What are you and what is Marco Rubio?
Conservative - The rising star of the Republican Party
18% (9)
18% (9)
Conservative - A passing fad, a la Sarah Palin
8% (4)
8% (4)
Liberal - The rising star of the Republican Party
8% (4)
8% (4)
Liberal - A passing fad, a la Sarah Palin
38% (19)
38% (19)
Other
28% (14)
28% (14)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Marco Rubio - Conservatives' best hope in 2016?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Rubio didn't seem to offer any counter offers, I didn't see a leader. Rand Paul had strong plans and a vision to the future.

dmase:

Illegal immigrants come over here in worst conditions possible. Get the shittiest jobs. get process to become legal residents, pay fine and back taxes. Profit?!

Yeah I see where the illegal immigrant population is overwelmingly profit from our INTENSE GENEROSITY.

I didn't accuse the illegal immigrant population of trying to profit of our "intense generosity", I said its a slap in the face to those of us that had family member wait years to get accepted into America. Apparently my grandparents did it wrong, they should have just came here illegally in mass number with other holocaust survivors and try to help influence the governments policy on illegal immigration. I guess it was fitting punishment for them for not breaking the law, that they waited in the desert in tents while multiple Arab armies tried to kill them. Oh wait, that's nonsense. If my family could follow the law, than so can others[1].

dmase:

The country needs latino migrant workers

No, the country needs migrant workers. Its irrelevant whether or not they are Latino. A migrant worker from a non-Latino country is just as capable as a migrant worker from a Latino country.

dmase:

we have a strong trading relation with mexico

We may soon have one of the largest trading relation "in history" with the EU. So perhaps we should start allowing East Europeans to come here in greater numbers?

dmase:
we have many latinos with ties to families overseas.

I think you mean abroad. Central America and South America are connected to North America.

dmase:
So why not give them more visa to come over here? Day took our dobs?

If I was worried about immigrants "taking our jobs" I would be opposed to any increase of immigrants coming to the US, regardless of where they're from. That isn't the case however, I'm not opposed to having immigrants come here, I'm opposed to the idea that Mexico should get some special treatment. This isn't to say that I don't want potential Mexican immigrants to come here at all.

dmase:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/05/what-gives-on-american-jews-and-immigration.html

Criticizing Israel and Netanyahu does not mean criticizing jewish people which is what i've heard a lot when Obama is critical of the country.

Oh I agree and I think most other young Jewish people agree as well. Its just that some of the elderly Jews I have talked to seem to have a difficulty seeing that difference. Hence my surprise that more elderly Jews didn't vote for Romney or third party.

dmase:

But why do Mexicans get special treatment? Because there are more than 10 times the number of illegal hispanic workers versus illegal asians in this country. When an asian wants to come over here they usually do it the legal way, it's not exactly easy to make it past port authority in the droves mexican workers make it across the border. So those people that come over the legal way get background checked and have to maintain a job, hispanic illegals are by and large coming across the border so they haven't had background checks and aren't pay federal taxes. So why is it so important to stem the tide of illegal immigration from Mexico? Border security purposes, national security purposes, and fiscal security.

That seems like your rewarding them for coming over here in massive numbers illegally by giving out more visas.

[1] Again though, I give exception to the few extreme cases like a gay Ugandan person feeling their country because the government is going to murder them.

Helmholtz Watson:

The Gentleman:

He took a very visible moment to take a drink of water from a mini bottle of water. It made the speech feel unrehearsed and awkward. At moments, it was outright contradictory ("government won't help you," I benefited from college loans," "My mother is on medicare").

Admittedly, it was probably the best SotU response the GOP has forwarded during the Obama years, but that is more due to the very low bar set by the prior speakers. It felt only like a step above the Jindal response, which I hold as the best up till tonight.

EDIT: Here's a picture from the scene in question, along with a few dozen twitter reactions.

People are really grasping for straws and blowing this out of proportion. Its quite pitiful and reminds me of when people got their panties in a twist about Obama bowing to the Japanese emperor. There are plenty of things to criticize Rubio on[1], but a guy having a dry mouth and grabbing a bottle of water isn't one of them.

It was less of the incident itself and more of what it represented: it felt unrehearsed and amateurish, and the speech, with his visible nervousness, felt more like a high school debate speech rather than the second most heavily viewed speech in the country.

And this doesn't even cover what the speech lacked substantively. It was a hamfisted attempt to make the party look more gentle while changing nothing, tone or policywise, to actually attract the kinds of voters that the speech was targeted.

[1] Personally I don't like what he had to say about the environment and his comments about "opening up" the US natural land for what I can only imagine is a reference to fracking.

The Gentleman:

It was less of the incident itself and more of what it represented: it felt unrehearsed and amateurish, and the speech, with his visible nervousness, felt more like a high school debate speech rather than the second most heavily viewed speech in the country.

Again, I think people are looking too much into things and it seems as warranted as criticizing Obama for bowing the the Japanese emperor. Its silly and childish.

The Gentleman:

And this doesn't even cover what the speech lacked substantively. It was a hamfisted attempt to make the party look more gentle while changing nothing, tone or policywise, to actually attract the kinds of voters that the speech was targeted.

Now those criticisms? I have no problem with people focusing on that. In fact I would prefer it if the political media didn't act like People Magazine or the Daily Mail and drone on about a guy getting a drink of water. Things like this are the kinds of things that I expect Piers Morgan to focus on, not serious news providers.

Helmholtz Watson:

The Gentleman:

It was less of the incident itself and more of what it represented: it felt unrehearsed and amateurish, and the speech, with his visible nervousness, felt more like a high school debate speech rather than the second most heavily viewed speech in the country.

