Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court Smackdown On Brit, Obama, and Olde

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • davdah
    replied
    Live long and prosper.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    The likely result is not 'anarchist', it is based on what we know of human nature and collective behavior under the specific conditions you think will have a certain effect which i tell you it won't. It will have an effect, but not the kind you write you are expecting.

    Anywho, have a good one and recall our debates 10 to 20 years from now. Who knows, if ilw.com still exists and i am still around i may drop by to say my final word on the subject.

    I wish you excellent health and long years to live.

    Leave a comment:


  • davdah
    replied
    I've been to enough places to see just about everything there is to see. That includes the jungles outside of east L.A. Quite frankly though, I felt safer in a Thai jungle than I did on Wilshire Blvd. If fair or numbers quote similar ideas, that's a coincidence since I don't make it a point to frequent either site, and they I doubt, this one. It's a perception taking into account the reasoning for coming here from a country where you're not hunted for sport.

    The drive and motivation for most is money and the majority following the allure are not from a country run by a fascist dictator. I would agree that a person who's suffered tremendously wouldn't as easily walk back across the border as one who hasn't. Those are the exception and we're generally speaking to strangers of torture.

    I don't agree with your anarchist result. If a father who brought his kids here comes home one day and says, "Sorry guys, we have to go back to Tijuana.", his kids won't take up machete hunting in Compton for loaves of bread the next morning. Contrary to the movie once promoted, they're not that barbaric. Taking that premise and ensuring that limits aren't pushed it will be done gradually to mitigate the possibility of riots. That being, creating enough time to permit moving without getting too hungry in the process.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    The numbers of people who have the option and willing ability to feed open mouths and empty pockets is up for grabs I guess.

    From what I know, the vast majority who do are those doing the illegal work already. If they are cut off, who will feed them? Not many given the general character of those who came here to begin with. Many of them came here for sake of money, the pull. Take that away and the attraction here becomes nil and what little there is from the home land is like a vacuum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I don't think you have good understanding or knowledge of what you are talking about. But i don't blame you. You merely repeat what you hear or read on pages of www.fairus.org or numbersusa.

    In other words, it doesn't matter to you whether what anyone says is factually accurate or false, what matters to you is that you have few lines that you chose to repeat and you will keep repeating those lines regardless of their accuracy or facts to contrary.

    It is of course your choice to thoughtlessly keep repeating those lines, like a mantra.
    There is may be a sort of a relief in doing that, i can imagine, since you don't have to bother doing what most people hate doing: THINKING.

    In any event, my original statement was that SOME (note, i didn't say all) people will be taken care of by family , and i still stick to that statement. Some people just don't need prenuptial , not are jungle animals when treating part of their own family, and don't just drop their wounded to die to save their own a.ssess. To say that there are no such people among those related to illegals is to exhibit a paramount degree of ignorance.

    As to many others , and particularly youth raised and living on the hoods or those who don't have tight knit families, those will just join the gangs and start hunting the streets in search of whatever means they can find to sustain themselves.
    A youth given a choice to work for a cartel and hang around East side LA with a machine gun , or do same in Mexico, will most likely chose to stay here. And why wouldn't they?

    So, just because certain incentives are removed doesn't mean those who have roots here or been raised here will turn around and go home.
    There are many strings, pull and push factors involved and "jobs" may not be a top priority in significantly large numbers of those cases.
    Killing job opportunities will only exacerbate the hardships of those who still will strive to do it the only way they believe is right to do, while will encourage others to do the only way poor and uneducated resort to when times get tough (that is, join street gangs, work for cartels and make money controlling the hood and whatever trade you can bring into it).


    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    The description of WWII Europe doesn't apply. We're talking mostly of people from Mexico where silver isn't traded and only the cartels have machine guns. Which by the way isn't much different than East L.A. by all accounts. Avoid that lifestyle and you're not likely to encounter any problems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hehe, WWII Europe? Hehehehe I wasn't describing WWII Europe, i was describing late 80s , early 90s. I didn't say "saw millions dead, houses bombarded, with "wealthiest" happy to get by with couple hundred gramms of bread per day". Now , that would be reflective of WWII and many parts of Europe then.
    But, as i thought, you have no clue about where many of current generation immigrants may be coming from.



    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    I don't expect it to be an overnight spectacle. Before it will have any meaningful impact the great majority of states where there is a high penetration will need to enact similar statutes. Initially there will be some bouncing from state to state until the hope of another place to go to within these borders runs dry. It will take a couple years to run it's course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Please don't. There are plenty of places where people are well educated and mannered enough, or simply decent enough not to think of you as if you were some Shudra in Indian Provence just because you "look like an illegal".


