| 0 |
Subject: The Jag E-mail Joke Thread
Posted by: Jag
- [360261522] Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 09:26
Zen, has his far-left cartoons and like Fox News, I think we should be fair and balanced, so I am sharing some of the e-mails I get sent almost daily. |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 70 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 18:06
|
The percentage of unwed illegals giving birth is higher than with blacks, which will lead to staggering upswing in crime.
That sentence there btw, simply reeks of racism. Its as if you're saying, "geez, you thought the blacks were bad? The hispnaics are even WORSE!" Now, you may or may not have intended it that wya, but I dont honestly see any other way of interpreting that statement. I'd suggest, that until you embrace the notion that you just might be a racist SOB, you're not going to make much headway in convincing people to join your cause. (With the possible exception of white-supremacists and kkk members.)
|
| 71 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 18:13
|
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Marriage is the foundation of a successful
society.
(2) Marriage is an essential institution of a
successful society which promotes the interests of
children.
(3) Promotion of responsible fatherhood and
motherhood is integral to successful child rearing and
the well-being of children.
(4) In 1992, only 54 percent of single-parent
families with children had a child support order
established and, of that 54 percent, only about one-
half received the full amount due. Of the cases
enforced through the public child support enforcement
system, only 18 percent of the caseload has a
collection.
(5) The number of individuals receiving aid to
families with dependent children (in this section
referred to as ``AFDC'') has more than tripled since
1965. More than two-thirds of these recipients are
children. Eighty-nine percent of children receiving
AFDC benefits now live in homes in which no father is
present.
(A)(i) The average monthly number of
children receiving AFDC benefits--
(I) was 3,300,000 in 1965;
(II) was 6,200,000 in 1970;
(III) was 7,400,000 in 1980; and
(IV) was 9,300,000 in 1992.
(ii) While the number of children receiving
AFDC benefits increased nearly threefold
between 1965 and 1992, the total number of
children in the United States aged 0 to 18 has
declined by 5.5 percent.
(B) The Department of Health and Human
Services has estimated that 12,000,000 children
will receive AFDC benefits within 10 years.
(C) The increase in the number of children
receiving public assistance is closely related
to the increase in births to unmarried women.
Between 1970 and 1991, the percentage of live
births to unmarried women increased nearly
threefold, from 10.7 percent to 29.5 percent.
(6) The increase of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and
births is well documented as follows:
(A) It is estimated that the rate of
nonmarital teen pregnancy rose 23 percent from
54 pregnancies per 1,000 unmarried teenagers in
1976 to 66.7 pregnancies in 1991. The overall
rate of nonmarital pregnancy rose 14 percent
from 90.8 pregnancies per 1,000 unmarried women
in 1980 to 103 in both 1991 and 1992. In
contrast, the overall pregnancy rate for
married couples decreased 7.3 percent between
1980 and 1991, from 126.9 pregnancies per 1,000
married women in 1980 to 117.6 pregnancies in
1991.
(B) The total of all out-of-wedlock births
between 1970 and 1991 has risen from 10.7
percent to 29.5 percent and if the current
trend continues, 50 percent of all births by
the year 2015 will be out-of-wedlock.
(7) The negative consequences of an out-of-wedlock
birth on the mother, the child, the family, and society
are well documented as follows:
(A) Young women 17 and under who give birth
outside of marriage are more likely to go on
public assistance and to spend more years on
welfare once enrolled. These combined effects
of ``younger and longer'' increase total AFDC
costs per household by 25 percent to 30 percent
for 17-year olds.
(B) Children born out-of-wedlock have a
substantially higher risk of being born at a
very low or moderately low birth weight.
(C) Children born out-of-wedlock are more
likely to experience low verbal cognitive
attainment, as well as more child abuse, and
neglect.
(D) Children born out-of-wedlock were more
likely to have lower cognitive scores, lower
educational aspirations, and a greater
likelihood of becoming teenage parents
themselves.
(E) Being born out-of-wedlock significantly
reduces the chances of the child growing up to
have an intact marriage.
(F) Children born out-of-wedlock are 3
times more likely to be on welfare when they
grow up.
(8) Currently 35 percent of children in single-
parent homes were born out-of-wedlock, nearly the same
percentage as that of children in single-parent homes
whose parents are divorced (37 percent). While many
parents find themselves, through divorce or tragic
circumstances beyond their control, facing the
difficult task of raising children alone, nevertheless,
the negative consequences of raising children in
single-parent homes are well documented as follows:
(A) Only 9 percent of married-couple
families with children under 18 years of age
have income below the national poverty level.
In contrast, 46 percent of female-headed
households with children under 18 years of age
are below the national poverty level.
(B) Among single-parent families, nearly
\1/2\ of the mothers who never married received
AFDC while only \1/5\ of divorced mothers
received AFDC.
