I copied/pasted my response to Mando here from another thread.
Mando,
A couple things, 21 million illegals doesn’t mean that they are all in the work force. But let’s for arguments sake consider that you were correct in this assumption. The total # of US inhabitants, according to the last census is about 300 million, so 21 million working illegals would translate into 7% of our workforce. If this were the case, I presume your assumption is that legal workers would be able to fill the gap if that 7% weren’t here; however according to Bureau of Labor Statistics we(US) had 5% unemployment last month and I guarantee the jobs that the 7% probably aren’t something that the ‘5%’ would be interested in doing. My point being simply there has been a labor shortage and employers aren’t necessarily paying black market wages but in many cases have been desperate to find workers which means paying a more competitive/fair wage.
“Fortify the border and severly punish those that use black market labor and then we can talk amnesty and increasing immigration quotas. ” Mando, I partially agree with your idea here except we have to do it all at the same time or it won’t work. Enforcement without reform makes for an unbalanced, unjust system that could end up penalizing people who don’t deserve it.
Amnesty cannot be granted unless we are sure we can prevent the flood of illegals that will inevitably try to cross the border. Read up on the border patrol. Anytime amnesty is even mentioned, their job is that much harder because of the increase in illegal entry.
Also, that 5% unemployment rate is very misleading. There are many not counted there. Young adults just entering the workforce aren’t counted. Those without many options needing that entry level job to enter the workforce aren’t finding those jobs that were there 20 years ago (construction, restaurant, etc.) Look at DC for an example. By turning a blind eye to black market labor, you’re keeping a whole class of US citizens out of the workforce. That is a travesty.
“Amnesty cannot be granted unless we are sure we can prevent the flood of illegals that will inevitably try to cross the border.” Understood. But that’s why we pretty much have to do it all at the same time.
I also like the “path to citizenship” idea better. I don’t think it should be “POOF! You’re a citizenship!”
To Mando,
I agree there is a conundrum with the young Americans who are just getting out of school not being able to enter the workforce. I was in a simular situation after I recieved my BFA, only my job skill was as a hand drawn animator. In my case all the technology had changed and what jobs there were in my field had been outsourced to Japan and India. I was very lucky and got a state job as an AV manager in a community college, others unfortunatly are not so lucky.
But if these young Americans are proud enough to call themselves Americans, they need to act like Americans. They need to get together and proove they are just as capable as the Illegal Immigrants, that they can work as hard and do any task, no matter how dirty, no matter how unpleasant. If landscaping business, resturants and farms won’t pay them a fair wage, then they need to form their own businesses and unions, or loudly demand their rights as American Workers. If the majority of the citizens of the USA feel that our citizens should have these rights, then they need to be ready to pay an honest wage, boycott businesses that use slave labor, only consume materials that were made, sewn, build, grown born and raised by Americans.
It takes a great amount of motivation a lot of hard work, and it will mean sacrifices on the part of the American Public in terms of comfort and convienience.
But untill these young folks get off the computer, out of the beer bottles; cease complaining and start reforming this nation themselves, they will never win and they will continued to be replaced by other people who will do the work.
Yes it’s not fair, but in this day and age, as it has been in the past, you will have to fight for your rights, not be granted them by idle comments on webboards.
Stop complaining and Organize AMERICA! otherwise be silent and let the best worker do the job.
Oh dear I think I posted this on the wrong thread….
So, if we offer a path to citizenship to those already here, how do we prevent the influx of more people when we announce amnesty? Yes, Kgotthardt, in a perfect world, securing of the borders and the amnesty or path to citizenship could be done at the same time. But securing the borders will take months, if not years, and the announcement of a path will lead to an influx of those trying to get in on the plan. There is not a method to determine who was here before a path to citizenship would be offered. If someone works as a day laborer, there is no paperwork. Our borders will be overrun as soon as the media starts tracking any legislation that includes a path or amnesty.
“If landscaping business, resturants and farms won’t pay them a fair wage, then they need to form their own businesses and unions, or loudly demand their rights as American Workers. ”
Easier said than done - especially when you graduate with a mountain of student loan debt.
“Easier said than done - especially when you graduate with a mountain of student loan debt.”
…Just getting into those colleges after graduating from “No Child Left Behind” is easier said than done to. Community Colleges are reporting now that while students are enrolling in record numbers, the amount of remedial classes in order to bring them to “College Level” reading, writing and math skills have been increased. Where in 1999 a small percentage of students required 1 remedial class, now a greater percentage of freshmen require 1 semester of mutiple remedial classes.
The Community Colleges are becoming the High Schools, The High Schools are becoming tax-funded babysitting opperations.
I’m sorry, but the last eight years have demoralized much of these Young Americans. It will require Hope and Leadership to turn this country around, but that has been denied to the next generation through a gigantic political machine.
Our heavy investment in materialism came at the price of the American soul, the one thing lacking to bring this nation together in strength. I can chart out what we need to do, but I fear we have damaged ourselves far too much to be able to have a strong American workforce. Like it or not, we have to reform ourselves before we can began to reform our immigration policy, schools, government, world, etc.
rod1255 In my former job I had to recruit and hire workers. What bothered me the most was kids out of school want a job at the top with a top wage. They have paid a lot of money for their education and may have school debt but what happened to working one’s way up the ladder. Most of the under 30 group that I hired only stayed a year. Unfortunately there is not much loyalty in the job place, not from the employee and not from the employer.
