Posted by rub on Monday May 3, 2010 @ 11:16am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

The talk recently of money and budgets, states rights vs the fed and how a state can afford to pay for services for it's citizens, even those that don't pay taxes.. There's some interesting points about the proposed bill, but I've really enjoyed reading comments from people from AZ, of which most residents (and can be assumed voters) are FOR the bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/arizona-immigration-law-s_n_544864.html

Also some interesting reading from twitter on the topic.


It's funny, after spending about 2 years now in China, I almost got used to not seeing Mexicans. I forgot how many are in the US until I came back. I am not familiar with all the particulars of the bill but I love it for the simple concept that it is an aggressive mechanism to clean up a huge fucking mess. It may be overkill but considering everyone has been dragging their feet, this bill will hopefully serve to re-energize the dialog and get shit done.

It's like this. Let's say you have twin daughters, and I approach you saying I'd like to date them. You tell me, you'll think about it. After a few weeks, I don't hear anything from you, and you don't return my inquiries. So I take one of the twins out, get her drunk, and fuck her brains out. The next day, you find me in your kitchen wearing your bath robe. After your surprise, I ask you.. "No need to worry about this daughter, I got tired of waiting. However, I'm interested in your other daughter now, can you maybe hurry up your decision." I guarantee that you will quickly give me an answer.

I have learned in China that many things can be solved by fucking.

Posted by Ghostalker on Tuesday May 4, 2010 @ 05:20am
>> [ reply ][ rating +3  

 

 

]

It's funny, after spending about 2 years now in China, I almost got used to not seeing Mexicans. I forgot how many are in the US until I came back. I am not familiar with all the particulars of the bill but I love it for the simple concept that it is an aggressive mechanism to clean up a huge fucking mess. It may be overkill but considering everyone has been dragging their feet, this bill will hopefully serve to re-energize the dialog and get shit done. In

In China, youre the Mexican.

Posted by rub on Tuesday May 4, 2010 @ 06:34pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

In China, youre the Mexican.

The phillipinos are the mexicans. I guess they are just stuck in shitty jobs regardless of the side of the globe.

Posted by Caliber on Tuesday May 4, 2010 @ 06:46pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

In China, youre the Mexican.

The phillipinos are the mexicans. I guess they are just stuck in shitty jobs regardless of the side of the globe.

they have the potential to make some hot women though

Posted by Krux on Tuesday May 4, 2010 @ 08:02am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

It's funny, after spending about 2 years now in China, I almost got used to not seeing Mexicans. I forgot how many are in the US until I came back. I am not familiar with all the particulars of the bill but I love it for the simple concept that it is an aggressive mechanism to clean up a huge fucking mess. It may be overkill but considering everyone has been dragging their feet, this bill will hopefully serve to re-energize the dialog and get shit done. In

In China, youre the Mexican.

Nice.

Posted by MadArab on Monday May 3, 2010 @ 11:44am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I have learned in China that many things can be solved by fucking.

Funny... you suddenly swayed me to Volts side!

Posted by Stealth on Sunday May 2, 2010 @ 03:18am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

The talk recently of money and budgets, states rights vs the fed and how a state can afford to pay for services for it's citizens, even those that don't pay taxes.. There's some interesting points about the proposed bill, but I've really enjoyed reading comments from people from AZ, of which most residents (and can be assumed voters) are FOR the bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/arizona-immigration-law-s_n_544864.html

Also some interesting reading from twitter on the topic.

BTW - It seems as though the legislature is reacting (smartly) to some of the criticism - http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Governor-signs-several-changes-to-Arizona/qNpxW7Jonkm9shejhnkiSQ.cspx

Posted by Caliber on Friday April 30, 2010 @ 01:57pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I posted a lengthy and angst filled analogy elsewhere the other day. It met with moderate resistance, but it seems everyone else is too scurred to comment.

The bill, like all governmental writing, has shit in it it doesn't need, but the concept, at the basic level is sound. "You want in, fucking ask"

Posted by voltaic on Monday May 3, 2010 @ 09:47am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

The bill, like all governmental writing, has shit in it it doesn't need, but the concept, at the basic level is sound. "You want in, fucking ask"

I would support such a position on immigration. However, that is not our position.

Posted by Stealth on Tuesday May 4, 2010 @ 05:58am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

The bill, like all governmental writing, has shit in it it doesn't need, but the concept, at the basic level is sound. "You want in, fucking ask"

I would support such a position on immigration. However, that is not our position.

Isn't that what visa's, passport control, green cards and registered workers (in a general overview) is about? Asking for permission to enter the country and work?

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday May 5, 2010 @ 09:29am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

The bill, like all governmental writing, has shit in it it doesn't need, but the concept, at the basic level is sound. "You want in, fucking ask"

I would support such a position on immigration. However, that is not our position.

Isn't that what visa's, passport control, green cards and registered workers (in a general overview) is about? Asking for permission to enter the country and work?

Nominally, sure. But what they have become is a tool by which we can tell people who can or cannot come in. So now it isn't just "fucking ask", it's "fucking ask and if we approve you, etc". That's what I object to.

Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 01:04pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

The bill, like all governmental writing, has shit in it it doesn't need, but the concept, at the basic level is sound. "You want in, fucking ask"

I would support such a position on immigration. However, that is not our position.

Isn't that what visa's, passport control, green cards and registered workers (in a general overview) is about? Asking for permission to enter the country and work?

Nominally, sure. But what they have become is a tool by which we can tell people who can or cannot come in. So now it isn't just "fucking ask", it's "fucking ask and if we approve you, etc". That's what I object to.

You object to us having a set of standards/rules/requirements that people have to meet before they come to live/work in the country? You would rather the borders be open, anyone can come in, just start finding jobs and living? Or better yet, come in, not find a job and live of society?

Posted by voltaic on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 01:25pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

You object to us having a set of standards/rules/requirements that people have to meet before they come to live/work in the country? You would rather the borders be open, anyone can come in, just start finding jobs and living? Or better yet, come in, not find a job and live of society?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Posted by Krux on Tuesday May 4, 2010 @ 08:02am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

The bill, like all governmental writing, has shit in it it doesn't need, but the concept, at the basic level is sound. "You want in, fucking ask"

I would support such a position on immigration. However, that is not our position.

Isn't that what visa's, passport control, green cards and registered workers (in a general overview) is about? Asking for permission to enter the country and work?

Yes.

Posted by Stealth on Sunday May 2, 2010 @ 03:20am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I posted a lengthy and angst filled analogy elsewhere the other day. It met with moderate resistance, but it seems everyone else is too scurred to comment.

The bill, like all governmental writing, has shit in it it doesn't need, but the concept, at the basic level is sound. "You want in, fucking ask"

I'd be interested in reading your earlier post.. either via copy and paste or a link a.u.b.

I agree with your lower statement and I think the bill is a really good step forward. I'm sure they will be issues and it get tested in courts and what not, but I think as a whole, it's a good step forward.

Posted by Caliber on Sunday May 2, 2010 @ 03:39am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I posted a lengthy and angst filled analogy elsewhere the other day. It met with moderate resistance, but it seems everyone else is too scurred to comment.

The bill, like all governmental writing, has shit in it it doesn't need, but the concept, at the basic level is sound. "You want in, fucking ask"

I'd be interested in reading your earlier post.. either via copy and paste or a link a.u.b.

I agree with your lower statement and I think the bill is a really good step forward. I'm sure they will be issues and it get tested in courts and what not, but I think as a whole, it's a good step forward.

