DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on March 07, 2008, 12:27:50 PM
-
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif)
Latinos Seek Citizenship in Time for Voting
By JULIA PRESTON
March 7, 2008
A lawsuit filed Thursday in a federal court in New York by Latino immigrants seeks to force immigration authorities to complete hundreds of thousands of stalled naturalization petitions in time for the new citizens to vote in November.
The class-action suit was brought by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund on behalf of legal Hispanic immigrants in the New York City area who are eager to vote and have been waiting for years for the federal Citizenship and Immigration Services agency to finish their applications. The suit demands that the agency meet a nationwide deadline of Sept. 22 to complete any naturalization petitions filed by March 26.
Latino groups hope to summon the clout of the federal courts to compel the Bush administration to reduce a backlog of citizenship applications that swelled last year. According to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, more than one million citizenship petitions were backed up in the pipeline by the end of December, the majority from Latino immigrants.
Despite protests over the delays from lawmakers, Latino groups and immigrant advocates, the immigration agency is currently projecting wait times of 16 months to 18 months to process the petitions.
?The reality is that large numbers of Latinos will not be able to vote in the elections because of these delays,? said Cesar A. Perales, president of the defense fund. ?Now the world will know that the Latino community expects the Bush administration to get this done on time.?
Christopher S. Bentley, a spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Services, said he could not comment on pending litigation.
?Our commitment is to work through the naturalization applications as quickly as we can without compromising the security and integrity of the process,? Mr. Bentley said.
The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, asserts that the agency violated immigrants? due process rights by routinely failing to finish their applications within a 180-day time period that Congress has set as a standard. It also asserts that the Bush administration did not follow regulatory procedures in November 2002 when it ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation to deepen its background checks of citizenship applicants.
Foster Maer, a lawyer for the defense fund, said it would soon file motions asking the court to order the agency immediately to meet the September deadline, which is intended to leave new citizens time to register to vote.
Manuel Martinez, 35, a legal immigrant from Mexico who is a plaintiff in the suit, filed his petition in January 2006. It has been delayed because the F.B.I. has not completed the required background check, he said. He said he suspected the problem was that he has a common Hispanic name.
?I want to be a citizen yesterday, not tomorrow,? said Mr. Martinez, who has lived in the United States since 1990. ?I am really worried about the economy, and the deficit is too much. I need to vote.?
A fee increase, raising naturalization costs 80 percent to $595, went into effect on July 30. Legal immigrants were also spurred to seek citizenship by worries about the divisive debate over immigration and by citizenship campaigns by Latino groups.
?It is astonishing the government should be so unresponsive to immigrants who have enthusiastically taken all the steps to become Americans,? said Janet Murgu?a, president of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino group that supported the suit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/us/07immig.html?ei=5065&en=58025c09bf987fad&ex=1205557200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/us/07immig.html?ei=5065&en=58025c09bf987fad&ex=1205557200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)
-
First of all, the suit was brought by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. Nothing to do with Mexico, as your title implies, but you already knew that. Immigrant = Mexico to you evidently.
These are not illegal immigrants, so I don't know why you're hysterical. Immigrants emigrate from a country for a reason, I'm pretty sure that they didn't immigrate hee so that we could "be more like Mexico sooner!". They want the naturalization process speeded up so that they can vote in this election. Evidently it takes a long time for the govt to get off its ass and go through the process, this happens in pretty much every area of govt.
Why do you have an issue with naturalized citizens wanting the process sped up so that they can vote?
-
I suggest that Mexicans who really liked Mexico, would have stayed in Mexico, and those who have come here have come here because the US is NOT like Mexico, and they do not wish to turn the US into another Mexico.
If they are naturalized citizens, they should be able to vote. Immigration has computers and this is not a difficult nor lengthy process. Allowing someone to vote is not a terrorism-related item.
-
Why do you have an issue with naturalized citizens wanting the process
sped up so that they can vote?
Until they jump through all the hoops they ought to shut their freaking pie-holes and
thank god they are allowed in here. We really don't need more immigrants that one
of the first things they do when they get here is start suing people.
-
First of all, the suit was brought by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. Nothing to do with Mexico, as your title implies, but you already knew that. Immigrant = Mexico to you evidently
Quit playing your silly ass games.
