Cool.  Welcome to you, Leon.  (I think the only realisitic explanation of Armando's time excesses is that he travels at the speed of light when posting.  So he's probably ageing really well, too.  What else?)

If he were traveling at near the speed of light wouldn't time go more slowly for him?

He'd also be purplish. And that's not a realistic explanation, it's a relativistic one. ;)

Welcome, Leon, thanks for taking the time and good luck at Vanderbilt!

I'm a graduate of the "school of hard knocks" myself, and I always look forward to gaining insights through other's experiences and backgrounds here at SC.

yeah, but he would be ageing well.

I think a few carefully selected abortions would allow us to breed a good lineup for SwordsCrossed.

Welcome!

I hope you can bring some insight into the workings of the Republican mind.  But I also hope you do more than just link to Redstate.

Welcome.

But Vanderbilt "the greatest school on Earth?"

How many schools have you been to?

Greetings, welcome, and congratulations (I guess) for taking on the Sisyphean task of keeping up with Armando.

By the way, you'll have to quit school now.

This is a full-time gig.

The pay sucks to start, but once the ad revenue starts flowing, you'll be rolling in it.

Money, I mean.

2 Branches can constrain 1. They got a warrant from a judge so I see nothing wrong with this. No branch is above the law, which is why I expect this will quickly turn into a discussion of the President's claim of being above laws such as FISA.

I think it is important to separate the crime, Jeffersons, from the FBI raid on a Congressional office. To me it is yet another step in the direction of greater executive power.

  We all know Yoo and Addington are dizzy with the thought of a unitary executive and broader Presidential powers. Starting with America's first pre-emptive war, an unprecedented number of signing statements, over riding the FISA courts, and now the first ever FBI raid on a Congressional office.

  Step back and view it in perspective Leon. It is cause for concern.

  While the public outcry seems a bit stinky, I think it is warrented and offers and opportunity for democrats who have been questioning executive overreach to actually do something since the Republicans are up in arms about this. In spite of the cover my ass don't investigate me feeling of this, I think checking this President's sense of unbridled authority is a brillaint idea. I am all for it.

The problem is, as I understand it, Jefferson was served a subpoena for the documents last summer, and has yet to respond to it. The reporting on this is a bit vague, so I may be misunderstanding, but given those circumstances, isn't a raid of a Congressional office completely justified?

If you're worried about executive overreach, fine, but this seems to be a bad time to bring it up. It's almost certainly going to have a net negative effect on your side.

I tend to agree that there has been some overreach on the part of all three branches in recent years, but in this case it seems to me that the judicial and executive are acting prudently,and the legislative is overreaching. And again, I'll change my opinion completely if my understanding of the subpoena circumstances are wrong.

That old saying, no problem with the patriot act, I am safe, from that. No problem with NSA spying. I am safe from that. But then they came for me, and suddenly they realized that they, the Republican rubber stamp, bobble head, (only say yes to the President), then they came after them. Oh well, that's different.
  At least there is someone left, Dennis Haster, and his merry band of yes-sayers, who are in a majority and finally willing to shake their heads sideways for once. No Mr. President this time you have gone too far.

Missed the part where you explain why it has to e dealt with separately.

As for the issue generally, my positon has been posted here already.

Unfortunately the guest worker program and guest to citizneship program will probably fail because republicans are failures at governing.

'86 immigration rules still debated

By Gillian Flaccus

Associated Press

LOS ANGELES - Luis Orozco was among the first in line nearly 20 years ago when federal lawmakers offered U.S. citizenship to nearly three million illegal immigrants. Today, he has a wife, two daughters and a car - but is still not a citizen.

For a surprising number of immigrants, the 1986 citizenship program has caused lingering problems. Hundreds of thousands whose applications were rejected sued the government and are only now seeing their visas processed. Thousands more sponsored relatives who still await legal residency.

What's more, immigration attorneys attribute much of today's immigration crisis to the last overhaul of citizenship rules, which they say encouraged fraud, increased unlawful border crossings, and set up employer sanctions that have never been enforced.

Those problems provide cautionary tales as Congress considers whether to grant citizenship eligibility to many, or any, of the nation's millions of illegal immigrants.

Orozco, who finally got a temporary residency card three months ago, said: "I hope the new people who apply have patience. I applied right away, and look how long it took."

Some immigration experts warn that the Senate bill, which proposes a path to "earned citizenship," contains the same conditions that invited a flood of lawsuits by excluding hundreds of thousands of applicants.

For Orozco, now 40, who crossed illegally from Mexico as a teenager, the 1986 amnesty seemed a chance to stop living in the shadows.

But an immigration official said he did not qualify because he left the United States briefly to visit his ill father. By Orozco's account, the official said that violated a key provision of the amnesty: that applicants could not leave the United States for one year beginning May 5, 1987.

As similar accounts mounted, attorneys filed more than a half-dozen class-action suits against the government.

