Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678914 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 319
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    You have GOT to be kidding me.

    Shopharim ... do you have any opinions on ANYTHING else in this thread? Anything. Pick something, please. lol
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    If you're confused hoovs, it's not my fault.

    Immigrant can easily mean either documented or undocumented, but call them whatever makes you happy.
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I call them what they are. The rally yesterday was not about "immigrants rights" but about amnesty for illegal aliens. That's a fact.
    The definition of what we are talking about is a VERY valid and basic topic that the rest of the thread depends on.

    If your definition of an immigrant is unique only to you which is simply anyone who crosses our border illegally smuggled in a box (which everyone else defines as illegal immigrants and illegal aliens) and for those who legally walk thru the gate with proper documents (which what an immigrant really is) then you are going to be spinning in circles when someone makes a comment about an immigrant, because you maybe thinking or posting about an illegal immigrant or an immigrant (aka a legal one) or both....and no one else will know what the heck you are thinking or talking about for sure.

    Determining and recognizing proper terms and their definitions is a healthy and valid step in any debate. To do otherwise is to purposely create havoc in a debate with inaccurate definitions.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Hoovs interpretations aside, fact is, there were 20 thousand demonstrators, and 20 thousand reasons for demonstrating.
    Yes.....to demand that the USA legalize their illegal actions.
  3.    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Now that is a fair statement and no matter if one agrees with it or not, it is a valid proposal.

    The point when you brought up Canada's immigration policy and process with such a brief comment on what parts you liked and did not like about it....is that they have VERY serious lapses in their security screening and requirements in the immigration process.
    With all due respect, what you are likely to have heard about the immigration policy of Canada has much more to do with political propoganda than it does with fact.

    As I pointed out a bit before, the immigration policy of the United States is not only a discriminitory patchwork, but it is also about as secure as swiss cheese.

    Without demanding that you post evidence and assuming you are lying until you do, I would just encourage you to seek out objective evidence that the Canadian Immigration policy is in fact less secure as a whole than the American policy.
  4.    #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Yes.....to demand that the USA legalize their illegal actions.
    Just when i had almost begun to accept that you could be a rational level headed moderate thinker.

    Surely, you dont claim to speak for all 20 thousand of them.
  5. #65  
    Yesterday's rally was about granting amnesty for Mexican illegal immigrants, or at least shutting down the call for stronger border enforcement. It was spun by the rally organizers (and enabled by the media) as some sort of "celebration of immigrants" holiday.

    I've got several thoughts on this subject, so here's a few...

    - I'm all for immigration reform if that's needed. So, if there's racial bias, economic bias, etc. which allows certain people to flow through the immigration process quickly while others have to jump through hoops and wait forever, let's look at that. I think that's a good idea and maybe that will be a positive thing that will come out of this. But that's not what I've heard *anyone* calling for here. I've heard the Mexican illegal immigrants ask for amnesty, others to ask for guest worker visas, etc.

    - Follow the money. This is about cheap labor. This is the blue collar equivalent to the white collar H1-B visa atrocity that we suffer with. For the high-tech industry, the industry claims that "there aren't enough skilled workers" so we need more H1-B visas. For the blue-collar jobs they claim that "Americans aren't willing to do these jobs." In both cases, it's all about more money in the CEO and investors' pockets and stagnating or even decreasing the worker bee's wages and rights. These workers (H1-B and day laborers) don't have the same rights as citizens. They can't unionize, they'll put up with poor working conditions, etc. They're the modern form of indentured servants. Mind you, they do this *willingly* because as bad as the wages and working conditions may be from an American's perspective, for them it's better than what they can make back home, so they put up with it. And that's exactly how big business likes it. Poor pay and poor working conditions and people who don't complain about it.

    Those of you who are all for improving the lives of these Mexican illegal immigrants: Look closely at what the president and the liberal democrats are proposing. They both serve the interests of the corporations. They aren't proposing true amnesty (as they proudly proclaim). Fines, requiring learning English, etc. Yes, some will make it through those hoops (which seem easy to us Americans). Many others won't. Remember, that we're talking about low-paid (often under the table, paid below minimum wage) workers. These fines will be very significant for them. And back taxes? You think they've got a savings account building up?