It says right in the article Legal Defense and Education Fund on behalf of legal Hispanic immigrants
It may be a PR Legal Fund but it says they are suing on behalf of "Hispanic Immigrants" what country makes up the vast majority of "Hispanic Immigrants"?
-
Well, they are not going to do what you think they should, and they are not going to shut up or stop suing just because you dislike them for trying to vote.
========================
Can you rephrase this sentence so that it makes better sense?
"We really don't need more immigrants that one of the first things they do when they get here is start suing people."
We? Is that frog still in your pocket?
I bet most of them will vote Democratic, too.
-
I suggest that Mexicans who really liked Mexico, would have stayed in Mexico, and those who have come here have come here because the US is NOT like Mexico, and they do not wish to turn the US into another Mexico
Then why do they protest and wave Mexican Flags?
Why do they come here and refuse to adopt the language?
They don't give a rats ass about the US, it's a paycheck.
(http://one-simple-idea.com/USAFlagTurnedUpsideDown.gif)
(http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/breaking_news/2006/03/27protest_group.jpg)
If they wave the Mexican flag and are so prideful why don't they return to that
shit-hole called Mexico? To come here and not learn the language, reap the benefits
of our great country, and then wave the flag of a shit-hole they had to flee really shows
these morons have very limited brain matter between their ears.
-
Until they jump through all the hoops they ought to shut their freaking pie-holes and
thank god they are allowed in here.
It seems to me, after reading the article, that they've jumped through the hoops and they're waiting on the government. I see nothing wrong with suing to get the government to do its damned job, and it's a shame that it has to come to that point. This election is an exciting thing for a lot of Americans, with some fresh choices available. These people are doing their damndest to become Americans, to take part in democracy (which, btw, a lot of citizens are too lazy, bored, or apathetic to do). I would think that you would support such an effort.
We really don't need more immigrants that one
of the first things they do when they get here is start suing people.
That's a rather patronizing attitude. What recourse do they have but to sue? They can't vote so I would think that a letter to their Congressperson would be near worthless. What would you have them do, shut their freaking pie hole and thank God they're allowed in?
Quit playing your silly ass games.
Who's playing games? I'm not playing games, but I'm going to point out a large mistake you've made in your thread title and in your argument.
It says right in the article Legal Defense and Education Fund on behalf of legal Hispanic immigrants
It may be a PR Legal Fund but it says they are suing on behalf of "Hispanic Immigrants" what country makes up the vast majority of "Hispanic Immigrants"?
From Wiki: 36% of the city's population is foreign-born.[2] Among US cities, this proportion is higher only in Los Angeles and Miami.[6] While the immigrant communities in those cities are dominated by a few nationalities, in New York no single country or region of origin dominates. The eleven nations constituting the largest sources of modern immigration are the Dominican Republic, China, Jamaica, Guyana, Pakistan, Ecuador, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, Albania, Colombia, and Russia.[7
The six largest ethnic groups as of the 2005 census estimates are: Puerto Ricans, Italians, West Indians, Dominicans, Chinese, and Irish .[12]
Mexico isn't even in the top ten, so your "vast majority of Hispanic Immigrants" argument doesn't fly. The vast majority of hispanic immigrants, in the New York City area, which the suit represents (not all Hispanic immigrants in the nation), are Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Colombian. If you've been to Puerto Rico and Mexico, you'd know that they are different and distinct cultures, so I'm guessing that you haven't been to both.
You might want to at least delve into the material before you start posting blanket, unsubstantiated, and misinformed conclusions. That way this situation, like you posting that Hispanic immigrants in NYC want this country to become like Mexico, doesn't blow up in your face. Educate yourself, and if you don't know, admit it. Don't pretend to know and hope no one will catch on, because sooner or later, someone will.
Wikipedia Article: Demographics of New York City
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City)
Now here's another issue: Puerto Ricans have the ability to vote once they come to the US, as they're already considered American citizens of the 1917 Jones Act. So they're probably not trying to become naturalized citizens. So who are the Hispanic immigrants being represented? They could be Mexicans, or they could be Cubans, Dominicans, and Colombians (which I tend to think more likely), or they could be from a host of other Central and South American nations.
