Williston, ND Active Issues

vko · Senior Member

RE: The President Obama

Sigma · Veteran Member

romoisajedi wrote:

sure,

doesn't mean it doesn't exist,

I dunno...Jefferson and Aquinas aren't the only guys I crib from. I also enjoy taking a note or two from Occam (not an individual, but still valid.)

Steve Powell · Guru

romo, you can insert youtube videos right here in your post.

romoisajedi · Senior Member

sure,

doesn't mean it doesn't exist,

Sigma · Veteran Member

Cripes, put ominous music and a evil sounding voice over and anything can sound evil.

romoisajedi · Senior Member

here is a few valid concerns about the long legged mac daddy... :)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4838322480963934660#

Sigma · Veteran Member

Steve Powell wrote:

One word...French. That's all I gots to say about that.

You know, Sigma...had WWII never taken place...Lafeyette would have relevance in my book. But WWII has forever skewed that countries history.

Why is it that when the French in WWII are mentioned, everyone seems to forget about the struggle and heroism of the French Resistance in occupied France?

-- Edited by Sigma on Wednesday 12th of May 2010 09:35:43 PM

Steve Powell · Guru

One word...French. That's all I gots to say about that.

You know, Sigma...had WWII never taken place...Lafeyette would have relevance in my book. But WWII has forever skewed that countries history.

This clip pretty much says it all. Watch this clip at length....then I suppose we should get back to The President Obama.

vko · Senior Member

Well as my Greek husband says, Something pi**ed up the Spartan's. And I tell him call your relative's and tell them this Norweigan does not want to bail their back end's out. smile

Sigma · Veteran Member

Steve Powell wrote:

LOL! Funny, from the way you post I don't picture you as "Napolean-ish".

Layafette wasn't "Napolean-ish" either. This is the guy that declined an offer to become France's dictator to support the consitutional monarchy of King Louis-Phillip. Sure, Napolean liked the guy and he probably liked Napolean, but he also resigned his commission in the French Army rather than serve under Napolean.

He's like the French George Washington.

-- Edited by Sigma on Wednesday 12th of May 2010 03:55:36 PM

Steve Powell · Guru

LOL! Funny, from the way you post I don't picture you as "Napolean-ish".

Sigma · Veteran Member

Steve Powell wrote:

Sigma,
Isn't the lady holding the lamp in your poem from France? Nuff said.

I am shocked, sir! Your glib remark ignores our debt of honor to General Lafayette! Viva la France!

Steve Powell · Guru

Sigma,
Isn't the lady holding the lamp in your poem from France? Nuff said. biggrin

Jibslider · Senior Member

rwaitman wrote:
Well...here is one mans' spin on it. This is an excerpt from an email I was sent, second hand, of course, and I cannot vouch for the veracity of it, but if true, then it really goes to show you something....

It is a proposal for new rules in the US regarding immigrants and foreign nationals:

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
2. All ballots will be in this nation's language..
3. All government business will be conducted in our language.
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted and when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

Too strict ? The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO!

1-3. These statements hold no ground in the US as I've said before, there is no official language of the US. I personally feel that no child should be denied an education in the US just because he/she doesn't speak English. There are plenty of bilingual teachers that excell at keeping children up on their studies in their native language.

4-5. Similiar to the laws already in place in the US. Only US citizens can vote, if you hold a green card as a permanent resident, you can not vote. I think we all know the current law forbidding "foreigners" the job of President of the US.

6. Does this mean that "foreigners" can not drive on the roads, use the public library, or drink tap water? Usage of all, and more will lead to burdening the tax payers. What about tourists?

9. I think this law should only be in effect in the US if you are a Packers fan, regardless of citizenship. biggrin

Realistically though, freedom of speech is kind of a big deal in the US... the same statement about the bill of rights can be placed on #8.

10. I agree that if folks come over illegally, they should have to pay the consequenses and be deported if caught.

The US is not Mexico, and as Sigma pointed out, I would not want the US to adopt the ethics and political mind of our friendly neighbor to the south.