Again, I think people are looking too much into things and it seems as warranted as criticizing Obama for bowing the the Japanese emperor. Its silly and childish.

The Gentleman:

And this doesn't even cover what the speech lacked substantively. It was a hamfisted attempt to make the party look more gentle while changing nothing, tone or policywise, to actually attract the kinds of voters that the speech was targeted.

Now those criticisms? I have no problem with people focusing on that. In fact I would prefer it if the political media didn't act like People Magazine or the Daily Mail and drone on about a guy getting a drink of water. Things like this are the kinds of things that I expect Piers Morgan to focus on, not serious news providers.

Ah, but that is the beauty of a speech: Style and substance are equal parts. A lacking in one can, in fact, be made up through the reinforcement of the other. Admittedly, style can only go so far.

The Gentleman:

Ah, but that is the beauty of a speech: Style and substance are equal parts. A lacking in one can, in fact, be made up through the reinforcement of the other. Admittedly, style can only go so far.

Ugh, I guess. Perhaps this is just part of politics that I strongly dislike, because it seems like some high school behavior. *shrug*

Helmholtz Watson:

The Gentleman:

Ah, but that is the beauty of a speech: Style and substance are equal parts. A lacking in one can, in fact, be made up through the reinforcement of the other. Admittedly, style can only go so far.

Ugh, I guess. Perhaps this is just part of politics that I strongly dislike, because it seems like some high school behavior. *shrug*

Say what you will, elections really can come down to being popularity contests, and those basic and crude behaviors that made a linebacker prom king can put a man into office.

The Gentleman:

Helmholtz Watson:

The Gentleman:

Ah, but that is the beauty of a speech: Style and substance are equal parts. A lacking in one can, in fact, be made up through the reinforcement of the other. Admittedly, style can only go so far.

Ugh, I guess. Perhaps this is just part of politics that I strongly dislike, because it seems like some high school behavior. *shrug*

Say what you will, elections really can come down to being popularity contests, and those basic and crude behaviors that made a linebacker prom king can put a man into office.

I know..I know. I guess I just wish that wasn't the case and that people voted for who's ideas they agreed with the most, not who was the prettiest and had the sharpest silver tongue.

Helmholtz Watson:
I know..I know. I guess I just wish that wasn't the case and that people voted for who's ideas they agreed with the most, not who was the prettiest and had the sharpest silver tongue.

Unfortunately, you can't question the reasoning behind a general vote. The man who votes after carefully analyzing the issues and picking the candidate who both most closely represents their opinions while still having the ability to win is weighed the same as the man who votes on the basis of the candidates' corsages.

Blablahb:

Sonofadiddly:
Shady tribal group? Mob justice?
Is that how you think of Native Americans?

Maybe you should read my post again, because you obviously missed my point.

You don't abolish the justice state and exchange it for some shady form of non-controlled vigilante force, it's something you just don't do in a modern country. There's a justice system, and it's there for everybody, no exceptions, nobody's above the law, indian or otherwise.

No dude, you missed the point of what I said!

Do you really think that Native American nations don't have their own police forces, that they deal out justice via disorganized vigilante groups? VAWA would just hand the ability to enforce the laws to the Native American police departments. Look!

http://navajodps.org/Law_Enforcement.aspx

Police! With training and entrance exams and offices! Not vigilantes! And your new post sounds just as racist as the last!

And the US justice system has NOT been there for Native American victims. Again, US courts don't even pursue half the cases. So we figure hey, let someone who actually gives a crap AND IS STILL A POLICE FORCE deal with it.

Helmholtz Watson:
I didn't accuse the illegal immigrant population of trying to profit of our "intense generosity", I said its a slap in the face to those of us that had family member wait years to get accepted into America. Apparently my grandparents did it wrong, they should have just came here illegally in mass number with other holocaust survivors and try to help influence the governments policy on illegal immigration. I guess it was fitting punishment for them for not breaking the law, that they waited in the desert in tents while multiple Arab armies tried to kill them. Oh wait, that's nonsense. If my family could follow the law, than so can others[footnote]Again though, I give exception to the few extreme cases like a gay Ugandan person feeling their country because the government is going to murder them.

"U.S. opposition to immigration in general in the late 1930s was motivated by the grave economic pressures, the high unemployment rate, and social frustration and disillusionment. The U.S. refusal to support specifically Jewish immigration, however, stemmed from something else, namely antisemitism, which had increased in the late 1930s and continued to rise in the 1940s. It was an important ingredient in America's negative response to Jewish refugees"

This is a quote from wiki that was taken from a book titled "Jews in the Mind of America"... replace everything in that quote with hispanic and you have the exact same situation hispanics face today. Many ships arrived with jewish passengers to american ports and where turned away because they didn't have the proper visas. Now why couldn't jewish people do the same thing latinos do? Because they live an ocean away, if nazi germany bordered the US you know they would have flooded over the borders and when denied would have sneaked in just like they did when jews started being rounded up by germans. They ran in every direction to get away.

No, the country needs migrant workers. Its irrelevant whether or not they are Latino. A migrant worker from a non-Latino country is just as capable as a migrant worker from a Latino country.

Which is easier getting 11 million undocumented workers(of all races,creeds, and nationalities) and then bumping up the visa restrictions or allowing those 11 million to stay and then increasing the visa limit to accomodate the rest? Of those 11 million they have kids that are american born and raised, there are family and community ties, they are settled and would pay all back taxes and fines. Also around 40% is the estimated number of illegals that overstayed their visas, and many of the rest where on the decades long waiting list to enter our country and decided it was taking too long.