    As to the no-sanctuary bills, no one is going to run from city to city when more and more states enact laws that get tougher towards those who are present without proper documentation. The ****hest they may run is from Xenophobic locales to those with a lot more civil and well disposed towards each other communities.
    But, s i said, as long as there is no mass removal campaign most of those who have roots or raised here will stay in this country, no matter how difficult the going gets.

    Come Eisenhower style removal measures and things will change. Once you go street to street, door to door, 30,000-60,000 individuals detained for removal per day , done so non-stop for a duration of 6 months or a year, well, that's when millions may flee. Until then, all you do is just make it harder for people, without doing anything to solve the issue one way or another.

    Recall my words few years from now.


    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    Why worry over other inmates being released?
    If a stove is black it doesn't make the kettle any less so. That same excuse pointing fingers at another transgression does nothing to lesson the one committed. It's the same reasoning used by every speeder caught on the highway. "The guy next to me was going even faster, why didn't you stop them?" Reply, "Maybe they were but you were speeding too." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What do you mean 'why worry?'
    Because you claim to worry about transgression per sey regardless of those who commit them, and consequences of not imposing adequate punishment.

    It is just not consistent with the claim of impartiality to, on one hand, loudly advocate making a show of burning at stakes a group of individuals pronounced guilty of, let's say, speeding, while not giving a hoot about another group guilty of serious felonies who is being set free as we speak here.

    How do you explain your own glaring inconsistency ?

    If you are truly concerned about letting criminals go ( since, as you maintain, it would encourage more of the same ) then how come you show such zealotry only in regards to those whose acts are not even classified as a crime under the LAW ( just as a speeding violation, overstay , for instance, is not a CRIME under INA), while you are so complacent and OK with tens of thousands of convicted felons who are serving time being released to walk free on the very streets of the State you claim to be living in?

    How do you explain such inconsistency, davdah?

    Tsk-tsk-tsk....

    Leave a comment:


  • davdah
    replied
    The numbers of people who have the option and willing ability to feed open mouths and empty pockets is up for grabs I guess.

    From what I know, the vast majority who do are those doing the illegal work already. If they are cut off, who will feed them? Not many given the general character of those who came here to begin with. Many of them came here for sake of money, the pull. Take that away and the attraction here becomes nil and what little there is from the home land is like a vacuum.

    The description of WWII Europe doesn't apply. We're talking mostly of people from Mexico where silver isn't traded and only the cartels have machine guns. Which by the way isn't much different than East L.A. by all accounts. Avoid that lifestyle and you're not likely to encounter any problems.

    I don't expect it to be an overnight spectacle. Before it will have any meaningful impact the great majority of states where there is a high penetration will need to enact similar statutes. Initially there will be some bouncing from state to state until the hope of another place to go to within these borders runs dry. It will take a couple years to run it's course.

    Why worry over other inmates being released?
    If a stove is black it doesn't make the kettle any less so. That same excuse pointing fingers at another transgression does nothing to lesson the one committed. It's the same reasoning used by every speeder caught on the highway. "The guy next to me was going even faster, why didn't you stop them?" Reply, "Maybe they were but you were speeding too."

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    I disagree. You can only lean on relatives for so long until they give you the boot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Some relatives are deep-s.hit and are like that. But not all made of same material. Some are steel iron you will break your teeth on.


    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    It doesn't matter what country they come from or how supposedly deep the roots of family values run. Compassion is never unlimited. Most came here in search of a better standard of living. Running a flop house wasn't in the cards and won't be for long. At some point they'll have to leave. A silent and continual exodus will begin soon enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Not an appropriate comparison. If relationship is strong and individuals in family aren't deeps.s.h.i.t then they don't stand next to their kin "out of compassion" and only when it is convenient to do so.
    It is totally different determination. Fierce, unyielding, willing to die but never give up.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It won't take a general riding his steed into battle or long lines of leg ironed refugees in tattered clothing to instigate a fearful retreat to the home land. Remove the paycheck and they'll go. This isn't 1950 where physical removal was necessary to make it so. Today, all it takes is a mouse click to create a profound impact on a lot of people. Technology is a very sharp sword. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The guys in Trentons' Hitler worshiping network who dream up those theories are bunch of nerds and very stupid ones at that. I don't know how much longer their predictions will have to fail [so far they failed miserably] for their ideas to cease to be popular, but eventually and inevitably it will happen.

