 |
If they cared about workers rights they'd allow water to flow through the central California valley again instead of protecting some little fish or whatever their excuse of the day is - because there ain't no lettuce to pick there any more.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Not exactly. If there was any fear being thrown around during that debate, it was YOUR side doing the throwing. THAT law, however, is a good first step. It moves the conversation in the RIGHT direction... The Arizona law, on the other hand, is a step BACKWARDS. It moves the conversation in exactly the WRONG direction.
excon
You say that as if BOTH sides didn't do their fair share of fear mongering on that issue as well as this issue. The facts then were the majority of Americans OPPOSED Obamacare, the majority of Americans were happy with the way things were, and it was rammed through anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The facts now show illegal immigration IS a serious problem and the overwhelming majority SUPPORT Arizona's law. You are the one that has things backwards.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I admit that my ideas are not popular. Clearly, the majority of Americans think something else. However, as my mentor D*ck Cheney, said, so?
Interestingly, our Constitutional rights are not based on popularity or majority rule. Ifin they were, we wouldn't have any. Certainly, you'da lost your favorite. If you realized that, you might be a bit more supportive of the ones you don't like for fear of losing the ones you do.
But, you don't.
excon
Actually, I just don't get why you'd support the law if wasn't allegedly based on fear. To me that says you agree with the law.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I agree with the idea that people have a right to control their borders and to know WHO is in their country. IF the Arizona were part of a THREE pronged approach, I'd have no problem with it. A three pronged approach would indicate to ME, that it's an attempt to SOLVE the problem. This law, all by itself, doesn't solve the problem. It exacerbates it.
The three prongs?? (1) Prosecution of BOTH sides of the equation - the worker AND the employer. (2) Amnesty. (3) Identifying who is who - the Arizona law.
If we DID that, we wouldn't have to "secure" the border (which is an impossibility), because if there weren't jobs here, the Mexicans wouldn't come.
excon
PS> Secure border?? Dudes! Look northward. See a map. Use your eyeballs. Think...
What? If we secure the southern border "the Mexicans" will start entering via Canada?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I think we should invite lets say 20 million highly skilled Chinese to Washington State, Oregon and California.. under the condition they never leave the west coast.. help drive down wages... see how well that goes over in the bastions of liberal idealism when it's their jobs at risk.
After all, it's a myth that ALL illegals are either uneducated or unskilled.
Even paper pushers can be replaced by an illegal who will work for 1/2 what they made. Might be Latino... might be Indian, Russian or even Chinese as several examples.
In fact there are droves of College educated eastern Europeans that would jump at the chance that don't even speak spanish.
The left is trying to make it look like rascism directed at Latinos to sucker them into support... when reality is far from the lefts propaganda.
To show the hypocrisy of the people crying about Arizonas law...
Why aren't they crying about pasports and customs at every other port of entry to the USA?.
Hmmmmm. THey WANT Mexicans to come as they wish... but want to stop every other nationality... the reeks of rascism to me.
A majority of Americans are not affected by Obamacare, just those who can't afford it, or for some reason get canceled by the insurance company, or were denied medical procedures that insurance didn't want to pay for. Or just don't want healthy insurance for whatever reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It also standardizes states with varying regulations to make it more affordable for those that have it, by opening up the competition across states, and giving all of us options where we had little or none before. And seniors get their doctor visits for their after care consults PAID for, and it closes the donut whole that left them thousands of dollars short in prescription options, and
If you still don't buy insurance or don't want it, cool, because the only penalty is you don't get TAX CREDITS for having it. There are no civil, or criminal penalties for not having health insurance, and no death panels, and only your primary physician makes decisions on the procedures HE deems necessary. So what's wrong with that?? You may even find, as I am finding, that I can afford to upgrade my insurance policy!!
Change I can believe in, plus I don't listen to fear mongers trying to scare me into dumb personal decisions. So NO, I don't get facts from the FOX.
It's the same thing with the Arizona law, it picks at the low hanging fruit, but the tree still stands, because they have the law ignoring their contribution to the problem. Questions.
How many buses do you need to send 420 million people back to their country?
How many national guardsmen to patrol the borders?
How many people to round up 20 million to get them on the buses?
How much will it cost the state to feed, clothe, and water 20 million people in detention, when you do round them up, and the cost of where you detain them till the bus comes?
Forget how much, just tell me where the money is going to come from??
Forget the fear, lets look at the facts before we get the handcuffs out, considering everyone we send back, will turn around, and be back next week!! Who pays for that??
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello steve and smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
So, it's the MEXICANS you want to keep out, huh, Steve? Not concerned about the illegals coming in from the North? Smoothy is. By the way, smootho, with our 3,000 miles of UNSECURED border with Canada, we ARE inviting those people in. Why do you think I pointed that out? It ain't no different than when we invited the Mexicans in...