According to the lawsuits, immigration officials told thousands of immigrants that they did not qualify because they briefly left the country, had violated tourist or student visas without notifying the government, or were legal for a brief period between 1982 and 1987.

Many immigrants received rulings that suspended deportation orders while the class-action cases moved through court. That allowed them to obtain work permits and driver's licenses. Others, such as Orozco, continued to live illegally.

In 2004, Orozco successfully applied for late amnesty under a settlement of one of the largest class-action cases, Catholic Social Services v. Ridge. The lead lawyer in that case fears that the Senate provision would repeat past mistakes.

The bill would make only one-fourth of 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States eligible for citizenship, said Peter Schey, a lawyer who has represented about 350,000 immigrants in amnesty lawsuits. In 1986, about half the six million illegal immigrants qualified without problems.

The Senate bill, which also includes border-security measures and a new guest-worker program, still must be reconciled with a House bill focused only on border enforcement.

Schey points to language requiring that an amnesty seeker have been in the United States illegally on one day - April 5, 2006 - to qualify for eventual citizenship. That, Schey said, would exclude thousands of illegal immigrants who briefly had legal status but lost it or violated the terms of their visas.

Schey said another provision that requires U.S. residence for five years to start on the citizenship path would exclude eight million or nine million immigrants.

Demetrios Papademetriou, a former Labor Department administrator who was involved in the 1986 amnesty, said a similar five-year residency provision then spawned many of the lawsuits - and plenty of fraud.

Papademetriou, now president of the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute, said: "If you're going to swallow hard and go with a legalization program, then you might as well try to create incentives for virtually all of the people here."

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/14669486.htm

It's a two-sided fence.

If you don't allow for more immigration, people will still try to cross the boarder - fence or no.  And unless you plan on tossing the half-million boarder hopers in jail for extended periods of time or use some other equally harsh deteriant, they'll continue to come.

If you don't enforce the boarder at all, people won't feel the need to negotiate the beaurocracy at all and will hop out of expediency.

However, I think it's somewhat of a fallacy to give one more importance than the other.  Enforcing boarder security first without reforming immigration practices will only fatten the wallets of smart and successful coyotes.  Creating an elaborate immigration policy with no enforcement mechanism first will not encourage anyone to depart the status quo of illegally immigrating.  These policies have to be implimented at the same time to show we're both serious about boarders AND responsive to an increased demand for immigration.

In light of 1986, it's not.

Here is why that won't work:

And here we come to the crux of this bizarre problem. If this were any other issue, we would never have come to this juncture. Ever since the New Deal and before, Congress has consistently delegated more and more of its power and policy-making apparatus to the executive branch. Whatever your Constitutional view of this, there are sound pragmatic reasons why this was an inevitable development: specialization and expertise being the most commonly advanced among them. For myself, I think there are good political reasons behind this shift as well - Congress, with incumbency rates that typically hover around 90%, is democratically accountable in only a very vague way. The President, in addition to being term limited, has only had an incumbency rate of around 50% in the modern era (exactly 50% in the last 30 years). The only seat in the country which has to be continually and vigorously defended in a legitimate way is the Presidency, and more and more, actual policy shifts seem to come either from the Executive branch, or not at all.

A consistent feature of the post-New Deal landscape has been an executive all too happy to exercise whatever power Congress wants to delegate - and then some that it doesn't. For some bizarre reason, when it comes to immigration, administrations both Democrat and Republican refuse to exercise both legitimate statutory authority and statutory mandates. I wrote earlier that McCain-Kennedy was a good bill because it gave the Executive Branch more than enough authority to adequately secure the border. The twist to this political equation is that the President does not want to use the authority, and seemingly will not exercise it unless he is specifically required to do so.

Congress for a long time has been ducking responsibility for policy decisions by passing the buck to Executives, letting the President win or lose his elections on the strength of implementing vague statutory mandates which the Congress can run away from if the ultimate implementation runs afoul of public opinion. Generally, the surest way to get the President to do more is to specify less. In this particular equation, successive administrations have destroyed the faith of the American people that any President can be counted on to do anything he isn't expressly commanded to do.

That is the calculus when it comes to immigration.

P.S. I'm not interested in Lou's opinion on much of anything.

And anyone who thinks Lou's opinion on immigration isn't worth its bandwidth is alright in my book.

You're right (and incidentally, did I screw up the comment thread?) Employer enforcement is a very good first place to start.

using illegals is far more a problem with smaller companies than "corporations".  I know Walmart used the old "not my employee, just a contractor" lie.

I don't see your link to Nafta/Cafta at all.  These treaties should have kept these people home.

Alot of American jobs get shipped over the boarder because wags are lower overseas.  Then those overseas countries end up sending us large numbers of immigrants who want to be paid more.

Perhaps part of the problem is letting American companies profiteer in foreign nations.

Here's a thought: expand minimum wage laws to include employees of all businesses that do their business in the US.  If you're a textile company and you want to sell shirts in America, you have to pay your employees (or contract with companies that pay their employees) the fair minimum wage alotted to American citizens.