(C) Children born into families receiving
welfare assistance are 3 times more likely to
be on welfare when they reach adulthood than
children not born into families receiving
welfare.
(D) Mothers under 20 years of age are at
the greatest risk of bearing low-birth-weight
babies.
(E) The younger the single parent mother,
the less likely she is to finish high school.
(F) Young women who have children before
finishing high school are more likely to
receive welfare assistance for a longer period
of time.
(G) Between 1985 and 1990, the public cost
of births to teenage mothers under the aid to
families with dependent children program, the
food stamp program, and the medicaid program
has been estimated at $120,000,000,000.
(H) The absence of a father in the life of
a child has a negative effect on school
performance and peer adjustment.
(I) Children of teenage single parents have
lower cognitive scores, lower educational
aspirations, and a greater likelihood of
becoming teenage parents themselves.
(J) Children of single-parent homes are 3
times more likely to fail and repeat a year in
grade school than are children from intact 2-
parent families.
(K) Children from single-parent homes are
almost 4 times more likely to be expelled or
suspended from school.
(L) Neighborhoods with larger percentages
of youth aged 12 through 20 and areas with
higher percentages of single-parent households
have higher rates of violent crime.
(M) Of those youth held for criminal
offenses within the State juvenile justice
system, only 29.8 percent lived primarily in a
home with both parents. In contrast to these
incarcerated youth, 73.9 percent of the
62,800,000 children in the Nation's resident
population were living with both parents.
(9) Therefore, in light of this demonstration of
the crisis in our Nation, it is the sense of the
Congress that prevention of out-of-wedlock pregnancy
and reduction in out-of-wedlock birth are very
important Government interests and the policycontained
in part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (as amended by section
103 of this Act) is intended to address the crisis.
That was from a Congressional document. Read the last few paragraphs.
My exact words
"The percentage of unwed illegals giving birth is higher than with blacks, which will lead to staggering upswing in crime."
I was obviously talking about unwed births leading to an upswing in crime, but don't let a little fact interfere with your favorite game of throwing out the racism word.
|
| 72 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 18:14
|
Those damn congressional racists.
|
| 73 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 18:22
|
The percentage of unwed illegals giving birth is higher than with blacks
Where is this "fact" presented? Perhaps you should have put that in bold, because I missed it.
|
| 74 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 18:39
|
I am sure you guys will rip this article instead of paying attention to it.
After conducting a 12 month in-depth study of illegal immigrants who committed sex crimes and murders for the time period of January 1999 through April 2006 , it is clear that the U.S. public faces a dangerous threat from sex predators who cross the U.S. borders illegally.
There were 1500 cases analyzed in depth. They included: serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides, and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants. Police reports, public records, interviews with police, and media accounts were all included. Offenders were located in 36 states, but it is clear, that the most of the offenders were located in states with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants. California was number one, followed by Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, New York, and Florida.
Based on population numbers of 12,000,000 illegal immigrants and the fact that young males make up more of this population than the general U.S. population, sex offenders in the illegal immigrant group make up a higher percentage. When examining ICE reports and public records, it is consistent to find sex offenders comprising 2% of illegals apprehended. Based on this 2% figure, which is conservative, there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States.
This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day. The 1500 offenders in this study had a total of 5,999 victims. Each sex offender averaged 4 victims. This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study.
Victims:
Of the 1500 cases reviewed, 525 (35%) were child molestations, 358 (24%) were rapes, and 617 (41%) were sexual homicides and serial murders. Of the child molestations, 47% of the victims were Hispanic, 36% were Caucasian, 8% were Asian, 6% were African American, and 3% were other nationalities. In most instances, the offenders were familiar with their victims. In fact, 82% of the victims were known to their attackers. The other 18% were molested by strangers. In those instances, the illegal immigrants typically gained access to the victims after having worked as a day laborer at or near the victims’ homes. Victims ranged in age from 1 year old to 13 years old, with the average age being 6.
In rape cases, the offenders were less likely to know their victims. Only 64% of the victims knew their attackers. Furthermore, rape victims proved to be more diverse than child molestation victims. Hispanic and Caucasian victims were identical at 35% each.
The next most likely victims were African American women, and other nationalities comprised the remainder. These women suffered brutal attacks. Commonly, a weapon was used to control the victims. These weapons were most often sharp instruments. And the victims were beaten during the rapes over 70% of the time. Offenders engaged in sodomy in 67% of the attacks, and gang rape took place in .007% of the cases. Rape victims ranged in age from 16-79 and averaged age 23.
Serial rapists accounted for 3% of all illegal immigrant rapists. Each serial rapist averaged 5 victims, with the number of victims ranging from 2 to 11. Two serial rapists were confirmed HIV positive, and another offender had a venereal disease.