    The only way to remove people who came here as a consequence of "push factor" back home is to create even greater pressure in opposite direction.

    Assuming the fact that some have seen death, hundreds murdered by machine guns on the streets, corruption where you are willfully neglected to death in emergency if you have nothing to pay for care, or beaten to near death in police station to accept guilt in a crime you never committed, with morals of individuals so rotten that brother will betray brother for 30 pieces of silver... you don't have no f.ucking idea what people could be coming or escaping from. Material well-being may be far from first priority , with some leaving a much more comfortable , in terms of just material sufficiency, living.

    Mere removal of incentives can hardly counterbalance the presence of numerous negative pressures you can't begin to think about because it's a reality far from one you ever grew accustomed to.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    What is rational and by who's standard? Perhaps to you it means letting the greater percentage stay. To others it's something all together different.

    Another issue is what will it do to perceived societal value and obedience? If all those illegal acts are summarily forgiven how can other criminal behavior be held to a punitive standard? The citizenry will rightfully expect blanket absolution for their indiscretions. How can that be refused with a straight face? How can government expect anyone to fear the law when there are no teeth? They won't. Either what is right is maintained as such or breaking the law will be as meaningless as the fences at the border. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    And if you not be telling a lie but sincerely believing in what you say, why don't you protest the flooding US courts rulings in past few years, where Courts order one batch of felons after another to be released to the streets , just because they don't have enough funds to keep them behind bars?
    These are not mere visa overstayers or border crossers whose most paramount sin is living and working without authorization. Nay, we are talking about convicted felons, amnestied as matter of fact as we speak. How is this discouraging folks who do the same sort of crimes as means of living?
    So, there your lies and double standards come out, exposed clear and unambiguously, unless you show 100 times more energy and determination to fight release of convicted felons first and civil violators next.

    Leave a comment:


  • davdah
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As to employment, you are very wrong about it, many will be able to sustain even without it.
    Some (the most cautious or elderly or those having the best family support) will simply be taken care of by their close relatives or friends. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


    I disagree. You can only lean on relatives for so long until they give you the boot. It doesn't matter what country they come from or how supposedly deep the roots of family values run. Compassion is never unlimited. Most came here in search of a better standard of living. Running a flop house wasn't in the cards and won't be for long. At some point they'll have to leave. A silent and continual exodus will begin soon enough.

    It won't take a general riding his steed into battle or long lines of leg ironed refugees in tattered clothing to instigate a fearful retreat to the home land. Remove the paycheck and they'll go. This isn't 1950 where physical removal was necessary to make it so. Today, all it takes is a mouse click to create a profound impact on a lot of people. Technology is a very sharp sword.


    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    On the other hand, nerdy 'think tanks' won't allow for any rational or comprehensive solution to become a law. Just imagine being a Senator and having your phones ring 10000 times a day , with angry and threatening voices of a group of crazed fanatics controlled and ordered to make those calls by well known to all of us Tanton related non-profs.
    If i was a Senator, i too would be scared for my life to vote in support of rational solution i believed in.
    Hence even McCain speaking loudly and denouncing himself for ever supporting sensible solution to the problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


    What is rational and by who's standard? Perhaps to you it means letting the greater percentage stay. To others it's something all together different.

    Another issue is what will it do to perceived societal value and obedience? If all those illegal acts are summarily forgiven how can other criminal behavior be held to a punitive standard? The citizenry will rightfully expect blanket absolution for their indiscretions. How can that be refused with a straight face? How can government expect anyone to fear the law when there are no teeth? They won't. Either what is right is maintained as such or breaking the law will be as meaningless as the fences at the border.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
    Olde moron is certainly desparate. Denial ain't a river in Egypt. You can deny all you want that you said that Arizona's bill would fail and be the Waterloo of the anti-illegal immigration movement, but no one believes you. And I have better things to do than go through your much too many ramblings.

    Since Olde moron is a moron, it is clear he does not know what probable cause is.

    SB1070 specifically states that race cannot be used except as allowed by Supreme Court precedent.

    And you did claim that Kennedy might not have voted.

    You are just so clearly a moron. You stated that Kagan did not vote and that Kennedy might not have voted. That means two did not vote,e.g. 7 justices voting, but the vote was 5-3. That makes 8 justices voting. If Kennedy and Kagan had not voted then the vote would have been 4-4.

    S.tupid is as s.tupid does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Idiot. Arizona passes Bills on almost a daily basis.
    The one i ever discussed was SB 1070 , not the one which was decided by SCOTUS just recently.
    So, just because Arizona passes hundreds of Bills and some of them end up challenged then ruled valid by SCOTUS doesn't mean that it has anything to do with validating SB 1070 i was talking about.