Alright, let's say I have ten sandwiches. A guy walks up and looks hungry, so I hand him one. Then five more guys walk up, they look pretty hungry too, so I hand them each out one as well. Then I see five more coming, so I say, "hey, I only got four sandwiches left and I haven't eaten. They are my sandwiches that I made. I'm willing to share, but I would like to see some fruits from my labor. I will keep one sandwich for myself and the rest of you can draw straws." I give the three guys who draw short a sandwich and turn to walk away. One of they guys waits 'til I'm not looking and takes my sandwich. Not only does he take my sandwich, but he stands there with my sandwich. He says that since he has the sandwich now, it's his sandwich. I ask for some help, but the poor policeman is dealing with rapists and murderers and that guy who ran the stop sign. He doesn't have time to get me my sandwich back, and besides, the guy would probably just take someone else's sandwich, so what difference does it make. So, hungry and dejected, I go home and make some more sandwiches.

Finally, someone comes along and says "hey, maybe we should stop letting people steal sandwiches. It doesn't matter if they aren't hurting anyone. It doesn't matter if they are hungry and just want to get a little ahead in the world. Someone worked to make that sandwich. He shared his sandwiches at first, but that doesn't mean he HAS to share his sandwiches. It doesn't give someone the right to walk up and take the sandwich and say, 'you said we could have some sandwiches before, so we have a right to these sandwiches.' From now on, if you steal a sandwich, you will be punished for the crime."

"But wait," someone says. "Look at how useful and hard working the sandwich stealer is. He couldn't be like that if he was hungry. He NEEDS the sandwich." But what about me, the guy who made the sandwich. Sure, I have more sandwiches, and I still share them so long as people ask. But just because I have a sandwich (or ten or 1 million), doesn't mean I'm not diminished when someone takes my sandwich. It damn sure doesn't mean you have the right to my sandwich. I choose who I give my sandwiches to because they are my sandwiches that I worked to make. And eventually, I will be out of sandwiches.

But alas, there are so many sandwich-stealers out there that they now speak as one. "WE WILL TAKE YOUR SANDWICH." they yell. "It has always been that way, so we have the right." And those that did not make the sandwiches, or who are friends with the sandwich-stealers rally to their support. And they rally their friends, calling the sandwich-makers mean and nasty because they won't share their sandwiches. Oh and hey, since the sandwich makers and the sandwich-stealers are a little different, they will say that the sandwich makers are evil because they don't want to share with the "different" people. Oh and goodness forbid if someone who makes pizzas trades a pizza for a sandwich from the sandwich maker. Someone comes and steals his sandwich, but because he didn't actually make the sandwich, he is told to be quiet. "You didn't make the sandwich, you bought it, so you have to let the sandwich stealer have it and don't you dare complain, because you didn't make that sandwich."

So you know what... I'll keep my sandwich.

Posted by voltaic on Monday May 3, 2010 @ 09:34am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

So you know what... I'll keep my sandwich.

I really, honestly tried to follow this but got a bit lost. I want to post a thoughtful reply but not until I'm sure what's going on. heheh.

Posted by Caliber on Tuesday May 4, 2010 @ 06:00pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

So you know what... I'll keep my sandwich.

I really, honestly tried to follow this but got a bit lost. I want to post a thoughtful reply but not until I'm sure what's going on. heheh.

rosebud

Posted by Krux on Tuesday May 4, 2010 @ 12:50am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

So you know what... I'll keep my sandwich.

I really, honestly tried to follow this but got a bit lost. I want to post a thoughtful reply but not until I'm sure what's going on. heheh.

I'm hungry.

Posted by unicron on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 12:59pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I'm hungry.

No shit. Caliber, gimme one of them sammiches.

Posted by Caliber on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 03:47pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I'm hungry.

No shit. Caliber, gimme one of them sammiches.

You look like you need a fucking sandwich, with a side of bacon grease and bubblegum flavored ice cream

Posted by Krux on Sunday May 2, 2010 @ 05:54am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Alright, let's say I have ten sandwiches.

What the fuck are you making ten sandwiches for?

Posted by Caliber on Sunday May 2, 2010 @ 10:34am
>> [ reply ][ rating +2  

 

 

]

Alright, let's say I have ten sandwiches.

What the fuck are you making ten sandwiches for?

because the other eight girls needed something to do :)

Posted by Krux on Sunday May 2, 2010 @ 02:09pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Alright, let's say I have ten sandwiches.

What the fuck are you making ten sandwiches for?

because the other eight girls needed something to do :)

Ok, fair enough.

Posted by Stealth on Sunday May 2, 2010 @ 04:44am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I think it really depends on what's on the sandwich.

Nice point.

Posted by voltaic on Friday April 30, 2010 @ 07:17am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Not a fan.

Posted by Stealth on Sunday May 2, 2010 @ 03:20am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Not a fan.

Any particular reason why?

Posted by voltaic on Monday May 3, 2010 @ 09:43am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I strongly feel that laws preventing the free movement of people are almost always negative. That's the most politic way I can think of to give my opinion.

Some details: I believe that anyone* who wants to enter this country should be able to do so, freely and at any time. Come to the gate, get your passport stamped, enjoy your trip. I believe they should be able to stay as long as they want and engage whatever legal activity they want while they are here. I believe that we have placed very restrictive immigration laws in place (going back 150 years, not just recently) so that if someone bypasses them to get here, we can smugly call them "an illegal" and deport them without regard to whether or not we should allow them to stay. I believe that politicians latch on to ignorance and a twisted us-vs-them-ism to pass laws that make current citizens feel good about stuff despite that they harm everyone. Note that none of this has to do with race, racism, or racial profiling.

Finally, specific to this AZ law, I think it's unconscionable to require residents to show papers to prove their citizenship, and it comes dangerously close (not just long-term slippery slope hypothetical close) to tyranny. This law was the first time in my adult life I can remember being embarassed to be an American. For all my disagreements with other things like the Iraq war, certain social program, etc., they never actually caused me to feel shame like this. If in the long-term things like this become accepted and commonplace, I will seriously consider becoming an ex-pat.

* yes yes, except the terrorists who hate America. FFS.

Posted by Stealth on Tuesday May 4, 2010 @ 06:32am
>> [ reply ][ rating +2  

 

 

]

I strongly feel that laws preventing the free movement of people are almost always negative. That's the most politic way I can think of to give my opinion.

Some details: I believe that anyone* who wants to enter this country should be able to do so, freely and at any time. Come to the gate, get your passport stamped, enjoy your trip. I believe they should be able to stay as long as they want and engage whatever legal activity they want while they are here. I believe that we have placed very restrictive immigration laws in place (going back 150 years, not just recently) so that if someone bypasses them to get here, we can smugly call them "an illegal" and deport them without regard to whether or not we should allow them to stay. I believe that politicians latch on to ignorance and a twisted us-vs-them-ism to pass laws that make current citizens feel good about stuff despite that they harm everyone. Note that none of this has to do with race, racism, or racial profiling.

But for those that don't want to come to the gate, don't want to get in legally, don't want to pay taxes and don't want to contribute to society, but want to ask for service's help, medical, school and resources, all without contributing, what do you do with them? that's the reason for the bill. Not that there are too many legal, hardworking immigrates, but that there are too many that don't want to do it the right, legal, proper and expensive way and instead what to take what they can. Even Mexico has limits on people/visitors/immigrants for how long they can get, the resources they can have when they are here, etc. So why can they have limits but not us? Nations have very little money to help people that do contribute, why continue to help those that don't?

