On the Border . . .

[SuperTool]

Last time I checked, our government was controlled by so called conservatives in all 3 brances. So you can take your agression out on "liberals" all day long, at the end, it's the "conservatives" who can actually do something about it, since they have the power, but choose to screw you instead. And you let them get away with it because you are too obsessed with "liberal" bashing.
But the bigger issue is that we want them here, even if we don't admit it. We enjoy our $2 wine at Trader Joes. We like our cheap veggies, our cheap contractors, our cheap day laborers. So much like outsoursing, illegal immigration is here because we chose to tolerate it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Last time I checked, our government was controlled by so called conservatives in all 3 brances. So you can take your agression out on "liberals" all day long, at the end, it's the "conservatives" who can actually do something about it, since they have the power, but choose to screw you instead. And you let them get away with it because you are too obsessed with "liberal" bashing.
But the bigger issue is that we want them here, even if we don't admit it. We enjoy our $2 wine at Trader Joes. We like our cheap veggies, our cheap contractors, our cheap day laborers. So much like outsoursing, illegal immigration is here because we chose to tolerate it.

I do not hear the Bush Admin calling people opposed to illegal immigration "racists". Or insisting that illegal immigrants who have been convicted of violent felonies while inside the US and are currently incarcerated in a state penitentiary be called "undocumented workers".

As for your "bigger issue", that's bullsh!t. Bad economics at best (i.e. ala Wal-Mart). Lower prices caused by lower paid workers damage an economy. And lies at best. For example, last I checked, Charles Shaw wine (aka "Two-buck chuck") is not cheap because it uses illegal immigrant labor, but because they use inferior grapes to make a nasty astringent tasting wine that people buy simply because it is cheap (in fact, the US Supreme Court recently passed on [and thus upheld] a lower court ruling that the wine maker must remove "Napa" from its label because the wine doesn't actually contain any Napa grapes). Cheap vegetables are not made possible by illegal workers, but by legal migrant workers. Otherwise, hiring illegal workers is a federal crime that should be enforced.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Last time I checked, our government was controlled by so called conservatives in all 3 brances. So you can take your agression out on "liberals" all day long, at the end, it's the "conservatives" who can actually do something about it, since they have the power, but choose to screw you instead. And you let them get away with it because you are too obsessed with "liberal" bashing.
But the bigger issue is that we want them here, even if we don't admit it. We enjoy our $2 wine at Trader Joes. We like our cheap veggies, our cheap contractors, our cheap day laborers. So much like outsoursing, illegal immigration is here because we chose to tolerate it.

I do not hear the Bush Admin calling people opposed to illegal immigration "racists". Or insisting that illegal immigrants who have been convicted of violent felonies while inside the US and are currently incarcerated in a state penitentiary be called "undocumented workers".

You do not hear, because you are focusing on rhetoric, not on actions.
The point is that conservatives are the one who could actually do something about the situation, but chose not to. Blaming liberals is like blaming a passenger in a car for the driver's mistakes because the passenger said something.

As for your "bigger issue", that's bullsh!t. Bad economics at best (i.e. ala Wal-Mart). Lower prices caused by lower paid workers damage an economy. And lies at best. For example, last I checked, Charles Shaw wine (aka "Two-buck chuck") is not cheap because it uses illegal immigrant labor, but because they use inferior grapes to make a nasty astringent tasting wine that people buy simply because it is cheap (in fact, the US Supreme Court recently passed on [and thus upheld] a lower court ruling that the wine maker must remove "Napa" from its label because the wine doesn't actually contain any Napa grapes). Cheap vegetables are not made possible by illegal workers, but by legal migrant workers. Otherwise, hiring illegal workers is a federal crime that should be enforced.

The labor cost of picking grapes, whether Napa or not, is part of the cost of the bottle of wine. Maybe you should make a trip to Napa and see who is doing the picking.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You do not hear, because you are focusing on rhetoric, not on actions.
The point is that conservatives are the one who could actually do something about the situation, but chose not to. Blaming liberals is like blaming a passenger in a car for the driver's mistakes because the passenger said something.

Oh, puhleeze... simply because they do not hold the Presidency or a majority in Congress does not make the Democratic party completely powerless. And on this issue at least, they are very much complicit with Administration policy, so I don't see your point.