    Even then, what i said was not that SB 1070 will prevail in SCOTUS, but i suggested that ACLU and others don't challenge the similar to AZ laws in other States, instead let's force Brewer to appeal to SCOTUS and have SCOTUS rule on it and IF decided against AZ it will be end of all those bills popping out like mushrooms all over the other States.

    Again, this was in regards to SB 1070 and the specific provisions contained within it that allow individuals be randomly picked , detained and questioned merely because of appearance , since they "LOOK like" illegals (in fact, with zero probable cause and no evidence whatsoever, except ethnic or racial appearance).

    The law about E-Verify has no relation to SB 1070 and in no way appears to be anti-constitutional or illegal, so obviously it got affirmed by SCOTUS and is valid.

    I am not going to call you a moron. That would be an insult to morons.

    Leave a comment:


  • federale86
    replied
    Olde moron is certainly desparate. Denial ain't a river in Egypt. You can deny all you want that you said that Arizona's bill would fail and be the Waterloo of the anti-illegal immigration movement, but no one believes you. And I have better things to do than go through your much too many ramblings.

    Since Olde moron is a moron, it is clear he does not know what probable cause is.

    SB1070 specifically states that race cannot be used except as allowed by Supreme Court precedent.

    And you did claim that Kennedy might not have voted.

    You are just so clearly a moron. You stated that Kagan did not vote and that Kennedy might not have voted. That means two did not vote,e.g. 7 justices voting, but the vote was 5-3. That makes 8 justices voting. If Kennedy and Kagan had not voted then the vote would have been 4-4.

    S.tupid is as s.tupid does.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    The problem with that sort of approach is it invites a more aggressive disobedience from the next wave of would be law breakers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Davdah, this is another big BS you are brainwashed to believe in by minions of Tanton.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    When Reagan declared an amnesty, that sounded a trumpet that our laws could be broken without penalty. As a matter of fact. It announced a reward for doing so. Now we have 10 times the problem. The worlds population didn't swell by that same factor. It was this singular act that created the stampede with an expected unimpeded response. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    As i said above, it's just one of the myths not supported by facts.

    Number one, if you do a little research and read old articles about waiting times vs quotas you will see that as late as 1990 (4 years after TOTAL amnesty declared by Reagan) most of the categories were going unfilled. Not only there were no waiting times for relatives of LPR or those sponsored for PR under employment categories , but even H1b's coming to US (that went through the roof in late 90's) were so rare that INS approved the petitions when the undergrad educational field had nothing to do with sponsored position (just as if US citizen was applying for a job, graduating in one and working in totally different field).
    Then came early nineties and hell broke loose.

    If you look objectively at WHAT really caused the floodgates of immigration to open, you will see the 2 major occurrences (that had nothing to do with 1986 reform) and the consequences of the same:

    1. USSR disintegrated. With it an entire Eastern Block countries decided to drop the Iron Curtain. Millions upon millions left dozens of formerly Warshaw Pact (or W.P.) countries and many ended up here in US for various reasons and under various visa categories and statuses.

    2. #1 by and in itself wouldn't cause the migrational tsunami if it was not for the ripple effect of economic collapses caused in many third world non-Warshaw pact countries by the #1.

    However, with the collapse of W.P. there also was a collapse of welfare support for dozens of the poor countries all over the world that produced almost nothing and lived solely on dotations provided by Soviet block as means of creating a global geopolitical alliance against United States.

    3. With threat of SU removed and new markets open for investment , free trade provided many opportunities for successful enterprises to move to newly opened areas that were off-limits in past. But it also created the effect of mass displacements (as in Mexico for instance) , which further exasperated already alarming rates of migration.

    4. Add to this very rapidly growing US economy that, despite Congress enacting in 1996 draconian laws against illegal immigration, had forced the executive branch to literally close eyes and look in other direction as increasing waves of undocumented people were crossing the border and coming here to work in menial jobs. Booming construction industry , last of great number of labor force consumers , certainly didn't contribute to making things any better in terms of encouraging more enforcement at the Border.

    All the above factors (and probably some more that i missed or didn't list) were a MAJOR and REAL reason for unprecedented scale of immigration. It was NOT a consequence of 1986 reform, rather it was consequence of the radical geopolitical changes that took place immediately prior and during that high (and already passed) wave of latest mass migrations.

    It is contrary to amassed evidence to blame 1986 reform for the consequences of events that took place at least 4-6 years later.


    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    Agree, disagree, or be clueless to the scope and purpose of permitted immigration, there is no need to walk in someone's shoes nor live in their country. It's our laws and country we need think of and what's best for it. We already know why the majority are here. Without employment, most will not be able to sustain themselves for very long. That is why this will be a monumental success. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You don't have to walk in somebody's shoes if you don't want to. No John Lennon songs here. I don't ask for your condescending compassion towards millions whom you chose to regard as mere helots.

    But if you step on that soap box and proclaim yourself an expert in knowing what sort of thing will motivate such and such group of people to act one or another way, well, in such case there is no way around and before claiming or having a knowledge of subject you have no choice but to thoroughly study it. There is no other way to study the motivation of people than to actually experience what they experience so you can start thinking and feeling like they do and consequently be aware of their true motivations (as opposed to writing fantastic f.airy tale novels like those of Tolkien).
    And thAt requires nothing less than walking on the shoes of those on whose behavior and motivation you want to lay a claim of expertise.

    As to employment, you are very wrong about it, many will be able to sustain even without it.
    Some (the most cautious or elderly or those having the best family support) will simply be taken care of by their close relatives or friends.

    Others (especially the youth, younger generation and those who have never seen a life other than as scorned outcasts ) will form street gangs and resort to violence, theft and all kind of organized criminal activity. With Supreme Court ordering California to free 30000 criminals due to lack of resources to fund prisons, think where will the funds come to imprison ever growing number of hardened criminals (these won't be meek day laborers or family fathers or mothers who just agreeably stretch hands to be shackled and cry days and nights about tragedy of separation or broken dreams. These will be young kids or men with 45 caliber shotguns, with too little to lose and ready to unload bullets on anyone just to get whatever it takes to survive.

    This will not be a monumental success, If anything, this will be a monumental tragedy and will just contribute to creation of public fear and apprehension and, subsequently, public support for radical measures that currently do not get implemented due to lack of sufficient public support.

    At such time you may expect the "Operation Kick A.ss" , with rapid removal of millions, in a matter of a year or so.

    Very , very sad and incompetent way to manage the crisis the way that brings it to such critical point where those radical measures will be necessiated. But, with rational thinking being flushed down the toilet and willful denial of facts this is very much the kind of perspective we are looking at . And once all said and done you will be among those responsible for being a part of contributing to it.



    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    This is exactly what I spoke to a year or two back as a way to enforce with the least amount of cost and resistance. The other items I wanted introduced will take some time such as blending the DMV photographic records with E-verify to create an easy to use and nearly fail safe identification system. The third prong would be synchronizing the state and federal employment tax collection databases to ferret out the remainder through computerized forensic accounting techniques.

    Looking over the events that have occurred over the past few years one that stands out is the number of work related raids. The focus is changing and narrowing on the last element of refusal. Those employers who won't comply. They'll get flagged easy enough when tax records fall outside the scope of expected production costs and their reported revenues. From there a visit will be made. The rest is academic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    "Attrition through enforcement" is not something 2 years old theory and is not something you came up with. It is something that center for immigration studies was mulling about as far back as i remember.

    Initially, as i remember, they came up with this 'attrition through enforcement' theory because they figured it would be too embarrassing and lacking of public support if you resorted to creating an "Exodus of Biblical proportions" (exact quote used by one of center's 'think tanks' in one of interviews where he was elatedly explaining what a brilliant 'go around' they devised to get things done without doing anything too visible).
    So, they said, let's just tighten the bolts in increments, nobody will notice but effect , over long term , will be the same as if you unleashed a tornado of enforcement officers looking looking for illegals with a flashlight under every bed in existence.

    Bush administration ignored those silly theories for years, pushed instead for comprehensive immigration reform ,and when latter failed, in typical for Bush administration, energetic and forceful manner, decided to resort to mass raids.

    It wasn't until Obama administration came to office that the blueprint of 'enforcement through attrition' became part of what inspires execution of immigration enforcement.

    I know Janet Napolitano, i remember her as governor of AZ, not just her speeches but most importantly her strong willed actions, i know this is not something she would do if it was up to her to come up with the enforcement strategy.

    For whatever reason current administration decided to go along with the proponents of the 'attrition through enforcement' theory. I do not know whether they do it to prove in practice how it won't work, or whether it is done because the administration does not wish to confront extremely vocal and forceful proponents of this born out of nerds mind theory.

    But what i find most relevant is the fact that for the time since the ideas of these 'attrition through enforcement theory' think tanks were implemented, there is no indication of any of what they propose working.