Finally, specific to this AZ law, I think it's unconscionable to require residents to show papers to prove their citizenship, and it comes dangerously close (not just long-term slippery slope hypothetical close) to tyranny. This law was the first time in my adult life I can remember being embarassed to be an American. For all my disagreements with other things like the Iraq war, certain social program, etc., they never actually caused me to feel shame like this. If in the long-term things like this become accepted and commonplace, I will seriously consider becoming an ex-pat.

That's going to be the issue, but if they ask you to show, in the process of stopping you for something else, then that's a different topic. Stopping them outright for a check is wrong, checking them while they are speeding or having other issues, well why not. If they have a passport/visa then fine, life moves on. If not, they go in the system.

You say you are embarrassed to be an American, yet this is a State's choice. You say you are for less Fed, more states right, this is a choice that 70% of the states citizens wanted. It might not be something you like, but it seems to be spurring something that a lot of citizens want. that's a big difference and a far cry from bills/laws that the fed makes that citizens have no choice or control in.

* yes yes, except the terrorists who hate America. FFS.

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday May 5, 2010 @ 09:43am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

But for those that don't want to come to the gate, don't want to get in legally, don't want to pay taxes and don't want to contribute to society, but want to ask for service's help, medical, school and resources, all without contributing, what do you do with them? that's the reason for the bill. Not that there are too many legal, hardworking immigrates, but that there are too many that don't want to do it the right, legal, proper and expensive way and instead what to take what they can. Even Mexico has limits on people/visitors/immigrants for how long they can get, the resources they can have when they are here, etc. So why can they have limits but not us? Nations have very little money to help people that do contribute, why continue to help those that don't?

Everyone wants to come in legally, we simply prevent that. We construct barriers by which we can call someone "illegal", notwithstanding their motivations or desire to work or anything else. Except for active criminals, there are extremely few who come here and do not contribute. That is largely a myth perpetuated by politically driven groups with various negative motivators. We have many more native government cheese eaters than we do imported cheese eaters. There have been multiple studies all showing that immigrants of all types contribute far more than they "take".

That's going to be the issue, but if they ask you to show, in the process of stopping you for something else, then that's a different topic. Stopping them outright for a check is wrong, checking them while they are speeding or having other issues, well why not. If they have a passport/visa then fine, life moves on. If not, they go in the system.

Why not? Because asking someone to carry and produce papers on demand is completely unconscionable! It is fascism personified.

You say you are embarrassed to be an American, yet this is a State's choice. You say you are for less Fed, more states right, this is a choice that 70% of the states citizens wanted. It might not be something you like, but it seems to be spurring something that a lot of citizens want. that's a big difference and a far cry from bills/laws that the fed makes that citizens have no choice or control in.

You're right, but the reason I'm embarrassed is because so many Americans want laws like this, even outside of Arizona. I'm in favor of States' rights over the Fed but that doesn't mean I support every decision a state makes.

Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 01:25pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +1  

 

 

]

But for those that don't want to come to the gate, don't want to get in legally, don't want to pay taxes and don't want to contribute to society, but want to ask for service's help, medical, school and resources, all without contributing, what do you do with them? that's the reason for the bill. Not that there are too many legal, hardworking immigrates, but that there are too many that don't want to do it the right, legal, proper and expensive way and instead what to take what they can. Even Mexico has limits on people/visitors/immigrants for how long they can get, the resources they can have when they are here, etc. So why can they have limits but not us? Nations have very little money to help people that do contribute, why continue to help those that don't?

Everyone wants to come in legally, we simply prevent that.

No, they don't.

We construct barriers by which we can call someone "illegal", notwithstanding their motivations or desire to work or anything else. Except for active criminals, there are extremely few who come here and do not contribute. That is largely a myth perpetuated by politically driven groups with various negative motivators. We have many more native government cheese eaters than we do imported cheese eaters. There have been multiple studies all showing that immigrants of all types contribute far more than they "take".

We have a process for which they can come in.. we don't want freeloaders, druggies, people running from law, criminals, people that have no USA family, people that don't job (therefor become another burden on the system), people that don't want to adapt, etc.

Define contribute? Working under the table, not paying taxes but sending your kids to school and using the state medical system without insurance is not contributing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people that want to come and live, work, learn and join society.. but when a teacher has to stop class and try to explain something in Spanish because the child isn't learning English.. that's not contributing. When jobs are payed at lower wages and not reported because a company will do it ( to increase profit) and someone will do the work ( the illegals) that's not contributing.

I have no political gain either way, just scores of articles from a variety of papers, news and media.

That's going to be the issue, but if they ask you to show, in the process of stopping you for something else, then that's a different topic. Stopping them outright for a check is wrong, checking them while they are speeding or having other issues, well why not. If they have a passport/visa then fine, life moves on. If not, they go in the system.

Why not? Because asking someone to carry and produce papers on demand is completely unconscionable! It is fascism personified.

Ok.. a number of states have a Stop and ID law, the cops can ask you to ID yourself at any time, and that's been proven in court to be ok. Now, they are asking you, if you are stopped for a crime and not just at any time, to prove that (if your ID isn't a USA one) that you have a right to be here. Again, I don't see the issue. Happens in other free, capitalistic, peace loving countries all the time.

You say you are embarrassed to be an American, yet this is a State's choice. You say you are for less Fed, more states right, this is a choice that 70% of the states citizens wanted. It might not be something you like, but it seems to be spurring something that a lot of citizens want. that's a big difference and a far cry from bills/laws that the fed makes that citizens have no choice or control in.

You're right, but the reason I'm embarrassed is because so many Americans want laws like this, even outside of Arizona. I'm in favor of States' rights over the Fed but that doesn't mean I support every decision a state makes.

I guess you can be glad it's not California trying to pass the law then. If they did, would you try and move?

Posted by voltaic on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 01:40pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Everyone wants to come in legally, we simply prevent that.

No, they don't.

Oh, OK. You convinced me.

We construct barriers by which we can call someone "illegal", notwithstanding their motivations or desire to work or anything else. Except for active criminals, there are extremely few who come here and do not contribute. That is largely a myth perpetuated by politically driven groups with various negative motivators. We have many more native government cheese eaters than we do imported cheese eaters. There have been multiple studies all showing that immigrants of all types contribute far more than they "take".

We have a process for which they can come in.. we don't want freeloaders, druggies, people running from law, criminals, people that have no USA family, people that don't job (therefor become another burden on the system), people that don't want to adapt, etc.

I know we don't want them, but I don't like or agree with the fact that we don't want them. For example, the idea that someone should already have family here before they can easily immigrate is as ludicrous as the idea that someone should become "one of us" before we deign to let them stay. We are a preposterous bunch of arrogant fucking cunts to think such a thing. One of the youngest countries in the world, made up 99% of immigrants, almost all the land taken by force from whomever was here before, and now we tell others they can't come in unless they meet our criteria. It's hard for foreigners to reach our standards when we sit on such a high horse, isn't it?

What about druggies coming here for help? What about criminals running from the law as political exiles? What about people who don't have a job because they have no education or future in their own country? What about some basic semblance of human rights. <- note this is a sentence, not a question.

Define contribute? Working under the table, not paying taxes but sending your kids to school and using the state medical system without insurance is not contributing.

Most immigrants who work under the table make so little that they wouldn't pay income taxes anyway. But they do pay all kinds of taxes when they buy food, gasoline, and so forth. And don't get me started on the myth of lines of foreigners using up our medical resources. You have formed your opinion based on lies, pal. Not misunderstandings or something, but flagrant lies. <shrug>

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people that want to come and live, work, learn and join society.. but when a teacher has to stop class and try to explain something in Spanish because the child isn't learning English.. that's not contributing. When jobs are payed at lower wages and not reported because a company will do it ( to increase profit) and someone will do the work ( the illegals) that's not contributing.