If you want to do business in our country, I don't see why you should be allowed to skirt our labor laws by hopping the boarder.  The American economy is attractive enough to keep businesses selling here.  And I suspect you'd see sweatshops dry up as the practice loses it's economic viability.

why after?

if you punished the businesses, they will react.  The demand will reduce.

Note, from my point of view this is a hypothetical question only, I believe we ought to make it easy for any hard worker in the world to come to america.

I strongly oppose building walls and barriers.  For one thing, they are very disruptive to migratory species, such as the bighorn sheep.  Secondly, they are visually and spiritually ugly, and project offensiveness to our neighbors.  Third, to the extent that immigration needs to be controlled, it can be controlled through hiring practices alone.

In this immigration debate I am amused by the liberal fetish of punishing businesses who employ illegal immigrants. It's hilarious.

Sounds like a good start.  But I'm not convinced a fence is enough to keep the illegals out.  Will it be electrified?  Will there be armed guards?  Dogs?  We need to have a game plan here.

You're starting to get it, Ender.

Compound F

Please don't give them any brilliant ideas. We all know how the GOP likes to do national security on the cheap.....just look at Iraq.

We have shipped jobs overseas to cheaper labor markets.  No question.

But linking that to people then wanting to come here is nonsensical to me.  We've shipped quite a few jobs to Mexico.  The problem is, there are way more poor Mexicans than those jobs can cover.  Their economy is screwed up, in great part due to a Republican approach to taxes, land ownership, asset ownership.  The few have it all and pay little tax and the rest just struggle but pay most of the taxes which are on consumption.  That and our Ag policies which have killed their markets with subsidized exports.  If not for the oil rev to provide some minimal services, that place would go up in flames.

And a lot of Americans don't mind buying their labor off the back of a truck (so to speak).  The same rednecks that decry illegal immigration think nothing of going down to Home Depot, or whereever the illegals congregate, to get day workers to do whatever for cash.  We're a hypocritical nation.

As for trying to impose wage mins overseas, I wouldn't hold your breath trying to sell that one.

this is not a liberal argument.  It would take a Republican to mangle logic this badly.

can't agree.

We don't have world economy in all ways.  You cannot arbitrage physical services such as gardening, construction, hotel work, ag work to India or China.  We can keep those jobs well paid enough to provide a decent living if we hold out the 2 billion people on the earth that live on less than $5/day.

We need a more orderly race to the median than just opening the floodgates.  I find it un American to kill the ability of our own lower middle class to make a decent living by using the world's virtually unlimited supply of destitute labor to undercut him/her.

The natives might also quibble re your 100% invaders assertion as well.

In previous debates on this issue I've supported going after businesses. I just think it's very funny that every time someone proposes various solutions, even just talking about securing the border, a liberal will always jump in with "well we really need to go after businesses who hire them".

Unfailingly this is the most often used response, like that will magically solve all our problems. I simply pointed out that liberals love the idea of going after businesses and will use any pretext to sneak that in.

Free trade agreements are a disaster because they address none of the issues that would actuallt make lives better for Americans and Mexicans alike.

Supply-and-Demand Solutions

By David Sirota

Amid all the rhetoric in the superheated immigration debate, many have forgotten the key question: Why?

Why do so many Mexicans want to come to America in the first place? The answers to this question revolve around the concept of supply and demand ? and they tell us about how to address illegal immigration and overcome the core economic challenges facing middle-class Americans.

Fact: Many Mexicans are willing to risk their lives to enter the United States illegally because they are desperate to find a better life. In supply-and-demand terms, the supply of jobs in Mexico that one can subsist on is far less than the demand for such jobs.

But that raises the next and deeper ?why? question: Why is the supply of decent-paying jobs in Mexico so low? Therein lies an issue neither Democrats nor Republicans want to address, because it touches on public policies both have supported.

Fact: Both political parties have joined hands in recent years to ink trade pacts that have destroyed the Mexican economy and created a supply-and-demand imbalance there. The biggest of these was the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ? a pact sold to the American people as a job creator here, and an economic development tool for Mexico. But, of course, the pact did not include any provisions to protect or increase Mexican workers? wages, workplace standards or human rights, thus all it did was open up a cheap labor pool for companies to exploit.

Fact: A decade after NAFTA?s passage, America is still hemorrhaging the good-paying jobs that NAFTA was supposed to create. As for Mexico, the Washington Post?s report on the 10-year anniversary of NAFTA told the story: 19 million more Mexicans now live in poverty than before the pact was signed. Similarly, former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich points out, ?Mexico?s real wages are lower than they were before [NAFTA].? And because NAFTA included no provisions to force companies to improve Mexican working conditions, jobs that were created in Mexico still pay near-slave wages For instance, the Associated Press noted this week that ?Many young [Mexicans] have manual jobs on minimum wage of $5 a day.?