    Are record number of illegals being detained and deported as we speak? Sure yes!
    Are the administration policies gradually tightening the bolts and implementing in practice the prescribed by center for immigration studies 'medicine' and course of treatment? Absolutely yes!

    Do we see millions , nay hundreds, nay, tens of thousands at least running across the border to the South?

    I leave those with any iota of sense and awareness of reality to answer this question on their own.

    As i mentioned numerous times, nothing short of military style total removal operation can cause the mass departure of 10+ millions of immigrants.
    But public opinion is not ripe for such measures just yet.

    On the other hand, nerdy 'think tanks' won't allow for any rational or comprehensive solution to become a law. Just imagine being a Senator and having your phones ring 10000 times a day , with angry and threatening voices of a group of crazed fanatics controlled and ordered to make those calls by well known to all of us Tanton related non-profs.
    If i was a Senator, i too would be scared for my life to vote in support of rational solution i believed in.
    Hence even McCain speaking loudly and denouncing himself for ever supporting sensible solution to the problem.

    So, what we have at hand is course of events as usual.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE.
    replied
    Blah Blah Blah...

    Who the holy boogey are you to tell a poster you disagree with to "know when to stop"?
    Why should he stop if he wants to voice his opinion? You all f.uckers are bunch of clowns..

    For all practical purposes Obama is elected a President, his legitimacy upheld by all judicial bodies whenever challenged and, lately,a long form of his birth certificate was issued further rebutting any challenge of legitimacy. This subject distracts from real issues this country faces and that is the real downside of futile discussions around it.

    I don't want to participate in this pointless debate , but no one, regardless of position or opinion held shall dare to tell another to "know when to stop".

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    The problem with that sort of approach is it invites a more aggressive disobedience from the next wave of would be law breakers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Davdah, this another big BS you are brainwashed to believe in by minions of Tanton.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    When Reagan declared an amnesty, that sounded a trumpet that our laws could be broken without penalty. As a matter of fact. It announced a reward for doing so. Now we have 10 times the problem. The worlds population didn't swell by that same factor. It was this singular act that created the stampede with an expected unimpeded response. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    As i said above, it's just one of the myths not supported by facts.

    Number one, if you do a little research and read old articles about waiting times vs quotas you will see that as late as 1990 (4 years after TOTAL amnesty declared by Reagan) most of the categories were going unfilled. Not only there were no waiting times for relatives of LPR or those sponsored for PR under employment categories , but even H1b's coming to US (that went through the roof in late 90's) were so rare that INS approved the petitions when the undergrad educational field had nothing to do with sponsored position (just as if US citizen was applying for a job, graduating in one and working in totally different field).
    Then came early nineties and hell broke loose.

    If you look objectively at WHAT really caused the floodgates of immigration to open, you will see the 2 major occurrences (that had nothing to do with 1986 reform) and the consequences of the same:

    1. USSR disintegrated. With it an entire Eastern Block countries decided to drop the Iron Curtain. Millions upon millions left dozens of formerly Warshaw Pact (or W.P.) countries and many ended up here in US for various reasons and under various visa categories and statuses.

    2. #1 by and in itself wouldn't cause the migrational tsunami if it was not for the ripple effect of economic collapses caused in many third world non-Warshaw pact countries by the #1.

    However, with the collapse of W.P. there also was a collapse of welfare support for dozens of the poor countries all over the world that produced almost nothing and lived solely on dotations provided by Soviet block as means of creating a global geopolitical alliance against United States.

    3. With threat of SU removed and new markets open for investment , free trade provided many opportunities for successful enterprises to move to newly opened areas that were off-limits in past. But it also created the effect of mass displacements (as in Mexico for instance) , which further exasperated already alarming rates of migration.

    4. Add to this very rapidly growing US economy that, despite Congress enacting in 1996 draconian laws against illegal immigration, had forced the executive branch to literally close eyes and look in other direction as increasing waves of undocumented people were crossing the border and coming here to work in menial jobs. Booming construction industry , last of great number of labor force consumers , certainly didn't contribute to making things any better in terms of encouraging more enforcement at the Border.

    All the above factors (and probably some more that i missed or didn't list) were a MAJOR and REAL reason for unprecedented scale of immigration. It was NOT a consequence of 1986 reform, rather it was consequence of the radical geopolitical changes that took place immediately prior and during that high (and already passed) wave of latest mass migrations.

    It is contrary to amassed evidence to blame 1986 reform for the consequences of events that took place at least 4-6 years later.