So, I agree with you in part. This issue is much larger than just immigration alone. There is much that needs to be fixed in this country. Work ethic is a big one. You are absolutely right when yousay the we have to reform ourselves before we can reform other policies.
If our education system taught reading, writing and arthmetic in school instead of only teaching the students to pass SOLS, students would be better prepared for college. There is no longer educational creativity in the class room.
“But securing the borders will take months, if not years” WHY? How hard is it to get some of our National Guard at the borders? I mean if we can deploy thousands of soldiers to Iraq within a couple of months, why can’t we fly people down south? Do you know why? Because it hasn’t been a priority. Until Congress stops focusing on the Middle East and starts focusing on our COUNTRY, we will continue to have this problem (including others like student loans, home foreclosures, pollution, poverty, homelessness, etc.).
I do NOT believe it can’t be done. I DO believe if it doesn’t get done it’s because Congress WOULDN’T get it done.
I had to learn the lesson on ambition the hard way Marie. After I graduated from NOVA in 2001 with only a Multimedai Certificate, I though I was a world class genious and jumped head on into a 3D animation job with a micro company in Chantilly for 30K, I was 19 years old. That job lasted about 5 months wiht one bounced Paycheck then went bankrupt after 9-11 with the manager dissapearing before I saw my last paycheck.
That still did not break me, and after I ran into some inheiritance money, I spent all of in in the Shenendoah Valley trying to make big bucks in the indpendent Christian film world. That lasted for one year before I ran out of money and went through another bankruptcy.
After that I figured it was my lack of Bachelors that was keeping me out of the big business, so following up on my parents promise to pay for my college education if I would just “GET ONE.” I got into VCU and finally had some sense slapped into me. I learned that I could be just as happy making my own animation on the side and working a relativly low level job by day. It’s true, I still live with my parents because a job in State Education does not pay enough to live even reasonably in Northern VA, but my bank account is growing, I’m learning priceless job skills and building a good work ethic and record.
It won’t be this way forever, but I have the patience to stick with it for another 5 to 6 years. I find you can make more progerss up the ladder if you actually start with the 1st step.
Some of my friends from school say I’m not ambitious enough and that I’m working to slow for this high speed media market, but they are telling me this from debt ridden lifestyles. Besides, I don’t really have to hurry now, the market is slowing and one day they will long to have patient, focused individuals with a good work ethic and loyalty to bring them out of this swamp.
How to teach these kids these lessons in a classroom as opposed to the street, is beyond me. I thank God every day for the many cliffs He stopped me from falling over, I wish I could do much for these kids.
the mirror is before us, we must reflect…
“Stop complaining and Organize AMERICA!” AMEN, Rod.
BTW, have we met online somewhere before? : )
rod2155,
RE: what you said on 8. May 2008, 16:00
Well said! I was getting ready to sulk again when I have been trying to be positive. I am tying up my boots! Thanks for the inspiration. Keep on moving forward.
Not Me, Bubba, 8. May 2008, 10:20
Mando:
“From prostitution to construction work”
I will agree with your mention of construction, but prostitution? Come on…
“severly punish those that use black market labor ”
And THAT right there is the KEY. Dry up the source!
KENNETH SAID NOT SCREAMED - SEVERELY PUNISH? DAMMIT, WHAT DO I DO WHEN I GO DOWN TO 7-11 NEXT TIME AND PICK UP PABLO TO DO YARD WORK?? HOW DO I PROVE HE IS LEGAL? AND IF I SCREW UP, DO I GO TO THE SLAMMER? MAYBE WE COULD USE THE FINES TO FUND OUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS HAHHAHAHA THIS WHOLE THING IS A JOKE………I LIKE THE IDEA OF ORDERLY FLOW …KNOW WHO IS IN THE U.S……AND ACCEPT THOSE WHO ARE WORKING? DONT WE STILL HAVE HUE NUMBERS OF MIGRANT WORKERS ALL UP AND DOWN THE EAST COAST?
I was very intrigued that our it is clearly very possible our current immigration policy is actually partially responsible for this increase in the status of illegal aliens. I wonder why the other side isn’t willing to talk about this. Is there fear, that if you take away the prefix illegal, we all then must deal with the community issues that are really at the heart of this debate?
The other interesting fact within this immigration symposium, is that the stress of not having a feasible immigration policy is clearly falling onto the laps of county government, the least equipped body to deal with the issue. If you haven’t clicked on the link, it really is an interesting read.
Provide a clear and manageable path to citizenship and basically send them all back first. I think someone has already proposed this and secure the borders. as someone mentioned above, this all needs to be done at the same time to really be effective. in order to ensure they do go back you have to give them some incentive to wait and then give them some sort of grace period before you start calling out the dogs after them. I would give those who turn themselves (vice being captured) a bonus by shaving some time off their waiting period. you balance this out by penalizing those that dont. of course you could also grant work visas to those who work in needed jobs (agriculture, etc..) and prioritize based on job need at the current time i.e. if we need more people experienced in picking watermelon, take those people first for example. many ways to play this so it’s fair enough to the illegals and doesnt tick off everyone else.
make it fair and they will come….