Jibslider · Senior Member

Sigma wrote:

Jibslider wrote:

When you say "non-citizens" I assume you mean exactly what you say, and are specifically excluding permanent residents (ie folks with a valid green card). Assuming this is what you're saying, there is absolutely no way this point would work because an an immigrant you have to live in the US as a permanent resident before you can become a citizen.

You have to be aware than many, many people do come to the US as permanent residents to work, pay taxes, and live their lives. There are many people that immigrate to the US as permanent residents to retire, or to live with their parents/family.

Excluding permanent residents from services, and not just illegal immgrants", just because they are not a citzen of the country is taking it too far in my opinion.

Fair enough, Jib. Call this a case of lazy wording and lack of understanding on my part. My intent was to exclude illegal aliens, but my wording excluded all non-citizens. The situation for permanent, non-resident citizens is different all together. I consider myself corrected. Thank you.

Whew! OK, glad we're on the same page now.

Sigma · Veteran Member

rwaitman wrote:

Too strict ? The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO!

Well played, Mr. Waitman. I don’t believe that Mexico is a good example of moral equivalency. Rather, it’s an example of draconian immigration policy. I’m not surprised, given the state of Mexico these days. Lets not forget that Mexico is currently hosting rather violent drug cartels and a government that maintains a disturbingly tenuous.

Also, the idea of not allowing those with a criminal record is sound until one stops and relalized the power this gives corrupt foreign governments. What is a woman were convicted of showing her face in Syria. Would that conviction keep her from ever immigrating legally to the U.S.? Or a Mung who was convicted of being a revolutionary in Laos. Would that keep him from immigrating to the U.S.? It is a big stick we’re waving around here, let’s be careful how we use it. Or at the very least, let’s whittle down that stick into something more discerning.

Here’s an interesting poem to remember:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus, 1883

I wonder if our culture, in its desperate state, only counts that poem for European immigrants.

-- Edited by Sigma on Wednesday 12th of May 2010 12:38:20 PM

Sue Evans · Senior Member

vko wrote:

And here is Red Skelton's from his TV Show 1969 wow

http://media.causes.com/604250?p id=42563578

hope that works for you all.

VKO, Wow, Thank you.

vko · Senior Member

And here is Red Skelton's from his TV Show 1969 wow

http://media.causes.com/604250?p id=42563578

hope that works for you all.

rwaitman · Senior Member

vko wrote:

What you have discussed is above my pay grade, but what you are all saying, tell me how other Countries handle this. And is it apple's to apple's, or are we just something special on how we in the United State are to deal with this issue, even though, American's are killed everyday in our own Country, for the well being of illegal immigrant's. Just a question. You younger people have to live with your decision's for a life time, we older folk's will be bailing out.

Well...here is one mans' spin on it. This is an excerpt from an email I was sent, second hand, of course, and I cannot vouch for the veracity of it, but if true, then it really goes to show you something....

It is a proposal for new rules in the US regarding immigrants and foreign nationals:

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
2. All ballots will be in this nation's language..
3. All government business will be conducted in our language.
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted and when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

Too strict ? The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO!

vko · Senior Member

What you have discussed is above my pay grade, but what you are all saying, tell me how other Countries handle this. And is it apple's to apple's, or are we just something special on how we in the United State are to deal with this issue, even though, American's are killed everyday in our own Country, for the well being of illegal immigrant's. Just a question. You younger people have to live with your decision's for a life time, we older folk's will be bailing out. biggrin

rwaitman · Senior Member

Jibslider wrote:

rwaitman wrote:
1B Identify and ship out any illegal immigrants with a criminal background.
Why stop at illegal immigrants?

Good point Jib

...you think Canada would take anybody with a criminal background that we want to send them...maybe Mexico? I'm all for it.

I still remember when we opened the borders to all Cubans...and Fidel let all of the criminals out of prison and they headed this way..that one didn't last very long. It would be nice to send some the other way.

;o)
R

Sigma · Veteran Member

Jibslider wrote:

When you say "non-citizens" I assume you mean exactly what you say, and are specifically excluding permanent residents (ie folks with a valid green card). Assuming this is what you're saying, there is absolutely no way this point would work because an an immigrant you have to live in the US as a permanent resident before you can become a citizen.