We may soon have one of the largest trading relation "in history" with the EU. So perhaps we should start allowing East Europeans to come here in greater numbers?

Given the economic requirements our country needs yes. We should be handing out student visas like they where fucking candy and work visas to those that meet the requirements. if we started doing that since the 80's we wouldn't have 11 million illegals because all of the unskilled labor jobs would be taken and they'd be working legally for a legal wage.

I think you mean abroad. Central America and South America are connected to North America.

Ugh semantics much?

If I was worried about immigrants "taking our jobs" I would be opposed to any increase of immigrants coming to the US, regardless of where they're from. That isn't the case however, I'm not opposed to having immigrants come here, I'm opposed to the idea that Mexico should get some special treatment. This isn't to say that I don't want potential Mexican immigrants to come here at all.

Why mexico you may ask? Because we are privy to all of their background check information for every arrest and our contribution to the drug task forces over there means we know who we're letting in before we do it. People from mexico on the waiting list are also equivalent to the next 3 countries waiting list. By letting more mexican workers in we reduce our leading cause of illegal immigration, people will wait 3 or 4 years to get in but not 20 something. As I mentioned already illegals from other areas like china or europe overstay their visa they can't migrate here illegal in large numbers on ships, the most they can do is trickle. Now another thing, to our south is the largest drug trading ring in the world and coming across those borders every year are hundreds of thousands of immigrants ALONG with drug dealers and smugglers. If we allow more mexican migrant workers that means the people coming over the border illegal afterwards are much more likely to be hardened criminals. I assume you can at least make a distinction between a drug dealer and a day laborer? if we maintained our force on the borders while decreasing the number of immigrant coming over we stand a much greater chance of putting our resources to the task of getting violent offenders and drug dealers... people that couldn't get in legally. Makes sense right?

Of course for me the preferred solution is ending the drug war at least partially, that however is not what's being discussed or in the realm of national discussion at the moment.

That seems like your rewarding them for coming over here in massive numbers illegally by giving out more visas.

Giving more general work visas to latin america kills two birds with one stone, which I hope I illustrated in the previous paragraph. However we should still take as many sought after asian professionals and students because they are assets to our country. Even if we decided to go to a COMPLETELY economic and need based immigration system we'd have far more hispanics getting visas, why? because they are what we need in the greatest numbers.

Edit: to add, why aren't there more asians working in cornfields. Laotians have some of the lowest living standards in the US and far worse then asians in general but they aren't working for farms like hispanics are.

The unskilled labor of those workers is obselete.
Enter Baxter

He works for $3.40 an hour.

dmase:
Now why couldn't jewish people do the same thing latinos do? Because they live an ocean away, if nazi germany bordered the US you know they would have flooded over the borders and when denied would have sneaked in just like they did when jews started being rounded up by germans. They ran in every direction to get away.

And I would oppose Jews illegally entering this country just as I oppose Latinos(or any other group) illegally entering this country. I'm not prejudice, its wrong for a person to illegally enter the US regardless of whether they are Jews, Latinos or any other group of people[1].

dmase:
Which is easier getting 11 million undocumented workers(of all races,creeds, and nationalities) and then bumping up the visa restrictions or allowing those 11 million to stay and then increasing the visa limit to accomodate the rest?

If I was in favor of creating laws based on convenience, then I would also be in favor of legalizing all forms of drugs...but I'm not. The fact that its convenient to reward people who broke the law is a rather poor argument because the same mentality could be applied to a number of other laws(such as drug laws, laws on stealing, kidnapping, ect.)

dmase:
Of those 11 million they have kids that are american born and raised, there are family and community ties, they are settled and would pay all back taxes and fines.

First off, do you have a source to back this up? Second, you are still rewarding people for breaking the law by doing it as a group.

dmase:
Also around 40% is the estimated number of illegals that overstayed their visas, and many of the rest where on the decades long waiting list to enter our country and decided it was taking too long.

"I didn't want to wait to become a citizen, so I committed a federal crime"? Really? Tell me, can a couple friends and I use that excuse if we want to rob a GameStop because we don't want to wait until the offical release date and we know that they got the early shipment of the new game we want? No, because the fact that we don't want to wait isn't a justifable excuse to break the law and steal from GameStop. Also, like I said before, the US isn't the only country in the world that has job opportunities. If America has a person on a waiting list, then they can also apply to the regional B.R.I.C. country, Brazil.

dmase:

Given the economic requirements our country needs yes. We should be handing out student visas like they where fucking candy and work visas to those that meet the requirements. if we started doing that since the 80's we wouldn't have 11 million illegals because all of the unskilled labor jobs would be taken and they'd be working legally for a legal wage.

Ok, as long as you give the EU the same treatment in regards to visas that you give Mexico(or any country for that matter), then I'm fine with that.

dmase:

Ugh semantics much?

Just trying to clarify.

dmase:

Why mexico you may ask? Because we are privy to all of their background check information for every arrest and our contribution to the drug task forces over there means we know who we're letting in before we do it.

Evidently that isn't the case.

dmase:
People from mexico on the waiting list are also equivalent to the next 3 countries waiting list. By letting more mexican workers in we reduce our leading cause of illegal immigration, people will wait 3 or 4 years to get in but not 20 something.

Again, "I don't want to wait so long, so I'm going to break the law" isn't a justifiable excuse. It wouldn't hold up if I tried to use it as a defense for robbing a GameStop and it doesn't hold up here. Also, I feel like this needs to be repeated because it seems like its over looked quite often. The United States of America is not the only country in the world or on this continent that has job opportunities. Brazil is a rising nation and I'm sure that there is work to be found there as well. If not, there are also the various other countries in South America.

dmase:
Now another thing, to our south is the largest drug trading ring in the world and coming across those borders every year are hundreds of thousands of immigrants ALONG with drug dealers and smugglers.