I think the lack of immigration policy enforcement is responsible. the govt (and business) saw a opportunity to gain cheap labor and then closed there eyes for awhile then poof!! we have a problem that’s not so easily fixed. So they throw in a few raids to make everyone happy for a while and then let them all go. so the public things the govt. is cracking down and the businesses get their people back to work. everyones happy until the next raid.
Rod2155-Congratulations!! Your story is an inspiring one. Remember that slow and steady wins the race.
Rod and Marie,
I hate NCLB. It is one of those bills that looks good on paper and is absolutely horrible on a practical level. It has pretty much destroyed the public education system.
“Provide a clear and manageable path to citizenship and basically send them all back first.” Logistically, this isn’t feasable. It’s way too expensive and would separate even more families, taking away bread winners and parents. It doesn’t seem unjust to give people work visas as one path towards citizenship. But “send them all back” is just too cumbersome, if nothing else.
NCLB is like the immigration resolution of education: “Here. We said go do it now go do it. Who cares if you don’t have the money or justification to do it? We said DO IT.”
The path to citizenship is, and will remain :
If you’re here illegally, go back to your county. Then apply from there.
We can debate how many people to let in and under what conditions but the basic framework i described is the only one Americans will accept. Lawbreaking is not to be rewarded. Wanting to make more money does not justify human smuggling, identity theft, etc.
I agree but…the american public as a whole is not going to stand with having the perception of people being rewarded. regardless of the perceived cost of sending them back, the public will want them sent back. you have to have some give/take on this issue and both sides of the argument have to be willing to concede certain issues. Not everyone is going to be completely happy. the people who are here illegally have to be willing to return home, in return for that they have to be offered a clear, concise and fast path to either citizenship or a visa. you cant just off and give everyone a green card. it’s not going to work like that and again emotion is brought to the table when parents, bread winners, etc.. are mentioned. Emotion is what’s going to kill the entire debate, when you start mentioning families being separated and showing videos of peoples families being shattered you have issues. As heartbreaking as all this sounds, then you have the other side saying I dont care and they should not be here in the first place. Who wins that argument? No one. Who looses? Everyone!
you get around the “logistically unfeasible” argument by ensuring that they “want” to go back to whence they came and providing them proof that they will be considered for citizenship or visa status if they do and ensuring that if they dont they will be punished for not stepping up to the plate. My biggest issue with the argument of illegal immigration is the emotional issues that are brought to the table. They are important issues, but honestly they are individual ones. Remove emotion from many things and you find that the negotiation table become more approachable and debating anything is more workable.
>>>WHAT DO I DO WHEN I GO DOWN TO 7-11 NEXT TIME AND PICK UP PABLO TO DO YARD WORK?? <<<
Perhaps instead of going to 7-11 for your gasoline, fast snack food and day laborer needs you employ the service of a neighborhood kid who is looking to make money or hire a landscaping company that proudly advertises they do NOT use foreign labor? Or here’s an idea, if you’re not physically handicapped, do your own yard work. Amazingly enough, my husband and I who commute to and from Arlington manage to mow our own grass, weed our flower beds and manage our yard! AMAZING!!!!
But since you are aware that people who loiter at 7-11 are more likely illegal than legal, and employing one of them means you’re contributing to the problem - maybe for individuals like you and companies who operate with illegal labor…maybe you should be fined. Maybe stings - like they use for prostitution - should be done to weed out the perpetrators and proponents of illegal labor. Maybe you should be punished…
“emotion is brought to the table when parents, bread winners, etc.. are mentioned.” EMOTION?? What about human rights, rights for children, and the belief that people are equal no matter who they are?
You are wrong, Elvis. This has nothing to do with emotion. When human rights are violated, we ALL LOSE.
“>>>WHAT DO I DO WHEN I GO DOWN TO 7-11 NEXT TIME AND PICK UP PABLO TO DO YARD WORK?? <<<”
I think he was being sarcastic, Bubba. The Ken Reynolds who usually posts here would never mean this seriously.
As we know, the johns of prostitutes hardly ever get arrested. It’s always the prostitute. If the johns are “illegals” of course then THEY will be arrested. But the justice system has always let the “white guys” (and others) get away with it.
human rights? you dont violate human rights by following the law and deporting people. we have the laws that were voted on and when they are enforced then that’s it. I spent 4 years going to law school, I didnt have any classes on “human rights” only on law. I leaned things call the “bill of rights” and the “constitution” those little documents that govern our country.
I agree the law isnt perfect, that’s what precedent is for. It’s easy to spit right and wrong when you dont agree with someone due to emotions. Emotionally it’s sad when illegals get deported without their children BUT they do have the option to take them with them if they choose. It really looks horrible when you hear about illegal aliens being separated from their children, etc..what’s usually not mentioned is that little fact that they have every option of joining their parents in their original country.