    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    Agree, disagree, or be clueless to the scope and purpose of permitted immigration, there is no need to walk in someone's shoes nor live in their country. It's our laws and country we need think of and what's best for it. We already know why the majority are here. Without employment, most will not be able to sustain themselves for very long. That is why this will be a monumental success. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You don't have to walk in somebody's shoes if you don't want to. No John Lennon songs here. I don't ask for your condescending compassion towards millions whom you chose to regard as mere helots.

    But if you step on that soap box and proclaim yourself an expert in knowing what sort of thing will motivate such and such group of people to act one or another way, well, in such case there is no way around and before claiming or having a knowledge of subject you have no choice but to thoroughly study it. There is no other way to study the motivation of people than to actually experience what they experience so you can start thinking and feeling like they do and consequently be aware of their true motivations (as opposed to writing fantastic f.airy tale novels like those of Tolkien).
    And thAt requires nothing less than walking on the shoes of those on whose behavior and motivation you want to lay a claim of expertise.

    As to employment, you are very wrong about it, many will be able to sustain even without it.
    Some (the most cautious or elderly or those having the best family support) will simply be taken care of by their close relatives or friends.

    Others (especially the youth, younger generation and those who have never seen a life other than as scorned outcasts ) will form street gangs and resort to violence, theft and all kind of organized criminal activity. With Supreme Court ordering California to free 30000 criminals due to lack of resources to fund prisons, think where will the funds come to imprison ever growing number of hardened criminals (these won't be meek day laborers or family fathers or mothers who just agreeably stretch hands to be shackled and cry days and nights about tragedy of separation or broken dreams. These will be young kids or men with 45 caliber shotguns, with too little to lose and ready to unload bullets on anyone just to get whatever it takes to survive.

    This will not be a monumental success, If anything, this will be a monumental tragedy and will just contribute to creation of public fear and apprehension and, subsequently, public support for radical measures that currently do not get implemented due to lack of sufficient public support.

    At such time you may expect the "Operation Kick A.ss" , with rapid removal of millions, in a matter of a year or so.

    Very , very sad and incompetent way to manage the crisis the way that brings it to such critical point where those radical measures will be necessiated. But, with rational thinking being flushed down the toilet and willful denial of facts this is very much the kind of perspective we are looking at . And once all said and done you will be among those responsible for being a part of contributing to it.



    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    This is exactly what I spoke to a year or two back as a way to enforce with the least amount of cost and resistance. The other items I wanted introduced will take some time such as blending the DMV photographic records with E-verify to create an easy to use and nearly fail safe identification system. The third prong would be synchronizing the state and federal employment tax collection databases to ferret out the remainder through computerized forensic accounting techniques.

    Looking over the events that have occurred over the past few years one that stands out is the number of work related raids. The focus is changing and narrowing on the last element of refusal. Those employers who won't comply. They'll get flagged easy enough when tax records fall outside the scope of expected production costs and their reported revenues. From there a visit will be made. The rest is academic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    "Attrition through enforcement" is not something 2 years old theory and is not something you came up with. It is something that center for immigration studies was mulling about as far back as i remember.

    Initially, as i remember, they came up with this 'attrition through enforcement' theory because they figured it would be too embarrassing and lacking of public support if you resorted to creating an "Exodus of Biblical proportions" (exact quote used by one of center's 'think tanks' in one of interviews where he was elatedly explaining what a brilliant 'go around' they devised to get things done without doing anything too visible).
    So, they said, let's just tighten the bolts in increments, nobody will notice but effect , over long term , will be the same as if you unleashed a tornado of enforcement officers looking looking for illegals with a flashlight under every bed in existence.

    Bush administration ignored those silly theories for years, pushed instead for comprehensive immigration reform ,and when latter failed, in typical for Bush administration, energetic and forceful manner, decided to resort to mass raids.

    It wasn't until Obama administration came to office that the blueprint of 'enforcement through attrition' became part of what inspires execution of immigration enforcement.

    I know Janet Napolitano, i remember her as governor of AZ, not just her speeches but most importantly her strong willed actions, i know this is not something she would do if it was up to her to come up with the enforcement strategy.

    For whatever reason current administration decided to go along with the proponents of the 'attrition through enforcement' theory. I do not know whether they do it to prove in practice how it won't work, or whether it is done because the administration does not wish to confront extremely vocal and forceful proponents of this born out of nerds mind theory.

    But what i find most relevant is the fact that for the time since the ideas of these 'attrition through enforcement theory' think tanks were implemented, there is no indication of any of what they propose working.

