Soxbadger

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 03:55 PM) They offered amnesty in 1986. What did that solve? I am also curious how you plan on paying for millions and millions of new people when we are over $15 trillion in debt? But they didnt change immigration, so its not comparable. You both have to offer amnesty and change immigration law, so once again, I ask you to show me where that has happened and failed, as you said I could read a history book and find it, so Im waiting. I really want that information because if you have it, it could change my entire argument. So once again, thanks in advance. How do I plan for paying for it? By collecting taxes from people that previously were getting benefits and not paying taxes. Right now they are in the US, getting services, costing money, and many of them pay $0. How would it be a bad thing if they are in the US, getting services, costing money and paying something? Amnesty would force some people who get benefits to actually pay something. If anything it should immediately reduce the debt. That is not even considering the cost of keeping people out, and the benefit of saving that money.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 03:52 PM) It.doesn't.work. Read some history. Show me where the US has offered complete amnesty and lifted immigration restrictions to pre-1924 not working? Thanks in advance.

Barnes is a SF.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 03:45 PM) Not a single slave came to the US voluntarily to be a slave. That is where this ridiculousness breaks down completely. Not a single person came to Mexico hoping to be poor and living in squalor. What does it matter how or why they got there? If I could trace certain Mexican ancestors to prove that they were forcefully repatriated to a certain place (say that they were forced to move from Texas to Mexico because of the US winning the Spanish American war) would they then get rights? Or if they could show that they were actually Aztecan and that Cortez took them as prisoners? What does any of that matter? So if someone involuntarily is taken into the US, they should get to be a citizen? And what about a black person who came voluntarily to the US, only then to be captured and turned into a slave? They voluntarily came to the US... Once again, no one has said why its a bad thing to give amnesty.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 03:28 PM) it's ok, the slaves were defying an unjust law, whereas determining that 170,000 immigrants is the maximum number allowable into the country during a given year is a just law based on an exacting, reasonable standard, which totally has nothing to do with race. Immigration is one of those areas where I will never back down. As an anecdote, my cousin's father was on the last boat accepted into the US from Germany during WWII. The next boat was the SS St Louis. If you are not familiar: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...st/stlouis.html http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/voyageofthedamned.htm

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 03:27 PM) Again you are missing the whole voluntarily put themselves or family into that situation part. It is just a terrible analogy. How was escaping not voluntary? How if you escaped with your family from your master, was that not voluntarily escaping? They chose to escape, they could have just accepted their lot and stayed a slave. That is a choice, no matter how much you refuse to accept it. QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 03:28 PM) I think an expert on slavery is the best place to direct the question, but I don't think that slave B would be upset that slave A got freedom by escaping. I know for a fact that legal immigrants from Mexico who waded through mountains of red tape to get and stay here are upset that illegals are getting amnesty. It's a different time frame and a different set of circumstances. I would love to meet them and to get 20 minutes in a room where I can light their hypocritical position up like a finely rolled blunt. My firm does immigration, I have never met a legal or illegal immigrant who was upset about this. Not to mention, my family legally immigrated here. I have no problem offering amnesty. Why do you not want to offer amnesty? What is your excuse?

Right because you completely ignored the analogy. Slave A is a criminal who broke the law, exactly like an illegal immigrant, who then was freed, even though they broke the law.

Its not about how they got here, its one group getting a "unfair" benefit that the other group didnt get. But if youre unhappy with it, Ill make it better. Slave A: He escaped prior to the emancipation proclamation, which was illegal under the law. Slave B: He didnt escape, he followed the law. Both slave A and B were freed by Lincoln, shouldnt slave B be upset that slave A got freedom even though slave A was a criminal who broke the law?

Well Barnes at rookie salary + Garcia is cheaper than Deng.

1) Is there some Universal right? It depends on your culture. I am of Judeo-Christian descent, I believe that my culture dictates that I do not arbitrarily create lines in the sand for who has the ability to be free and who does not. I believe that we are not free, until all people are free. So while maybe other people in the world do not agree, I personally believe that all humans should have the right to live in whatever country they want, so long as they are willing to follow the rules of that country upon acceptance. I believe that no country should set arbitrary quotas to deny people from seeking freedom. So, I dont care what other countries do, I am saying what I think the US should do. http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigratio...nality_act.html Anyone who is after the 170,000 is denied legal access. This is an arbitrary quota system. 2) Where is this free health care you speak of? Where is this free education? Last I checked they were paid by taxes. So if you are a legal immigrant, you pay for these things, they are not free. You were right on one thing: People come here because it's a better opportunity at home. But its not free services that are the better opportunity, its the ability to have freedom. Its the ability to walk down the street and not worry about being murdered because you are not the right race, religion, etc. Its the hope that through hard work and dedication you can make a better life for your family, that the cards arent stacked against you from the start because you werent born into the dominant religion, race, etc. That is why people come to America, I have not met 1 immigrant who came here because "They wanted free healthcare or free education". I doubt you have met an immigrant who has said that either. You are just using non-first hand anecdotal evidence without any basis. 3) Well thats an entirely different argument (your first argument was that it wasnt fair to legitimate immigrants). And Obama may have gone way beyond his power, but I am not arguing whether or not what Obama did was legal or within his powers. Whether it is within his power or not, does not have any relevance on whether or not we should let more legal immigrants into the US or whether we should offer amnesty. That is merely an argument on what was the right way to accomplish the program. Thus the comparison, you said it was unfair to legal immigrants who worked hard, I said if thats the case, isnt what Lincoln did also unfair?