Time Magazine recently shed further light on the situation, reporting that , ?Even when new jobs do appear, [Mexico?s] unforgiving low-wage business culture ? the dark shame of Mexico?s political and economic leaders, which NAFTA was also supposed to reform ? makes sure that they still often pay in a day what similar work would pay in an hour in the United States.?

Not surprisingly, Mexican workers? demand for a better life hasn?t gone away ? in economic terms, the demand is inelastic. And so that demand is looking for a job supply north of the border.

This is the supply-and-demand reality that no amount of emotional rhetoric can change ? and in that reality we can find the way to address illegal immigration: by stopping the demand instead of trying to block the supply. The Academy Award-winning movie, ?Traffic,? highlighted the perils of waging a drug war that only focuses on trying to block the supply of narcotics, rather than on eliminating the demand for them.

These same lessons can be applied to illegal immigration. The best way to stop illegal entry into our country from Mexico is to tamp down the demand by Mexicans to enter this country illegally. After all, no wall, no fence, no border security measure can be as effective as reducing the demand for entry. This means reforming our trade policy to include serious wage, workplace and human-rights provisions so that cross-border commerce actually improves the lives of Mexican workers to the point where they no longer feel the dire economic need to break our immigration laws.

Think about it this way: Had NAFTA lifted 19 million Mexicans out of poverty as promised instead of helping to drive 19 million Mexicans into poverty, you can bet the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border would be a trickle instead of the flood it is today. To be sure, politicians are talking about amnesty or guest-worker programs to give workers some kind of legal status. But if those proposals do not come hand-in-hand with a reform of America?s trade policies, they are destined to be what they have been in the past ? merely short-term, stopgap measures, not real solutions.

Until America?s political leaders start making trade policy address the imbalance between the demand for good jobs and the supply of good jobs in Mexico, illegal immigration will continue to be a major problem right here at home.

Makes some good points. Here's a similar article.

----

And what of Mexico? Since NAFTA's implementation, direct foreign investment in Mexico has totaled $124 billion - more than five times the amount recorded during the previous decade. Mexico's exports to the United States have nearly tripled, making it America's second-largest trading partner, topped only by Canada. Mexico's economy has averaged a four percent growth rate over the last 10 years, despite a devastating financial crisis in 1995.

Even so, Mexico's overall poverty rate has remained static, at roughly one fourth of the population. The World Bank's vice president for Latin America and the Caribbean, David de Ferranti, says NAFTA has been a boon to Mexico's northern regions, which saw a surge in manufacturing activity, but has had little if any impact on the rest of the country. Speaking at a recent conference in Washington, Mr. De Ferranti described NAFTA as a moderate success for Mexico.

"Overall positive, but falling unevenly across the economy and population of Mexico," he said. "The benefits could have been better if more had been done in Mexico to address key development issues, for example, to correct under-investment in education, innovation and infrastructure."

And what of Mexico? Since NAFTA's implementation, direct foreign investment in Mexico has totaled $124 billion - more than five times the amount recorded during the previous decade. Mexico's exports to the United States have nearly tripled, making it America's second-largest trading partner, topped only by Canada. Mexico's economy has averaged a four percent growth rate over the last 10 years, despite a devastating financial crisis in 1995.

Even so, Mexico's overall poverty rate has remained static, at roughly one fourth of the population. The World Bank's vice president for Latin America and the Caribbean, David de Ferranti, says NAFTA has been a boon to Mexico's northern regions, which saw a surge in manufacturing activity, but has had little if any impact on the rest of the country. Speaking at a recent conference in Washington, Mr. De Ferranti described NAFTA as a moderate success for Mexico.

"Overall positive, but falling unevenly across the economy and population of Mexico," he said. "The benefits could have been better if more had been done in Mexico to address key development issues, for example, to correct under-investment in education, innovation and infrastructure."

----

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/3-12-31/17833.html

I've always admired Clinton's free?trade policy. It was a principled, intelligent stand. Economists generally agree free trade is good.

OTOH, my understanding is that virtually all wealth in Mexico is controlled by 30 families.? Sounds like we may be enriching them at everyone else's expense.

?

?

Immigration is not about US being fair to various poor peoples around the world. Immigration is about US getting the best and the brightest to our own benefit. The point of any US policy is supposed to be looked at from the point of view of what's in our own best interest. Not what's fair to the Hatians or Africans.

So hopefully the House will not allow watering down our immigration standards of who we let in. I know republican leadership there is not as appeasing of whatever the "world wants" as the pathetic Senate.

This comment does not really touch on the immigration debate directly, but discusses your point about a world economy vs a world government.