    Are record number of illegals being detained and deported as we speak? Sure yes!
    Are the administration policies gradually tightening the bolts and implementing in practice the prescribed by center for immigration studies 'medicine' and course of treatment? Absolutely yes!

    Do we see millions , nay hundreds, nay, tens of thousands at least running across the border to the South?

    I leave those with any iota of sense and awareness of reality to answer this question on their own.

    As i mentioned numerous times, nothing short of military style total removal operation can cause the mass departure of 10+ millions of immigrants.
    But public opinion is not ripe for such measures just yet.

    On the other hand, nerdy 'think tanks' won't allow for any rational or comprehensive solution to become a law. Just imagine being a Senator and having your phones ring 10000 times a day , with angry and threatening voices of a group of crazed fanatics controlled and ordered to make those calls by well known to all of us Tanton related non-profs.
    If i was a Senator, i too would be scared for my life to vote in support of rational solution i believed in.
    Hence even McCain speaking loudly and denouncing himself for ever supporting sensible solution to the problem.

    So, what we have at hand is course of events as usual.

    Leave a comment:


  • ProudUSC
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NO AMNESTY!!!:
    sorry, I meant to write ''thank''. I'm getting ready for the long weekend so I'm in a rush. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You can edit your original post on this forum, you know? In any case, I'm going to be nice and wish you and everyone else a nice weekend as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
    LOL, Olde moron and Brit were claiming that a defeat of mandatory E-verify would end the anti-illegal tide. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I don't know what Brit claimed in past ( he is Tea Partyist, for all i can tell) , but copy paste at least one post of mine where i said defeat of mandatory E-verify would end the anti-illegal tide.
    If you don't copy paste at least one post where i claimed the same that would, obviously, make you a liar.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    And, Olde moron, there is nothing in SB1070 that says the police may abuse or profile people based on how they look. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    And just how, based on what 'probable cause' are they going to approach someone and question about immigration status under SB 1070?

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    You commie leftists are certainly desperate in your lies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    If you really want to know what really meant to be part of a minority and persecuted by a Bolshevik and Commie Leftist propaganda in a country that you, moron, don't have a clue about, then simply go to one of the sites that are run by a network of John Tanton affiliated non-profs. You will quickly get your lesson.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    Oh, and Olde moron, Kennedy voted and he voted with the majority. He did not decline to vote. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I didn't say he declined to vote.
    Seeing 8-3 (and knowing SCOTUS consists of 9 Justices, but not knowing that Kagan was solicitor for admin. in this case and thus couldn't vote ) i suggested that Kennedy most likely...joined majority or abstained and didn't vote..
    To say "most likely joined majority" hardly makes me a moron, considering the fact that he did what i suggested he had done.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    And even if Kagan had voted, it would have been 5-4. I guess you just can't count.
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    And i didn't dispute that. Did you see me implying that having 4 votes against 5 would reverse the outcome?
    I don't know if you are a moron (you could well be, but then one never knows if you are just clowning around), but it is indisputable that your language comprehension skills are far from allowing you to read and properly understand even the simplest of sentences written in English.

    But then, what else one should expect from one who voices opinions akin those you post here.

    Leave a comment:


  • davdah
    replied
    The problem with that sort of approach is it invites a more aggressive disobedience from the next wave of would be law breakers.

    When Reagan declared an amnesty, that sounded a trumpet that our laws could be broken without penalty. As a matter of fact. It announced a reward for doing so. Now we have 10 times the problem. The worlds population didn't swell by that same factor. It was this singular act that created the stampede with an expected unimpeded response.

    Agree, disagree, or be clueless to the scope and purpose of permitted immigration, there is no need to walk in someone's shoes nor live in their country. It's our laws and country we need think of and what's best for it. We already know why the majority are here. Without employment, most will not be able to sustain themselves for very long. That is why this will be a monumental success.

    This is exactly what I spoke to a year or two back as a way to enforce with the least amount of cost and resistance. The other items I wanted introduced will take some time such as blending the DMV photographic records with E-verify to create an easy to use and nearly fail safe identification system. The third prong would be synchronizing the state and federal employment tax collection databases to ferret out the remainder through computerized forensic accounting techniques.

    Looking over the events that have occurred over the past few years one that stands out is the number of work related raids. The focus is changing and narrowing on the last element of refusal. Those employers who won't comply. They'll get flagged easy enough when tax records fall outside the scope of expected production costs and their reported revenues. From there a visit will be made. The rest is academic.

    Leave a comment:

Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

Home Page

Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Questions/Comments

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily



Working...
X