Throwing a "Mexico" blanket is not helpful, nor is it informative.
-
Then why do they protest and wave Mexican Flags?
Protest what? And when did participating in a protest become wrong? It is a basic right in this nation after all, enshrined in the Bill of Rights. As to waving Mexican flags, I don't see you throwing a fit about Rich's Irish Flag (although the true Irish flag doesn't have the shamrock) avatar. Above the archway to my driveway, I have a Scottish, Swedish, Danish, and Irish flag flanking the American one. Go into an Irish neighborhood in NYC or Chicago and count the Irish flags. What is wrong with celebrating and promoting your heritage? Or does it only apply if your heritage isn't Hispanic?
Why do they come here and refuse to adopt the language?
Another blanket statement. In my personal experience, it is the illegal immigrants who choose not to learn English, though some obviously make that effort. Most legal immigrants make every effort to assimilate themselves into an American lifestyle. Not all, but most. I personally would like to see English as the national language, this is mostly for reasons of safety and communication, rather than culture.
They don't give a rats ass about the US, it's a paycheck.
Then why would they even bother to try and be naturalized? As I understand it (and I may be incorrect), to have American citizenship you have to renounce your prior citizenship, except in rare cases of dual citizenship. That would mean that they can't move back to Mexico/Dominican Republic/wherever and claim citizenship there without being naturalized. I don't understand how you're coming up with this opinion.
If they wave the Mexican flag and are so prideful why don't they return to that
shit-hole called Mexico?
For the same reason that Irish don't return to Ireland, the Italians don't return to Italy, and the Germans don't return to Germany: They like it here, they like their life here, and they feel that they have more opportunity and more of a chance at a better life here than they did in their home nation.
To come here and not learn the language, reap the benefits
of our great country, and then wave the flag of a shit-hole they had to flee really shows
these morons have very limited brain matter between their ears.
General Naturalization Requirements
Age
Applicants must be at least 18 years old.
Refer to the section, Naturalized Citizen's Children under Waivers, Exceptions, and Special Cases for information on applicants who are less than 18 years old.
See Also INA 334
Residency
An applicant must have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. Lawfully admitted for permanent residence means having been legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws. Individuals who have been lawfully admitted as permanent residents will be asked to produce an I-551, Alien Registration Receipt Card, as proof of their status.
See Also INA 316
Residence and Physical Presence
An applicant is eligible to file if, immediately preceding the filing of the application, he or she:
has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence (see preceding section);
has resided continuously as a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. for at least 5 years prior to filing with no single absence from the United States of more than one year;
has been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the previous five years (absences of more than six months but less than one year shall disrupt the applicant's continuity of residence unless the applicant can establish that he or she did not abandon his or her residence during such period)
has resided within a state or district for at least three months
Good Moral Character
Generally, an applicant must show that he or she has been a person of good moral character for the statutory period (typically five years or three years if married to a U.S. citizen or one year for Armed Forces expedite) prior to filing for naturalization. The Service is not limited to the statutory period in determining whether an applicant has established good moral character. An applicant is permanently barred from naturalization if he or she has ever been convicted of murder. An applicant is also permanently barred from naturalization if he or she has been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Act on or after November 29, 1990. A person also cannot be found to be a person of good moral character if during the last five years he or she:
has committed and been convicted of one or more crimes involving moral turpitude
has committed and been convicted of 2 or more offenses for which the total sentence imposed was 5 years or more
has committed and been convicted of any controlled substance law, except for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana
has been confined to a penal institution during the statutory period, as a result of a conviction, for an aggregate period of 180 days or more
has committed and been convicted of two or more gambling offenses
is or has earned his or her principal income from illegal gambling
is or has been involved in prostitution or commercialized vice
is or has been involved in smuggling illegal aliens into the United States
is or has been a habitual drunkard
is practicing or has practiced polygamy
has willfully failed or refused to support dependents
has given false testimony, under oath, in order to receive a benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
An applicant must disclose all relevant facts to the Service, including his or her entire criminal history, regardless of whether the criminal history disqualifies the applicant under the enumerated provisions.