Your contradicting yourself. You just told me that "we are privy to all of their background check information for every arrest and our contribution to the drug task forces over there means we know who we're letting in before we do it".

dmase:

If we allow more mexican migrant workers that means the people coming over the border illegal afterwards are much more likely to be hardened criminals.

....or regular people from places like El Savador, Guatemala, Hondorus, or Ecudaor who came here because they also didn't feel the need to wait and legally enter the US because they saw that only Mexico was getting special treatment from the US.

dmase:
I assume you can at least make a distinction between a drug dealer and a illegal day laborer?

Fixed that for you, and yes I can. Both are criminals for different reasons.

dmase:
if we maintained our force on the borders while decreasing the number of immigrant coming over we stand a much greater chance of putting our resources to the task of getting violent offenders and drug dealers... people that couldn't get in legally. Makes sense right?

Or we could go after/prosecute businesses that employ illegal immigrants and prosecute city officials that feel that they are above the law by creating Sanctuary cities and thinking that they get to decide whether or not the city will enforce illegal immigration laws.

dmase:

Of course for me the preferred solution is ending the drug war at least partially, that however is not what's being discussed or in the realm of national discussion at the moment.

Yes, lets try not to derail on the subject. I can't say that I find the war on drugs completely effective, but the whole thing seems like a mess. Just look at fast and furious program. Ugh...

dmase:

Even if we decided to go to a COMPLETELY economic and need based immigration system we'd have far more hispanics getting visas, why? because they are what we need in the greatest numbers.

Assuming you are referring to migrant workers, see my previous statement on the subject. A migrant worker from Poland is just as good as a migrant worker from Mexico. Given how things might go between the EU and the US, it seems wrong to favor Mexican migrant workers over Polish migrant workers.

dmase:

Edit: to add, why aren't there more asians working in cornfields. Laotians have some of the lowest living standards in the US and far worse then asians in general but they aren't working for farms like hispanics are.

Perhaps its culture, but I can't say for sure. However, from what I heard from England, there seems to be plenty of Polish immigrants that are willing to do jobs that native English people don't want to do.

[1] Keeping in mind that Native Americans would be the exception to the rule.

Helmholtz Watson:
And I would oppose Jews illegally entering this country just as I oppose Latinos(or any other group) illegally entering this country. I'm not prejudice, its wrong for a person to illegally enter the US regardless of whether they are Jews, Latinos or any other group of people[footnote]Keeping in mind that Native Americans would be the exception to the rule.

Then lets oppose illegal immigration and fix the problem so it doesn't happen again, and fix it in a reasonable way which isn't deporting 11 million people.

If I was in favor of creating laws based on convenience, then I would also be in favor of legalizing all forms of drugs...but I'm not. The fact that its convenient to reward people who broke the law is a rather poor argument because the same mentality could be applied to a number of other laws(such as drug laws, laws on stealing, kidnapping, ect.)

Laws are based on necessity, and our current conditions necessitate it. And the fact that your equating illegal immigration or drug use to kidnapping or stealing is a false equivalency, so who has the poor argument?

First off, do you have a source to back this up? Second, you are still rewarding people for breaking the law by doing it as a group.

"According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, an estimated 73% of children of illegal immigrants were citizens in 2008, up from 63% in 2003. A total of 3.8 million unauthorized immigrants had at least one child who is an American citizen."

And considering latinos in particular are very religious and family oriented I can state as a fact that they have community ties to churches and people in their neighborhood. And all polls back up that mentality and it's prevalence through the whole group.

You keep calling it a reward, is it really a reward to be born in a shit hole versus a first world nation? Where is the reward they are people they do an honest days work and have families. Is it a reward for traversing some of the harshest conditions the american continent can provide? Or is it a sensible solution? It's a solution not a reward, by denying the fact that it is A solution your trying to undermine it. The government has the ability to apply positive rights as it see's fit and does so all the time.

"I didn't want to wait to become a citizen, so I committed a federal crime"? Really? Tell me, can a couple friends and I use that excuse if we want to rob a GameStop because we don't want to wait until the offical release date and we know that they got the early shipment of the new game we want? No, because the fact that we don't want to wait isn't a justifable excuse to break the law and steal from GameStop. Also, like I said before, the US isn't the only country in the world that has job opportunities. If America has a person on a waiting list, then they can also apply to the regional B.R.I.C. country, Brazil.

Once again false equivalency, it's only illegal immigration as long we say it is.

You give a solution that obviously isn't working or else we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.

Evidently that isn't the case.

You give examples of border officials and say that's proof? We have drug taskforces in mexico assisting the cops right now. They have access to the criminal records does a border patrol officer have that, definitely not your average rank and files ones like your link suggests. The very fact these officials are under investigation means that that law enforcement is serious about going after cartels.

Again, "I don't want to wait so long, so I'm going to break the law" isn't a justifiable excuse. It wouldn't hold up if I tried to use it as a defense for robbing a GameStop and it doesn't hold up here. Also, I feel like this needs to be repeated because it seems like its over looked quite often. The United States of America is not the only country in the world or on this continent that has job opportunities. Brazil is a rising nation and I'm sure that there is work to be found there as well. If not, there are also the various other countries in South America.

Again, false equivalency. I don't think I can state enough rape, murder, assault, theft are not the same as crossing the border for a better life.

Brazil is the most packed country in South America, and I think your over looking the part of my argument where I say we need these migrant workers.

