Richards

Given the stakes, what would qualify as 'knowing for sure' in this context? A confession? A dozen eye witnesses? Being caught in the act? I would guess that being caught in the act might be a good qualifier. I see your point that you cannot aver be sure which is why I said "if" we could know for sure. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

That argument is one that I have never agreed with. Are Americans of European descent now supposed to have no self determination in their own nation because their ancestors denied it to someone else? Is that a curse or burden that we are born with? Shoe on the other foot? I am frightened by that statement. It scares me how often that argument is used against westerners or often white peope as though the ones who are now on the receiving end of a wrong are somehow justifiably deserving of that wrong because of their heritage or skin colour. I displaced nobody. Should I go back to europe even though I am not a citizen of any country there. Are north americans uniquely to become a people without a homeland because our ancestors committed wrongs? Many nations on earth were previously owned by displaced persons. Should the cycle of "your people did it to those people so now it is only right that we give your generation of your people your just desserts" continue indefinitely? That is not irony or justice. THat is generations of hate being perpetuated. Every wrong that had been perpetuated against me by a minority has apparently been justified by the fact that people who look like me once did bad things to people who look like him. I am willing to say that we need to work to make the world a fairer place for all but I am a north american not a european and I should have as much right as a citizen of any other country to have a say in our immigration policy. I cannot be born guilty and thus without rights. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

To an extent yes. Changing your law simply because they will break it anyway is a serious concession of your sovereignty. It is up to your nation to decide immigration laws in accordance with it's needs, not up to others to make you submit. Again I am speaking from a Canadian perspective here so I cannot say how much this applies on your side, but here many economists and policy experts agree we need to cut back yet the government does not. When Mulroney massively increased our immigration intake by 150% he said it was a neccesary inflation fighting measure (despite the fact that we were in a recession. It is also worth noting that on your side Alan Greenspan was quoted as saying that immigration should be uncapped so as to counter inflation. It appears that some people do base this policy decision on cutting costs at the expense of the domestic polulation It would seem that stricter enforcement would be a better solution. See at least there we have a reason for changing it other than merely conceding. If the law is a flawed law then yes change it. Don't change it so that crimes cease to be crimes. Sorry but I have to disagree. Thats like telling cops not to pursue criminals because it can cause accidents. Instead of backing off, transfer the risk. Make it a higher consequence to get caught illegaly in the US and for hiring illegals. As for better solutions (and more long term) it has also been mentioned on this board that working to help bring mexicos economy up would be a great start. It could take at least a genaration but it is a better solution than simply bending your policies. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

You are right. It was uncalled for on my part so I apologise Partly I am basing my input on Canada's laws, but I was under the impression that, that part of your law was identical to ours based on prior discussions on this forum. Here the mother and father also get citizenship which is why it is so strongly abused and opposed here. I am still not comfortable with the idea of giving the kid citizenship because there is the concern of what possibilities that opens up. I am not anti-immigrant by the way. If you have seen my posts on most any topic I have very strong views on any abuse or policy that is open to abuse. This includes stealing, cell-phone misuse, academic dishonesty and of course illegal immigration because it is ultimately people like me and you that pay for these apparently "victimless" crimes. It is a very hot topic up here in Canada because our immigration/refugee laws are so blatantly open to abuse that they have become an international joke. To further add to the problem our politicians use them as a political chip to be played at will regardless of the cost to canadians. It appears that there is at least a similar trend down on your side of the border. I do feel that Canada and the US have a certain obligation to our mexican, central american and caribbean neighbors more so than to countries across the ocean (neighbors first), which is why in this thread and others I have voiced my support for efforts to try to bring mexicos economy up to a more first world standard of living. Ideally if the 3 nations were on par (economically) then like the EU, immigration would be less of an issue of cheap labour at the expense of domestic workers issue and more of an issue of matching certain skills with jobs where they are needed My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Is the 'whiny PM' under discussion Chretien, Martin, or Harper? If you are referring to Chretien, then I understand, but it also surprises me that Harper has not started to play hardball when it comes to illegal immigration. It was actually Trudeau. He was the begginning of all things bad for this country, not to mention an international embarrasment. Chretien certainly pandered to the illegal crowd, as did Martin (as they pandered to every special interest group at the expense of the country). Harper, unfortunately has a minority government and has limitted power, not to mention that there has been so much fear mongering about the Conservatives that he cannot afford to implement severe change without causing hysteria that will bring the Liberals back in full force. He has to wait, show that he can do a good job, get a majority government and then perhaps his party can implement some real change in that regard. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

To each thier own I guess, but I would be inclined to say that is one thing that is worth changing. Imagine if every female illegal in the US squeezed out a pup; you would have a flood of new instant citizens (babies and their parents). All someone has to do is cross your border illegally and stay out of sight long enough to drop a rugrat. Why do you think that a policy which makes it so easy for illegals to force thier way in is special? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Immigration policy should not be dictated by the presumption that "if we do not let them come legally they will come illegally". It basically decides that the best way to stop people from breaking the law is to change the law so that they can do it without it being illegal. Now if the argument is that the US is underpopulated and does not have enough workers who are willing to work in accordance with your labour laws nor enough people to keep rents or housing prices at a high enough levels then yes increasing immigration is a good thing. Otherwise you are resigning yourself to letting criminals dictate to you what your policies should be. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