See Also INA 316
Attachment to the Constitution
An applicant must show that he or she is attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States.
See Also INA 316
Language
Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who on the date of filing:
have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for periods totaling 15 years or more and are over 55 years of age;
have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for periods totaling 20 years or more and are over 50 years of age; or
have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant?s ability to learn English.
See Also INA 312
United States Government and History Knowledge
An applicant for naturalization must demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and of the principles and form of government of the United States. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who, on the date of filing, have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant?s ability to learn U.S. History and Government
Applicants who have been residing in the U.S. subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 20 years and are over the age of 65 will be afforded special consideration in satisfying this requirement.
See Also INA 312
Naturalization Test Questions for Applicants Meeting 65/20 Exception
Test Yourself on U.S. History
Sample U.S. History Questions with Answers
Oath of Allegiance
To become a citizen, one must take the oath of allegiance. By doing so, an applicant swears to:
support the Constitution and obey the laws of the U.S.;
renounce any foreign allegiance and/or foreign title; and
bear arms for the Armed Forces of the U.S. or perform services for the government of the U.S. when required.
In certain instances, where the applicant establishes that he or she is opposed to any type of service in armed forces based on religious teaching or belief, INS will permit these applicants to take a modified oath
To be a naturalized citizen, you must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language. This argument of yours about not knowing the language falls flat on its face. And as I stated above and gave evidence of, celebrating your heritage with a flag is not an illegal or treasonistic act. Your arguments against the legal immigrants are the same ones that were used against the German/Eastern European Immigrans, the Italians, and (with the exception of the language angle) the Irish. Care to try again?
Personally, I think you're trying to make your argument about illegal immigration, which is a whole different ball game than immigrants requesting the government to speed up the naturalization process.
General Naturalization Requirements: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=12e596981298d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=96719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=12e596981298d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=96719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD)
-
fatman you are the one that needs to be educated.
because obviously you can't read
but obviously you are adept at jumping to conclusions
so you can demonize and pigeon hole people that dont agree with your crap
my title refers to mexico as being representative of a 3rd world country
mexico is a shit-hole
Also it's a Federal Case....that means it won't just affect New York
it will have effects on the whole country where most immigrants are Mexican
"So who are the Hispanic immigrants being represented?"
well Fatso we know one because it says right in the article: (can you not read?)
Manuel Martinez, 35, a legal immigrant from Mexico who is a plaintiff in the suit
sure it's easier to play some pansy ass "gotcha game" about whether
the title says "more like Mexico", "more like Haiti" , "more like Dominican Republic"
it's not relevant to my point
quit playing games!
rules are rules
they can't vote until all the hoops are jumped through
the US government works slow, but probably a hell of lot faster than most in the world
it's ridiculous these people come here and start suing people
they should shut up and be grateful, not come here and litigate
-
Protest what?
There have been huge demonstrations across the United States
about crackdowns on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
The lawbreakers and the lawbreaker supporters don't
want US law enforced.
They don't give a rats ass about US law.
And when did participating in a protest become wrong?
Lawbreakers (aka Illegal Aliens) protesting our laws and policies is wrong.
They should have no say in our laws and policy, they are not citizens of this country!
We don't care what they think!
As to waving Mexican flags, I don't see you throwing a fit about Rich's Irish Flag
(although the true Irish flag doesn't have the shamrock) avatar.
Rich is an Amercian Citizen.
Rich didn't come here illegally and then wave the flag of some shithole he left.
Rich is not a lawbreaker sending all his money back to the shithole and then wave the shithole flag.
makes a whole lotta sense to proudly wave the flag of the country that was
sooo bad....such a shit hole......you had to flea by any means possible.
Do these people have a brain?
What is wrong with celebrating and promoting your heritage?
Or does it only apply if your heritage isn't Hispanic?
Oh here comes the "pigeon hole".
If someone disgrees with Fatso and thinks lawbreaking illegal aliens sneak in here then start
protesting our country, waving the flag of the shithole they left is unacceptable ...
well by gollly I am going to imply they must be a racist!
Yeah, if people disgree with Fats they are racist and that will end the discussion.
Pathetic.
BTW...what a heritage to celebrate. They have really accomplished so much in the last century!