Most political philosophers I have read, from Aristotle to Machiavelli to Locke, and even Marx, argue that the nation-state as we know it is developed to protect the assets and resources of the wealthy (i.e. those that have these resources).  In this framework, a world economy necessitates a world government to level the playing field and open the markets up to those with resources.  In effect, that?s what these free-trade agreements are attempting to accomplish, the development of a de facto world government.  Other organizations, such as the WTO and World Bank help this process along.  It seems to me, those we call liberal are not in favor of this type of world government, but conservatives might be.  OTOH, liberals tend to believe in universal human rights and such, and they believe that some type of world forum, such as the UN can accomplish this.  I think both have their positives and negatives, but the economic-type world government is actually more aligned with our conception of a nation-state than the liberal version, since governments were not originally initiated to discuss human rights-type issues.  So when I hear conservatives rail about a world government (UN black helicopters and New World Order stuff) I think they actually need to look at their own.

Our idea of a state or nation in a couple of decades will change dramatically because of these economic realities (Multi-national corporations, etc).

Free trade is good but not at a detriment to the people while benefitting the corporate elite. It would have been more pricipled and intelligent had Clinton worked include  provisions to protect or increase workers? wages, workplace standards, human rights, and environmental standards.

This is Clinton's biggest failure. One of the few that he had. It also paved the way for the passage of CAFTA.

Yep. Better starting uncoiling the concertina wire across Niagara Falls:

A "robust Irish smuggling ring" operating out of a popular pub in Buffalo has been smuggling dozens of Irish citizens from Canada into the United States for about three years, U.S. court documents show.

The proprietor, bartenders and customers of the pub, which is less than five kilometres from the Peace Bridge border crossing at Fort Erie, Ont., have shuttled across the border as many as 50 Irish nationals, many of whom had previously been deported or denied entry into the United States.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5a3107de-e1ba-4fe9-aaa1-a6ad09d55469&k=78612

i meant pesky Cubans like Armando :)

I think its worth noting that the Korean border is militarized to seperate their militaries not their populations.  South Korea isn't worried about a massive influx of day laborers, they're worried about tanks.

Likewise, the wall around the West Bank is to keep out mortar rounds and RPGs.

Even Germany in the 50s wasn't divided to keep cheap labor out of the West, it was built to keep it in the East.  Imagine America building a 700 mile wall designed to hedge out Soviet defectors or Iraqis fleeing Sadam and you get an idea of what the wall against Mexico is designed for.

How sad?  How wonderful!  That a country with such great wealth and power would seek to do more than simply pander to its own greed and self-interest.

Unfortunately, the facists of the Republican Party don't want "your poor, your tired, your huddled masses".  Let Mexico solve its own problems (so long as they don't touch American businesses or we'll send in the military).  Let Democracy form naturally in Columbia (unless it upsets our highly successful War on Drugs).  We're not interested in anyone south of the border making a life for himself in America.  They need to stay down south where we can milk'm for cheap labor.

I hope in '08 the Democratic candidate will point this out.  Elect a Republican and you will be saddled with people not interested in what's best for anyone except themselves.

Good points.

Why should Cubans be given preferential treatment compared to Haitians? Are the Haitians not equally desparate, poor and subjugated?

I agree, universalism is an underappreciated concept.

I was only comparing Cuba to Haiti and Africa. Compared to those the immigrants from there are better. Communist regimes opress their people with some of the worlds worst totalitarian system. Which is why it is our policy to accept refugees from there.

Otherwise it is far from ridiculous to want what is in our country's best interest. We do not need an unlimited supply of poor from the 100th world countries.

The need to secure the border before addressing the status of illegals already here makes sense only if whatever policy is adopted encourages a flood of new immigrants.

Here's what I think our policy on those already here should be:

1. Amnesty for all those illegally in the country who do not have criminal records and who have not been living on government assistance. This applies to anyone who can demonstrate that he/she was in the country for at least two years prior to June 1, 2006. Those who qualify will receive  permanent resident status and will be eligible for citizenship through the normal procedures. 

2. Everyone in the country illegally would have one year to register their status. Anyone not doing so would be subject to deportation.

3. Everyone who registers must divulge his/her entire work history while in the United States. Employers will be subject to civil fines. Employers will also be required to make payments to the Social Security Trust Fund on behalf of those employees. Employers who come clean and make arrangements to pay their fines and any back Social Security taxes due will not be subjected to criminal prosecution. Those who do not will be subjected to tripled fines and possible felony charges with mandatory jail time.

4. A quota system to be established to permit a specified number of unskilled immigrants into the United States from Mexico each year. Permits to enter the United States to be given out by lottery. Family members of those already in the United States would not receive any special consideration. No entry permits to be issued within 200 miles of the border.

5. Illegal entry into the United States would become a felony.

I fully understand the illegal immigrants motivation.  I just don't get why I should support having millions of them here just because they are hard working. 

If we raise minimum wages enough and enforce the law, our own less educated workers will fill the jobs instead.  It's not like we are short of people.  If we are, a guest worker program or controlled immigration are IMO, a better way to fit the need.

well you proved his point. 

The Repub party is for those that only care about themselves and perhaps in a vague way, the USA (except liberals, non WASPs, etc).  Small wonder things go to rat shit for the average joe when the R's are in control.

I might point out at no time did he suggest we'd put other countries benefits over our own.  That is a fabrication of your own making.