Your contradicting yourself. You just told me that "we are privy to all of their background check information for every arrest and our contribution to the drug task forces over there means we know who we're letting in before we do it".

Your mincing my words, if I had said EVERY immigrant was a drug dealer you'd be correct but I didn't say that. I also don't think you comprehend the illegal immigrant part, we can't do background checks on these people because they are going over the border and we don't know about it. If we could stop and check everyone of them then we would catch those that where carrying drug or had crimes in their record. But i'll explain further so you can't try an mince my words again.

Lets say as of right now 10% of illegals crossing the border are drug dealers, and there are 100k crossing the border every year. If we increased visas going to Mexico the amount of illegals would decrease drastically lets say down to 60k. Well those drug dealers won't be able to smuggle drugs even if they managed to get a visa because we'd be check AT the border when they crossed legally and the ones that had prior criminal records wouldn't even be able to get ahold of visa. So we have 60k immigrants now coming across the border illegally each year after upping the visa number with the same number of drug dealers crossing, now 17% of the people crossing the border are smugglers. Lets also assume that a portion of those 60k can't get visas because they have criminal records. Where your normal immigrant would be willing to wait 3 years for a visa they would never get one so they come across illegally. That means our border patrol is looking for LESS people and of those people MORE are criminals. It's not that complicated and I have no idea how you managed to twist my words into "contradicting" themselves.

....or regular people from places like El Savador, Guatemala, Hondorus, or Ecudaor who came here because they also didn't feel the need to wait and legally enter the US because they saw that only Mexico was getting special treatment from the US.

Do you even read my posts, a reformed immigration system will base most of their decisions on the economy, the lions share of those extra visa will go to mexico. Why? Because mexico has the largest portion of people waiting for visas however there would still be an increase in all hispanic countries because we need their labor. I even said this in my last post.

"Giving more general work visas to latin america kills two birds with one stone"

You just decided that I was gonna play favorites with mexico, I've just been using Mexico as a premium example where this kind of legislation would have the greatest effect for the greatest amount of people.

Fixed that for you, and yes I can. Both are criminals for different reasons.

It's only criminal as long as we decide it's criminal you just can't seem to get that through your head, it's how laws work in any country.

Or we could go after/prosecute businesses that employ illegal immigrants and prosecute city officials that feel that they are above the law by creating Sanctuary cities and thinking that they get to decide whether or not the city will enforce illegal immigration laws.

I state hardened criminals would be caught more and you say well harm the ones that are working. So tell me is an average illegal immigrant with a normal daily job and a family a hardened criminal in your eyes?

Assuming you are referring to migrant workers, see my previous statement on the subject. A migrant worker from Poland is just as good as a migrant worker from Mexico. Given how things might go between the EU and the US, it seems wrong to favor Mexican migrant workers over Polish migrant workers.

Do you know why hispanic workers are preferred by are agriculture industry? They are the cheapest by far. I also think you are severely overestimating the amount of workers that you think will pay for a flight across an ocean, pay the legal fees associated with a visa, go through the long process of getting the visa, only to come here and work for minimum wage. If we suddenly had a boom in agricultural workers from poland wanting to come here we'd be talking about them and no hispanics.

Perhaps its culture, but I can't say for sure. However, from what I heard from England, there seems to be plenty of Polish immigrants that are willing to do jobs that native English people don't want to do.

Your right it is cultural, these people where day laborers back home so they are day laborers here. They worked in the fields their whole life the only asians that can say the same are the small groups from communist countries. Those coming from Japan, Thailand, or China all have worked in cities.(china doesn't lets it's farmer leave where they where born often that's why they are on that list)

Lets go back to the polish, under the economic based system they would get more visas, right now they are excluded from america's visa waiver program. So they would definitely benefit from the above however I seriously doubt they would be working in the agriculture industry.

Sonofadiddly:
No dude, you missed the point of what I said!

Do you really think that Native American nations don't have their own police forces, that they deal out justice via disorganized vigilante groups?

Yes, they do by definition. If they had a police force it would be part of the regular police force, if they're not, they're vigilantes.

And quit projecting your prejudices on me just because I value law and order and am opposed to racial discrimination. I'm not the one speaking in favour of destroying the justice state and handing special privileges to some ethnic groups over others.

Sonofadiddly:
And the US justice system has NOT been there for Native American victims. Again, US courts don't even pursue half the cases.

And how much percent of the cases against others don't get pursued? If that's not significantly higher nothing's going on.

Not just that, but any problems that may exist should be solved. The answer to an institution having a problem, is to solve the problem, not by disbanding the institution. Most certainly this is the case with the justice state, which is simply essential to a modern society.

You can't just abolish the justice system because some militant indian activists demand special privileges.

Karma168:

Nobody is saying open the floodgates and let in every single person that wants to come. All we are saying is that the current barriers to entry are so high, people who want to come legally and be American are being told you don't want them (when you clearly do as migrant workers do loads in the American economy) and so are left with no choice but to pay Cartels to run them across the border - ensuring the Cartel gets all that money that could have gone into the US economy.

There is another option: USA borders too high? Don't come here. South America is full of resources and coastal areas. They arguably should be far, far wealthier than the USA. There's work to be done down there. And I doubt unskilled labor in this country is clamoring to have their wages driven down by out of country immigration.

Is a Republican demand of enforcement first, Amnesty second an unreasonable approach?