If you ever wondered why I cannot stand you is that you add emotion and sensationalism to your arguments to sway people to your side. It’s easy to stand up and say “I want, I want” and throw in a little emotional rhetoric to bolster your argument. However that type of action is really counter productive to what you really want. You would be a pretty good actor or even good as a trial attorney but you lack control, that’s my opinion of course but you can rightly assume that it’s a very educated one. You cannot “get” unless you “give” those are basic principles that everyone should have been brought up with. I will from now choose not to respond to you as I feel that you are counterproductive to what others are standing for. I can see many good ideas and things from Alanna’s and Elena’s arguments but your attitude really brings the rest down and it really makes it difficult for people to see “your side” of things.
Elvis, what would you do with a family when the parents have been here illegally for ten or fifteen years? Suppose they own a home and small business and the kids are in school and doing well. Would you expect them (all?) to leave? For how long? What happens to the house? Is it supposed to go into foreclosure in the meantime? What about the business they’ve built up? Suppose it’s successful and employs other American citizens? Are they now fired? To ask these questions isn’t being emotional but rather practical. If the intent is to ultimately offer someone a path to citizenship or legal working status, is it necessary to harshly punish them?
censored
would that not be on a case by case basis as mentioned by many of the candidates for this presidential election? again, another emotional issue. It’s important but emotional nonetheless. following the law, then yes..they need to leave. reality would tell us these people have been basically citizens for x amount of years, contributing, etc.. 10-15 years? they should have been able to obtain citizenship in that amount of time, I think you making your time limits extreme and it didnt do your argument good. Let’s say 4-5 years ok? again, the law really doesnt take practicality in the mix for this situation that’s why the laws need to be changed. Here’s what I would say, issue temp visas for the parents then ensure they follow up with the process to obtain citizenship. if the didnt follow the process, then they had their chance and should go. I dont feel anyone should be given a pass for breaking the law just because their situation seems sad. call that heartless, but the moment you start making judgement calls based on emotion then you have issues. if the enforcement were there to begin with then all that stuff wouldnt be happening now. all the arguments you mention above are based on a fact that is not in dispute, the parents are here illegally, for multiple years and they took a chance. The fact that they got away with it for so long is not a factor in that instance. I would say that had this coming. I remember seeing many articles in the news with families mentioning that they expect amnesty to come. the operative word here was “expect” so what’s wrong with that picture.
the bottom line, you shouldnt give people a “pass” just because they have a situation like this. you need to make it fair. so my question is that it’s fair for them just because their situation is special and they got away with it for so long?
when you think about the plight of the folks you mention without thinking about the other people in the country who expect the laws to be followed that is not practical that is emotional. I dont think any of this is harsh punishment, asking people to return to whence they came is not harsh. Their personal situation makes it harsh and that’s something they brought upon themselves.
so in a nutshell, yes they should be sent home to wait in line (albeit a fast one) behind all the others that have already been waiting. it’s only fair and it’s fair to everyone else who pays taxes here in this country of laws as a citizen. the more exceptions you make to law the less “law” you have.
“If you ever wondered why I cannot stand you is that you add emotion and sensationalism to your arguments to sway people to your side.”
LMAO! Do you think I care if you can stand me or not? I’m not running for office so it’s not in my best interest to pander to ANYONE, especially people who can’t even use their own names on a freaking blog!
elvis is my name thank you very much, my parents were big fans of the “King” although I cannot stand his music. I would hope you dont run for office, please do us a big favor!
Elvis, people are given a pass all the time for breaking laws…by the statute of limitations, by a sympathetic jury, by a police officer’s discretion, etc.
What type of timeframe would you find appropriate for them to be out of the country before returning?
I might think that an immigrant here illegally who is doing a job and has been here for years with a clean record might be more of a plus than someone waiting in line who will have to learn the ropes of how our society operates. Just seems logical to me. I do think the whole immigration system needs to be speeded up. People overseas waiting for a decade are wasting valuable time as well. Had they anticipated such a long wait, they may have made other plans.
Good, Elvis, so go ahead and post your last name too.
Is it Presley? Have you actually RISEN? Or did you never die? :0
Don’t worry about me running for office, either, Elvis. I’d make a poor politician. I don’t know how to lie.
censored..
I actually agree with you however pushing a “reasonable” time on this, I have no clue. I wouldnt have the slightest clue. as to other methods? not sure there either.
the problem here is that lack of enforcement did not exist however the laws did. this is analogous to training a cat to use the litterbox. if you fail to train your cat correctly and fail to hold them accountable at the beginning do you think punishing him later on down the line when he goes on the rug is acceptable? will it even work? the answer to neither is no. the problem was created by lack of accountability and that’s not the cats fault it’s the owners in this case, the government. however citizens have the right to expect that their lawmakers hold lawbreakers accountable and there you have the crux of the issue!
when others post their last name here, then I shall do so myself. Honestly, out of the whole blog I only see yours and Keith’s (kevins?) last name posted so you could apply your argument to the entire blog…didnt realize that was a requirement and I dont want to leave myself open to stalking, calling my boss (which is me by the way) or calling my mother (who is dead, but if you can commune with the dead that would be a cool trick to see). However if you REALLY feel you need to know EXACTLY who I am look for me at the BOCS meetings, I’m at most of them and I’m very frequently down at the courthouse (in fact almost daily)…there’s not too many people named elvis I would hope.
sorry, I meant Kenneth vice Kevin or Keith..too many “k’s”
Elvis Mil……
Hey! I would love to make your acquaintence some day, Elvis, assuming you were not standing anywhere near GL whom I refuse to be close to bodily if I can help it because I think he’s dangerous and have good reason for believing so. (He tried to intimidate me at one meeting but that’s another story.)