Bulls trade #29 and Charlotte pick for #10 if Lamb is there This one is really unnecessary. I assume your saying Jeremy Lamb Uconn and not Doron Lamb KY. There are going to be a bunch of guys at the end of the first round who could be as productive as Lamb, a guy that could really be interesting is Wroten who is a combo guard at 6'6. What really sucks is if the Bulls got the pick based on where they were eliminated (instead of record) theyd be right in line for Royce White or Perry Jones.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 01:39 PM) 1) Then do it. There's nothing stopping them. "Well officer, I mean I wanted to follow the speed limit, but it's so much faster to get to my destination going 150mph than 65mph..." Oh, ok. That's acceptable! 2) And yes, I'm arguing there were not as many benefits because people didn't EXPECT those benefits like they do today. That fundamentally changes the entire argument. And of course we're ignoring the main reason we had such an open door policy - a vast wild west that needed to be populated. And again, no one is claiming that LEGAL immigration is a bad thing, so i'm not sure why you keep saying what the benefits of LEGAL immigration are. I agree with you. 3) What I don't agree with is just unilaterally declaring illegal aliens legal. That's condoning legal behavior. That's giving a big stink finger to everyone else who did things the right way and worked hard to get here. Alphadog made a good point about that that no one has addressed yet. Ill break down your points because I think you raise some of the classic arguments, and I want to go through them. 1) There is nothing stopping them. That is not true, there is bureaucracy stopping them, there are immigration quotas stopping them. The better example is: "Well officer I wasnt following the speed limit because Toyota only could make a speedometer for every other car, and my car didnt come with one, so I had no idea what the speed limit was. When I went to the store to buy a speedometer, they said that even though they had plenty of them, they legally couldnt sell it to me because they already had sold their quota. So I would have to put in an application for a speedometer and maybe I would get one in the next 2-3 years." 2) People didnt expect those benefits. Im not sure how we can argue this one. Most people who immigrated in the early 20th century are dead. All I can go by is anecdotal evidence that they were trying to escape to a better place. That being said, I work with immigrants (legal and illegal) on a daily basis, not one has ever said that they wanted "free benefits", they all wanted to "escape to a better place". 3) Do you think it was okay for Lincoln to unilaterally declare slaves free? What about slaves that did it the right way, they earned their freedom? Werent they being given the stink finger by Lincoln who unilaterally declared slaves free? My family came here legally. I dont care if all the illegal immigrants are declared legal, that makes more legal immigrants, which you just said isnt a bad thing. So if you can turn something bad, illegal immigrants, into something good, legal immigrants, just by merely waving a wand and saying "And so it shall be done", you wave the wand. You dont sit around worrying that someones feelings might get hurt because they had to work harder. I would expect most illegal immigrants would gladly switch their positions with those legal immigrants who were lucky enough to win the lottery. And I also would expect those legal immigrants would not switch places with illegal immigrants.

I like Tara. And while there are a bunch of different story lines, I think most of them will be connected (although not sure how the Terry storyline will fit in.)

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 12:32 PM) .... come on dude. Obviously we're talking about ILLEGAL immigration here. My point was that back in the day we had an open door policy because the government wasn't adding those people onto the government payroll. The entire political and economic structure is different so it's useless to use immigration policies 100 years ago as a comparison. You're right, if everyone were immigrating legally than it should be an open door policy, but that is not reality. Legal immigration and illegal immigration are inherently tied. I would guess most immigrants would prefer to live here legally, not illegally. As for "govt wasnt adding those people to the payroll", sure they were. What you are actually arguing is that in the early 20th century there werent as many benefits, therefore adding more people to the payroll wasnt as costly. May or may not be true, but lets just for the sake of argument say that it is true, that todays society spends more per citizen than in the beginning of the 20th century. This is simply an economic issue, and I dont really believe that more legal immigrants would somehow disrupt benefits (I believe more legal immigrants will result in a net increase of tax revenue), but even if it would, you could easily create rules where immigrants do not get full benefits to start, that they have to work X amount of years before the benefits vest. Thus you could have immigrants paying into social security and not even having a promise that they would get a return. Both citizens and immigrants would win in this scenario. Immigrants get to legally live in the US, citizens get someone paying into the benefit pool who has no right to disbursement. I dont think anyone needs it to be equal from day 1, I think most people just want an opportunity.