The labor cost of picking grapes, whether Napa or not, is part of the cost of the bottle of wine. Maybe you should make a trip to Napa and see who is doing the picking.

Migrant agricultural workers in this country are documented and legal, and a century-old practice. Let's keep this apples and apples, eh?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Migrant agricultural workers in this country are documented and legal, and a century-old practice. Let's keep this apples and apples, eh?

Dream on, dream on . . . I've stood in Bracero Work Camps, they're not as doc'd & legal as you wish.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Dream on, dream on . . . I've stood in Bracero Work Camps, they're not as doc'd & legal as you wish.

So those companies who are employing the illegals should be prosecuted, should they not? Or will the Dems continue to block that as "racism" while trying to put all the blame on the Bush Admin? :roll:

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You do not hear, because you are focusing on rhetoric, not on actions.
The point is that conservatives are the one who could actually do something about the situation, but chose not to. Blaming liberals is like blaming a passenger in a car for the driver's mistakes because the passenger said something.

Oh, puhleeze... simply because they do not hold the Presidency or a majority in Congress does not make the Democratic party completely powerless. And on this issue at least, they are very much complicit with Administration policy, so I don't see your point.

But it's irrelevant whether they agree or not, they are not the ones setting policy and enforcing it, the cosnervatives are.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
But it's irrelevant whether they agree or not, they are not the ones setting policy and enforcing it, the cosnervatives are.

Once again, puhleeze... :roll:

You are confusing the issue. This thread began when a known liberal poster ridiculed a group of volunteers who are trying to enforce laws that the government will not. He (and other liberal posters) clearly sided with current government policy, and even called for government intervention, not to curtail illegal immigration, but against the volunteers.

And there are no conservatives in the White House. Now the people of this Minutemen Project group that CaptnKirk was knocking are conservatives, but Bush is not.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SuperTool
But it's irrelevant whether they agree or not, they are not the ones setting policy and enforcing it, the cosnervatives are.

Once again, puhleeze... :roll:

You are confusing the issue. This thread began when a known liberal poster ridiculed a group of volunteers who are trying to enforce laws that the government will not. He (and other liberal posters) clearly sided with current government policy, and even called for government intervention, not to curtail illegal immigration, but against the volunteers.

And there are no conservatives in the White House. Now the people of this Minutemen Project group that CaptnKirk was knocking are conservatives, but Bush is not.

Do you suppose it would be possible to be against illegal immigration and at the same time against armed vigilantes taking the issue into their own hands?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SuperTool
But it's irrelevant whether they agree or not, they are not the ones setting policy and enforcing it, the cosnervatives are.

Once again, puhleeze... :roll:

You are confusing the issue. This thread began when a known liberal poster ridiculed a group of volunteers who are trying to enforce laws that the government will not. He (and other liberal posters) clearly sided with current government policy, and even called for government intervention, not to curtail illegal immigration, but against the volunteers.

And there are no conservatives in the White House. Now the people of this Minutemen Project group that CaptnKirk was knocking are conservatives, but Bush is not.

Do you suppose it would be possible to be against illegal immigration and at the same time against armed vigilantes taking the issue into their own hands?

Not in a two-party system

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Do you suppose it would be possible to be against illegal immigration and at the same time against armed vigilantes taking the issue into their own hands?

Of course I can see that. But it's just even more typical. Won't let a man defend his own home, won't let him defend his country... and the Dems wonder why they keep losing elections... :roll:

When will you learn that the strength of a country lies not in its government, but in its people?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Do you suppose it would be possible to be against illegal immigration and at the same time against armed vigilantes taking the issue into their own hands?

Of course I can see that. But it's just even more typical. Won't let a man defend his own home, won't let him defend his country... and the Dems wonder why they keep losing elections... :roll:

When will you learn that the strength of a country lies not in its government, but in its people?

They have every right to defend their country... they can join the border patrol. I'm sure they are aching for help.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: kogase
They have every right to defend their country... they can join the border patrol. I'm sure they are aching for help.

And citizens who want to defend their own homes can join the police, right?