So if you have been to the BOCS meetings, have you heard me speak? I’m curious because I wonder if you loathe me so much in person as you do here. It interests me because sometimes people have a disconnect between the computer and real life and sometimes they don’t. Whether or not this applies to you doesn’t make much of a different but it’s something I would find interesting to know.
“however citizens have the right to expect that their lawmakers hold lawbreakers accountable and there you have the crux of the issue!”
But this analogy with the cat doesn’t work, Elvis. Cats are animals,, for one thing, so you really do NOT want to go there, do you? Second, if you don’t train the cat, you have no one to blame but yourself but you don’t beat the cat or bring it to a shelter because you failed as a pet owner. You move the cat box closer to where the cat is having accidents and you go from there. I know this because we have cats : )
“so you could apply your argument to the entire blog” Elvis, My only argument was that I don’t care what people on a blog think about me, especially when they don’t post their last names. I don’t even KNOW most of the people on here.
Unfortunately, most people on blogs have already made up their minds when they came here. They might stay for one or a few reasons: to get their ideas heard even if they are not agreed with; to argue incessently because they have nothing else to do; to stay informed on what others are saying; to get links to interesting articles or information; to rant and rave.
I’m not really here to change anyone’s mind because I don’t think it can be done on a blog. We know that from BVBL. But we CAN get multiple ideas for solutions and different perspectives. That’s why I laughed when I said I don’t care if you can stand me or not based on a blog. So long as you don’t threaten me here, I really don’t care one way or the other. Heck, you might not be able to stand me in real life and that’s your choice too so long as you avoid me and we don’t try to harass one another (which doesn’t seem likely because few people are that obnoxious or dangerous outside of a blog).
I dont have cats, I’m not a cat person..more of a dog kinda family. But in any case, I have seen you at the meetings a few times. I dont hang with the BVBL crowd, that’s not my thing and I only watch the other board this one is more interesting. Dont loathe anyone, Cant say I ever did. I respect everyones opinion, what I dont respect is when people tell others their opinion is wrong. I dont know how that is possible to have a wrong opinion because an opinion is just that “an opinion”.
I go the BOCS meetings alot, actually they kind of bore me. The only time they get kooky is when the MWB people show up. I almost fell out one time when I saw a group of hispanics shouting “USA” when swinging a mexican flag around. They all seem to have a serious identity crisis.
but when I see you all next time I’ll walk up and say hi, I practically live in those buildings and am a regular there and I know who all of you are, videos and pictures are all over this blog and 9500 liberty so it’s hard to miss you.
I don’t think an opinion is wrong. I think racism and hatred are wrong. I think leaders who promote that and try to call it a solution are wrong. And of course, I think liars are wrong. I don’t think you are any of those things (though admittedly we’ve irritated the hell out of each other on this blog).
As far as MWB, I just see them as people who want solutions, just like angry home owners do. And the message I get from the Mexican flag swinging is, “We are Mexican Americans who want to be recognized here in the U.S.” I think most of them want to become citizens. That kind of thing might look weird to most people but it doesn’t seem as weird to me as hatred. Hatred is scary. “Kooky” people aren’t…..even those professional socialists who try to sell their revolutionary books at every march they can no matter WHAT people are marching for! Personally, I like to meet kooky people. They’re interesting : ) I DO NOT like to meet hateful people who think it’s okay to demean others and inflict pain.
DO say hi next time! (My picures are all over this blog? Huh? Are you sure they are of me because I haven’t seen them. I’ve seen Elena, and believe me, I would rather look like HER! LOL)
TWO SNAPS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL_9zdu4iVw
I confuse all of you, for awhile I thought you all were the same person. show’s you how much I pay attention at the BOCS meetings. just look for the guy sleeping and that’s me most likely.
as for hatred, when I was in law school they had some KKK (or wannabe KKK) guys putting flyers on our cars..fast forward, I was getting in my car, wanna be KKK lying on the ground out like a light but when I thought about it he was just ensuring that his ideal’s were heard regardless of the fact that i didnt agree with him. That was when it hit me more so than him, everyone has a right to “be”…. I dont tolerate hatred, but I do understand what generates it. understanding where it comes from is the key to eliminating it. Both sides stir the pot.
“I dont tolerate hatred, but I do understand what generates it. understanding where it comes from is the key to eliminating it. Both sides stir the pot.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5zmRt4bL8A
Go BAMA!
“understanding where it comes from is the key to eliminating it.”
But where DOES it come from, Elvis? I really do NOT understand it. I honestly don’t understand how anyone can hate as in “I want you dead” or “I don’t care how miserable you are or how much you are beaten on, I’m going to have my way” or “you deserve to suffer.” I know part of it is learned behavior but part of it isn’t. Part of it is a refusal to think things through or have empathy. But it just seems so ILLOGICAL to me!
And as far as hatred becoming part of the law? No way. That’s Jim Crow all over again. It’s what we have now with a policy from FAIR.
