2008 Election

[madasacutsnake]

Originally Posted by Marcus Bales

In the history of the world there have been no luckier people than those who have freely come to, or been born in, the US. It is undeniable that there are significant problems here, but the 300 million people in the US live like kings and queens compared to how almost everyone else in history has ever lived.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html

[trisherina]

I think I'll stick. Might even have an election sometime ourselves, you know, to make the news and all.

[Marcus Bales]

Originally Posted by auntie aubrey

i guess i'm uncomfortable with arrogantly proclaiming the US to be the smartest final destination for residents of other countries.

I didn't say it's the smartest final destination, I said if they're smart enough to want to come we ought to welcome them.

[Hyakujo's Fox]

Originally Posted by Marcus Bales

I didn't say it's the smartest final destination, I said if they're smart enough to want to come we ought to welcome them.

Yes, but the phrase "smart enough to want to come" implies people who don't want to come (and I won't name names) are not "smart enough".

[Anna]

Originally Posted by Marcus Bales

I didn't say it's the smartest final destination, I said if they're smart enough to want to come we ought to welcome them.

No requirements?
what about disease, criminal record, skills?

[Marcus Bales]

Originally Posted by Hyakujo's Fox

Yes, but the phrase "smart enough to want to come" implies people who don't want to come (and I won't name names) are not "smart enough".

Originally Posted by Anna

No requirements?
what about disease, criminal record, skills?

Oh, it's like "if you can make it there you'll make it anywhere" -- it's not a requirement that to be successful you have to be successful in New York. You can be smart enough to want to and not do it; you can find other ways and places to do it. But my point is that if people are smart enough to want to come to this place where opportunity is more abundant, that we who are here already should welcome them. The idea that now that we're here, or since we were born here, we should draw the ladder up after us seems awfully mean-spirited to me.

As for disease, record, skills, sure, there have to be some rules, but the default category ought to be "yes", not "no". I'm not saying let everyone in who asks, only that asking ought to be a big plus in and of itself.

[Anna]

Originally Posted by Marcus Bales

As for disease, record, skills, sure, there have to be some rules, but the default category ought to be "yes", not "no". I'm not saying let everyone in who asks, only that asking ought to be a big plus in and of itself.

er, um, huh? I don't really understand what you are saying, you mean if they ask to enter we should say, "oh, how nice that's really great! (but you still have to get in line!)"

There are apx. 12 million illegal immigrants in the US, over 1 million people apply legally every year; in 2003 apx. 400,000 people were granted entry, apx. 600,000 were still in process (red tape; forms, health and criminal background...). Their are 47 million American citizens in the US now without health care, we are burning energy at such a high rate that we are choking cities with pollution and waste, we have water problems and shortages, food problems, job problems, homeless problems, infrastructure problems. How many more people do you think the system or country can support without breaking it or denying those who are living in poverty now with even less?

In many countries, like Mexico you have to prove to the government that a Mexican Citizen can not do the job you can performs in order to work there. Same with Canada, and if you want to emigrate to Canada you better speak French as well as English if you want extra consideration. Every country has rules and regulations for the protection of their citizens, infrastructure and economy. Compared to most 1st world nations the US is pretty easy to get into, all you have to say is, "I wanna," and get in line. I don't really understand what more you think the US can or should do?

[auntie aubrey]

Originally Posted by Marcus Bales

The idea that now that we're here, or since we were born here, we should draw the ladder up after us seems awfully mean-spirited to me.

i agree. immigration has done nothing but improve the american culture with every generation. being quite the complex stew of genealogy myself, i'm a big believer in adding more ingredients to the pot.

i think what's going on here is that your wording itself is intended to be complimentary to the potential immigrants but unfortunately it comes off as a little elitist and exclusionary to the people who choose not to immigrate. it's a battle of wording semantics, at least i think that's what's going on.

as far as my own thoughts on the subject, i believe in the concept of the guest worker program with a defined path towards legal citizenship. i feel like that's in everyone's best interests for several reasons.

the thing is, not everyone who comes to this country really wants to give up their devotion to their nation of origin. i don't believe in jingoistic shows of pledging allegiance and i think it's absolutely possible to be a peaceful well-meaning contributor to this society and economy without having a desperate drive towards citizenship. the benefit? allowing workers to come here as guests would give us the ability to record their presence in this country and keep track of who's who and what income is taxable. having records would help with law enforcement and drawing taxes on their earnings would compensate for the costs of supporting the total population. the benefit to the workers is that by being on record they could have access to the same protections to safety and personal liberty that all human beings should enjoy. they could work out in the open where OSHA could regulate their working conditions and they could be eligible for protection from employers that like to side-step human rights issues. they could continue to work and send money home to their families and if their intention is to stay only for a short period, they could return home at will. if, however, they chose eventually to stay, their time spent in this country should count towards the path to citizenship.

oh, and i also believe in building the fence. there has to be a way to stop the unregulated flood of untraceable people. for our own safety, and i'm not talking about a terrorism issue. i mean we should have the right to turn away felons and violent criminals. but we can't do that as long as people continue to flood across the open border. additionally, people die making the attempt. there has to be a way to stop the attempts if only to save the people who aren't fit enough for the effort.