Go check your numbers. Immigrant children do learn English far more quickly than their parents. And re-read the interesting nugget you said right after that: increasing the (evil!) profits of an American company and working isn't contributing. That's tea party quality double-think right there.

I have no political gain either way, just scores of articles from a variety of papers, news and media.

Most sources have ulterior motives. I'd be interested in seeing some of these scores of articles and wonder how many can be filtered from the get-go based on their sources of funding.

Why not? Because asking someone to carry and produce papers on demand is completely unconscionable! It is fascism personified.

Ok.. a number of states have a Stop and ID law, the cops can ask you to ID yourself at any time, and that's been proven in court to be ok. Now, they are asking you, if you are stopped for a crime and not just at any time, to prove that (if your ID isn't a USA one) that you have a right to be here. Again, I don't see the issue. Happens in other free, capitalistic, peace loving countries all the time.

Doesn't make it right, dude. Just because we've been beaten into quiet submission over "the way things have always been" doesn't make those things right. It wasn't long ago you were bemoaning police powers in beating students with batons for not complying and now the law is the peace-loving protector of free America?

You're right, but the reason I'm embarrassed is because so many Americans want laws like this, even outside of Arizona. I'm in favor of States' rights over the Fed but that doesn't mean I support every decision a state makes.

I guess you can be glad it's not California trying to pass the law then. If they did, would you try and move?

Immigration isn't the #1 issue in my life so I wouldn't uproot because of one law (that is likely to be changed anyway; in fact already has been substantially altered). But I would definitely make my voice heard about it.

Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 02:06pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Everyone wants to come in legally, we simply prevent that.

No, they don't.

Oh, OK. You convinced me.

I'm just saying.. you used (what I would normally do) a simple bold statement. I used (what you normally do) a quick short retort. It made me laugh.


We construct barriers by which we can call someone "illegal", notwithstanding their motivations or desire to work or anything else. Except for active criminals, there are extremely few who come here and do not contribute. That is largely a myth perpetuated by politically driven groups with various negative motivators. We have many more native government cheese eaters than we do imported cheese eaters. There have been multiple studies all showing that immigrants of all types contribute far more than they "take".

We have a process for which they can come in.. we don't want freeloaders, druggies, people running from law, criminals, people that have no USA family, people that don't job (therefor become another burden on the system), people that don't want to adapt, etc.

I know we don't want them, but I don't like or agree with the fact that we don't want them. For example, the idea that someone should already have family here before they can easily immigrate is as ludicrous as the idea that someone should become "one of us" before we deign to let them stay. We are a preposterous bunch of arrogant fucking cunts to think such a thing. One of the youngest countries in the world, made up 99% of immigrants, almost all the land taken by force from whomever was here before, and now we tell others they can't come in unless they meet our criteria. It's hard for foreigners to reach our standards when we sit on such a high horse, isn't it?

Look.. when we founded on migrants.. it was a different time. Completely different time in the history of other countries, this country, the number of people we needed, as a nation, to get things done. The political systems of most of the other countries that sent immigrants have completely changed. The opportunities available, the morality of people and the willingness to make a difference, all that has changed since then. Just because it was our past doesn't mean that it needs to continue to be the same way forward without changing to meet the needs of the times.

What about druggies coming here for help? What about criminals running from the law as political exiles? What about people who don't have a job because they have no education or future in their own country? What about some basic semblance of human rights. <- note this is a sentence, not a question.

Druggies come here for rehab? Then I'm sure the process works for them.. guaranteed stay in the facility, paid for, temp visa, get better then head back home. I have no idea, but because they have a drug habit doesn't mean I think they should just come in and make themselves at home. This isn't a conversation about political exiles, they have a difference process. What about Americans "who don't have a job because they have no education or future in their own country". What about the rights of our own people who need help, who might want to work other places, might want to get a job but are over educated or not the same skills.

Define contribute? Working under the table, not paying taxes but sending your kids to school and using the state medical system without insurance is not contributing.

Most immigrants who work under the table make so little that they wouldn't pay income taxes anyway. But they do pay all kinds of taxes when they buy food, gasoline, and so forth. And don't get me started on the myth of lines of foreigners using up our medical resources. You have formed your opinion based on lies, pal. Not misunderstandings or something, but flagrant lies. <shrug>

They make less then minimum wage.. And the company would still pay taxes, medical insurance, unemployment, etc. So when foreigners get sick, don't have insurance and end up in the hospital for whatever reason, they are not using the system? I'm not saying these are all the main cause of all the worlds problems, but they aren't little nickles and dimes either. I never said they use up all our resources.. but I will say they increase an already overburdened system.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people that want to come and live, work, learn and join society.. but when a teacher has to stop class and try to explain something in Spanish because the child isn't learning English.. that's not contributing. When jobs are payed at lower wages and not reported because a company will do it ( to increase profit) and someone will do the work ( the illegals) that's not contributing.

Go check your numbers. Immigrant children do learn English far more quickly than their parents. And re-read the interesting nugget you said right after that: increasing the (evil!) profits of an American company and working isn't contributing. That's tea party quality double-think right there.

If that's the case then why do teachers in AZ complain about what I just said? Why to parents complain about the same problem? Immigrants and English aren't new, yet states feel the need to have things in Spanish because they have been sued for not offering it?

I don't know about the double-think.. but What I was trying to say that instead of paying normal wages and normal taxes, then reduce the wage, don't pay the tax and increase the profit for the business. Is that double-speak?

Why not? Because asking someone to carry and produce papers on demand is completely unconscionable! It is fascism personified.

Ok.. a number of states have a Stop and ID law, the cops can ask you to ID yourself at any time, and that's been proven in court to be ok. Now, they are asking you, if you are stopped for a crime and not just at any time, to prove that (if your ID isn't a USA one) that you have a right to be here. Again, I don't see the issue. Happens in other free, capitalistic, peace loving countries all the time.

Doesn't make it right, dude. Just because we've been beaten into quiet submission over "the way things have always been" doesn't make those things right. It wasn't long ago you were bemoaning police powers in beating students with batons for not complying and now the law is the peace-loving protector of free America?

What isn't right? Stop and ID at any time.. I would agree with that, it's not right. But, if you are involved in an incident and the police have to show up, asking for an ID is normal and probably to be expected. Besides, beating students with batons is a whole different thing that asking to see a valid ID or proof of entry. Not even remotely close to the same thing.

Posted by voltaic on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 11:40am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Look.. when we founded on migrants.. it was a different time. Completely different time in the history of other countries, this country, the number of people we needed, as a nation, to get things done. The political systems of most of the other countries that sent immigrants have completely changed. The opportunities available, the morality of people and the willingness to make a difference, all that has changed since then. Just because it was our past doesn't mean that it needs to continue to be the same way forward without changing to meet the needs of the times.

A different time? You don't have to hearken back to the 1700s, bro. Think 1950s after WW2. Think 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. And even then "things change" is not a legitimate reason to change policy. Other countries are "better now", so we should therefore close our borders a little bit more? Morality has changed therefore we should close our borders a little bit more? Immigration is only about "meeting needs"? Read the mantra on the base of the Statue of Liberty. It doesn't say "give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses because we have factories that need workers".

Druggies come here for rehab? Then I'm sure the process works for them.. guaranteed stay in the facility, paid for, temp visa, get better then head back home. I have no idea, but because they have a drug habit doesn't mean I think they should just come in and make themselves at home. This isn't a conversation about political exiles, they have a difference process. What about Americans "who don't have a job because they have no education or future in their own country". What about the rights of our own people who need help, who might want to work other places, might want to get a job but are over educated or not the same skills.