“I know part of it is learned behavior but part of it isn’t. Part of it is a refusal to think things through or have empathy. But it just seems so ILLOGICAL to me!”
You left out F.E.A.R…….
Oh yeah. I forgot about that Red. Thanks for the reminder. It’s pretty pathetic actually that fear woud lead to something like hatred instead of “lets’ find a solution.” It’s not like we’re in combat or anything. Or at least, I’m not. GL and JS apparently think we are.
KG at 9:43
You show no understanding of “human rights” as defined by law. Only wishful thinking that human rights means groups rights for “minority groups, and “human rights” means minority communities and “illegal aliens” have a right to break the law, if the law makes them unhappy.
Please go and read the constitution, you will find not a single word that says that law enforcement breaks human rights, in fact neutral law enforcement enforces equal rights for all under the law. It gives no special favors to “illegals” based on their ethnic group. It only gives everyone the right to be equally held to the same law, that is true of the 1960s laws that forced “integration” rather than “separatism and diversity” which is pervasive thinking amoung all of you “antiblbv” social engineers, and is what social engineers are advocating for now all over the country. Such socialist thinking will destroy us all. None of you understand your own inability to execute the law fairly, understand the “neutrality” of human rights and “individual rights” and support it only when it benefits your socialist view to support minority groups with benefits and special privileges. That concept is not a “human rights” nor “individual rights” concept.
LOL, ( I am laughing at my self for saying this, because I have heard it and heard it BUT now get the saying…I got the saying but SEE it played out! )
Pride…something before the fall?….someone will chime in ( but I got it)
It is SELF reflection of FEAR~
My 21:40 post was to K…what EVER time that is…
KG, FAIR is not promoting having separate laws that apply to one ethnic group and a different set of laws that apply to a different ethnic group. That is what a Jim Crow law is. Jim Crow separatismn and cultural segregation and cultural diversity is what all the social engineers of the “anti-blbv” and pro-illegal alien crowd are actully promoting, but due to thier focus on minority group sympathy, don’t see it in themselves. It will cause as much problem in our communties in the 2010s as it caused in the 1960s. None of you on this side of the fence get it.
The “solution” is simply enforce the law, equally for all. That is the only fair way. The only neutral way.
human rights
–noun fundamental rights, esp. those believed to belong to an individual and in whose exercise a government may not interfere, as the rights to speak, associate, work, etc.
——————————————————————————–
[Origin: 1785–95]
Social engineering? Dear me, I think you have the wrong person or the wrong blog. If I wanted to “engineer” I would tell this person or that person they couldn’t move to a certain place or live in a certain place. I would tell them how many kids they could or could not have. I would tell people what kind of food they were allowed to cook and what they can’t. Doesn’t sound like me. Sounds like some OTHER people I’ve heard however.
As I understand it, this blog doesn’t constitute any particular side of any fence. I think you’re in the wrong subdivision, Michael.
Jim Crow
–noun 1. a practice or policy of segregating or discriminating against blacks, as in public places, public vehicles, or employment.
What we have are practices and policies that discriminate against anyone presumed to be “illegal.” These people have become targets, forced into a shadow community now fearful of overt harassment. It’s discrimination. Yup. The analogy works, all right.
HA HA HA HA HA! Michael, you’re a trip. I think you’ve memorized all the right buzz words from BVBL–socialist, illegal sympathizer–but I have to admit the “social engineer” thing is new on me. Imagine that. Little ole me. An ENGINEER! Who woulda thunk?
Here you go, Michael. Read up on human rights and its universal application.
_____________________________________________________________
Human rights refers to the “basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled.”[1] Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.
The Magna Carta or “Great Charter” was one of England’s first documents containing commitments by a sovereign to his people to respect certain legal rights.“ All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. ”
—Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
Here’s some more:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Main article: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
“It is not a treaty…[In the future, it] may well become the international Magna Carta.”[6] Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish text of the Universal Declaration in 1949.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a non-binding declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly[7] in 1948, partly in response to the barbarian acts of World War II. Although the UDHR is a non-binding resolution, it is now considered to be a central component of international customary law which may be invoked under appropriate circumstances by national and other judiciaries.[8] The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights are part of the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” The declaration was the first international legal effort to limit the behavior of states and press upon them duties to their citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality.
“ …recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world ”
—Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
The UDHR was framed by members of the Human Rights Commission, with former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt as Chair, who began to discuss an International Bill of Rights in 1947. The members of the Commission did not immediately agree on the form of such a bill of rights, and whether, or how, it should be enforced. The Commission proceeded to frame the UDHR and accompanying treaties, but the UDHR quickly became the priority.[9] Canadian law professor John Humprey and French lawyer René Cassin were responsible for much of the cross-national research and the structure of the document respectively, where the articles of the declaration were interpretative of the general principle of the preamble. The document was structured by Cassin to include the basic principles of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood in the first two articles, followed successively by rights pertaining to individuals; rights of individuals in relation to each other and to groups; spiritual, public and political rights; and economic, social and cultural rights. The final three articles place, according to Cassin, rights in the context of limits, duties and the social and political order in which they are to be realized.[9] Humphrey and Cassin intended the rights in the UDHR to be legally enforceable through some means, as is reflected in the third clause of the preamble:[9]
“ Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law. ”
—Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
Last one:
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a United Nations treaty based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, created in 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976. Nations that have signed this treaty are bound by it.