By the way, smoothy, you really should stop making stuff up. I'll argue for the things I SAID - not the things you say I said, but didn't.I don't want the Mexicans to come in... I said so in the post right above. I was very clear. You should read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
excon
I don't really follow what you are trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Ex, you're the one that profiled "the Mexicans."Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Do you read, watch, listen to the news? Businesses are already weighing the benefits of dropping health care coverage and paying the penalty instead. I know for a fact it will be cheaper for my employer to pay the penalty and I foresee him doing so, so don't tell me Obamacare only affects a small percentage pf people. It will affect EVERY American one way or another, when only a small percentage of Americans NEEDED assistance, which you acknowledge. So why then didn't they address ONLY those who needed help and leave the rest of us alone?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Back to the Border Wars, fresh on the heels of the Obama administration apologizing to one of history's worst human rights violators for a law not yet in force that our top law enforcement official hasn't read, we now learn the lady in charge of Homeland Security has been critical of a law she hasn't read either.
Hasn't anyone noticed a pattern here? Shouldn't the people in charge have to read what they're ranting about or hey, how about the laws they keep passing?
I think the Obama adm is littered with illiterates . I can understand not reading in totality Obamacare . I hear the bills being crafted for "financial reform" and cap and tax are even more ponderous.
But reading and comprehending the Arizona law can be accomplished in 15 minutes by remedial readers .
That's the point, if your job drops you, you have other options. And it's a fact that employers may be rattling their sabers a bit, they also have tax incentives that make it better to NOT drop their coverage because they can actually save YOU, and THEM, some money, and get a better plan. All Americans making under $88,000 a year for a family of 4 will get subsidies, and tax breaks. And better options.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
"If you like what you have, and your happy with it, then you keep what you have"- The president has said this numerous times, and the fact is you may want to upgrade.
I agree with prongs 1 and 3 prosecute those breaking the laws and knowing who is here. Prong 2-- why is this necessary? If there are no jobs, they will leave right that's what you said, so... why do they need amnesty?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I am sorry excon, If we can put men into space and create pex tubing there is no reason we can not put up a wall along our northern and southern borders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Quote:
[Assistant Secretary of State Michael] Posner said in addition to talks on freedom of religion and expression, labor rights and rule of law, officials also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial discrimination.
He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the American record and in fact raised on its [sic] own a new immigration law in Arizona that requires police to ask about a person's immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in the country illegally.
Show me the apology please.
The writer of the piece you quoted above are all right leaning bloggers and we all know they only represent a particular opinion, and there are as many that don't agee with them, basically me.Quote:
National Review, The American Enterprise, American Experiment Quarterly,
That's exactly why I say it panders to fear, and does nothing to address the problem of illegal immigration. Election year pandering to be seen as doing something, like putting a child's band-aid on a shotgun wound and charging the victim. Oh, At the former Governor of Arizona, vetoed similar bill twice, but she hasn't read this one but no doubt her staff is tearing it apart. Results to come, but for now, I doubt the 70% who support this rubbish have read the bill either. Fear WILL be replaced with facts, and common sense though, so no worries. Especially when they have to raise the Arizona state taxes. Then everyone will read the darn thing. HMMMM, is that why they wrote it? For cover on other things to come? Like banning all voluntary ethnic classes in the public schools??Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Better take a better look at Arizona, before you jump on the band wagon, as they seem to have an agenda to me.
You may want to check your facts and read the actual law. I agree there are no death panels, no pro-abortion rules and generally it is a generic law that empowers an executive agency to make regulations. There is however not a loss of tax credits it's a fine of your tax refund that is in the balance up to a certain amount. The obama bill is very much like the MA law, and that's the rule here as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The problem is that when you delegate to an executive agency the power to make regulations they can take on a whole other life of their own (IRS and the FCC just to name a couple) and become powerful burecratic monsters.
Uh, no it isn't. You said "A majority of Americans are not affected by Obamacare." That's not true, and that's the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Yeah? When the majority of businesses drop their health care coverage just exactly how are we going to be able keep what we were happy with when we're going to get forced into one of the government approved exchanges?Quote:
"If you like what you have, and your happy with it, then you keep what you have"- The president has said this numerous times, and the fact is you may want to upgrade.
Hello again, ad:Quote:
Originally Posted by adthern
Yes there is.
Even if we DID build a 3,000 mile long fence up there, and a 1,500 mile one down south - let's make it 20' high, and I'll even spot you a bunch national guard troops on the fence too - we ain't going to keep people out.
Why do I know that?? I know it, because there are some who actually believe that we can keep drugs out of the country, if we only "cracked down" (build a fence?? ). The ultimate expression of cracking down on drugs, would be level 5 federal penitentiary. It has a wall, and several fences. It has guard towers. It has guards. Visitors are searched.