You have to be aware than many, many people do come to the US as permanent residents to work, pay taxes, and live their lives. There are many people that immigrate to the US as permanent residents to retire, or to live with their parents/family.

Excluding permanent residents from services, and not just illegal immgrants", just because they are not a citzen of the country is taking it too far in my opinion.

Fair enough, Jib. Call this a case of lazy wording and lack of understanding on my part. My intent was to exclude illegal aliens, but my wording excluded all non-citizens. The situation for permanent, non-resident citizens is different all together. I consider myself corrected. Thank you.

Jibslider · Senior Member

Sigma wrote:

Eliminate public welfare and education options for non-citizen workers.It may sound harsh to some and sensible to others, but providing public welfare and education, including medical treatment, to non-citizens is simply counter-productive.If people wish to make money in the US (and pay the appropriate income tax) that is one thing.But for those to work here, pay no taxes, and still take advantages of government programs and education is simply wrong.Only citizens of the U.S. should qualify for said programs, and eliminating all non-ciitzens from eligability will remove the incentive to come to the U.S. illegally.It would also increase incentive to go through the naturalization process for those who with to become U.S. citizens.

When you say "non-citizens" I assume you mean exactly what you say, and are specifically excluding permanent residents (ie folks with a valid green card). Assuming this is what you're saying, there is absolutely no way this point would work because an an immigrant you have to live in the US as a permanent resident before you can become a citizen.

You have to be aware than many, many people do come to the US as permanent residents to work, pay taxes, and live their lives. There are many people that immigrate to the US as permanent residents to retire, or to live with their parents/family.

Excluding permanent residents from services, and not just illegal immgrants", just because they are not a citzen of the country is taking it too far in my opinion.

Jibslider · Senior Member

rwaitman wrote:
1B Identify and ship out any illegal immigrants with a criminal background.

Why stop at illegal immigrants?

vko · Senior Member

Actually Sigma I do agree with you with what you listed.

rwaitman · Senior Member

Sigma wrote:

vko wrote:

And Sigma, "what is appropiate immigration reform"? And where do YOU draw the line?

That’s a fair question. I’ll summarize, as I don’t have the time or the inclindation to be more specific.

Increase the amount of green cards issued yearly. If people want to work in the U.S. there is no reason we should not allow it.

Simplify the naturalization process for those wishing to become US Citizens

Eliminate public welfare and education options for non-citizen workers. It may sound harsh to some and sensible to others, but providing public welfare and education, including medical treatment, to non-citizens is simply counter-productive. If people wish to make money in the US (and pay the appropriate income tax) that is one thing. But for those to work here, pay no taxes, and still take advantages of government programs and education is simply wrong. Only citizens of the U.S. should qualify for said programs, and eliminating all non-ciitzens from elibability will remove the incentive to come to the U.S. illeagally. It would also increase incentive to go through the naturalization process for those who with to become U.S. citizens.

Those are just three simple changes. It is a far, far more complicated issue than that, but I for the purposes of this discussion, what I have written is sufficient.

Sigma:

Phenomenal post....my two cents worth....with addendums:

1A Control the borders, in and out, however and whatever it might take.
1B Identify and ship out any illegal immigrants with a criminal
background.

Sigma · Veteran Member

vko wrote:

And Sigma, "what is appropiate immigration reform"? And where do YOU draw the line?

That’s a fair question.I’ll summarize, as I don’t have the time or the inclination to be more specific.
Increase the amount of green cards issued yearly.If people want to work in the U.S. there is no reason we should not allow it.
Simplify the naturalization process for those wishing to become US Citizens
Eliminate public welfare and education options for non-citizen workers.It may sound harsh to some and sensible to others, but providing public welfare and education, including medical treatment, to non-citizens is simply counter-productive.If people wish to make money in the US (and pay the appropriate income tax) that is one thing.But for those to work here, pay no taxes, and still take advantages of government programs and education is simply wrong.Only citizens of the U.S. should qualify for said programs, and eliminating all non-ciitzens from eligability will remove the incentive to come to the U.S. illegally.It would also increase incentive to go through the naturalization process for those who with to become U.S. citizens.
Those are just three simple changes.It is a far, far more complicated issue than that, but I for the purposes of this discussion, what I have written is sufficient.