Convention Provisions
Five Categories
Protection on individual’s physical integrity (against things such as execution, torture, and arbitrary arrest).
Procedural fairness in law (rule of law, rights upon arrest, trial, basic conditions must be met when imprisoned, rights to a lawyer, impartial process in trial).
Protection based on gender, religious, racial or other forms of discrimination.
Individual freedom of belief, speech, association, freedom of press, right to hold assembly.
Right to political participation (organise a political party, vote, voice contempt for current political authority).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NdAUnnU9Ac
My how we love to twist words.
Social engineering is a description of using the socialist concept and liberal political activist rheteric to change the social demographics and legal system to favor only one gender, racial, religious, ethnic point of view, while ignoring the “neutrality” of the law. It also applies to those who advocate that existing law should be broken to acheive a particular social demograhic or benefit to a minority group while not caring about the impact on all “individuals”, only “selected ones” associated with a particular “group identity”. I have seen this repeated concept over and over on this blog and many of your posts.
Your attempt to use the term “discrimmination” to apply to “law enforcement” is not valid. Discrimmination and Preference (privilege) applies to using different laws to apply to different racial, gender, religious and ethnic groups to unfairly favor or advantage one group over another. That is what “social engineers are doing today”.
The law does not discrimminate, or give privilege,only people do based on their social beliefs. You are using concepts such as “Jim Crow” to imply the law is discrimminating and that “law” is unfairly targeting “ethnic groups”. It is not. Your logic is flawed.
“The law does not discrimminate, or give privilege,only people do based on their social beliefs” LMAO.
Obviously, you’ve never heard a lawyer say, “How much justice can you afford?” I have and I’ve looked around to know that justice is not blind in this country. And in PWC, thanks to BVBL et al, it’s on the lookout for “brown faces.”
Law enforcement of the select few and not all equals discrimination.
No-where in any of your quotes on “indivudual and human rights is a quote that supports those rights in favor of one racial, ethnic, gender or religious group over another, nor does it favor in any of those comments it is ok to break the law and not enforce “immigration law”. Your references intended to show scholarly wisdom have no relevance to my argument that “enforcing law” eliminates human or individiual rights. In fact failure to enforce the law allows a rhetoric on group seperatism and politcal advocacy to grown and become popular. That is my point KG, you are not getting it.
So now you are saying you support hiring lawyers to support a philosophy that it is ok to break the law?
LOL! Okay, let me get to this Michael.
1. Wikipedia isn’t what I would call “scholarly.”
2. ” ‘enforcing law’ eliminates human or individiual rights.” Hmmmm. I believe, Michael, that’s why the UN has authored the pieces on human rights–to protect even prisoners from people like you who seem to think that breaking the law means we can do whatever we want to people.
3. Lawyers are there to support YOUR (and my) justice system here in the United States. If you don’t like this, you might want to move. And I suggest more lawyers make themselves more available to people (like me, even) who can’t afford them.
4. “supports those rights in favor of one racial, ethnic, gender or religious group over another” Who is supporting one group over another? My argument is we should not be PERSECUTING one group because of some big mouths in another! Furthermore, you should note that Human Rights includes “Protection based on gender, religious, racial or other forms of discrimination.” Right now, anyone who is perceived to possibly be “illegal” is discriminated against.
This is my last post to you because you are kind of ranting and assuming things. Have a nice night and get some sleep.
kgotthardt said:
“Obviously, you’ve never heard a lawyer say, “How much justice can you afford?” I have and I’ve looked around to know that justice is not blind in this country”
Michael said:
“So now you are saying you support hiring lawyers to support a philosophy that it is ok to break the law?”
I have to break in for the reason I have hired and work for lawyers…..
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
You guys are talking about lawyers….WTF, Michael, do you think their JOB is?
It is to weight the scale down with bricks to win. The scale is the JUDGE
Correction : WHAT do you think their job is?( Michael)
I solemnly swear (or affirm) I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California;
I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;
I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land;
I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client, and will accept no compensation in connection with a client’s business except from the client or with the client’s knowledge and approval;
I will abstain from all offensive personality, and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged;
I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay any person’s cause for lucre or malice.
So help me God.
the above is California’s bar oath, that’s what THEY say the legal professional should be. There are others; temper justice with mercy, etc…the list goes on. Personally the last phrase of the oath is what hits me the most and is the essence of what it means to be an attorney.
My point is not about hiring lawyers to defend people who break the law, my point is that people who think they can break the law, or break the law, use lawyers to help them do it and get away with it. Even judges who are supposed to be impartial, are political and make biased judgments.
My issue with KG is that she is supporting an unethical lawbreaking philosophy and saying that the law discrimminates, it does not, and saying that breaking the law (because you don’t like it) is ok as long as she can hire a lawyer to help avoid the penalty or consequence.
My issue is with the collapse of legal ethics and people who think that breaking the law is OK.
KG is arguing that breaking law is OK from what I am hearing.