It might have made more sense then Iraq. At least we are close enough to there to control the situation better. That said, we can not and should not pretend that we can control every part of the world and expect them to do what is best for our country. Often our meddling has led to bad feelings that have had horrible consequences.

Cuba regime is worse than Haiti or Africa(which is a continent)? Communism doesn't work and is oppressive but you need to get out of the bubble, boy.

And please explain how Cubans are better than Haitians and Africans? Is it becasue they act more like white people? Tell us all please. You already claim that cubans are smarter, why because blacks are stupid? Because Cubans vote for repubs at a higher percentage? You still have yet to explain yourself. What makes Cubans BETTER than Haitians or Africans?

Than why do you support the invasion of Iraq. The only reason that's left for us to be there is to free the Iraqi people and build them a demcoracy. A theocracy that is building a coaltion with Iran. What benefit is there for the US?

Flagged again for repeating Rush/Fox propaganda. This statement is totally ridiculous: "Sure, elect a democrat and we?ll do what is best for France, China, Russia, and the rest of the world. Elect a republican and you?ll get what is in the best selfish interest of US. I?d love a campaign with such a difference."

I was not talking about just you. You are not every single liberal. And if you said that we need to seal the border first, then good for you. I agree with both sealing the border *and* going after businesses... I was just pointing out what many liberals place emphasis on, and why.

Ender imo it is important for the U.S. to be fair to people regardless of race or ethnicity.  That is what is in the U.S.'s best interests in the long run.

I am sure you will see that as naive.  However if our government were a little more naive perhaps 2450 of our soldiers would still be alive, and 30,000 Iraqis would not have died by our hand.

Well, meddling is a sign of strength.  If we meddle with the Mexican government, probably the Central American governments will recognize our intent and fall into line.  This will save us effort, and give us everything we want for 10% of the effort.

As for this amusing prattle about "aggression is a war crime," who do you think defines war crimes?  Who enforces the Geneva Convention?  All international law is enforced from a position of either threatened strength or manifest victory.  In other words, from a position of aggression.  And anyway, illegal immigration is a form of aggression, too.  Our economy is ravaged by tens of millions of undocumented aliens.  You're telling me that that's not an "act of aggression" that justifies measures of self-defense?  Just where does your moral compass point to?  Mine is aimed for America's best interests.

I don't know what exactly you mean by fairness but if you mean admitting equal numbers of people based on race or ethnicity that is yet another example of ridiculous and anti-American interest affirmative action. We have to admit that some immigrants (not white or asian) have the skills we want, and some do not. Or do you want to bankrupt us by forever expanding our welfare state? You want people who will make America better. Now whether those engineers and computer scientists and doctors come from Czech republic or Zimbabwe, I do not care, but we should prefer higher skill to manual laborers. I think we got enough of those with the mexican illegals.

Are you really that dumb? Do you know what the majority religion in Iran is? Iraq?

Is the ME more stable? Is there less terrorism? Is the oil market more stable?

All you do is espouse right wing talking points about "liberals" and how republicans do no wrong. You don't think for yourself. Conservastives/republicans have pointed out your  ignorance. You don't come here to discuss or answer questions. You ignore facts that point out your ignorance. Why are you here?

I am done talking to you. Perhaps when you can respect people with different views from yourself.

You denigrate everyone else then say they don't respect your views. You ignore facts and claim that your views matter. Opinion are only opinions if they are based on fact. If they are debunked by fact then it is just willful ignorance to continue to repeat them ad nauseum.

Why is it attacking when one says "liberals believe..."?

Are you insulted when I discuss liberal views? You guys discuss conservative views and that's fine, why should you take everything so personally?

But fine, I'll try to generalize less :) Even though most of it is spot on. I don't mind your vitriol, you are somewhat funny.

Maybe facts that come to you in a drug induced coma.

and while I understand those jobs pay below our minimum wage, they can pay more than other jobs in those countries pay, esp in china. 

I'm not in favor of workers getting paid zippo over there so I can have cheaper crap here.  However, I dont think we have the power to enforce work standards in other sovereign nations.  Coerce, yes.  enforce, no.

pretty overwrought.  Mexico has not been dominated by shitty American corporate behaviour like the banana companies pulled further south.  Their mess is mostly of their own making. 

It's a conservative place, controlled by Catholic social policies and a tight knit group of rich landowners that pimp the rest.  It's Tom Delay's vision for America.

international agreements are not unilateral.  immigrants are not necessarily bad for the economy.

I'm with you.  However, there are some cases that deserve consideration.  For example, Mom comes in illegally 5 years ago.  marries legal spouse, has 2 legal kids.  I can't justify sending her home tearing up a family.  I just can't.

Fetish is not necessarily an insult...

I'll try to be less insulting :)

Thank god the US has no hand in the Mexican economy.  Certainly, I've never seen products in the US with "Made in Mexico" on the label.  Who's been surpressing every leftist movement in Central America since the 1900s?  Certainly not the US.  Who's been installing military dictators in half a dozen Latin American countries whenever there is a communist uprising?  Certainly not the US.

Of course the US is completely innocent and beyond copability in Mexico's ridiculous economy and neglectful government.  We didn't push Mexico down that flight of stairs.  She fell, cause she's a stupid clumsy whore.

GOP4me: my moral compass is aimed at justice.  Pointing your moral compass to a geographical location makes as much sense as pointing a magnetic compass to your heart.

immigrants are not necessarily bad for the economy.

As an abstract concept, no.  In terms of our current economy, yes.

I?m gonna go with Ghandi on this one ?I like your Christ. I don?t like your Christians; they are so unlike your Christ?.

Gandhi was a butcher.  He got more Indians killed than anyone since Timur.  If Pakistan and India get into a nuclear war, you can thank your precious Gandhi for that, too.  But he had lots of fun quotes about peace and stuff, and he wasn't personally violent, so he's okay with the liberals. 

GOP4me: my moral compass is aimed at justice. Pointing your moral compass to a geographical location makes as much sense as pointing a magnetic compass to your heart.

In other words, America takes second place in your heart to some vague concept you define for yourself.  Forgive me if I don't share your moral outlook.  America is my focus.  What's good for America is good for me, good for my loved ones, good for the world, and good for God, Who guides this country into goodness.  You may disagree, but I hardly think your devotion to flowery terminology grants you a moral vantage point of sufficient superiority that you can snipe at my moral impetus without incurring retaliation.

I'm insulting him? Ender is insulting everyone here. Go read thread chief.

As a programmer I agree to write the program to post Ender's rants of genralizing "liberals" using rush limabugh talking points.

I'll take a copy pls!

re Ghandi

Even people you ardently disagree with can still make insightful obeservation.

The more I read your writing, the more I find his observations on Christianists to be on target. 

Forgive me if I don?t share your moral outlook. America is my focus. What?s good for America is good for me, good for my loved ones, good for the world, and good for God, Who guides this country into goodness.

Hmm must be a reader of that 700 club abridged bible.  No mention of America when I was a lad in Sunday school.  Nor that one nation is to be held above others.

You are precisely the psuedo-Christian Mark Twain was writing to in his war prayer.  Read it and reflect on what your words mean:

http://www.geocities.com/athens/4824/war-prayer.htm

I think the last line is your direction to take a look in the mirror.

Endless ad hominems.  When are you going to argue a point I made, HiC?  Or is it that you have no arguments to make, and are only capable of resorting to ad hominems now that reason and commmon sense are so manifestly absent from your side of this debate?

I?m on board.  Afterwards let?s take over South America as an excuse for the drug war. Oh, oh, next let?s go to Africa, because then we can get our wives cheaper diamonds.  Wait, wait, let?s not stop there; next we can take on Europe, ?cause I hear the French Riviera is convenient to vacation in during the summer.  Do we really need Asia?  Ok, we can get cheap plastics and textiles from there.  What next?  Um, how about Australia?  Maybe we can send all our criminals there, since it is not inhabited.  Now, what?s left for the shining lighthouse of freedom and democracy of the ole? US of A?  Who else might we take over for our benefit? 

Like everyone (most others) else here, I almost did not respond because of the utter idiocy of these remarks, but then I decided I could not sleep letting you people think this way.  You guys are sick.  Your imperialism is sheer fascism plain and simple (re: Hitler invading Poland or Austria?look it up).  Don?t you have any strategies that do not include yourselves as arm-chair generals (chickenhawks) and sending countless innocent people to their deaths?  Think for once in your lives.

It's stories like these that prove Iraq is a fucking disaster.

  By Liz Sly

Tribune foreign correspondent

Published May 29, 2006

BAGHDAD -- On the western bank of the Tigris River, scenes of intense activity rarely witnessed in Iraq are unfolding behind the fortified perimeter of the closely guarded Green Zone.

Trucks shuttle building materials to and fro. Cranes, at least a dozen of them, punch toward the sky. Concrete structures are beginning to take form. At a time when most Iraqis are enduring blackouts of up to 22 hours a day, the site is floodlighted by night so work can continue around the clock.

This is to be the new U.S. Embassy in Iraq, and it will be the biggest embassy in the world. It also is the biggest construction project under way in battered Baghdad, where the only other cranes rising from the skyline belong to Saddam Hussein's abandoned project to build the world's biggest mosque.

The irony is not lost on Mohammed Jasim, 48, a truck driver who was forced out of his home last month by sectarian violence and now is squatting in an abandoned building just across the river from the $592million embassy project.

"They could build houses, or they could bring security to Baghdad," Jasim complained as he sat in the shade of a big tree on the riverbank. "But it's clear they only came here for their own benefit because you can see how much money they are spending across the river."

Though the site is an open secret, U.S. Embassy officials, currently based in Hussein's former Republican Palace, are forbidden to discuss it.