The murders were the worst of the sex crimes and were especially vicious. The most common method was for an offender to break into a residence and ambush his victims. Not only were victims raped, but some (6%) were mutilated. The crime scenes were very bloody, expressing intense, angry perpetrator personalities. Specifically, most victims were blitzed, rendered incapable of fighting back, and then raped and murdered. The most common method of killing was bludgeoning, followed by stabbing. Caucasians were more likely to become victims of sexual homicide committed by illegal immigrants. Hispanics were second, and African Americans were third. Victims of sexual homicides averaged age 42. However, victims ranged in age from 16-81.
Serial killers accounted for .005% of the sex crimes. The serial killers averaged 9 victims per offender. Victim choice centered on victims the offenders did not know. Each serial killer targeted men and women, but females were higher, making up 73%. Illegal immigrant serial killers were more likely to strike in the West and the Southern United States.
Victim socioeconomic status changed for each type of crime. Those who fell victim to child molestation tended to be from a lower socioeconomic status than those who were raped and those who were raped and murdered. In fact, 57% of those rape/murdered were from the upper middle class.
There was an especially disturbing finding that in 22% of all sex crimes committed by illegal immigrants, victims with physical and mental disabilities were targeted. These disabled victims were each under age 18. In those cases, the perpetrators knew their victims.
Offenders:
The average age of illegal immigrants who were sex offenders was 27, but they ranged in age from 16-69. Child molesters tended to be older, averaging age 32. The average age of rapists was 26, and murderers averaged age 28. There is a trend that these offenders are becoming younger. For example, in 2006, the average age of sex offender illegal immigrants was 20. The highest number came from Mexico. El Salvador was the original home to the next highest number of sexual offenders. Other countries of origin included: Brazil, China, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico*, Russia, and Vietnam.
They averaged 4 victims per offender. Nearly 63% had been deported on another offense prior to the sex crime. There was an average of 3 years of committing crimes such as DUI, assaults, or drug related offenses prior to being apprehended for a sexual offense.
Alcohol and drug use seemingly played a large role in these crimes. In fact, 81% of offenders were drinking or using drugs prior to offending. Rapists and killers were more likely to use alcohol and drugs consistently than child molesters.
Offenders had the use of a vehicle in 78% of the cases. However, the vehicles were only owned by those offenders 54% of the time. In the other instances, the offenders either borrowed or stole the vehicle.
Many offenders were unkempt in appearance and worked with their hands. They were transient in that they went where work took them. Therefore, only 25% were stable within a community. Further, in 31% of the crimes, the offenders entered into the communities where they offended within 2 months of the commission of their sex offenses. However, many, 79%, had been in the U.S. for more than one year before being arrested for a sex crime, and they were typically known to the Criminal Justice system for prior, less serious offenses before they molested, raped, or murdered.
There was a trend to be single while offending, as only 23% were married at the time of their crimes. Most were known to date quite a bit and have derogatory views of females. Domestic violence was common as well, as nearly half of those with spouses or significant others had a history of domestic abuse.
Nearly 35% were considered religious and even more, 59% had been raised in a religious home. Their work consisted of manual labor in industries such as agriculture, construction, restaurant, and tourism. Residences were rented and usually shared with several other illegal immigrants. Many were partially bi-lingual with a preference for their native languages.
Education levels were typically low. Only 22% had graduated high school. As such, there was a pattern of irresponsible, impulsive behavior in offender backgrounds. Solutions to their problems entailed moving, i.e. running away. Most simply ran to the southern U.S. border after being connected with their sex offenses.
Conclusions:
Illegal immigrants who commit sex crimes first cross the U.S. border illegally. Then they gradually commit worse crimes and are continually released back into society or deported. Those who were deported simply returned illegally again. Only 2% of the offenders in this study has no history of criminal behavior, beyond crossing the border illegally. There is a clear pattern of criminal escalation. From misdemeanors such as assault or DUI, to drug offenses, illegal immigrants who commit sex crimes break U.S. laws repeatedly. They are highly mobile, work in low skilled jobs with their hands, use drugs and alcohol, are generally promiscuous, have little family stability, and choose victims who are easy to attack. Their attacks are particularly brutal, and they use a hands-on method of controlling and/or killing their victims.
Note: Nearly 30% of the victims were illegal immigrants themselves.The remainder were U.S. citizens.
*One offender came from Puerto Rico. He had entered PR illegally from DR and then came to the mainland. He was charged with child molestation.
link
I am sure you believe protecting your left-wing beliefs is more important than protecting the children from sexual molestation.
|
| 75 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 19:53
|
No Jag, what you said was;
Crime in Mexico is staggering, I have a friend in Mexico City right now and he can't take a taxi. Murders are teaming up with cab drivers and forcing their riders to withdraw all their money from ATMs and then killing them. There are reports of illegal aliens committing heinous crimes daily. The percentage of unwed illegals giving birth is higher than with blacks, which will lead to staggering upswing in crime. You can argue each point on why we need to build a fence, but when you combine all the reasons, the evidence is clear we need it.