What rights of Americans are violated by immigrants? And a better question: what rights do Americans have that we ought to deny immigrants? You're saying we should keep foreigners out because some Americans are deadbeats?

They make less then minimum wage.. And the company would still pay taxes, medical insurance, unemployment, etc. So when foreigners get sick, don't have insurance and end up in the hospital for whatever reason, they are not using the system? I'm not saying these are all the main cause of all the worlds problems, but they aren't little nickles and dimes either. I never said they use up all our resources.. but I will say they increase an already overburdened system.

They are little nickels and dimes. Go look up statistic on how much free medical care illegal immigrants receive. Pro-tip: treating the occasional broken arm or flu shot isn't exactly a free $100,000 kidney replacement followed by a lifetime of $10,000 per year anti-rejection meds, and who gets the latter? Rhymes with fumerican fitizens on fedicare...

Furthermore, when you consider the amount of tax under-the-table workers do pay (again, primarily in consumption) that nickel and dime becomes more like penny and nickel. I'd argue they contribute quite a bit more than to the American citizen who collects welfare and medicare because of actual laziness.

Go check your numbers. Immigrant children do learn English far more quickly than their parents. And re-read the interesting nugget you said right after that: increasing the (evil!) profits of an American company and working isn't contributing. That's tea party quality double-think right there.

If that's the case then why do teachers in AZ complain about what I just said? Why to parents complain about the same problem? Immigrants and English aren't new, yet states feel the need to have things in Spanish because they have been sued for not offering it?

People complain all the time about shit that they heard or have embellished. "I'm still waiting to see Obama's birth certificate!!!!" That is not a statistic. Look up actual numbers on how many kids actually don't speak English in actual classrooms. Yes there are some, but not many. (and this is stupid anyway since learning a language should have nothing to do with immigration or working status; how's your Dutch again?)

I don't know about the double-think.. but What I was trying to say that instead of paying normal wages and normal taxes, then reduce the wage, don't pay the tax and increase the profit for the business. Is that double-speak?

Not double-speak, double think. I don't think you're lying or being duplicitous, I thnk you're applying things the wrong way, generally based on feelings instead of data. You said that illegal workers don't contribute, and then you described exactly how they do: American companies and American employers make more money, migrant workers earn a wage which they spend in American stores including American sales tax, and the workers wouldn't have paid income tax anyway since they make such a low wage. Compare that to an American on welfare. How is that "not contributing"?

What isn't right? Stop and ID at any time.. I would agree with that, it's not right. But, if you are involved in an incident and the police have to show up, asking for an ID is normal and probably to be expected. Besides, beating students with batons is a whole different thing that asking to see a valid ID or proof of entry. Not even remotely close to the same thing.

It's not the same thing, true, but it comes from the same law enforcement system. I'm also not talking about asking for ID when you're obviously involved with an incident. I'm talking about requiring ID at any time someone asks which was how the AZ law was originally written (note again: they "clarified" this because of the clear and present dangers to freedom presented by such a law). Read some of the examples of what this law would have allowed: a van full of Mexicans which could be reasonably suspicious in AZ but not otherwise doing anything illegal: stop and ask each and every person for ID. That's not exactly involved in an incident.

Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 13, 2010 @ 06:54am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Look.. when we founded on migrants.. it was a different time. Completely different time in the history of other countries, this country, the number of people we needed, as a nation, to get things done. The political systems of most of the other countries that sent immigrants have completely changed. The opportunities available, the morality of people and the willingness to make a difference, all that has changed since then. Just because it was our past doesn't mean that it needs to continue to be the same way forward without changing to meet the needs of the times.

A different time? You don't have to hearken back to the 1700s, bro. Think 1950s after WW2. Think 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. And even then "things change" is not a legitimate reason to change policy. Other countries are "better now", so we should therefore close our borders a little bit more? Morality has changed therefore we should close our borders a little bit more? Immigration is only about "meeting needs"? Read the mantra on the base of the Statue of Liberty. It doesn't say "give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses because we have factories that need workers".

How many people came over illegally after WW2 or even after the fall of the wall. They came over legally, applied for immunity or persecution or whatever. I'm not asking for hte laws to be changed, only enforced.

As for the Mantra.. we change the laws we live by with amendments when needed..

Druggies come here for rehab? Then I'm sure the process works for them.. guaranteed stay in the facility, paid for, temp visa, get better then head back home. I have no idea, but because they have a drug habit doesn't mean I think they should just come in and make themselves at home. This isn't a conversation about political exiles, they have a difference process. What about Americans "who don't have a job because they have no education or future in their own country". What about the rights of our own people who need help, who might want to work other places, might want to get a job but are over educated or not the same skills.

What rights of Americans are violated by immigrants? And a better question: what rights do Americans have that we ought to deny immigrants? You're saying we should keep foreigners out because some Americans are deadbeats?

You said people that don't live here have a 'right' to work here or find work here. I saw why? And if they do, why don't we have the same rights to find a job other places. When I saw American rights, I'm talking about the fact that the companies that employee the illegals at lower wages are doing so when we have people without jobs that would do the work, but at a legal/higher/normal wage.

They are little nickels and dimes. Go look up statistic on how much free medical care illegal immigrants receive. Pro-tip: treating the occasional broken arm or flu shot isn't exactly a free $100,000 kidney replacement followed by a lifetime of $10,000 per year anti-rejection meds, and who gets the latter? Rhymes with fumerican fitizens on fedicare...

Are you talking nation wide or in the state of AZ. I'm betting AZ sees much more illegal cost to their system then NV or OR. I'm arguing that it makes sense for AZ. Not Main or FL, though I'm sure they have issues, but not as much.

Furthermore, when you consider the amount of tax under-the-table workers do pay (again, primarily in consumption) that nickel and dime becomes more like penny and nickel. I'd argue they contribute quite a bit more than to the American citizen who collects welfare and medicare because of actual laziness.

And I would argue that the amount of my tax dollars that has to pay for medicare goes farther when it's just the Americans then when it's the Americans and illegal immigrants. Our ability for our taxes to meet the needs of our citizens (free loaders, medicare or otherwise) goes down when you add the cost of illegal immigrants. in an already over worked system, this increases the burden. And to be fare, some of those freeloaders that are now on medicare, paid their dues when they had been working for the last two years. I'm not talking about this percentage over that percentage.. but total effects.

Go check your numbers. Immigrant children do learn English far more quickly than their parents. And re-read the interesting nugget you said right after that: increasing the (evil!) profits of an American company and working isn't contributing. That's tea party quality double-think right there.

If that's the case then why do teachers in AZ complain about what I just said? Why to parents complain about the same problem? Immigrants and English aren't new, yet states feel the need to have things in Spanish because they have been sued for not offering it?

People complain all the time about shit that they heard or have embellished. "I'm still waiting to see Obama's birth certificate!!!!" That is not a statistic. Look up actual numbers on how many kids actually don't speak English in actual classrooms. Yes there are some, but not many. (and this is stupid anyway since learning a language should have nothing to do with immigration or working status; how's your Dutch again?)

My Dutch is enough to get my by when I need something. I don't ask for forms in other languages and in fact I have to translate bills letters and other things as needed. I also live in a country where 80% speak English. If i went to Germany, my German would be better. I'm not in school and I'm not looking to be a permanent resident. Again, different arguments.

If was doing to raise kids here, as a permanent resident, I could PAY OUT OF POCKET for an American/International school or have my kid learn Dutch and go to a Dutch school. I'm not expecting special treatment.