-- Edited by Sigma on Monday 10th of May 2010 08:36:08 AM

-- Edited by Sigma on Monday 10th of May 2010 09:14:26 PM

Jibslider · Senior Member

Steve Powell wrote:

Jib, there should be an "official language" and it should be English.

Good luck with that.

vko · Senior Member

And Sigma, "what is appropiate immigration reform"? And where do YOU draw the line?

vko · Senior Member

Your right Steve. And from Timothy Lee opinion on The Daily Caller, the book," The Making of a President" should have been "Obama's Big Fat Greek Bailout". smile

Steve Powell · Guru

I think I know why VKO pointed Greece out as an example. It has to do with Obama's foreign policy. Go take a look at what the Greeks have to say about Obama these days.

As far as their financial situation, it bears scary similarities to ours.

Jib, there should be an "official language" and it should be English.

Sigma · Veteran Member

vko wrote:

So we as citizen's of the USA are to open our Border's, our wage's, our way's to every Country of this World, to prove we are open minded and very, very kind. We are to not personally enjoy each and every one of our regilous belief's to not hurt other's and their belief. We are to be submissive in each and every way, while other's shove their belief's and nonbelief's down our throat's, while they Laugh and want to put a bomb up each and every one of our back end's. OK then. You do it. I am not. English is my language. But I have a choice. And I will fight to be able to CHOOSE. It is my FREEDOM to make choices. And I personally really do not care what other Countries think about the USA. (PS) My Husband is Greek. Have you noticed what is happening in Greece lately? (sp)

-- Edited by vko on Wednesday 5th of May 2010 08:05:35 PM

No, the citizens of the USA are to open their hearts and doors to legal immigrants, after appropriate immigration reform, because it sit he right thing to do. Not to prove any open mindedness or kindness.

There is a vast, vast difference between exercising tolerance and being "submissive." And to think otherwise is completely missing the point. And that'd all I have to say about that.

...

As for Greece, well, what does the Greek financial meltdown have to do with, well, really anything?

vko · Senior Member

So we as citizen's of the USA are to open our Border's, our wage's, our way's to every Country of this World, to prove we are open minded and very, very kind. We are to not personally enjoy each and every one of our regilous belief's to not hurt other's and their belief. We are to be submissive in each and every way, while other's shove their belief's and nonbelief's down our throat's, while they Laugh and want to put a bomb up each and every one of our back end's. OK then. You do it. I am not. English is my language. But I have a choice. And I will fight to be able to CHOOSE. It is my FREEDOM to make choices. And I personally really do not care what other Countries think about the USA. (PS) My Husband is Greek. Have you noticed what is happening in Greece lately? (sp)

-- Edited by vko on Wednesday 5th of May 2010 08:05:35 PM

Jibslider · Senior Member

Sue Evans wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States

Thank you for proving my point. There is no "official" language of the United States.

Sigma · Veteran Member

Steve Powell wrote:

No one wants to take a stab at my question I posted?

There is a difference between a dealer in illegal drugs, who is a criminal and likely isn't too concerned about reporting his income to the IRS, and a businessman selling a legal product through a legal distribution chain. Your question regarding the criminal avoiding taxes assumes that, with the legalization of illicit drugs, the same distribution chain will be used. I argue that a new paradigm would be established. Legitimate tax paying companies across the spectrum, from production to import/export to domestic distribution and sales would rise to take over from the criminals. After all, do we see alot of illegal cigarette sales going on? Do dealers sell cigarettes and alcohol on the streets to avoid tax implications? Very likely not, and if that is happening, I'd be shocked.

Ultimately, and in truth I say this with no evidence to back up my belief, I feel that a regulated and legal means of delivering these agents of destruction to those willing to imbibe in this filth will not only remove the economic incentive from the criminal element, but it will help ensure a safer product for the end user. Right now, cocaine and marijuana can be cut with any number of chemicals or foreign substances to help improve the dealers profit margin. There is no way to ensure safety, as it were, of the product itself. If we use alcohol as a comparison, well, I've never heard of Jim Beam blending it's whiskey with rubbing alcohol or some other toxic substance just to spread out their inventory.