The ONLY possible inference here, is that you are speaking directly to Hispanics. The ONLY call you make for border security, is along the Southern border, despite the fact that the 9/11 terrorists came through our Northern border. The inference then becomes, not one of security, but one of "keep those damn spics out".
So now Jag, where is your evidance that unwewd Hispanic mothers are more likely to produce felons, than are unwed mothers of ANY other national heritage?
|
| 77 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 19:59
|
from your link in post 74:
Based on population numbers of 12,000,000 illegal immigrants and the fact that young males make up more of this population than the general U.S. population, sex offenders in the illegal immigrant group make up a higher percentage. When examining ICE reports and public records, it is consistent to find sex offenders comprising 2% of illegals apprehended. Based on this 2% figure, which is conservative, there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United St.
Extrapolation I think, can be a dangerous, misleading two-edged sword. Some statistics I've read in the past, indicate that 1 in 4 children has been the victim of "molestation". If that ais true, then we have a HUGE number of US males, much larger than 2% of the population; who are guilty of those crimes. (Unless those 2% committing the crimes, manage to accost 6% ea, of the child population. Do the math...I doubt that such is the case.)
As I have said before, I'm not a statistician, but I think that article has more holes in it, than the collander in my kitchen cupboard.
|
| 78 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 20:00
|
Jag
You're kind of all over the place here so lets go back to the question that you were asked - I asked you to show me that criminals were crossing the border to evade justice. I have trouble accepting what you've since presented as evidence of that phenomenon because I have trouble with the idea that wanted Mexican criminals would cross into the US (where law enforcement is much more effective) only to commit crimes here. Why would someone come to the United States just to commit sex crimes? Your article doesn't make any case for this at all. Did I miss it? All your article claims is that people who are illegal immigrants have a greater tendency to also be criminals. That doesn't sound like an unnatural correlation to me and I can't think of a reason to doubt it.
But you and I already agree that we'd be better off with fewer illegal immigrants here. The disagreement is about the best method to deal with it. Yours is to try to dam the river and pray it holds. Mine is to just turn off the valve.
So to recap, you argued that a wall is better than making it easier for people to legally work here while chasing down lawbreaking employers - because my way is bad for the economy. I countered that the wall has the same impact on the businesses as my method while also pinning the huge burden of erecting a monstrous wall on the backs of the taxpayers. You have since not responded any further to the economic side of the issue.
Your next post instead was a claim that I have ignored the criminal element crossing over to evade justice, and I asked you to tell me about this. But after reading two very long posts I haven't seen anything about illegals sneaking into the US for the purpose of evading justice.
Summing up now, unless you have anything else to show me, I'll remain of the opinion that keeping American employers in line will deny the overwhelming majority of Latin American criminals a motive to come here illegally, and that the way to make this a possibility is to simple make it easier for hard working people to come here and accept legal employment.
|
| 79 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 20:45
|
Mith, if we wall out illegal immigrants we can still allow visa and work permits and have control over who is coming over here. I suggested a way to erect the wall with assistance from private and state funding. Even if we have just a partial wall, it will be easier to monitor the unprotected areas.
I have trouble with the idea that wanted Mexican criminals would cross into the US (where law enforcement is much more effective) only to commit crimes here. Why would someone come to the United States just to commit sex crimes?
I never said they come across just to commit crimes, rather they are attempting to elude law enforcement in Mexico. Saying law enforcement is more effective here is a joke, when you consider many illegals are simply deported and many return later easily cross the border. According to the report close to a 100 sex offenders are crossing daily, I am curious to what number is needed before the Left feels enough is enough. Here ia a particularly heinous gang rape.
rape
Mith, your idea is the absolutely insane. What will happen to all these unemployed illegals? I doubt they will return to Mexico, more likely they will resort to crime and depend more on social programs. In one swoop, you discovered a way to help destroy the economy, create an entire society of impoverish, burden our social and healthcare system and increase crime and gang violence to an almost unmanagable degree.
Sarge, all you got in your arsenal is throwing out the word racism. When we have 12,000,000 Canadians stealing job, committing violent crimes, burdening our social and healthcare systems and forming gangs, I will then address that issue. Excuse me if I don't currently fear the Ottawa Bloods invading my neighborhood.
|
| 80 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 20:57
|
One more thing Mith, all illegal immigrants are criminals. When they cross the border ILLEGALLY they are breaking the law.
|
| 81 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 21:20
|
Saying law enforcement is more effective here is a joke, when you consider many illegals are simply deported and many return later easily cross the border.
How many is that? Are you saying that when we aprehend wanted Mexican criminals there is no extradition process?