Ive got Falling Skies on the DVR for tonight. Watched the NBA and True Blood last night.

Is this getting any traction? Or are most outlets ignoring it?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 11:53 AM) What are you talking about? I'm not confusing anything. If you immigrate to this country, you should do so through the proper legal channels and you should be paying your fair share just like everyone else. That's my point. Of course every immigrant should be legal, that's the whole point. Just in case you forgot what you said: You said it was different in the 20th century because today they get more "free benefits". I disagree with your conclusion, legal immigrants do not get free benefits, therefore there should not be a convoluted nonsensical process to becoming a legal immigrant, that entices people to bypass it and become illegal immigrants. It should be the way it was in the late 19th and early 20th century, before 1930 when the US started to enact isolationism/protectionism laws.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 11:32 AM) Undocumented immigrants pay plenty of taxes, especially if they're using a fake SSN and not being paid in cash. What point are you trying to make? That illegal immigrants are good?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 09:19 AM) People also forget that back in those days you weren't guaranteed any assistance from the government. It wasn't expected that you could come here with your 4 kids and demand free healthcare, education and financial assistance. Now that is the expectation. Come here, work, send all of your money back home and live off the system. I think you are confusing illegal immigrants and legal immigrants. If you are an illegal immigrant, you dont have to pay taxes thus you get FREE assistance. If you are a legal immigrant, you have to pay income tax thus you get the SAME assistance as every other American. So it seems that you would agree every immigrant should be "legal" therefore we can tax them and make sure they are not getting "free" benefits. I also dont think this is the expectation, and I would think many immigrants would gladly give up 1-5 years of assistance to be granted legal immigration. Because this isnt about money, its about keeping unwanted people out.

You expect the refs @ Miami to give them some calls, that is why game 2 was so frustrating, they were @ OKC. And OKC needs to stop missing free throws.

Where have I ever jumped to convict? Ive consistently said that there may have been enough evidence to charge him with a crime, which is a substantially lower thresh hold than a conviction. Well if you consider omission "editing" then yes she did. But when I originally read your comment I thought you were implying that she changed testimony (that is what most lawyers would consider editing testimony). As for weaving 2 questions together, thats just once again omission. She left out certain questions, which lead to 2 questions being juxtaposed that were not previously that way. Once again its omitting testimony. Now depending on how you are defining "editing" omission may or may not be included. That being said, your comment made it seem like you were alleging she did something wrong, and omission during impeachment is clearly allowable, so I just am not sure where this is going. What she did has no impact on whether or not the 2 questions were answered truthfully again, an example: Q: Did you rob the bank? A: No (Omitted testimony) Q: Do you know who robbed the bank? A: Yes, my brother (Return to non-omitted) Q: Do you know how much money was stolen? A: No If the person robbed the bank or knew how much money was stolen, they committed perjury. It doesnt matter that they also may have told the truth to other questions. It seems like you are not understanding that perjury is about a single question and answer, that the context doesnt matter.

The problem is that the legal way to do it has become so unnecessarily convoluted that it prevents most people from legal immigration. You see people forget that back in the late 19th and early 20th century, all you had to do was get off a boat, and you were allowed to legally immigrate here. You didnt have to get on a waiting list, hope your number was pulled etc. Im not the child of an immigrant, I am 3rd generation. But if it wasnt for the American immigration policies of those eras, its likely that I would not exist, as a good part of my family would have been killed in World War II. People forget that during the 1930s the US created laws that were anti-capitalism and isolationism/protectonism ruled the day. If the law itself is unjust, then those who break the law are not criminals. If it is against the law for a black man to drink water from a white water fountain, we do not consider the man who breaks that law a criminal or deserving of punishment, we consider that individual a freedom fighter. Just like immigrants today, who fight for the freedom to immigrate to the best country in the world. We do not have the right to deny other people the ability to come to the US for a better life. Every human deserves the chance to live in the US if they want to. And to answer the question, yes we accept everyone who wants to come here who is not a criminal or does not have a disease. It is just as simple as that, the only reason most of us are here, is because those who came before, were generous enough to give our families a chance. Its just hypocrisy.

What a thoughtful comment. I think "baah" would have been more clever.

I interviewed a girl from Miami OH yesterday, she was cute.

I think perjury charges are a waste of time, they are almost impossible to prove (see the Barry Bonds thread where I rail on it.) That being sad, your original argument was that the Prosecutor was editing the testimony, which wasnt true. You now are making the correct point, its likely that she didnt know. The estimate question is harder, but I wouldnt allow someone to be convicted over perjury over it. If I was pressed, I could estimate how much money I have in a bank account to within $500. So Im not being lazy, you asked if she edited testimony, I said she didnt. You now are completely changing the argument to something that I agree with, this is a waste of time, and likely being done as an intimidation tactic. Wow theres a shock, the govt using its power to intimidate people. Its just usually you dont see a lot of Republicans who care about the govt mistreating "alleged criminals and their family".