Sigma · Veteran Member

rwaitman wrote:

The United States used to be called the "melting pot" of the world. It has now become the "salad bowl", mostly because we bend over backwards to accomodate each and every individual, religion, and ethnicity, arriving inside our borders, illegal or otherwise, something that absolutely none of their countries of origin would ever consider.

We are the most giving country in world, bar none, and yet we are arguably the most maligned.

What's up with that?

It would be nice to be acknowledged for some of the positives.

R

You know, I seem to remember a guy who lived a long time ago. He was probably the most giving person ever, but he was also the most maligned. Yet he didn't ask for acknowledgement, or praise, or even a simple "well done." He didn't even complain about those who killed him, he even forgave them as he was dying.

He even welcomed in outsiders so long as they believed in him and his message.

Imagine that?

Steve Powell · Guru

We receive our acknowledgements with terror threats.

Sherrif's Deputy was shot out here on Friday near a place Heather and I stopped to eat at on Saturday. Deputy was tracking some illegals that were running drugs. They realized he was hunting them and turned on him.

Fortunately the Deputy survived.

No one wants to take a stab at my question I posted?

rwaitman · Senior Member

The United States used to be called the "melting pot" of the world. It has now become the "salad bowl", mostly because we bend over backwards to accomodate each and every individual, religion, and ethnicity, arriving inside our borders, illegal or otherwise, something that absolutely none of their countries of origin would ever consider.

We are the most giving country in world, bar none, and yet we are arguably the most maligned.

What's up with that?

It would be nice to be acknowledged for some of the positives.

R

vko · Senior Member

Perfect, I know I am a maniac (sp) and in your face type a person. You may have to keep that in mind, when you read my post's. smile

Sue Evans · Senior Member

That was for Jib, it avoids the verbal slaps for lack of proof for the statement.

vko · Senior Member

Thank you Sue, I know I am not a complete Village Idiot. biggrin

Been called that by the relative's that hire Illegals.

-- Edited by vko on Tuesday 4th of May 2010 09:37:46 PM

Sue Evans · Senior Member

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States

Jibslider · Senior Member

There is no official language of the United States.

Steve Powell · Guru

Sigma, Randy, VKO, awesome dialogue. One question comes to mind. If dealers and buyers are willing to risk jail time to sell/buy the drugs, who's to say they'll be any different to evade the taxes?

vko · Senior Member

Sigma and Randy, both are great point's. But, what irritates me to no end, is we are to learn their language to accommodate the immigrants, and alot of them came to our country illegally (sp) and had babies in our Country. We are to open our door's and scream welcome and we will learn your way's, instead of them learning our language, law's and etc. Now I love many different languages, but I get to choose which one I am learning. Not be told what I have to Learn to work to accomodate. There is something wrong with that picture. You want to live in the United States, learn our language and our law's. Otherwise, bye bye.

rwaitman · Senior Member

I concede....Boys and Girls...care to chime in?

Dude, let me absorb some of that. You have not convinced me, but Man oh man...you make a good argument.

You got your facts, you got your logic, you got it all going on in here....all I still gots is my faith in the righteousness of my own perspective.

Now I gotta go find somebody who can outpunch Oliver Wendell Holmes (junior, not senior) ahem.. verbally that is...

;o)
R

Sigma · Veteran Member

rwaitman wrote:

Oh.....Sigma! Well, you have lotsa company in that suggestion, not to any way imply that you use, have used, or will use, recreational drugs in any form or manner.

Simple me...I not only never inhaled, but I never even puffed on the stuff. I confess, I tried the Demon Rum a time or two in college (times of great peer pressure and all that), but from a purely philosophical standpoint, I am adamantly opposed to the use of recreational drugs, legal or otherwise, as a social lubricant. I realize that probably puts me in a minority...but what the hey! That's me... I don't eat bacon either, but neither has anything to do with my religious beliefs...