[rapscalious rob]

Dennis Kucinich - 62
Mike Gravel - 54
Bill Richardson - 54
Chris Dodd - 50
John Edwards - 47
Barack Obama - 45
Hillary Clinton - 45
Joe Biden - 35
Rudy Giuliani - 29
Ron Paul - 29
John McCain - 14
Mitt Romney - 7
Mike Huckabee - 5

I didn’t really agree with all of the questions, but whatever - it’s a poll.

[Jack Flanders]

yep!! it's a pole - slick and smooth. don't forget to vote.

[Marcus Bales]

Originally Posted by Anna

er, um, huh? I don't really understand what you are saying, you mean if they ask to enter we should say, "oh, how nice that's really great! (but you still have to get in line!)"

Pretty much, except I think the line should also move faster.

Originally Posted by Anna

There are apx. 12 million illegal immigrants in the US, over 1 million people apply legally every year; in 2003 apx. 400,000 people were granted entry, apx. 600,000 were still in process (red tape; forms, health and criminal background...). Their are 47 million American citizens in the US now without health care, we are burning energy at such a high rate that we are choking cities with pollution and waste, we have water problems and shortages, food problems, job problems, homeless problems, infrastructure problems. How many more people do you think the system or country can support without breaking it or denying those who are living in poverty now with even less?

You're assuming that every immigrant will be a burden, and I think that's a mistake. I'm assuming that most immigrants will add to the collective wealth rather than take away from it -- as history has generally shown happens. Not always, of course, but that's the way to bet.

Originally Posted by Anna

In many countries, like Mexico you have to prove to the government that a Mexican Citizen can not do the job you can performs in order to work there. Same with Canada, and if you want to emigrate to Canada you better speak French as well as English if you want extra consideration. Every country has rules and regulations for the protection of their citizens, infrastructure and economy. Compared to most 1st world nations the US is pretty easy to get into, all you have to say is, "I wanna," and get in line. I don't really understand what more you think the US can or should do?

I'm not arguing there should be no rules or limits; I'm arguing that the basic notion that people who want to come to the US for their own economic advantage are just the kind of people we want. Those are the people who will, generally speaking, work hard and add to the collective wealth, and pay taxes.

[Anna]

hmm…
Before I lay my argument out; *and show all the holes in yours, I have a few questions I’d like to ask before hand.
1. will anything I say politically really make a difference or have you already made up your mind?
2. does this board really want to pursue the timbre that goes along with a political discussion?

I have no great need to argue politics here; I’m so politically entertained already, and *please do not take my curt reply as disrespectful; it just goes along with the hot button issue territory

[trisherina]

Originally Posted by Anna

hmm…
1. will anything I say politically really make a difference or have you already made up your mind?
2. does this board really want to pursue the timbre that goes along with a political discussion?

There's no reliable way to know the answer to the first question for certain, no matter what anyone might tell you. Recall how many people you've come across claiming to have open minds when their behaviour indicated the opposite. "Having an open mind" and "sincerely considering the views of others" are pretty ego-syntonic, like "being a good friend" and "having a sense of humour." Sharp insight about stuff like that is often not available to the first-person speaker.

Looking at the second, do you want the discussion to have "the timbre that goes along with a political discussion?" It's entirely up to you how curt etc. you make your replies. Everyone contributes to setting the tone, no matter what the issue itself.

[auntie aubrey]

Originally Posted by trisherina

Looking at the second, do you want the discussion to have "the timbre that goes along with a political discussion?" It's entirely up to you how curt etc. you make your replies. Everyone contributes to setting the tone, no matter what the issue itself.

true, but i don't think the question is an invalid one. there's a particular tone that political discussions seem to take on, regardless of whether one's typical posting style is confrontational or curt. it's more a manifestation of politics in a group dynamic than the group dynamic itself.

i think it's something to be considered. political discussions are highly opinionated ones. people are going to inevitably disagree. on the one hand, participants have to commit to showing respect for each others' views. on the other hand, those who find discord unacceptable likely won't enjoy the experience no matter how committed the participants are to respect.

the thread will lack the capriciousness of other topics in free chat. does the board really want to pursue the timbre that goes along with a political discussion? i think it's a valid question.

[Hyakujo's Fox]

I suppose one could discuss a topic philosophically rather than politically, if you're really desperate.