    This whole thing is about smoke and mirrors and keeping the status quo. The president and the Democrats want to craft something that sounds like it's somehow diminishing the security risk of a steady flow of unknowns crossing the border while also being "sensitive" to these hard working people. In reality, none of them want to grant true amnesty because that would mean making them legal citizens who enjoy the full rights of a citizen. See notes above about what the corporations want. They don't want full-right noisy problematic citizens working for them, they want people with little rights who won't complain, will get paid below minimum wage, and will say thank you for it all.

    But just so I can offend the rest of you...I also believe that since many of these people (day laborers and H1-B visa holders) don't necessarily want to be true American citizens anyway, but just are here to get more money, we shouldn't necessarily feel too bad about making a distinction about those who want to be Americans and those who don't. Here's a radical idea: Do you *really* want to be an American? Do you love this country and what it stands for (or claims to, anyway)? Welcome, here's your citizenship. Just here for the extra money that you plan on sending home or saving up and moving back home and living like a king there? Here's the door.

    Being a bit more realistic...I started out talking about how I think an honest look at whether the current immigration procedure is fair is a good idea. If I was making public policy, my other big priority would be to ensure that we had an accurate method of determining one's US citizenship (perhaps driver's licenses are complicated enough to fake these days that this would fit the bill). We then make all employers validate their employees' citizenship using this method. We then crack down hard on any and all employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. I'd also wipe out the H1-B visa program (or, at least drastically reduce the numbers and put some measurable enforcement behind it to ensure that companies are only using H1-B's when no American citizen can be found, rather than doing it just for the money).
    Now THIS is the future of smartphones.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Determining and recognizing proper terms and their definitions is a healthy and valid step in any debate. To do otherwise is to purposely create havoc in a debate with inaccurate definitions.
    I agree Hobbes. But the terms activists use, and the term mass media uses for fear of offending anyone, is almost always the same. There is no legal and illegal when they use the term; just "immigrant". But, as you and shopharim have said, for most people this is not about immigration. It is all about illegal immigration. I've spoken to many people about this issue and, almost without fail, people say "I have nothing against immigrants, I am against illegal immigration."
  7.    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    The definition of what we are talking about is a VERY valid and basic topic that the rest of the thread depends on.

    If your definition of an immigrant is unique only to you which is simply anyone who crosses our border illegally smuggled in a box (which everyone else defines as illegal immigrants and illegal aliens) and for those who legally walk thru the gate with proper documents (which what an immigrant really is) then you are going to be spinning in circles when someone makes a comment about an immigrant, because you maybe thinking or posting about an illegal immigrant or an immigrant (aka a legal one) or both....and no one else will know what the heck you are thinking or talking about for sure.

    Determining and recognizing proper terms and their definitions is a healthy and valid step in any debate. To do otherwise is to purposely create havoc in a debate with inaccurate definitions.
    I did not present my own definition of an immigrant Hobbes. It was merriam webster.

    Quote Originally Posted by Merriam Webster

    Main Entry: im∑mi∑grant
    Pronunciation: 'i-mi-gr&nt
    Function: noun
    One that immigrates : as a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence b : a plant or animal that becomes established in an area where it was previously unknown

    http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/immigrants
    I am the one who said call them anything you like.
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Guess we have to apply a bit of a curve to straighten out your "facts".
    Here is an attempt to straighten out your "facts".:

    IMMIGRANT

    Here are multiple definitions from at least 5 sources on the web:
    • This is an alien admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Permanent residents are also commonly referred to as immigrants; however, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) broadly defines an immigrant as any alien in the United States, except one legally admitted under specific nonimmigrant categories (INA section 101(a)(15)). ...
      http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicaid/home...glossaryp.html
    • An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Also known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). All immigrants are eventually issued a "green card" (USCIS Form I-551), which is the evidence of the alienís LPR status. LPRís who are awaiting the issuance of their green cards may bear an I-551 stamp in their foreign passports.
      http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...129236,00.html
    • An immigrant can be any of the above-listed temporary residents (refugee, asylee, parolee). An immigrant can also be a foreign-born person admitted to the United States as an actual or prospective permanent resident.
      http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/internatio...efinitions.htm
    • Any person who is residing in the United States as a legally recognized and lawfully recorded permanent resident. This is what every alien seeking entry to the United States is presumed to be unless they prove they want entry on a nonimmigrant basis.
      http://www.visalaw.com/03aug1/2aug103.html
    • An alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.
      http://www.rotc.monroe.army.mil/help...ns-1/terms.htm



    ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    With all due respect, what you are likely to have heard about the immigration policy of Canada has much more to do with political propoganda than it does with fact.
    Does anyone else see the irony in this.
  10.    #70  
    Now this is funny. In the abscense of anyone arguing for amnesty, you have just given up and started making the argument anyway.