There's drugs in there. Lots of 'em.
So, it doesn't take a great leap of faith to assume, that whatever fence you want to put up, somebody will get around it. Maybe even lots of people.
excon
DemConWatch:: Obama Executive Order on Health Care
Warning it's a tedious read!
These cities in California voting to boycott AZ? They apparently haven't read California law.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Man, that sounds an awful lot like Arizona's law doesn't it?Quote:
(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.
Build it, and they will figure out a way to get around it.Quote:
Originally Posted by adthern
I am sorry excon, If we can put men into space and create pex tubing there is no reason we can not put up a wall along our northern and southern borders.
Nobody has told me where the money comes from?
Cutting off welfare, education and emergency medical care to Illegals would more than cover it.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I can agree to a point, but would never cut emergency medical care for any human that needs it.Quote:
Cutting off welfare, education and emergency medical care to Illegals would more than cover it.
Except the part about being sued by any one who says they are not enforcing the new law. Many In Arizona law enforcement, already follow federal guidelines, and state procedures for law enforcement, and only question those with no ID, or means to verify identity. That's already a procedure on the books. So why right this duplication> An election year?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I should have specified "adversely affected".Quote:
QUOTE by speechlesstx;
Uh, no it isn't. You said "A majority of Americans are not affected by Obamacare." That's not true, and that's the point.
Are you afraid it might happen, or will happen? Right now there is no evidence that it has, or will happen, and every indication is companies are already restructuring to meet the new guidelines, that give you more options than what you liked before. And saves THEM money (Or makes them even more). So what are your fears (points with no FACTS) even based on.Quote:
When the majority of businesses drop their health care coverage just exactly how are we going to be able keep what we were happy with when we're going to get forced into one of the government approved exchanges?
You know, what will you say if you find what you like even cheaper? My health insurance through my company has already gone down and I have the notice to prove it. $34 bucks a month, deducted from my monthly check. Fact overcome fear.
Don't wish to hijack Ex's border posting so I will provide a link to Obamacare on the Obamacare thred
Hey ex,Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Wall not fence--and I never said my wall wasn't going to have machine gun towers in it, because it does!
Also, no doubt drugs will still come through the boarders, that's not what Im trying to keep out. Many of the drugs that come through the prison are in body cavities--I am fairly sure, though I know a few people who could, no one is going to carry a fully grown illegal immigrant farm worker in their body cavity--well except this one girl...
Everyone is so against a wall... why is that? If it doesn't work--it doesn't work, we spend a few hundred million maybe a billion to at least give it a try... hell we spend more than that on hair gel for obama!Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
But seriously, the money comes out of the taxes, yup its on the back of the american working person--and normally I am very against taxes, but this one I would gladly pay for--hell I bet if you had a telethon for the wall you would get enough money!
Just as a matter of law--No one is ever denied emergency medical care in any hospital or clinic in the United States. Period. I know this because I am a nurse and am bound by that particular law every time I work in an ER.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
It is undeniable that a wall would work . Would it be 100 %effective ? Probably not ;but would it prevent the unimpeded border invasion ? Absolutely . Perhaps with some controllable numbers here a rational policy could be attempted. But amnesty without border control ? Been there done that.
Hello again, ad:
From an article you can read here. "... Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said a wall running the length of a border would cost too much. A 2,000 mile state-of-the-art border fence has been estimated to cost between four and eight billion dollars."
That covers the Mexican border... One up north will cost at least 10 billion more... But, it's only taxpayers money...
excon
Ex you are looking at this all wrong, look at the economic stimulus package this represents and most of the work has to be done in areas where there isn't much work available so it has a bonus effect. The stimulus flows into steel, concrete, trucking, construction, so take back the money from those banks who didn't want it anyway and put some of those unemployed to work. Hell you could even subcontract it out to cheap labour from Mexico. You would have no shortage of takers and it might even lure some of those illegals back to the other side of the border. Not only that you will get a thing of lasting beauty, a new wonder of the world. If little Israel can build their wall surely the US isn't to be outdone by a tiny nationQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Now we are talking, building a wall the banks, insurance companies, and the drug industry has to pay for. Where do I sign up, and how high. Heck lets throw in big OIL, and build it with cameras on top, and a REC center for the guards.
I think Arizona would be better off modeling its law off Mexicos Illegal immigration law.
Lets see the Mexicans squirm out of THAT one the next time the two faced bigot President Calderon sugests OUR law is unfair to his people. Then justify THEIR law... they do vigerously enforce on their southern border.
Abject poverty brings out the worst in us humans sometimes.
Commissioner Gary Pierce of the Arizona Corporate Commission sent LA's mayor a response to their decision to boycott AZ:
Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,
I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).
You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)
I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.
People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.
Sincerely,
Commissioner Gary Pierce
He should have also asked him if he understood California's own similar laws.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:50 AM. |