We are going to help rehabilitate drug users - only after we have sent them to supermax prison for years, ruined their lives and made them nothing but a criminal husk that has no ability to function in polite society or ever hope to be rehabilitated

That's what enforcement before amnesty is

to me, Amnesty first is a reward to people that broke into this country, harmed those trying to enter legally and robbed the USA of the right to determine who comes in and who does not. It is unacceptable, so there is no middle ground. We know from previous experience, doing it this way IS like opening the floodgates. We've largely lost our country. I don't know if things can ever be turned around. Supposedly, there is always a cycle: from tyranny and exploitation to the fight for freedom, prosperity followed by complacency and new tyranny. It was fun living in the USA's good period.

dmase:
THIS IS NOT DMASE, IT IS ME, GORFIAS
What if they're not violent. What if they simply believe in collectivism, and once here, will work to transfer wealth from people that earned it to people that did not. I think we have a right to exclude such people (there are or were rules against allowing people in that were likely to become public burdens).

"Whaah, those immigrants might not vote the way I like, they shouldn't be allowed in!"

Again, that was me, (quote lines can get messed up... if that was my fault, sorry) and, you seem to again be stating the USA has no right to determine, within its own borders, it's best interests.

I think Rubio type Republicans will create Amnesty first, largely open the floodgates to those that want to corrupt and exploit this nation, turn it into just another 3rd world hell on Earth and leave it in a flaming ruins as they move on to their next exploitable target. Most Conservatives already know this and therefore, already think Rubio is a nightmare. He is the type of Republican that doesn't heal the party, but further destroys it.

Blablahb:

Sonofadiddly:
No dude, you missed the point of what I said!

Do you really think that Native American nations don't have their own police forces, that they deal out justice via disorganized vigilante groups?

Yes, they do by definition. If they had a police force it would be part of the regular police force, if they're not, they're vigilantes.

Tribes have their own governing bodies, including police and tribal courts, albeit with some fairly extreme limitations.

And quit projecting your prejudices on me just because I value law and order and am opposed to racial discrimination. I'm not the one speaking in favour of destroying the justice state and handing special privileges to some ethnic groups over others.

If by "special privileges" you mean "the inability to prosecute whites (or, rather, non-natives, but usually whites) for crimes committed on tribal lands, thus effectively giving criminals a free pass due to tribal police being hamstrung by federal law," then yes, I suppose that could be considered special privileges.

Sonofadiddly:
And the US justice system has NOT been there for Native American victims. Again, US courts don't even pursue half the cases.

And how much percent of the cases against others don't get pursued? If that's not significantly higher nothing's going on.

Not just that, but any problems that may exist should be solved. The answer to an institution having a problem, is to solve the problem, not by disbanding the institution. Most certainly this is the case with the justice state, which is simply essential to a modern society.

Another way is to plug the gaping holes in the existing system, like eliminating limitations on prosecutions and non-native immunity, as well as full integration into the US appellate system.

You can't just abolish the justice system because some militant indian activists demand special privileges.

Read the above, then we'll talk.

Vizanto:

Gorfias:
[quote="Karma168" post="528.400706.16498702"]
I think Rubio type Republicans will create Amnesty first, largely open the floodgates to those that want to corrupt and exploit this nation, turn it into just another 3rd world hell on Earth and leave it in a flaming ruins as they move on to their next exploitable target. .

Sentiments like this are the exact reason Latinos will never vote for Republicans again and why your party will shrivel into complete irrelevancy in the next twenty years.

.

At no point in my post did I say everyone, even illegals, want to destroy this country. But Amnesty will have this effect.

Well how will it have the effect, explain it because it's clearly been lost on me cuz I'm an idiot.

Vizanto:
Well how will it have the effect, explain it because it's clearly been lost on me cuz I'm an idiot.

I am sure you are not an idiot and likely have a good heart in that you care about so many people in a desperate situation.

But to my point, Amnesty rewards people who have done some terrible things to my country. What your reward (or subsidize) you get more of at a higher cost. Law of economics.

Historically, after giving such amnesty without enforcement first, as expected, people in ever larger numbers also broke our laws. So much of this has to have a destructive effect.

I am curious: there are Rubio Republicans. Because of the company he keeps (people like me)even if he goes along with Amnesty first, heck, even if Amnesty first happens BECAUSE of him, do you think Latinos will still not vote Republican?

(and please, the message you want to deliver got received. Got it. You can edit your post to avoid moderator wrath).

Well the larger point is that the word Amnesty is in fact a buzzword for the Immigration reform. It's a matter of rhetoric that the Right wing uses to make things like the DREAM Act less palpable to Americans.

Most of the Paths to Citizenship (the Democrats rhetoric) exclude people with a criminal background and are targetted towards children of illegal immigrants or those who are going to college or have joined the Armed Services. If anything these reforms explicitly try to not reward bad behaviour by going for those who are in this country illegally but did not have any say in the matter.

But even if I was to grant you that these things are Amnesty, it's still Amnesty for people already here, your reasoning still lacks key cause and effect.

It just seems to break down that Republicans prediction is

1. Amnesty

2. ?????

3. Death of America

Also just because Rubio supports reform, the rest of the Party doesn't. Latinos are quite aware that one party wants to stop treating an entire group like a criminal plague and one doesn't. It's not just policy, it's a culture that's been fostered for a very long time. I live in Arizona, I've seen both sides of the fence and believe me, I don't think Latinos are too keen on joining the party that's throwing a hissy fit over having to Press 1 for English and 2 for Spanish.

The Gentleman:
If by "special privileges" you mean "the inability to prosecute whites (or, rather, non-natives, but usually whites) for crimes committed on tribal lands, thus effectively giving criminals a free pass due to tribal police being hamstrung by federal law," then yes, I suppose that could be considered special privileges.

Obviously lynchmobs, vigilantes and militant groups should be hamstrung. You don't want groups like that running rampage in a justice state. The police enforce the law, the prosecution prosecutes, the judges hand out verdicts, that's how it works.