    It's pretty funny in fact since I think it was the Texas Rancher in the white house who first thought this was a great idea.

    Personally, I think it's little more than exploitation.
  11.    #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Here is an attempt to straighten out your "facts".:

    IMMIGRANT

    Here are multiple definitions from at least 5 sources on the web:
    • This is an alien admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Permanent residents are also commonly referred to as immigrants; however, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) broadly defines an immigrant as any alien in the United States, except one legally admitted under specific nonimmigrant categories (INA section 101(a)(15)). ...
      http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicaid/home...glossaryp.html
    • An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Also known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). All immigrants are eventually issued a "green card" (USCIS Form I-551), which is the evidence of the alienís LPR status. LPRís who are awaiting the issuance of their green cards may bear an I-551 stamp in their foreign passports.
      http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...129236,00.html
    • An immigrant can be any of the above-listed temporary residents (refugee, asylee, parolee). An immigrant can also be a foreign-born person admitted to the United States as an actual or prospective permanent resident.
      http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/internatio...efinitions.htm
    • Any person who is residing in the United States as a legally recognized and lawfully recorded permanent resident. This is what every alien seeking entry to the United States is presumed to be unless they prove they want entry on a nonimmigrant basis.
      http://www.visalaw.com/03aug1/2aug103.html
    • An alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.
      http://www.rotc.monroe.army.mil/help...ns-1/terms.htm



    ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT
    So lets see hobbes, one definition of legal immigrant says that the immigrant needs to be a lawfull perminent resident, and another says person who comes to a country in order to take up perminent residence.

    You're right, I guess we could say that an immigrant could be either documented or undocumented. But havent we heard that somewhere before? lol
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    With all due respect, what you are likely to have heard about the immigration policy of Canada has much more to do with political propoganda than it does with fact.

    As I pointed out a bit before, the immigration policy of the United States is not only a discriminitory patchwork, but it is also about as secure as swiss cheese.

    Without demanding that you post evidence and assuming you are lying until you do, I would just encourage you to seek out objective evidence that the Canadian Immigration policy is in fact less secure as a whole than the American policy.
    I cannot believe it......how many times have you rebuked me and called me arrogant for sourcing everything to much. Now I am a liar for not sourcing enough!!!!! I am one to source and cite my claims....it was ONLY because of your constant complaining of my sourcing I have laid off of it when responding to you!!!!! You cannot have it both ways to fit your mood at the moment or the point you trying to make in that single post.

    Have you ever heard of their Refugee and Asylum program and what they do NOT do to screen applicants?

    Second, where in this whole thread have I ever said that the US immigration process is secure and does not need reform. In fact I stated the very opposite that are there many changes to the immigration process I would strongly support:
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I also have respect for following the legal process (though there are changes I would strongly support and those that I would NOT support).
    Propaganda is both ways. Socialists do will not recognize the security risk of Canada's immigration policy.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/02/2006 at 08:39 PM.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    So lets see hobbes, one definition of legal immigrant says that the immigrant needs to be a lawfull perminent resident, and another says person who comes to a country in order to take up perminent residence.

    You're right, I guess we could say that an immigrant could be either documented or undocumented. But havent we heard that somewhere before? lol
    Man.....is the room spining or is it just you? Now how did you spin every definition that for Immigrant that says Legal, lawfully admitted, obtaining documents with not being legal or obtaining documents?

    And how did every definition of Illegal Immigrant that says not obtaining documents, NOT going thru the legal process mean Legal Immigrant?
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Now this is funny. In the abscense of anyone arguing for amnesty, you have just given up and started making the argument anyway.

    It's pretty funny in fact since I think it was the Texas Rancher in the white house who first thought this was a great idea.

    Personally, I think it's little more than exploitation.
    Who is arguing for amnesty here?
  15.    #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Who is arguing for amnesty here?
    Exactly, only W.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Exactly, only W.
    You're not making sense so I'll drop it.

    What I want to know, Blaze, is exactly what part of US immigration policy you take offence to. Tell me the specific policy, please.
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    With all due respect, what you are likely to have heard about the immigration policy of Canada has much more to do with political propoganda than it does with fact.