..but back to the primary topic....I think that first and foremost, the borders need to be controlled...State level, federal level, local, I don't care....if you cannot stop the influx and outgo of illegal people, drugs, and/or weapons, you gotta recipe for worse and worse trouble. Once you control the border, then you can start to weed out who should be here and who should not....it would take a lot of time, because the criminals will continue to commit crime, and the honest but also illegals will continue to work to provide for their families however they can.
Guns are legal too...but there is a healthy black market for them as well, and we don't seem to be getting much tax support from them either. I don't think legalization of dope is the answer....

I say this tongue in cheek but with some elements of truth..how about "if you deal, you die" (make dealing a capital crime).... or  "buy some mo' (dope), go see Joe" (Sheriff Joe of the famous tent city in Phoenix)...wear some pink socks and work on the chain gang...

Sorry, but I feel no sympathy for users of illicit drugs.

I hope I am not creating the appearance of being judgemental, but you and I have pretty different spins on this subject, although many of my friends (and some of my relatives) tend to agree with your perspective.

It is an interesting subject, and by no means am I trying to override your comments. I hope others will post their thoughts on the topic so we can continue.

;o)
R

-- Edited by rwaitman on Tuesday 4th of May 2010 06:47:25 AM

I appreciate where you’re coming from with the gun analogy, but that is a bit of a fallacy. I’d argue that there is still a black market for guns for two reasons. The first is that people convicted of crimes are barred (rightfully so) from purchasing fire arms. Secondly, the criminal element does not want a paper trail leading back to them. Bullets can be matched with specific guns using the rifling marks on the bullet. This is not the case with illicit drugs, which are consumed immediately. So the two are related, but the motivations behind human behavior related to drugs and guns are different.

Now I’m 100% against drug use, but I will tolerate it. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.once said, “Your right to put out your fist ends where my nose begins.” In other words, I see no problem with individuals willingly destroying themselves so long as they do not harm others in the process. I am talking about physical harm here, as I understand social and psychological damage from drug use from alcohol to meth are real as well. Still, the regulation of drugs is more of a regulation of morality than it is public safety, but then, Justice Holmes was often accused of being a moral relativist. Perhaps I am as well, at least to some extent.

I feel, though, that the time and resources put into America’s failed and failing “War on Drugs” could be put to better use. Rather than razing opium fields in Afghanistan or spraying herbicide over coca fields in Columbia, why not focus on raising the general standard of living both here and abroad? Instead of spending time and resources using the Coast Guard to intercept drug shipments, why not implement a high tariff and make people pay for the right to destroy themselves. Of course this would not stop all illicit use or even all the illicit transport over the border, but in theory it would reduce it significantly, making it easier to manage from a law enforcement perspective.

As for border control, well, that gets me up in arms. What bothers me isn’t so much statements that the border needs to be controlled, but the occasional crazies out there that call for fences to be built or the military to be called in. How about comprehensive immigration reform to make it easier to come into the United States, thus reducing the need for people to enter the country illegally?

Let’s face it, for being a country of immigrants, it is awfully hard to get legal status in this country. And this is at a time when birth rates in the United States are at best stagnant and at worth declining. Is it any wonder that Islam is now the worlds largest religion? The birth rates in primarily Islamic countries is skyrocketing. And while that is somewhat off the topic, it bears consideration.

-- Edited by Sigma on Tuesday 4th of May 2010 09:35:46 AM

rwaitman · Senior Member

Sigma wrote:

This should be interesting.

It is true that our border with Mexico could be policed better. I’ve heard many proposed “solutions" to the problem, the most extreme being building a fence between the United States and Mexico. Complete isolation is not the solution. I can think of two examples in relatively recent history where walls or fences were tried. In Berlin last century and Israel this century. Neither situation turned out very well.

I have not researched this issue in depth, so I’m a bit out of my element here. It appears to me that there are two solutions to the immigration problem that do not involve fences and/or guns. The first solution would be to work on improving Mexico’s economic and political stability. This is not likely to happen, as the political and socioeconomics of Mexico are incredibly complex. An exercise of U.S. power there would be costly and both financially and politically.

The second solution drawn from my completely un-researched opinion is to legalize most, if not all, illicit drugs in the United States. Here we can look to Prohibition as an example of how crime increases when the government tries to exercise regulation. The economic incentive to the criminal element was removed with the 21st Amendment.

Drug legalization, especially marijuana, would allow for safe and legal distribution of the drugs, and therefore reduce crime associated with said substance. The ultimate effects of those drugs on an individual would remain just that, an individual’s choice. There would be risks to others, potentially, similar to how there are risks when a person drinks too much and decides to drive. Still, the tax base created by the legalization of certain drugs would be significant, though again I have not done any research into any forecasted numbers. Please note that some drugs, such as meth, PCP, and other “chemistry set” drugs should remain illegal. It is hard, really, to draw the line, which is why some are afraid to do down this road.

Or at the very least, legalize pot.

Oh.....Sigma! Well, you have lotsa company in that suggestion, not to any way imply that you use, have used, or will use, recreational drugs in any form or manner.

Simple me...I not only never inhaled, but I never even puffed on the stuff. I confess, I tried the Demon Rum a time or two in college (times of great peer pressure and all that), but from a purely philosophical standpoint, I am adamantly opposed to the use of recreational drugs, legal or otherwise, as a social lubricant. I realize that probably puts me in a minority...but what the hey! That's me... I don't eat bacon either, but neither has anything to do with my religious beliefs...

..but back to the primary topic....I think that first and foremost, the borders need to be controlled...State level, federal level, local, I don't care....if you cannot stop the influx and outgo of illegal people, drugs, and/or weapons, you gotta recipe for worse and worse trouble. Once you control the border, then you can start to weed out who should be here and who should not....it would take a lot of time, because the criminals will continue to commit crime, and the honest but also illegals will continue to work to provide for their families however they can.

Guns are legal too...but there is a healthy black market for them as well, and we don't seem to be getting much tax support from them either. I don't think legalization of dope is the answer....

I say this tongue in cheek but with some elements of truth..how about "if you deal, you die" (make dealing a capital crime).... or "buy some mo' (dope), go see Joe" (Sheriff Joe of the famous tent city in Phoenix)...wear some pink socks and work on the chain gang...

Sorry, but I feel no sympathy for users of illicit drugs.

I hope I am not creating the appearance of being judgemental, but you and I have pretty different spins on this subject, although many of my friends (and some of my relatives) tend to agree with your perspective.

It is an interesting subject, and by no means am I trying to override your comments. I hope others will post their thoughts on the topic so we can continue.

;o)
R

-- Edited by rwaitman on Tuesday 4th of May 2010 06:47:25 AM

vko · Senior Member

P.S. Most of the worst offender's live in Gated Communities(sp) with Guard's at their door step. Hello California, Las Vegas, Arizona, and Texas.

vko · Senior Member

I only have so much time between postings. Sorry. I am talking about all Border's, period. Why are our American's locked up in other Countries, for no other reason than stepping foot in them. Why is San Franciso Ca boucotting(sp) Arizonia. Why did Bush do nothing? The Mexican's come, they work for cheap labor and don't whine and the rich do not have to pay taxes on their wage. How do I know this? Relative's in every one of those state's that use this labor. It is well known. You pay cash and the government has a blind eye. Why haven't I heard much to do about the Arizona Rancher murdered on his own ranch, by an illegal smuggling drug's. You will not hear it from the Liberals or Conservatives because they may have to pay actual wages - matching - workers comp - health care. California is the worst, Texas is the worst, Arizona is the worst. The Canadian border, if I can jump over the border without being detected, what about the terrorist's. Except they carry all kinds of stuff with them. Now I am no karate expert, I love target practicing when I am bored. But my family is gone, I am still legally allowed to own gun's, and they are loaded and ready to go. Any one that comes to my house in the dark hours should probably call ahead and Knock before they enter. How do we change thing's - well all the Polically Correct, Brilliant People can't seem to figure it out. Maybe carring a Passport and ID - Driver License would help a bit.

-- Edited by vko on Monday 3rd of May 2010 07:58:55 PM