*ZING* my point went right over your head, didn't it?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kogase
They have every right to defend their country... they can join the border patrol. I'm sure they are aching for help.

And citizens who want to defend their own homes can join the police, right?

*ZING* my point went right over your head, didn't it?

Erm, except the police aren't charged specifically with defending your home... they have many responsibilities, and they only "defend your home" if you ask them to. The border patrol, however, is specifically tasked with defending our borders from those attempting to enter the country illegally. They are the only ones qualified to do so, and the only ones granted that authority by law. You are entitled to defend your own home because it isn't actually any other party's specific responsibility to do so.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: kogase
Erm, except the police aren't charged specifically with defending your home... they have many responsibilities, and they only "defend your home" if you ask them to. The border patrol, however, is specifically tasked with defending our borders from those attempting to enter the country illegally. They are the only ones qualified to do so, and the only ones granted that authority by law. You are entitled to defend your own home because it isn't actually any other party's specific responsibility to do so.

That's fine and dandy. But I think everyone in the US would agree that they're doing a pretty goddamned bad job of defending our borders, now wouldn't ya say?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kogase
Erm, except the police aren't charged specifically with defending your home... they have many responsibilities, and they only "defend your home" if you ask them to. The border patrol, however, is specifically tasked with defending our borders from those attempting to enter the country illegally. They are the only ones qualified to do so, and the only ones granted that authority by law. You are entitled to defend your own home because it isn't actually any other party's specific responsibility to do so.

That's fine and dandy. But I think everyone in the US would agree that they're doing a pretty goddamned bad job of defending our borders, now wouldn't ya say?

Well, yeah. They probably need more help, among other things. However, when a court fails to convict a murderer, we don't grab torches and pitchforks and string him up. In this country, we follow the rule of law, and this vigilante activity is not in keeping with that principle.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: kogase
Well, yeah. They probably need more help, among other things. However, when a court fails to convict a murderer, we don't grab torches and pitchforks and string him up. In this country, we follow the rule of law, and this vigilante activity is not in keeping with that principle.

Neither does an anti-war protest, but it serves the same purpose. I see and agree to your point though.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Do you suppose it would be possible to be against illegal immigration and at the same time against armed vigilantes taking the issue into their own hands?

Of course I can see that. But it's just even more typical. Won't let a man defend his own home, won't let him defend his country... and the Dems wonder why they keep losing elections... :roll:

When will you learn that the strength of a country lies not in its government, but in its people?

Look, defending your home is fine and taking up arms and defending your country when it's under attack by armed aggressors is fine too, however this is neither of those cases. There are lawful ways to work within the system for change and I fully expect everyone to do that ... not take up arms and take the law into their own hands.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kogase
Erm, except the police aren't charged specifically with defending your home... they have many responsibilities, and they only "defend your home" if you ask them to. The border patrol, however, is specifically tasked with defending our borders from those attempting to enter the country illegally. They are the only ones qualified to do so, and the only ones granted that authority by law. You are entitled to defend your own home because it isn't actually any other party's specific responsibility to do so.

That's fine and dandy. But I think everyone in the US would agree that they're doing a pretty goddamned bad job of defending our borders, now wouldn't ya say?

Well, yeah. They probably need more help, among other things. However, when a court fails to convict a murderer, we don't grab torches and pitchforks and string him up. In this country, we follow the rule of law, and this vigilante activity is not in keeping with that principle.

Why do you keep calling this VIGILANTE activity as if it is a bad thing? They are FOLLOWING THE RULE OF LAW. All they are doing is hanging out on the border and communicating information to the border patrol. That's no different than the COMMUNITY WATCH IN YOUR SUBDIVISION.

I hate caps.

 

[MisterCornell]

I immigrated to this country legally.

This is a good form of protest, one that accomplishes something instead of just whiny complaining. I welcome it. The government needs to get serious about stopping illegal immigration, which is unfair to the people who come here legally.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kogase
Erm, except the police aren't charged specifically with defending your home... they have many responsibilities, and they only "defend your home" if you ask them to. The border patrol, however, is specifically tasked with defending our borders from those attempting to enter the country illegally. They are the only ones qualified to do so, and the only ones granted that authority by law. You are entitled to defend your own home because it isn't actually any other party's specific responsibility to do so.