Mith, your idea is the absolutely insane. What will happen to all these unemployed illegals? I doubt they will return to Mexico, more likely they will resort to crime and depend more on social programs.
Yes, yes everything I say is either a joke or insane. You call my approach crazy for it's failure to deal with illegals who are here, presuambly because you feel enforcing the law will create criminals out of otherwise law abiding illegals because they are unemployed?
There are two problems with this.
First, your wall creates precisely the same situation for illegals who are here; wall goes up, businesses that depend on cheap labor struggle, jobs dry up for illegals. You wind up with exactly the same problem that you assert on my approach, except the wall that keeps the ones on the outside out might make it harder for any of the ones already here to safely leave if they want to. If my offering is insane for ignoring that issue, then yours is equally insane because exactly the same thing happens. The wall doesn't make the go home.
Second, making it possible for buisinesses to legally employ foreign labor on the books will give illegals an incentive to make themselves legal. They'll see their countrymen employed and providing for their families and living out in the open with no fear of the government and what do you think they're going to do? Steal a TV? More likely, they're going to put themselves on a path to legal employment in the US. If we're smart, we'll make it as easy as reasonably possible.
|
| 82 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 21:31
|
Glad to see you don't deny that your plan would destroy the economy, create an entire society of impoverish, burden our social and healthcare system and increase crime and gang violence to an almost unmanagable degree.
I am really worried about the mass exodus of illegals fleeing the U.S. being blocked by the wall. I am pretty sure we can offer a free one way ticket out.
If we get to the point where we have 100% employment we can increase work permits.
|
| 83 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 23:23
|
I fail to see how erecting a wall changes any of that.
|
| 84 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 00:34
|
The first step is to close the border. After that, I would have to check the McCain plan and others. I know there is no perfect answer, but for the reasons I mentioned, you can't put 12 million people out of work, nor can you kick 12 million people out of the country.
|
| 85 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 01:46
|
The first step is to close the border.
Explain close the border. Obviously you don't mean it literally. Consider the ramifications of closing the border. Perhaps you mean strengthen border security.
|
| 86 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 02:52
|
I mean build a fence.
|
| 87 | CanadianHack
ID: 21937272
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 07:16
|
Sarge: The ONLY call you make for border security, is along the Southern border, despite the fact that the 9/11 terrorists came through our Northern border.
This is not true. Everyone of the 9/11 trerrorists entered the US on international plane flights. They all were permitted to enter the US by the customs authorities on those flights. Many overstayed their visas once they arrived. None crossed the border from Canada. This was an early claim by the Bush administration probably to put some pressure on Canada - but it turned out not to be true (which makes it not unlike most claims made by the Bush administration)
No wall is going to keep people from coming into the US on airplanes. The stupid build a fence idea doesn't even begin to address this problem - if it was the real problem.
|
| 88 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:03
|
Sarge: OK then, let's build walls on both borders. Happy?
|
| 89 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:12
|
As Jag writes his plan looks more and more like under-the-table amnesty for illegals. He claims taking jobs away from illegal aliens will cripple the economy with the double whammy of struggling businesses that can no longer rely on cheap labor and creating "entire society of impoverish, burden our social and healthcare system and increase crime and gang violence to an almost unmanagable degree."
So his answer is to allow these illegals to keep working - and to maintain their status as illegals, while we try to prevent any more from getting in.
It doesn't appear that he's given this topic nearly as much thought as he'd like others to think. As far as I can tell, he just wants a wall, dammit.
|
| 90 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:21
|
Mith: You wind up with exactly the same problem that you assert on my approach, except the wall that keeps the ones on the outside out might make it harder for any of the ones already here to safely leave if they want to.
Really? We won't let people leave? Oh I don't know about that...
|
| 91 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:29
|
You and Jag have hung on that sentence as if it is the crux of my argument. It's not, but it's not invalid either.
Illegals aren't likely to turn themselves in, even for the purpose of going back home.
How about commenting on the overall positions rather than focusing on a minor side note which was qualified with the word might, anyway. If that's all you've got to counter my arguments here than you haven't got much.
|
| 92 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:43
|
You and Jag have hung on that sentence as if it is the crux of my argument. It's not, but it's not invalid either.
So are you retracting that belief or are you in limbo now?
|
| 93 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:45
|
I'm sticking with everything I've said on that particular issue. Do you have any comments on the more fundamental parts of this discussion?
|
| 94 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 13:33
|
I addressed the fundamental part of your arguement and gave reasons why it is the worse idea since clackers.
I haven't read the McCain plan in awhile, but it was close to what I would like to see implemented, however, closing the border is the first priority.
|
| 95 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 14:03
|
methinks, Box is too busy looking for a "gotcha", to pay any mind to what was actually said.
|
| 96 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 14:05
|
No, Box is too busy shaking his head at Mith's idiotic immigration idea. Not surprisingly you're here to comfort your buddy Mith and dodging a question at the same time.
|
| 97 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 16:38
|
I addressed the fundamental part of your arguement and gave reasons why it is the worse idea since clackers.