    Without demanding that you post evidence and assuming you are lying until you do, I would just encourage you to seek out objective evidence that the Canadian Immigration policy is in fact less secure as a whole than the American policy.
    Their Refugee Program in their Imigration Process is a Major Security whole:

    Allison Hanes and Stewart Bell, National Post
    Published: Monday, April 17, 2006
    As many as 3,000 people ordered deported from Canada for human rights abuses, terrorism ties, war crimes, gangsterism links or criminal convictions continue to linger in the country, the National Post has learned.

    Rejected from settling permanently in Canada because of their criminal offences, shady pasts or the potential security risks they pose, the 3,000 are among 30,000 expulsions that have not been carried out by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

    "Most people on removal orders are failed refugee claimants," said Cara Prest, a spokeswoman for the agency.

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...ea8670&k=65571

    Immigration security: From bad to worse
    GLOBE AND MAIL
    Our new immigration bill poses an even greater risk of abuse by asylum seekers than the old one, says JAMES BISSETT. After Sept. 11, that's a scandal

    Government spokesmen are hailing the new immigration bill now before the Senate as being tough on terrorists and criminals. Yet the new bill, C-11, does not address the one area where Canada is most vulnerable -- our inadequate and overly generous asylum system. Bill C-11 will make it easier for asylum seekers to enter Canada and much more difficult to remove them after they get in. In normal circumstances, this failure would be deplorable. After Sept. 11, refusal to implement immediate reform of our asylum system borders on criminal irresponsibility.

    Every year thousands of people enter Canada without any documents. Immigration officials have not seen them before they arrive. None has been screened for health, security or criminality. The majority are smuggled in by international criminal gangs that provide them with false documents enabling them to board the aircraft bringing them to Canada. A representative of the trafficker picks up these documents to be recycled and sold again.
    Terror plotters lurk in Canada, U.S. charges

    In its annual Country Report on Terrorism, the State Department expressed growing concern about the presence of "numerous" terror plotters in the country, and said political fallout from the Maher Arar case continues to hamper information-sharing between Canadian and U.S. intelligence agencies.

    "Terrorists have capitalized on liberal Canadian immigration and asylum policies to enjoy safe haven, raise funds, arrange logistical support and plan terrorist attacks," the State Department said.

    http://www.canada.com/topics/news/po...f04c40&k=62749
  18.    #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I cannot believe it......how many times have you rebuked me and called me arrogant for sourcing everything to much. Now I am a liar for not sourcing enough!!!!! I am one to source and cite my claims....it was ONLY because of your constant complaining of my sourcing I have laid off of it when responding to you!!!!! You cannot have it both ways to fit your mood at the moment or the point you trying to make in that single post.
    Hmm, i think you are mischaracterizing what i said again. It's not what I said at all. Read it again.
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Have you ever heard of their Refugee and Asylum program and what they do NOT do to screen applicants?
    I thought we were talking about their immigration policy which is separate from their and our asylum policy?
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Second, where in this whole thread have I ever said that the US immigration process is secure and does not need reform. In fact I stated the very opposite that are there many changes to the immigration process I would strongly support:
    Uh, you said ...
    Quote Originally Posted by hobbes
    Actually there have been several security briefings on the the threat and possible solutions that Canada's lax immigration policies forces the USA to consider and possibly face. As you said Canada will let nearly anyone who asks in. Then it is really easy to jump over to the States via Canada. Easy road for a group of terrorists. Not necessarily a good thing, IMHO. What do you think will happen if the next terrorist attack is a nuke in Chicago and all of them came thru Canada nearly none existent immigration process?
    Sorry if i got the idea that you were saying their policy is more lax than ours.
    Quote Originally Posted by hobbes
    Propaganda is both ways. Socialists do will not recognize the security risk of Canada's immigration policy.
    i dont know what this means.
  19.    #79  
    Lol, both of your articles in post #77 refer to Canada's Asylum policy, not their immigration policy. And the last one is an actual quote from the Bush White House!! lol

    Immigration and Asylum really are different as I have pointed out before, and I thought I was clear when i said I was advocating the fairness and unity of their immigration policy, not their refugee or asylum policy.
  20. #80  
    The Refugee and Asylum policies IS part of the Canadian immigration process!!!!! Did you look at the last article? If you question it, a little leisure reading will be very informative:

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/li...m#appendix6txt



    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Hmm, i think you are mischaracterizing what i said again. It's not what I said at all. Read it again.
    I don't know how else to read:

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Without demanding that you post evidence and assuming you are lying until you do
Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678914 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions