StrangeSox

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 03:54 PM) Fast and Furious was hardly 'lack of doing anything'. It was a complete setup to try and make guns seem worse than they are to advance his own agenda. And it got people killed, including American border patrol agents. F&F was a giant disaster of a program from the start. No arguments there. Claims that it was "a complete setup" are paranoid fantasies akin to 'Agenda 21' tinfoil-hat nonsense. Obama has done absolutely nothing on the gun control front and it isn't a plank in the DNC platform. They did not and have not pushed any legislation on this front. Gun control has really taken a beating since the AWB expired and then the Heller and McDonald rulings.

Great specious reasoning in that article. Though Obama can take credit for the paranoia-driven gun purchases after his election.

I'm going to guess a hung jury on a significant number of those charges. "It only takes one."

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 02:02 PM) I repeat what I already said. "I wouldn't want to offend a lady's delicate sensibilities with such talk!" is sexist and hilarious given the context of the issue at hand.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 01:31 PM) I could hardly care less about gun control, but this guy's analysis is just a talking point. There are individual statistics for state crime rates. If there is an obvious correlation between when a state adopts CCW and their crime rate dropping, then it should be easy for him to point it out. You mean a spokesman from the NRA, a group who insists that Obama's lack of doing anything at all on gun control is evidence of his dastardly gun control plans, might not be making an intellectually honest argument!?

Oh come on, that quote from rep. Callton is hilarious, like a 19th century victorian getting the vapors

huh. that's interesting.

what is wrong with Michigan: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2012061...vagina--comment man I can't believe that woman had the audacity to use the word "vagina" in 'mixed company' during a discussion about women's health and reproductive rights.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 09:47 AM) Hence the first two parts of my plan. Your "plan" is essentially status quo, maybe with a few more billion dumped on the border and more prisons/detention centers. We know that this is not an effective means of controlling immigration from several decades of experience.

The "incentives" for being here illegally are that it's still better to be working in a shadow economy with no legal protections from exploitation and constant fear of deportation than it is to be back in your home country. If you aren't fixing that "incentive" somehow, through harsh penalties and enforcement, having conditions in their home countries improve or allowing legal immigration, then you aren't really doing anything to address immigration problems. We know that the first method is both very expensive and very ineffective, as well.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 09:35 AM) That can be done, without using racist terminology. "yellow" is literally the terminology that was used by proponents of bills like the "Chinese Exclusion Act."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 09:15 AM) If you were actually constructing a system from scratch that really shouldn't matter, because it's not like there are real legit barriers to transit around the globe these days. I don't necessarily mean codified preferences, but it seems that an open immigration system, even with some high overall but no country-specific cap, is going to result in many more latin american immigrants simply due to ease of travel. Coming from central Africa is going to require an expensive plane ticket or a months-long journey via land and sea while coming from Tijuana will require a relatively short walk/bus ride to San Diego.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) There are going to be choices in any system. We literally can't support the world. I'm not asking to "support the world." I'm asking for plausible solutions to our broken immigration system. You aren't offering anything that actually addresses extant problems and how we prevent them from reoccurring in the future. You are absolutely right that amnesty alone is not good policy, but you aren't saying how to handle all of the people who want to come here legally. Not for hand-outs, but for jobs, as recent economic downturns and illegal immigration rates show.

Little reason except proximity i.e. it's a lot easier for a Tijuanan to immigrate than a Malawian.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 08:58 AM) Its a system that matches people to needs in this country. It is also a system that benefits the people who need it the most in the world. It gets rid of the geographic and de facto religious protections built into the system that rewards you today for "being here". In a system where you are going to have to make choices about who you let immigrate, I'd rather save the victims of a genocide or war first. For example, I'd rather save people fleeing from their government bombing them in Syria, versus someone just trying to make a bit more money from anywhere else. The system would be flexible in that it would be easy to adjust to changes in geo-political changes around the world as they happen. It would also aid immigrants as they would be coming over with skills in demand in the US, which would aid their transition into economic stability here. Don't we offer political assylum separate from our immigration quota system now? And how does this address the millions of Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, Costa Ricans, etc. who will want to come here to escape poverty, would prefer to do so legally but will do so illegally if there is no other choice, literally risking life and limb in many cases to do so? How is this much different from arguments that were used in favor of excluding southern and eastern Europeans that claimed they were poor, sickly, unskilled and unable to adapt or contribute to American society?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 08:59 AM) So if I am talking about Jim Crow laws, I can just drop the N-bomb because someone did 150 years ago? Uh, ok. If you're accurately describing the motivations of the proponents of those laws (and doing so in a condescending and ridiculing manner, as Balta was), maybe.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 08:52 AM) By using racist and intentionally inflammatory terminology to do so. Right, that's exactly what those laws did when they establish quotas. They used racist and inflammatory terminology to degrade and dehumanize immigrant groups. I'm glad we can all agree on that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 08:51 AM) No amnesty. The people who are here can decide what they want to do. The last one actually matches people to jobs. It keeps a control on the system as to not overburden it with people we can't support. Our social networks are already strained to the breaking point. That is reality. So you don't really have any solution at all to address the millions already here or the millions who will want to come in the future. Just a tweaking of the quota system to let in less poors from latin america legally, which seems to me would only exacerbate the problem.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 08:47 AM) Did I miss someone else using yellow, or something similar, to describe immigrants? Yes, the people balta was referring to in his post who originally came up with the quota system.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 08:42 AM) Of course I noticed you throwing around racist terminology. It seems to be a favorite tactic. It's a law with a racist foundation and he was pointing out the original and explicit reasoning behind those laws.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 08:41 AM) -The first law passed needs to be that any caught in the country willfully illegally (or aiding someone to do so) is barred from ever becoming a citizen. So what do you do with the 10+ million here now? This has adverse affects on minority populations, legal or not. There are serious unintended consequences to consider. How does that actually address the problem of millions coming here illegally to escape poverty?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 08:36 AM) I'm glad you get to throw around racist terms. It really helps the discussion. He's describing what those laws were and why they were enacted. They were racist laws to keep out undesirables.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 08:34 AM) Well except those in low income areas who will be directly competing for blue collar work and see their wages plummet as they get undercut by those willing to work cheaper. They're already undercut by those having to work under-the-table for sub-legal wages with no benefits because they have no legal recourse to go after exploitative employers. Legalizing these workers and giving them labor protections will cause upward pressure on wages, not downward.

Some or all of PPACA will be dead within a week or so, so that's really a moot point.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 08:28 AM) You are exactly right there. There is no incentive to follow the law, which is the whole problem here. That is why you have to actually have a law that works. Amnesty is just making sure the laws don't work. Amnesty is patching a hole left by unworkable laws. Amnesty without reform is a bad idea. Deportation without reform is a dumb, expensive, unrealistic idea. History bears both of those statements out.