Not just that, but it's impossible for legal reasons also. You can't prosecute someone twice, first because of US law, then because some shady indian militia force didn't like it either. You'd watch convictions crumble one after the other on double jeopardy.

...assuming it doesn't end in the usual 'he looked funny, so we hanged him, just to make sure', which ussually happens if you start handing over authority to non-centralised non-controlled groups.

The Gentleman:
Another way is to plug the gaping holes in the existing system, like eliminating limitations on prosecutions and non-native immunity, as well as full integration into the US appellate system.

I wasn't aware immigrants into the US had immunity when committing certain crimes? How does this work outside the usual stuff with diplomats and so on?

Blablahb:

The Gentleman:
If by "special privileges" you mean "the inability to prosecute whites (or, rather, non-natives, but usually whites) for crimes committed on tribal lands, thus effectively giving criminals a free pass due to tribal police being hamstrung by federal law," then yes, I suppose that could be considered special privileges.

Obviously lynchmobs, vigilantes and militant groups should be hamstrung. You don't want groups like that running rampage in a justice state. The police enforce the law, the prosecution prosecutes, the judges hand out verdicts, that's how it works.

Conveniently, that's how tribal law works too.

Not just that, but it's impossible for legal reasons also. You can't prosecute someone twice, first because of US law, then because some shady indian militia force didn't like it either. You'd watch convictions crumble one after the other on double jeopardy.

I don't think you understand what you're talking about, and that is becoming increasingly obvious...

...assuming it doesn't end in the usual 'he looked funny, so we hanged him, just to make sure', which ussually happens if you start handing over authority to non-centralised non-controlled groups.

Yeah, this is definitely illustrating a serious lack of knowledge on your part about this.

The Gentleman:
Another way is to plug the gaping holes in the existing system, like eliminating limitations on prosecutions and non-native immunity, as well as full integration into the US appellate system.

I wasn't aware immigrants into the US had immunity when committing certain crimes? How does this work outside the usual stuff with diplomats and so on?

Again, tribal jurisdiction only extends to actions of the members of the native tribes. Crimes against them are not covered (see proposed renewal of the Violence Against Women Act).

It is highly recommended you actually familiarize yourself with the relevant authorizing law before you spout off more nonsense...

The Gentleman:
I don't think you understand what you're talking about, and that is becoming increasingly obvious...
Yeah, this is definitely illustrating a serious lack of knowledge on your part about this.

I guess that's why you explained in detail exactly what I needed to know eh? A more likely explanation is I've nailed it, but you don't like to hear that introducing double standards by allowing US law and some indian tribe's law to co-exist, effectively means racism and double standards, so you just reply with a vague semi-insult because you're out of arguments to defend why people should be subject to a separate law system they don't support, just because of where they happen to be.

How would you feel if you were subject to Shariah Islamic Law whenever you enter the city of London? Because that would be the same thing: Another system of punishment being forced upon people by a minority, against their will, in stark conflict with equal and fair treatment under the law.

Unless you endorse that too, there's really no way you can disagree with me here.

Blablahb:

The Gentleman:
I don't think you understand what you're talking about, and that is becoming increasingly obvious...
Yeah, this is definitely illustrating a serious lack of knowledge on your part about this.

I guess that's why you explained in detail exactly what I needed to know eh? A more likely explanation is I've nailed it, but you don't like to hear that introducing double standards by allowing US law and some indian tribe's law to co-exist, effectively means racism and double standards, so you just reply with a vague semi-insult because you're out of arguments to defend why people should be subject to a separate law system they don't support, just because of where they happen to be.

Or, it could be that I posted links to sites that immediately refute what you've been saying and that what you've been saying is so ludicrous that I don't actually need to explain very much to show that you are wrong. I've never seen you post anything to prove your point; only a lot of "I think this, therefore it must be true."

How would you feel if you were subject to Shariah Islamic Law whenever you enter the city of London? Because that would be the same thing: Another system of punishment being forced upon people by a minority, against their will, in stark conflict with equal and fair treatment under the law.

Uh, no. It's actually the reverse, where the local authorities (because, you know, tribal lands are jurisdictional locations not dissimilar to counties) can't deal with a minority because they are immune. The only difference is that the minority are non-natives. Everyone else is still subject to the same laws and protections of the state and federal governments. Think of a law that banned speeding, but couldn't be enforced on non-residents. That's the situation with tribal law, except that also extends to major crimes such as rape and assault.

Unless you endorse that too, there's really no way you can disagree with me here.

The problem is that I can't agree with you because you're factually wrong in how you are describing the system. This would be like someone describing that the UN has police powers within the US. They don't, and that is a verifiable fact. You are the one spurting nonsense that is verifiable as to its accuracy. I can't agree with you on this anymore than I can agree with you that Mount Everest is located in Lancaster, no matter how honestly you believe it to be.

Blablahb:

The Gentleman:
I don't think you understand what you're talking about, and that is becoming increasingly obvious...
Yeah, this is definitely illustrating a serious lack of knowledge on your part about this.

I guess that's why you explained in detail exactly what I needed to know eh? A more likely explanation is I've nailed it, but you don't like to hear that introducing double standards by allowing US law and some indian tribe's law to co-exist, effectively means racism and double standards, so you just reply with a vague semi-insult because you're out of arguments to defend why people should be subject to a separate law system they don't support, just because of where they happen to be.

How would you feel if you were subject to Shariah Islamic Law whenever you enter the city of London? Because that would be the same thing: Another system of punishment being forced upon people by a minority, against their will, in stark conflict with equal and fair treatment under the law.