No, you really haven't. The fundamental points are to: (1) try to allow the benefits of the current arrangement to continue while dealing with (2) the problems of having illegals among us and (3) a growing number of illegals continuing to come in.
I accomplish #1 by making it easier for foreigners to work here legally. You've repeatedly called me insane and a joke and poor Boxman can't stop shaking his head but no one has stated why this is a bad idea. I thought it was bad to poo poo on ideas with no reason for doing so. All you've said on the issue is this: "If we get to the point where we have 100% employment we can increase work permits.". But I'll continue to contend as I did back in post 62 (which was before you wrote that) that for the most part illegals work jobs that Americans will not fill.
Which leads us to #2. You seem to acknowledge this (that Americans won't fill most of these jobs) when you talk about how bad it will be for businesses and the economy if we enforce laws against them employing illegals. Quite obviously, if you argue that businesses are hurt by their inability to hire illegals, you must acknowledge that there is no alternate affordable labor force waiting in line for those jobs.
I fail to see why a system of under the table amnesty for these criminals (that's your word - see post 80) is better than figuring out how many jobs we need foreigners to fill and simply issuing enough work permits to fill those jobs and then going after employers who continue to hire foreigners off the books.
On issue number 3, you've stated that eliminating the work incentive is insufficient to stem the tide of illegals entering America because many of them cross the border to evade law enforcement in their home countries. I asked for evidence of this phenomenon and you failed to provide any, offering instead evidence that many illegals are also criminals (beyond their immigrant status). But not evidence that they (be they criminal or non-criminal) come here for any reason other than a paycheck. You then aluded to some issue about wanted Mexican criminals being simply deported, with no extradition or other criminal law enforcement process taking place. I asked for evidence of this but you never acknowledged my request and seem to have dropped it. I'll state again that in my opinion cutting off the supply of jobs to illegals is far superior to erecting a wall.
Here are my reasons:
1. Cost to taxpayers (and/or homeowners) for the structure and maintainence.
2. Latin Americans will still have a huge incentive to come here, meaning they will increasingly search for ways over, under and through a fence.
3. It creates an escalation of hostility that will eventually and inevitably result in seiges, standoffs and people getting killed (sometimes I get the feeling that escalation is exactly what some on the right want - a chance to see American border agents "kicking ass" or some nonsense).
4. A border wall is a symbolic gesture that suggests the USA has abandoned one of its most basic principles.
Further, and this is something else you've avoided - every reason you've used to dismiss me is just as much or even more a problem with your proposals than it is mine. You have no mechanism for getting illegals to leave, despite creating the two longest posts in this thread to tell us what filthy terrible criminals they are. While I give them an incentive to get out and try to get back in through the front door.
At this point I don't think you even know what your arguments are any more. You call people names for failing to see what horrible people illegals are but then call other people names when they offer suggestions to try to get them to leave.
|
| 98 | Boldwin
ID: 1055190
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 17:59
|
you must acknowledge that there is no alternate affordable labor force waiting in line for those jobs.
Were you aware that there are poor people in America? The kind liberals used to claim they cared about?
|
| 99 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 18:10
|
Businesses do need the cheap labor, and the reason they do is that for the most part illegals work at jobs that Americans will not fill.
They won't?
Pew Hispanic Center Study
According to a new survey by the Pew Hispanic Center, illegals make up 24 percent of workers in agriculture, 17 percent in cleaning, 14 percent in construction, and 12 percent in food production. So 86 percent of construction workers, for instance, are either legal immigrants or Americans, despite the fact that this is one of the alleged categories of untouchable jobs.
|
| 100 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 21:13
|
Mith, first, I didn't call you a name, that style belongs to Sarge. I said your idea was insane, but so is trying to kick out 12 million people. Both of these plans are impossible to implement. I am for a revised McCain/Kennedy bill with no special treatment for the illegals.
You keep harping on a link to prove some illegals come here to avoid Mexican law. What if I said some Americans go to Mexico to avoid American justice, would I need a link for that? I doubt Mexicans fleeing justice stop to fill out a poll.
I don't need a link and can speak from experience that cheap Mexican labor has destroyed wages in the construction business. I don't hire illegals, because mi espanol es muy mal and I can barely compete with those that do. You may find this racist, but there is no doubt items are more likely to be stolen with a Mexican crew working nearby. It is not because they are Hispanic, rather shows the type that are willing to commit an illegal act to get here.