I don't know about the double-think.. but What I was trying to say that instead of paying normal wages and normal taxes, then reduce the wage, don't pay the tax and increase the profit for the business. Is that double-speak?

Not double-speak, double think. I don't think you're lying or being duplicitous, I thnk you're applying things the wrong way, generally based on feelings instead of data. You said that illegal workers don't contribute, and then you described exactly how they do: American companies and American employers make more money, migrant workers earn a wage which they spend in American stores including American sales tax, and the workers wouldn't have paid income tax anyway since they make such a low wage. Compare that to an American on welfare. How is that "not contributing"?

that's working contributing to a companies profits, not to the federal and state taxes of the place they live and the services they get. the employer is also not paying those same taxes for the work and yes, shows more profit, so good for the shareholder (yippy) but bad for the municipality that has to support the immigrants family. Welfare isn't just given, you do have to work before you get it..

What isn't right? Stop and ID at any time.. I would agree with that, it's not right. But, if you are involved in an incident and the police have to show up, asking for an ID is normal and probably to be expected. Besides, beating students with batons is a whole different thing that asking to see a valid ID or proof of entry. Not even remotely close to the same thing.

It's not the same thing, true, but it comes from the same law enforcement system. I'm also not talking about asking for ID when you're obviously involved with an incident. I'm talking about requiring ID at any time someone asks which was how the AZ law was originally written (note again: they "clarified" this because of the clear and present dangers to freedom presented by such a law). Read some of the examples of what this law would have allowed: a van full of Mexicans which could be reasonably suspicious in AZ but not otherwise doing anything illegal: stop and ask each and every person for ID. That's not exactly involved in an incident.

That part, your last example, that was removed because of the vague problems with it. So now, they won't be stopped unless they brake the law, and then, when they do, they all get asked and all get bounced out, instead of just being let go. So the state made corrections, and that's a good thing, right?

Posted by voltaic on Friday May 14, 2010 @ 08:32am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

How many people came over illegally after WW2 or even after the fall of the wall. They came over legally, applied for immunity or persecution or whatever. I'm not asking for hte laws to be changed, only enforced.

The laws are, in general, unconscionable. I'm asking for them to be changed.

As for the Mantra.. we change the laws we live by with amendments when needed..

The saying on the Statue of Liberty isn't a law to be changed, it's a saying by which we are idealized. People come to America because of many reasons, we prevent them because we're fucking jerks and then we hide behind "well, that's our laws!" while neglecting the very fact of our democratic system to change laws.

You said people that don't live here have a 'right' to work here or find work here. I saw why? And if they do, why don't we have the same rights to find a job other places. When I saw American rights, I'm talking about the fact that the companies that employee the illegals at lower wages are doing so when we have people without jobs that would do the work, but at a legal/higher/normal wage.

I can agree with all that. But I don't agree that just because Americans have the right to demand a higher wage (say, for picking tomatoes) that American businesses have the obligation to hire them at that rate. Labor has the right to demand whatever it wants, and management has the right to offer whatever it wants. Your argument applies just as well to other occupations such as retail. Walmart employees can demand higher wages if they want, and Walmart can tell them to fuck off they're paying minimum wage. The right to do something does not always imply an obligation for someone else. I have the right to free speech and you have the right to walk away and not listen to my blather, &c.

Are you talking nation wide or in the state of AZ. I'm betting AZ sees much more illegal cost to their system then NV or OR. I'm arguing that it makes sense for AZ. Not Main or FL, though I'm sure they have issues, but not as much.

It seems to me you should investigate these things before forming opinions about them. Here is a brief study from the University of Arizona (lol) on what little anyone knows. The complete summary from the final page (note: it uses "unauthorized immigrants" for those whom we call "illegal":

"It is difficult to make the case that unauthorized immigrants, as a group, drive uncompensated care costs. Certainly the impacts are not uniform. The hospitals in communities with large numbers of uninsured, unauthorized immigrants as patients bear a disproportionate burden as a result of illegal immigration.

While rates of uninsurance are higher among immigrants as a group (authorized and unauthorized) than in the native-born population, the number of native-born uninsured is larger than the number of uninsured immigrants. Further, because immigrant usage of heath care services is significantly lower than that of native-born people, it becomes even harder to make the case that immigrants drive these costs. Certainly, uncompensated care costs are a serious problem for the health care system in the United States, particularly in areas with large numbers of uninsured patients. But, while illegal immigration is a problem with many other dimensions, its links to uncompensated health care costs are far from straightforward."

And I would argue that the amount of my tax dollars that has to pay for medicare goes farther when it's just the Americans then when it's the Americans and illegal immigrants. Our ability for our taxes to meet the needs of our citizens (free loaders, medicare or otherwise) goes down when you add the cost of illegal immigrants. in an already over worked system, this increases the burden. And to be fare, some of those freeloaders that are now on medicare, paid their dues when they had been working for the last two years. I'm not talking about this percentage over that percentage.. but total effects.

Well of course. Jeez, if everything everywhere was on the up-and-up, then one illegal alien in one place got one $10 treatment, then yeah you would be correct. That's a cost that wasn't paid for in taxes. The issue is whether it is significant or not, and whether the total economic benefits of having "illegal" aliens in the US outweigh the total costs, and if we would save even more taxpayer money by removing most of the barriers to immigration and border police and all that other stuff. As companies begin to boycott Arizona, they will have to wrestle with this question.

My Dutch is enough to get my by when I need something. I don't ask for forms in other languages and in fact I have to translate bills letters and other things as needed. I also live in a country where 80% speak English. If i went to Germany, my German would be better. I'm not in school and I'm not looking to be a permanent resident. Again, different arguments.

It's not a different argument to me, as I'm not talking only about permanent residents. I said anyone (yes with the standard caveats) should be able to come and go and work freely if they want. I don't require any kind of residency status or anything else in my thoughts. If someone is here as a tourist and says "fuck it I want to stay", I say let them.

Any bets on what percentage of people in AZ speak Spanish? ;) Over 28% as of six years ago (fuckwiki). Yes, about 70% of people in the Netherlands speak English, but note that it is a required class in their schools.

If was doing to raise kids here, as a permanent resident, I could PAY OUT OF POCKET for an American/International school or have my kid learn Dutch and go to a Dutch school. I'm not expecting special treatment.

You won't need special treatment since 1) your kids will grow up bilingual just as Hispanic immigrants' kids do, and 2) Dutch school start teaching English as a required course anywhere from first to fourth grade. We're busy excising Spanish speakers from schools rather than requiring it as a course for those who don't speak it. The systems are completely unlike.

that's working contributing to a companies profits, not to the federal and state taxes of the place they live and the services they get. the employer is also not paying those same taxes for the work and yes, shows more profit, so good for the shareholder (yippy) but bad for the municipality that has to support the immigrants family. Welfare isn't just given, you do have to work before you get it..

Corporate "profits" are taxed. Things that the immigrants buy are taxed. Immigrant wages are so low that if they were above the table they would probably pay almost no income tax. I can't keep repeating these things to you without banging my head on the wall. You totally don't understand the basics of the economic system that you decry on one hand and support on the other. Seriously bro, it would be like me trying to educate you on network infrastructure. I don't even understand the definitions of the terms and would mix things up every which-a-way.

For example: if you have to work to get welfare, then how are illegals' families burdens on the system? They don't get welfare unless they work, right? Not that most illegals bring their families with them, but let's assume that false notion just for the sake of the question.

That part, your last example, that was removed because of the vague problems with it. So now, they won't be stopped unless they brake the law, and then, when they do, they all get asked and all get bounced out, instead of just being let go. So the state made corrections, and that's a good thing, right?