That's fine and dandy. But I think everyone in the US would agree that they're doing a pretty goddamned bad job of defending our borders, now wouldn't ya say?

Well, yeah. They probably need more help, among other things. However, when a court fails to convict a murderer, we don't grab torches and pitchforks and string him up. In this country, we follow the rule of law, and this vigilante activity is not in keeping with that principle.

Why do you keep calling this VIGILANTE activity as if it is a bad thing? They are FOLLOWING THE RULE OF LAW. All they are doing is hanging out on the border and communicating information to the border patrol. That's no different than the COMMUNITY WATCH IN YOUR SUBDIVISION.

I hate caps.

Community Watch? Anyway, what are the guns for? Just in case a Mexican attempts to run into them very fast? Puh-huh-tuh.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kogase
Erm, except the police aren't charged specifically with defending your home... they have many responsibilities, and they only "defend your home" if you ask them to. The border patrol, however, is specifically tasked with defending our borders from those attempting to enter the country illegally. They are the only ones qualified to do so, and the only ones granted that authority by law. You are entitled to defend your own home because it isn't actually any other party's specific responsibility to do so.

That's fine and dandy. But I think everyone in the US would agree that they're doing a pretty goddamned bad job of defending our borders, now wouldn't ya say?

Well, yeah. They probably need more help, among other things. However, when a court fails to convict a murderer, we don't grab torches and pitchforks and string him up. In this country, we follow the rule of law, and this vigilante activity is not in keeping with that principle.

Why do you keep calling this VIGILANTE activity as if it is a bad thing? They are FOLLOWING THE RULE OF LAW. All they are doing is hanging out on the border and communicating information to the border patrol. That's no different than the COMMUNITY WATCH IN YOUR SUBDIVISION.

I hate caps.

Why do you keep calling this VIGILANTE activity as if it is a bad thing?

He's just towing the line of the words of his President.

 

[Sunbird]

I have pondered my earlier idea and realised the US could probably buy all the countries down to Panama (no need to militarily invade them), then they'd have a really small land border in the South, thus having massive savings over the long term. And think about all those new tropical beaches everyone could visit.

Sure, lots of new infrastructure like roads and stuff would need to be built, but that would only boost the contruction industry and other industries, and thus the economy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Sunbird
I have pondered my earlier idea and realised the US could probably buy all the countries down to Panama (no need to militarily invade them), then they'd have a really small land border in the South, thus having massive savings over the long term. And think about all those new tropical beaches everyone could visit.

Sure, lots of new infrastructure like roads and stuff would need to be built, but that would only boost the contruction industry and other industries, and thus the economy.

Not a bad idea at all. Something along the line of the Louisiana Purchase.

This way all those people down there become instant additions to the Voter Rolls too.

Also all that money that they ship down that way would stay in the U.S. banking system.

It's a Win Win.

Ofcourse we would all be speaking Spanish and have to rename the U.S. to Unestados De Mexico as well.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kogase
Erm, except the police aren't charged specifically with defending your home... they have many responsibilities, and they only "defend your home" if you ask them to. The border patrol, however, is specifically tasked with defending our borders from those attempting to enter the country illegally. They are the only ones qualified to do so, and the only ones granted that authority by law. You are entitled to defend your own home because it isn't actually any other party's specific responsibility to do so.

That's fine and dandy. But I think everyone in the US would agree that they're doing a pretty goddamned bad job of defending our borders, now wouldn't ya say?

Well, yeah. They probably need more help, among other things. However, when a court fails to convict a murderer, we don't grab torches and pitchforks and string him up. In this country, we follow the rule of law, and this vigilante activity is not in keeping with that principle.

Why do you keep calling this VIGILANTE activity as if it is a bad thing? They are FOLLOWING THE RULE OF LAW. All they are doing is hanging out on the border and communicating information to the border patrol. That's no different than the COMMUNITY WATCH IN YOUR SUBDIVISION.

I hate caps.

Community Watch? Anyway, what are the guns for? Just in case a Mexican attempts to run into them very fast? Puh-huh-tuh.

Who cares what the guns are for? They are not being used in a crime and it is legal to carry in that state.