Unless you endorse that too, there's really no way you can disagree with me here.

Uhm, I'm sorry but that comparison is completely off the mark. Tribal law on Indian Reservations in the United States works the opposite way.

Perhaps I can explain it like this: Tribal law is a form of law allowed to exist by an outside group (the United States Government) to place a legal framework on a minority (the Native Americans) with a forcibly inserted loophole that states members of the outsider group may not be convicted under that legal framework by the minority group.

While the trappings of tribal law come from the legal and cultural background of the Native American tribes, the systems has been shaped and molded by outside forces to the point where it can no longer be used as a legal system if it involves someone who is not from the tribe. Essentially, the system was created as a means to give the illusion of being concerned for a cultural minority but in reality creating a system where the majority could strip that minority of further legal rights and protections by removing any portions of said legal system that could limit or punish a member of that majority in any fashion.

A more apt comparison would be something towards how Stalin allowed for "free" elections in Eastern Europe. You were "free" to elect whoever he told you to. Tribal Law is "free" to act as a legal framework as long as the person committing a crime isn't a white American.

EDIT: TL/DR - The legal power of tribal law is essentially illusory and allowed by an outside group. Said outside group also reserves the right to suspend or nullify any aspect of tribal law when it suits their purpose.

The Gentleman:

Blablahb:
snip

snip

Not to be that guy, but could you two please stop derailing this thread?

secretkeeper12:

The Gentleman:

Blablahb:
snip

snip

Not to be that guy, but could you two please stop derailing this thread?

Fine, fine...

So who's Rubio's key constituency that would enable him to win a 2016 primary?

Helmholtz Watson:

dmase:
we have many latinos with ties to families overseas.

I think you mean abroad. Central America and South America are connected to North America.

Although "overseas" more usually does refer to abroad by the sea, it can just mean abroad generally.

On the other hand, it does have a certain degree of validity even by the former except for Mexicans. I suspect plenty of latinos who wanted to emigrate to the USA illegally might take a boat for at least part of the journey. Especially Cubans.

The Gentleman:

secretkeeper12:

The Gentleman:

snip

Not to be that guy, but could you two please stop derailing this thread?

Fine, fine...

So who's Rubio's key constituency that would enable him to win a 2016 primary?

Older white religious males will be his primary constituency. The constituency that could get him to win? The one that doesn't show up to vote for the democrat candidate. From my viewpoint that is the only way the next republicans will win without moderating, which rubio didn't exactly express in his state of the union rebuttal.

Blablahb:
[quote="Sonofadiddly" post="528.400706.16501249"]

And quit projecting your prejudices on me just because I value law and order and am opposed to racial discrimination. I'm not the one speaking in favour of destroying the justice state and handing special privileges to some ethnic groups over others.

Just one more thing, since The Gentleman has picked up this go-nowhere argument (which goes nowhere because you refuse to stop referring to Native American nation police forces as vigilantes and mobs, despite overwhelming evidence).

I can only project prejudice against Native Americans onto you if I have it myself. It sounds like you think I'm prejudiced against white people? I can't, by definition, project this onto you and have it magically turn into prejudice against another race. Projection as a defense mechanism doesn't work that way. Also, I am super white.

Sorry this got so off topic, guys. Like I was saying, Rubio voted against VAWA, is not doing well with the "pandering to minorities" thing.

Vizanto:
Well the larger point is that the word Amnesty is in fact a buzzword for the Immigration reform. It's a matter of rhetoric that the Right wing uses to make things like the DREAM Act less palpable to Americans.

Most of the Paths to Citizenship (the Democrats rhetoric) exclude people with a criminal background and are targetted towards children of illegal immigrants or those who are going to college or have joined the Armed Services. If anything these reforms explicitly try to not reward bad behaviour by going for those who are in this country illegally but did not have any say in the matter.

But even if I was to grant you that these things are Amnesty, it's still Amnesty for people already here, your reasoning still lacks key cause and effect.

It just seems to break down that Republicans prediction is

1. Amnesty

2. ?????

3. Death of America

Also just because Rubio supports reform, the rest of the Party doesn't. Latinos are quite aware that one party wants to stop treating an entire group like a criminal plague and one doesn't. It's not just policy, it's a culture that's been fostered for a very long time. I live in Arizona, I've seen both sides of the fence and believe me, I don't think Latinos are too keen on joining the party that's throwing a hissy fit over having to Press 1 for English and 2 for Spanish.

2. Is when Mexicans in Mexico decide to come here because they are thinking that in a few ten more years their will be another amnesty act.

Also entering illegally= breaking the law=criminals Breaking into the US is a crime just like breaking into Mexico is a crime, and both cases will make you a criminal.

Blablahb:

The Gentleman:
I don't think you understand what you're talking about, and that is becoming increasingly obvious...
Yeah, this is definitely illustrating a serious lack of knowledge on your part about this.

I guess that's why you explained in detail exactly what I needed to know eh? A more likely explanation is I've nailed it, but you don't like to hear that introducing double standards by allowing US law and some indian tribe's law to co-exist, effectively means racism and double standards, so you just reply with a vague semi-insult because you're out of arguments to defend why people should be subject to a separate law system they don't support, just because of where they happen to be.

How would you feel if you were subject to Shariah Islamic Law whenever you enter the city of London? Because that would be the same thing: Another system of punishment being forced upon people by a minority, against their will, in stark conflict with equal and fair treatment under the law.

Unless you endorse that too, there's really no way you can disagree with me here.

If you want to talk about Double standards I can talk about Australian immigration laws, and then there was this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians

His career should be over already just for voting against the WAVAct.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here