Yes, it is a good thing. Twenty-seven steps backward, one step forward. There were many people defending it pretty staunchly before the more obvious problems with it were addressed, but fixing the most flagrant problems doesn't make the whole "good". You have a shit sandwich, sure you took the stray butt hairs and peanuts out of the shit, but you've still got a shit sandwich.

Posted by Krux on Friday May 14, 2010 @ 08:56pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Any bets on what percentage of people in AZ speak Spanish? ;) Over 28% as of six years ago (fuckwiki). Yes, about 70% of people in the Netherlands speak English, but note that it is a required class in their schools.

I don't have a problem with Wikipedia. I don't get your irrational hatred of it.

Posted by voltaic on Sunday May 16, 2010 @ 11:10am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I don't have a problem with Wikipedia. I don't get your irrational hatred of it.

It's the culture of fiefdoms I dislike, not the site per se.

Posted by MadArab on Monday May 17, 2010 @ 06:58am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I don't have a problem with Wikipedia. I don't get your irrational hatred of it.

It's the culture of fiefdoms I dislike, not the site per se.

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Posted by Caliber on Tuesday May 4, 2010 @ 06:45pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

We are in agreement my friend... You touch on some key points that I had overlooked in my "break the rules, pay the price" political viewpoint. This is very much a state driven initiative, in a state that has a significant problem with the issue at hand. The bill does not imply a need for support from the larger system nor does it make it a felony (which has federal implications). In fact, the law is already a federal law, Arizona only made it a state crime, therefore enforceable by state police. So the law has already been around at the federal level for awhile, Arizona just seems to be pissed off it isn't being enforced at the federal level.

One statistic I read had 560000 illegal immigrants in Arizona alone, that's the population of the entire state of Wyoming.

Also, this image of a gestapo system has really taken off with opponents of the bill. I wouldn't start worrying about tyranny until they start telling people they can't leave. I don't see the US having any trouble with a mofo getting the fuck out, now or anytime in the future. Hell, we are so nice we let people, like my wife, carry dual passports.

By the way, it's a felony to immigrate to Mexico illegally...

Here is a site with some interesting plain-English about the bill http://www.cis.org/Announcement/AZ-Immigration-SB1070. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization. Perusing the site, I found nothing that turned me off of their research, so as a first, best source, I found it reasonable. After running through the top 10 pages of google search results, the only real evidence I can find against the bill are slippery slope arguments and racial profiling issues.

Slippery slopes are certainly a problem. We saw the cascade during the Patriot Act and still live under some anti-civil rights and privacy policies that should have gone away with the Bush administration. The big difference here is that the law already exists. The state is simply opening up a new route of enforcement. I do not see how that can build into a cascading effect (it's big to small, not the other way around). In fact, if opponents are so hot on opening up our borders to increased immigration, maybe the focus should be on fixing legal immigration policies rather than letting illegals enjoy the benefits that the legals were willing to sacrifice for.

Racial profiling is an issue nation-wide even now. In this case though, even if profiling does happen (and I'm sure it does), so long as you even have a driver's license (something you can't have as an illegal alien), you are good to go. But, if you get pulled over for being brown, and then they ALSO found out that in addition to being brown, you also don't have a green card, well, you are fucked. And frankly, good riddance. While my source is far from perfect, I have read a few Reuters articles that say Canadians with expired visas are getting hit too. Even if one of those articles is true, it shows that the law is being applied equally (though frequency of getting pulled over, or being asked for ID in the first place will continue to be an issue, just like it is now).

Posted by MadArab on Wednesday May 5, 2010 @ 05:04am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

As an immigrant, I fully support immigration laws. Maybe because I'm white it's different? I carry my Green Card, and I've been asked for it IN Arizona over 15 years ago while I was driving back to Tucson from Tombstone. I still don't know why they asked me for it, as I showed them my Drivers License and Military ID, and neither indicate my citizenship status. My current NC one does though, which I found interesting. It's listed as a restriction.

On NatGeo last night, I watched a pretty damn cool show about a Native American border patrol unit in Arizona that specializes in using their old traditions to track drug smugglers and illegals crossing the border. Since their reservation is the 2nd largest in the country, apparently the cost to them for all of this is pretty amazing in cleanup alone. Not to mention corruption on the reservation as coyotes and smugglers offer "easy money" to Indian families to help them in their activities.

Posted by rub on Monday May 3, 2010 @ 06:02pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Finally, specific to this AZ law, I think it's unconscionable to require residents to show papers to prove their citizenship, and it comes dangerously close (not just long-term slippery slope hypothetical close) to tyranny. This law was the first time in my adult life I can remember being embarassed to be an American. For all my disagreements with other things like the Iraq war, certain social program, etc., they never actually caused me to feel shame like this. If in the long-term things like this become accepted and commonplace, I will seriously consider becoming an ex-pat.

http://www.ehow.com/how_5112455_renounce-american-citizenship.html

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday May 5, 2010 @ 09:52am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

You can be an ex-pat without renouncing, although I read an interesting article last week (Fortune magazine or The Economist maybe?) about ex-pats who were renouncing because they were tired of paying US income taxes even though they haven't lived here or had a business here or anything in like 20 years. heheh.

Posted by rub on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 02:34pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

You can be an ex-pat without renouncing, although I read an interesting article last week (Fortune magazine or The Economist maybe?) about ex-pats who were renouncing because they were tired of paying US income taxes even though they haven't lived here or had a business here or anything in like 20 years. heheh.

Dude, there are parts of Asia where several buildings are all Americans who dissolved their citizenship because they got tired of some sort of bullshit. Their stories are all amazing. I actually thought a collection of their stories would be a great youtube series or book or some shit. Too bad there isn't enough money to be made off it to make it worthwhile.

Posted by voltaic on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 11:41am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Dude, there are parts of Asia where several buildings are all Americans who dissolved their citizenship because they got tired of some sort of bullshit. Their stories are all amazing. I actually thought a collection of their stories would be a great youtube series or book or some shit. Too bad there isn't enough money to be made off it to make it worthwhile.

I dunno man, you write a book like that and get reviewed everywhere from the WSJ to the Militiman's Monthly, I think you'd sell quite a few copies. Hehe

Posted by rub on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 12:53pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I dunno man, you write a book like that and get reviewed everywhere from the WSJ to the Militiman's Monthly, I think you'd sell quite a few copies. Hehe

I don't think I'd be popular stateside. Maybe I could that maverick Pallin to do a photo spread in it

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @ 08:09am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I dunno man, you write a book like that and get reviewed everywhere from the WSJ to the Militiman's Monthly, I think you'd sell quite a few copies. Hehe

I don't think I'd be popular stateside. Maybe I could that maverick Pallin to do a photo spread in it

Shit dude, do you know how many copies a book will sell based on who wrote the damn forward?

Posted by MadArab on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 06:00am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

You can be an ex-pat without renouncing, although I read an interesting article last week (Fortune magazine or The Economist maybe?) about ex-pats who were renouncing because they were tired of paying US income taxes even though they haven't lived here or had a business here or anything in like 20 years. heheh.

Dude, there are parts of Asia where several buildings are all Americans who dissolved their citizenship because they got tired of some sort of bullshit. Their stories are all amazing. I actually thought a collection of their stories would be a great youtube series or book or some shit. Too bad there isn't enough money to be made off it to make it worthwhile.

meh... and I sit here contemplating getting my Citizenship just for expanded job ops. But I don't want to do that until I get my kids a British/EU Passport, and make sure their dual nationality is all setup. I know I can retain both, but I don't need/want to complicate matters.