No one knows the exact number of illegals have criminal tendacies, but I am curious to know what percentage you think is acceptable. How many thieves, rapists and murderers to we need crossing over, before you will agree, that we need to close the border.
|
| 101 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 08:34
|
gonna have to put a blindfold on the Statute of Liberty before you close the border. Oh, and prolly erase the inscription as well. At that point, we can cease electing Presidents and representatives...a single Dictator would most likely suffice.
|
| 102 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 09:22
|
Boldwin and Boxman
I fail to see why you address only me in posts 98 and 99, as Jag apparently holds the same position, even if he stops short of saying so. He not only argues that going after businesses that employ illegals will hurt them but that doing so will "destroy the economy."
I will concede that the construction industry is an exception. Day laborers do in fact take jobs that Americans would otherwise fill. But for the most part that isn't the case in other industries.
That said, citing that illegals make up only 24 or 17 percent of the workforce in one industry or another is not evidence that Americans will work those jobs if you take away the foreign labor force. For example, 85% (or whatever) of restaurant jobs might be held by Americans, but those people are waiters and bartenders and management. Americans are not lined up to wash dishes for a living, which is what illegals mostly do in the restaurant industry.
Further, if Americans are unemployed because illegals take their jobs then how come I keep seeing these local news reports from around the country saying that jobs are going unfilled following crackdowns on illegals?
Jag
I am for a revised McCain/Kennedy bill with no special treatment for the illegals.
Exactly how does McCain/Kennedy differ from what I've said all along? Please explain to me the difference that makes one smart policy and the other cookoo. McCain/Kennedy calls for expanding the number of foreign workers who can legally be employed in the US and cracking down on existing immigration and labor laws. There's nothing I've been saying we should do that isn't in McCain/Kennedy. You'll have to show me why one approach is the smart thing to do while another is idiotic and insane>
You keep harping on a link to prove some illegals come here to avoid Mexican law.
Wrong. I'm asking you for evidence that this happens to a degree that is significant to warrant a monstrous wall across the whole southern border of our country.
No one knows the exact number of illegals have criminal tendacies, but I am curious to know what percentage you think is acceptable. How many thieves, rapists and murderers to we need crossing over, before you will agree, that we need to close the border.
We both have approaches that we think will stem the flow. As was pointed out to you earlier in this thread you really don't mean "close the border". North and South Korea have a closed border. I assume that isn't the type of arrangement you want between the US and Mexico. Anyway, of the two of us I'm the only one who has explicitly endorsed attempting to get illegals who are already here - out in favor of legal foreign workers. Its funny to me how in one sentence illegals are murderors and rapists and thieves who steal your toools after they steal your job. But in the next sentence it is insane of me to want to remove these people from society.
|
| 103 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 11:48
|
Mith, the problem with your idea is it doesn't get rid of them, it just unemploys them, creating a huge improvished class. I am all for kicking out every illegal and replacing with documented workers, but it ain't gonna happen, so why even discuss it.
Sarge, your comments would make a for nice bumper sticker, but crap for a immigration policy.
|
| 104 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 11:52
|
Mith, the problem with your idea is it doesn't get rid of them, it just unemploys them, creating a huge improvished class. I am all for kicking out every illegal and replacing with documented workers, but it ain't gonna happen, so why even discuss it.
So to be clear, you are pro-amnesty, correct?
|
| 105 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 12:29
|
Jag #84
I would have to check the McCain plan
A good place to start might be McCain's Hispanic outreach director, Juan Hernandez.
In an appearance on ABC's Nightline in 2001, Hernandez said, referring to Mexican immigrants in the U.S., "I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think 'Mexico first.'"
Hernandez told the Associated Press the same year, "I never knew the border as a limitation. I'd be delighted if all of us could come and go between these two marvelous countries."
Last August, Hernandez published a book entitled "The New American Pioneers: Why Are We Afraid of Mexican Immigrants?" in which he argued Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, were at the forefront of establishing a new North American market combining the U.S. with Mexico.
|
| 106 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 12:32
|
No, but I am realist and there is no other feasible option. Although, I don't want a blanket amnesty, those deserving with no criminal record have to stay, as you can't deport 12 million people, it is not only logisitically impossible, it would be economic suicide.
|
| 107 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 13:03
|
McCain said his first priority would be to close the border and I believe (or hope) he is sincere.
|
| 108 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 13:12
|
Mith: Further, if Americans are unemployed because illegals take their jobs then how come I keep seeing these local news reports from around the country saying that jobs are going unfilled following crackdowns on illegals?
Because that article sites a Rapture-like effect where the feds swoop in and raid which will cause an immediate short term labor shortage.
This article does more complaining about the higher costs of food as a result as opposed to addressing the problem.
Ever see the TV show Dirty Jobs on Discovery Channel? Americans will do some pretty disgusting s#it for a living. Take the illegals out of the equation long term and the jobs will get filled or business will innovate its way out of the problem.
|
| 109 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 13:16
|
Ever see the TV show Dirty Jobs on Discovery Channel? Americans will do some pretty disgusting s#it for a living.
if they are paid well.
the jobs the "illegals" do are generally speaking, not well-paying.
|
| 110 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 13:20
|
the jobs the "illegals" do are generally speaking, not well-paying.