KG: Law enforcement of the select few and not all equals discrimination.
That’s an assumption and belief on your part, you have no proof of that. I serious doubt our trained officers are doing that, even though you believe it.
A typical person claiming “profiling” uses “numbers” to make that claim, rather than “standards”. “numbers” are based entirely on the number of people arrested for committing an offense based on a “standard”. Whenever those “numbers are higher for one ethnic group than another, people like KG scream “profiling” and “discrimmination” and feel smug in that claim. The reality is those officers are applying a standard of law (only a very,very few don’t), regardless of race, gender, religion or ethnic group, and are arresting anyone who breaks the standard of the law or is suspected of breaking the standard of the law. If one particular ethnic group has a higher percentage of “numbers” of people breaking that law standard, you are going to have more numerical arrests you can put into that “ethnic group category”. The logic fallacy I am calling KG on is that those “numbers” have nothing to do with “discrimmination”, but have a basis in fact directly related to a simple standard of law. People either break the law or are suspected of breaking the law because of reasonable factual information available, or they do not.
The problem with thinking discrimmination is occuring, is like “diversity” concepts, you only use a measuring yardstick of racial balancing concepts, instead of a standard like “skill, ability, or intellectual capacity”, which is a standard blind to race, gender, religious, or ethnic group “numbers”.
When people use “numbers” to claim discrimmination or claim privilege, they are not “neutral”, are not applying a legal standard, and are simply and illegally trying to advantage one racial, gender, religious or ethnic group over another.
The UN created human rights to protect people from other people or governments from abusing basic legal rights, KG, not to say that all laws you don’t agree with can and should be broken, and a claim made to justify those laws as “inhumane”, just because you don’t like them. The UN supports “illegal” immigration laws, on an international basis. Show me where the UN says that “illegal” immigration is legal, and people who enforce “illegal” immigration law are “inhumane”. Let’s narow your argument to something relevant and pertinent to the debate about your claim that Immigration law is “discrimmination” and “inhumane”. I’m saying your abstract concept of this is wrong. You can’t see your error in your own abstraction about human rights and “individual” rights.
You dodge and weave, but can’t focus on the truth.
Your concept is absolutely correct elvis. I am not against the legal code, in fact very much in favor of it. My beef is with people who use/abuse that legal system to support a philosophy that it is ok to break the law because you have a Lawyer. My beef is not with the lawyers, but with the people who are unethical, and think it is OK to break the law. This is the focus of my entire debate with KG. She indicates to me it is ok to break the law. Only lawbreakers operate in an unlawful and unethical manner, like the mafia, or organzised crime or unethical industries, and now “un-ethical” social engineers who support breaking immigration law to the detriment of the rest of us 360 million people living in this country. I take issue with that. It is our right to be protected by that law, for law enforcement to enforce, for police oficers to arrest those who break it, and for judeges to rule on sending them home because they broke the law and affected 360 million of us. Thank God, the judges are usually the ethical ones.
A lawyer upholds the constitution and the constitution of the state and as such is an officer of the court. I totally agree michael, it’s not ok to break the law. In fact, being an officer of a court means you are held to a higher standard. Sure there are some unethical people who do break the law, but they are the ones who have to live with themselves. This can be applied to any profession. I will zealously and vigorously support and defend my client as necessary within the law. Sometimes that law is skirted, but remaining within it ensures you always are safe and that your reputation is not tarnished. The law is a funny beast in that it’s always changing and everyones interpretation of it changes. it is fickle to say the least and it can be frustrating. I dont do immigration nor family issues, they are touchy subjects that really drain a person and honestly the money is not there and I need to feed a family. I really respect those that take those jobs as they 110 percent supportive to the cause regardless of lack of money involved.
anyone catch the nationals game last night? boy do they suck, figure they would do better in their shiny new ballpark. that said, was a pretty good time at the new stadium. beer seems to be getting more expensive these days, could buy a freakin’ 6 pack for what I could buy for one beer there
elvis, 10. May 2008, 19:12
anyone catch the nationals game last night? boy do they suck, figure they would do better in their shiny new ballpark. that said, was a pretty good time at the new stadium. beer seems to be getting more expensive these days, could buy a freakin’ 6 pack for what I could buy for one beer there
I GUESS YOU HAVENT CAUGHT ANY REDSKINS GAMES LATELY ELVIS…..
Kenneth,
of course, I have season tickets on club level. I split them half and half with a friend. They do suck, but honestly I go to see the other teams play. the skins are horrible and pretty much always have been. I’m a chargers fan. and lately I dont think anyone has caught the games since the season has not started yet.
kenneth,
i also have season tix to the capitals too, they are not so hot either. i think those games are more entertaining however and verizon center seems to have cheaper beer for some reason than all the rest. the food selection is not as great though. cant comment on the wizards, cant stand basketball.
You are more well-versed tan i am on any of this..i understand the Redskins get a bad wrap for soaking everyone!!!
Kenneth,
I just love the experience, I’m not too golden on the rules of any game other than football I’m afraid. It’s a pleasant distraction from reality for the most part. spend any of amount of time orbiting around various courthouses and pushing paper and you’ll know what I mean (I wouldnt count that as “reality” but you get my drift)