My wife keeps mentioning moving to France (I think jokingly mostly...) since seeing that Michael Moore docu Sicko. She likes the idea of all the state run programs and stuff out there. I don't feel the same way about Socialized programs like that, but honestly, if I have my family and a job, I don't care where I am... as an EU passport holder, I can live in a lot of places, and I assume I could take the family with me.

Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 13, 2010 @ 06:58am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

meh... and I sit here contemplating getting my Citizenship just for expanded job ops. But I don't want to do that until I get my kids a British/EU Passport, and make sure their dual nationality is all setup. I know I can retain both, but I don't need/want to complicate matters.

My wife keeps mentioning moving to France (I think jokingly mostly...) since seeing that Michael Moore docu Sicko. She likes the idea of all the state run programs and stuff out there. I don't feel the same way about Socialized programs like that, but honestly, if I have my family and a job, I don't care where I am... as an EU passport holder, I can live in a lot of places, and I assume I could take the family with me.

And see, you are one of the few people here that can do that (live abroad) with no restrictions. You should totally have both passports for you and your kids (your wife would require a bit more work, right?). People don't realize how hard it is for a US citizens to try to immigrate to another country. To get permanent residency, or work visa's or things like that. Those EU countries with social programs, they can have those because they DO control immigration ( to a point) and because they do kick people out and make it hard to get work. Yes, they pay a bit more in taxes, but the 28% you pay in the states, isn't far from the 32% the Dutch pay.

Posted by rub on Thursday May 13, 2010 @ 02:07pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

And see, you are one of the few people here that can do that (live abroad) with no restrictions. You should totally have both passports for you and your kids (your wife would require a bit more work, right?). People don't realize how hard it is for a US citizens to try to immigrate to another country. To get permanent residency, or work visa's or things like that. Those EU countries with social programs, they can have those because they DO control immigration ( to a point) and because they do kick people out and make it hard to get work. Yes, they pay a bit more in taxes, but the 28% you pay in the states, isn't far from the 32% the Dutch pay.

In the US most people pay about 40% real tax rate, when you combine federal with state taxes, taxes for different mandatory benefits and sales tax. ( http://www.moneyvsdebt.com/2007/02/22/your-real-tax-rate-40 )

Ya, its wiki but it has a nice easy to read table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Posted by MadArab on Thursday May 13, 2010 @ 12:58pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

And see, you are one of the few people here that can do that (live abroad) with no restrictions. You should totally have both passports for you and your kids (your wife would require a bit more work, right?). People don't realize how hard it is for a US citizens to try to immigrate to another country. To get permanent residency, or work visa's or things like that. Those EU countries with social programs, they can have those because they DO control immigration ( to a point) and because they do kick people out and make it hard to get work. Yes, they pay a bit more in taxes, but the 28% you pay in the states, isn't far from the 32% the Dutch pay.

What about VAT?

Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 13, 2010 @ 04:12pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

And see, you are one of the few people here that can do that (live abroad) with no restrictions. You should totally have both passports for you and your kids (your wife would require a bit more work, right?). People don't realize how hard it is for a US citizens to try to immigrate to another country. To get permanent residency, or work visa's or things like that. Those EU countries with social programs, they can have those because they DO control immigration ( to a point) and because they do kick people out and make it hard to get work. Yes, they pay a bit more in taxes, but the 28% you pay in the states, isn't far from the 32% the Dutch pay.

What about VAT?

VAT is a sales tax.. and yeah, that hurts.. 15-20% depending on location and what you are buying, but, the price listed is what you pay, so you don't think about it much. $12 USD (before tax) for a CD or $12 Eur (price already includes VAT). It's not to far off. Just realize they have different taxes for different things.. And well, you don't buy as much stuff.. But, to me, from this point of view, it seems the VAT and tax money goes farther then the same money in the states

Posted by rub on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 01:01pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

My wife keeps mentioning moving to France (I think jokingly mostly...) since seeing that Michael Moore docu Sicko. She likes the idea of all the state run programs and stuff out there. I don't feel the same way about Socialized programs like that, but honestly, if I have my family and a job, I don't care where I am... as an EU passport holder, I can live in a lot of places, and I assume I could take the family with me.

Blacks have ruined France

Posted by Krux on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 08:55pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

My wife keeps mentioning moving to France (I think jokingly mostly...) since seeing that Michael Moore docu Sicko. She likes the idea of all the state run programs and stuff out there. I don't feel the same way about Socialized programs like that, but honestly, if I have my family and a job, I don't care where I am... as an EU passport holder, I can live in a lot of places, and I assume I could take the family with me.

Blacks have ruined France

Didn't all the French people ruin France way before the blacks got to it?

Posted by Caliber on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 09:19pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

My wife keeps mentioning moving to France (I think jokingly mostly...) since seeing that Michael Moore docu Sicko. She likes the idea of all the state run programs and stuff out there. I don't feel the same way about Socialized programs like that, but honestly, if I have my family and a job, I don't care where I am... as an EU passport holder, I can live in a lot of places, and I assume I could take the family with me.

Blacks have ruined France

Didn't all the French people ruin France way before the blacks got to it?

No, just kodrik... and then he came here and fucked this place up too

Posted by rub on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 10:07pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

No, just kodrik... and then he came here and fucked this place up too

whatever happened to him

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @ 08:10am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Still running a computer/internet consultancy type business in Vegas. It's doing rather well (for a one man operation) from what I've been able to gather.

Posted by Caliber on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 10:21pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

No, just kodrik... and then he came here and fucked this place up too

whatever happened to him

probably dead, pissed off his drug dealer or something... well, at least hopefully anyway

Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 01:10pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

You can be an ex-pat without renouncing, although I read an interesting article last week (Fortune magazine or The Economist maybe?) about ex-pats who were renouncing because they were tired of paying US income taxes even though they haven't lived here or had a business here or anything in like 20 years. heheh.

That's not totally true. It depends on the amount of money you make, the write-offs you can claim, how long and where you live, if you own property/banks/stocks in the states, treaties between the host country and the states.. it goes on. It's not that simple. After deductions and what not, I haven't had to pay taxes to the US in 3 years. It's just not that simple.

Posted by voltaic on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 01:42pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

You can be an ex-pat without renouncing, although I read an interesting article last week (Fortune magazine or The Economist maybe?) about ex-pats who were renouncing because they were tired of paying US income taxes even though they haven't lived here or had a business here or anything in like 20 years. heheh.

That's not totally true. It depends on the amount of money you make, the write-offs you can claim, how long and where you live, if you own property/banks/stocks in the states, treaties between the host country and the states.. it goes on. It's not that simple. After deductions and what not, I haven't had to pay taxes to the US in 3 years. It's just not that simple.

What isn't true? What isn't so simple? I didn't read an article?

Read what I wrote, not what you think I mean. :)

Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 02:08pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

You can be an ex-pat without renouncing, although I read an interesting article last week (Fortune magazine or The Economist maybe?) about ex-pats who were renouncing because they were tired of paying US income taxes even though they haven't lived here or had a business here or anything in like 20 years. heheh.

That's not totally true. It depends on the amount of money you make, the write-offs you can claim, how long and where you live, if you own property/banks/stocks in the states, treaties between the host country and the states.. it goes on. It's not that simple. After deductions and what not, I haven't had to pay taxes to the US in 3 years. It's just not that simple.

What isn't true? What isn't so simple? I didn't read an article?

Read what I wrote, not what you think I mean. :)

I was commenting on the article you read, about that they are tired of paying even though they haven't lived here.

Yes.. I worded it poorly and made an odd assumption.