Allow me to repeat myself, Take the illegals out of the equation long term and the jobs will get filled or business will innovate its way out of the problem.
|
| 111 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 13:51
|
Take the illegals out of the equation long term and the jobs will get filled or business will innovate its way out of the problem.
and i said that the jobs won't get filled.
but i'm willing to listen. tell me how business will innovate its way out of a problem. tell me how business will hang sheet rock or paint houses or dig ditches and so forth for below minimum wage.
i'm interested to hear this.
|
| 112 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 13:54
|
but i'm willing to listen. tell me how business will innovate its way out of a problem. tell me how business will hang sheet rock or paint houses or dig ditches and so forth for below minimum wage.
They won't. They'll have to pay more per worker. Yet maybe they innovate processes and equipment such that not as many workers are needed.
|
| 113 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 14:12
|
Take the illegals out of the equation long term and the jobs will get filled or business will innovate its way out of the problem.
Of course I totally agree with this. If it weren't for Boxman being so consumed animosity toward me I'm pretty sure he'd realize how much closer I am with him on this subject than Jag is.
|
| 114 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 14:14
|
Mith: So to be clear, you are pro-amnesty, correct?
Jag: No, but I am realist and there is no other feasible option.
As far as policy is concerned, you are pro-amnesty.
|
| 115 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 14:30
|
Jag= pro amnesty! Vote Romney ;-)
Interesting discussion. Box and MITH are aligned on this.
Go Giants.
|
| 116 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 14:58
|
They won't. They'll have to pay more per worker. Yet maybe they innovate processes and equipment such that not as many workers are needed.
Well then...why not do that now, and avoid hiring illegals?
|
| 117 | Jag
ID: 5112883
Mon, Feb 11, 2008, 12:00
|
The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA)
WASHINGTON, DC - Congress is considering sweeping
> legislation that will provide new benefits for many
> Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act
> (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal
> by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack
> any real skills or ambition.
>
> "Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the
> competence and drive necessary t o carve out a
> meaningful role for themselves in society," said
> California Senator Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer
> stand by and allow People of Inability to be
> ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation,
> employers will no longer be able to grant special
> favors to a small group of workers, simply because
> they have some idea of what they are doing."
>
> In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority
> Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry
> Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal
> Service, which has a long-standing policy of
> providing opportunity without regard to performance.
> Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack
> any job skills, making this agency the single
> largest U.S. employer of Persons of Inability.
>
> Private-sector industries with good records of
> nondiscrimination against the Inept include retail
> sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home
> improvement "warehouse" stores (65%). At the state
> government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles
> also has an excellent record of hiring Persons of
> Inability (63%).
>
> Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than
> 25 million "middle man" positions will be created,
> with important-sounding titles but little real
> responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of
> purpose and performance.
>
> Mandatory non-performance-based raises and
> promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward
> mobility for even the most unremarkable employees.
> The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to
> corporations that promote a significant number of
> Persons of Inability into middle-management
> positions, and gives a tax credit to small and
> medium-size d businesses that agree to hire one
> clueless worker for every two talented hires.
>
> Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to
> make it more difficult to discriminate against the
> Non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory
> interview questions such as, "Do you have any skills
> or experience that relate to this job?"
>
> "As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep
> up with people who have something going for them,"
> said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a
> lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan,
> due to her lack of any discernible job skills. "This
> new law should be real good for people like me."
> With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of
> other untalented citizens will finally see a light
> at the end of the tunnel.
>
> Said Senator Dick Durban (D-IL): "As a Senator with
> no ab ilities, I believe the same privileges that
> elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to
> every American with no abilities. It is our duty as
> lawmakers to provide each and every American
> citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with
> some sort of space to take up in this great nation."
|
| 118 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Mon, Feb 11, 2008, 12:08
|
I applaud Mrs. pelosi's efforts to ensure that George W Bush will have a fair chance at employment after January, 2009.
|
| 119 | tree on the treo
ID: 40842210
Mon, Feb 11, 2008, 12:30
|
beat me to it. man, that was like tossing softballs...
|
| 120 | Jag
ID: 5112883
Mon, Feb 11, 2008, 23:20
|
President Bush and VP Cheney are sitting in a bar.
A guy walks in and asks the barman, "Isn't that Bush and
Cheney sitting over there?"
The bartender says, "Yep, that's them."
So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a
real honor! What are you guys doing in here?"
Bush says, "We're planning WW III."
The guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"
&nbs p; Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Muslims
and one blonde with big tits."
The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big tits?
Why kill a blonde with big tits?"
Bush turns to Cheney and says, "See, I told you,
no one gives a shit about the 140 million Muslims.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|