Senate report reviews project

The few details available are contained in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee report. Scheduled for completion in June 2007, the 104-acre embassy compound, roughly the size of the Vatican, will resemble a mini-state, entirely independent from the outside world. It will generate its own power, pump its own sewage and draw its own water.

Within the compound there will be six buildings containing 619 apartments for diplomats, a barrack for Marine guards, separate residences for the ambassador and his deputy, a gym, a swimming pool, a club, a food court, a beauty salon, a vehicle workshop and a warehouse. There is also, the report noted, an emergency exit.

The Senate report marveled at the meticulous planning.

"Most major construction projects undertaken in Iraq since 2003 have not met these standards," it said. "No large-scale U.S.-funded construction program in Iraq has yet met its schedule or budget," the report added, noting that this one is on schedule and within budget.

Iraqis also are marveling at the scale of the project and the rapid rate at which it is starting to rise above the walls of the Green Zone, which is off-limits to most Iraqis.

"Why are they only building this building?" asked Abdul Kareem al-Khiat, sales manager of the 14-story Babylon Hotel, whose riverside rooms have panoramic views of the construction site. "All the Iraqis are asking this question."

A lack of security is the main answer. Violence has deterred all but the most meager reconstruction projects. The wreckage of the ministries and government buildings destroyed by American missiles in 2003 still litter Baghdad's landscape. The blackened shells of shops and mosques blown up since then by suicide bombers add to the air of decay hanging over the city.

For security reasons, the new embassy is being built entirely by imported labor. The contractor, First Kuwaiti General Trading and Contracting Co., which was linked to human-trafficking allegations by a Chicago Tribune investigation last year, has hired a workforce of 900 mostly Asian workers who live on the site.

Most American civilians working in Baghdad are forbidden from leaving the Green Zone because of the dangers that lie beyond. The Senate report questioned "the net worth of having an embassy when it is so isolated" and suggested that purchasing a video teleconferencing system would "improve interaction" with local Iraqis.

Many Iraqi politicians also rarely leave the Green Zone. Government ministries are there, and politicians live there to avoid the hazards of commuting in and out of the zone. As Iraq's third government in as many years takes office, there is a chronic shortage of housing.

An alien experience

To most Iraqis, the Green Zone is another planet. Only one much-bombed entry point admits ordinary Iraqis, who must endure body searches at each of five checkpoints before being admitted to one small portion of the zone.

Though it's now officially called the International Zone, suggesting a foreign country, those living inside still refer to the rest of Iraq as "the Red Zone."

>From his Red Zone vantage point, al-Khiat often looks across the river and wonders about life on the other side. The 6-square-mile chunk of central Baghdad was carved out for the use of the U.S. occupation authority in the months following the invasion, setting off-limits the roads, parks and restaurants that used to be a part of his daily itinerary.

"I haven't been there in three years," al-Khiat said. "I would like to go, but I don't dare. Someone might shoot me."

Yes. 53-3. They are voting with their lack of voice. Believe me, they were not in silent agreement after being struck by an epiphany from your brilliant commentary.

Frankly, I write for the silent majority of the blogosphere, who are conservative, rather than for loud-mouthed liberal commenters. 

Ok, so now we have the potential (political capital) to attack anyone we?ve had a past skirmish with. I guess we can add Britain, Germany, Japan, Italy, Phillipines, Spain, Cuba, Russia (and implicitly most of Eastern Europe), among others into a pool of legitimate attacks. Must get revenge . . .

But those nations aren't currently attacking us, as Mexico is.  Can't you see the distinction?

Loaded question, but I?ll answer anyway.

Relax, the safety's on. 

If you truly want immigration to stop, you must make the incentive to immigrate disappear. In otherwords, we must help build Mexico?s economy, which, to anticipate your argument that I am choosing Mexico over the US, would in turn improve our economy by providing an increased market and lessen the burden of immigration in the US also.

Well, I respectfully disagree with your prediction of the outcome.  The US has consistently suffered when other nations have improved their economy.  And nothing eliminates immigration like shifting the border to encompass the area previously immigrated from.

Rescingd NAFTA, invest in a Mexican market in some kind of Marshall plan, and make sure Mexican workers make enough (about or slightly less than our minimum wage, which most make here in the US) to keep them home.

In other words, pour in money and hope for the best from a corrupt government.  No thank you.  I'd rather we have direct military oversight over our investment.  Traditionally, that works better. 

You don?t see Canada sending an influx of immigrants into the US. Why? They have no incentive.

They're pretty thin on the ground, too.  Plus, they're scared of us, and rightly so.  We've invaded them every chance we got, and I'm sure sooner or later we'll invade them for good.  Not advocating that or denigrating it, just making an observation. 

Even if we accepted your plan, you would have immigrants flocking by boat. You must solve the problem, not just put a band-aid on the symptoms.

That's why we'd have minefields in the water.  Anyone who didn't approach our shores via designated trade routes would have to swim the last 100 miles or so.  There's a solution for every problem, you see.