The strange thing is I am quite fond of latin american culture and would welcome immigrants from that region, but it angers me that they have arrived on our doorstep claiming "refugee" status. Apparently by enforcing your immigration laws you are "persecuting" them. At the end of the day, the law is the law and they are breaking it yet portray themselves as victims. Also it sounds like from what you are describing that you are getting the bottom of thier barrel with all the crime. If it is causing danger now to US citizens then the government needs to start doing it's job. The best you can do is keep pressure on those that you vote for so they clean the problem up. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Already here. Damn! I knew it! All along you root munchers were living amongst us omnivorous types right under our noses. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

No probem. Glad to clear that up for you. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I aim to please It seems that these things tend to creep along into something bigger. I deplore gratuitous use of the slippery slope argument at the first sign of change but I will use it when I see a slipperry slope developing over time. Up here in the Peoples Multicultural Republic of Canuckistan we have had even more ridiculous policies on illegals, refugees, legal immigrants and all other manner of people coming here. It started with multiculturalism (by a whiny PM that most leaders laughed at) and led to Canada's refusal to deport anyone for anything including terrorists while simultaneously openning the doors wide open and leaving them ungaurded. Now that our government has learned the power of the immigrant/refugee/squatter/newcomer vote they have tried all sorts of silliness to capitalize upon it. We have had them argue that landed immigrants who have not yet become citizens should be allowed to vote, they have tried to propose allowing refugees to vote, and in toronto they have even tried to allow "illegal immigrants" to vote so long as they can show that they are illegally employed and residing here because they are apparently an "integral part of the canadian fabric". None of these silly ideas have passed (thank god) but the fact that they are willing to even test the waters with them suggests to me that they will become reality in the future. Currently women can show up in a head to toe burka with face veil and vote in all levels of elections including federal without having to show that their face actually matches their ID. Anyone who argues against it gets told that "we are all immigrants", and or told to "stop your whining because you people took this land from the natives" and an assortment of other silly non-arguments, most of which invoke some variant of the race card. A border is your right to defend as is residency limitation. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Good lord who knows. Next we will have....gasp..vegetarian skydivers. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

He should run for public office! All those politicians do that! Precisely. It seems that the straw man argument is as popular here as the race card. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I was verifying that you thought children born to illegal immigrants inside the US are not illegal immigrants. I mean, they didn't move from one country to another in their lifetime, right? I would have expected most people would have read into what I meant by the statement, but to clarify it for you what I was trying to articulate was that most existing americans were born here to citizen parents. Granted I have no real source for this but I would confidently suggest that most were not born here to illegal immigrants, nor were there parents I suspect. By all means let me know if I am wrong on that. To answer your question, no I do not think someone birthed here by illegal immigrant parents should be granted citizenship. That is simply a cheap back door approach to getting into the country by less than honest meens. I am no more fond of that idea than I am of the idea of "amnesties". People who come here illegally should be sent home. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

#$@&ing tree hugger My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Fell like adding another amendment then? I'm still trying to figure out what he meant by that, where he read that in my post or where he is going with it. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Heres a real green car. The wave of the future. http://www.fresh99.com/fred-flintstone-car.htm My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

No, and I am not sure how you read that from my statement. Can you please clarify where I stated or implied that? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I have in the past aggressively had to wave them away to the point of finally having to open the door, step out and say "do not touch". I have seen other people yell at them to no avail, as they went ahead and squeageed anyway. Most will just count on your sense of "obligation" after they have "done you a service" but every once and awhile they will get agressive if they are not paid, because you see "they performed the service and are now owed compensation for thier labour" despite the fact that they forced the labour onto you. Even if they are not aggressive after the fact, washing the window when you have said no is wrong. Nowadays there are all kinds of coatings people can put in thier windshields to assist in keeping them clean, and these guys can ruin that when they squeagee them, hence they are doing damage. This is moot however, because even if there is no damage done, if someone askes them not to touch thier car, they should not touch their car. Even when I walk down the street and see them doing that crap it tends to make my blood boil. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

That's fine. I have no problem with them being there to earn some cash, so long as they understand some basic boundaries. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Fine if you have it to spare, but ultimately you shouldn't have to do that. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Somehow they got the name squeagee kids (not sure how) but it is precisely beacause it is mostly adults doing it that I put quotations around the word "kids". They would be fine if they asked for permission (once) before touching the car, and gracefully moved on to the next car if told no. That never seems to be the way it works though. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

You haven't seen these guys? These are the guys who stand on street corner intersections downtown with a bucket and a window squeagee and when cars pull up at a red light they run out and clean car windows for spare change. It might be admirable that they are at least working for it but they do not ask your permission first, they just start in most cases. Then ...."you owe them". If you wave them off they do it anyway. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Immigrants are people who have moved from one country to another during thier lifetime. I suspect most white americans were born here. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Pet peeves; 1: Idiot cell-phone users 2: Telemarketters 3: Aggressive panhandlers (although this is getting better) 4: Squeagee "kids" 5: Pineapple on pizza...that's just wrong My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.