-
The fact that Mexicans are proud of Mexican culture does not mean that they want to turn the US into Mexico. Just like if you drive a Volvo doesn't mean that you will instantly hate hamburgers.
Perhaps you should have someone check you out for racism...you seem to be coming down with a bad case of it.
-
fatman you are the one that needs to be educated.
because obviously you can't read
but obviously you are adept at jumping to conclusions
Obviously I can read, or I wouldn't have posted the research that I found. The ability to read is a precursor to the ability to write, so I think that
a. I have a sufficient education to participate in this discussion
b. I can read
As for jumping to conclusions, I think that I've demonstrated that you're the one guilty of this offense. Really, it's not a major deal, admit it and move on, or if it changes your opinion or argument, then make the changes to that opinion or argument. I've been guilty of misreading something or having a piece of info wrong in the past, and when it's pointed out to me or if I catch it myself, I admit it.
Here's an example: I caught my mistake.
From the article: The $4-a-gallon forecasts were reported widely in newspapers and on TV in the past week. The White House press secretary took a question about $4 gas at her Wednesday media briefing. A poll last month found that nearly three-quarters of Americans expect $4-a-gallon gas.
BT has a point about Bush being out of the country. I apologize for the mix-up.
3DHS thread: http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=5628.0 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=5628.0)
Seriously, I don't understand why it's so difficult to admit a mistake and move on. We all make a screw up once in awhile, and it's not a major issue usually.
so you can demonize and pigeon hole people that dont agree with your crap
A couple of questions here.
1. Who have I demonized, how so, and please provide an example.
2. Who have I pigeon holed, how so, and please provide an example.
3. How would you know what crap I believe in? The only personal opinions that I've given prior to this post in this thread are that a. I think that English should be a national language for safety and communication reasons, b. I believe it's okay to celebrate your ethnic heritage, and c. I think that you're wrong. Everything else has been backed up and substantiated by facts, with links to relevant articles. What else would you have me do, make your argument for you? If I'm going to do that I might as well not even come in to this forum, if I can sitat home and argue with myself.
my title refers to mexico as being representative of a 3rd world country
Then why didn't you just say so? Lets hurry & let them all vote so we be more like Mexico sooner! doesn't come across as being representative of anything other than Mexico.
mexico is a shit-hole
Parts of it are, certainly. There are also parts that are very beautiful and unique. That would be similar to myself looking at some inner city crime infested slum and declaring that America is a shithole. That's the problem with blanket statements, they're often incorrect. You can't judge the whole by a couple of its parts, you need to take in the whole of the whole.<---- clumsy sentence!
Also it's a Federal Case....that means it won't just affect New York
it will have effects on th whole country where most immigrants are Mexican
It's a Federal Case because it is the Federal Government that administers immigration policies and issues. This is the only court or venue that the case could be brought. Any changes that this suit brings about will undoubtedly affect the total of naturalized American immigrants, of which Mexicans were roughly 14% in 2006. Again, I think that you're trying to make this about illegal immigration, where the vast majority of offenders are Mexican.
well Fatso we know one because it says right in the article: (can you not read?)
Manuel Martinez, 35, a legal immigrant from Mexico who is a plaintiff in the suit
I'm not sure why you're so determined to make this a personal issue, I haven't insulted you, and I've taken the time to back up my posts and opinions with statistics and relevant links. So let's knock the personal crap off shall we? I don't think that either of us really need to go there. Back to your post: One person in the suit is a Mexican. Does that make the majority of the plaintiffs Mexican? Judging by the demographics of NYC, which again the suit represents, I'd bet against it. Using your argument, I could safely assume that since I met a Chinese immigrant in Chinatown, all immigrants are Chinese. That dog don't hunt either.
Immigration Demographics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States)
sure it's easier to play some pansy ass "gotcha game" about whether
the title says "more like Mexico", "more like Haiti" , "more like Dominican Republic"
Actually, it's not. I've spent a lot of time this morning looking up articles and posting them, and writing and rewriting my posts to reflect them. This isn't a gotcha game, personally I could care less. I have no personal stake in this. What would be much easier would be to keep changing my meaning, and evidently my point, as you are seeming to do, but I have elected not to take that route. It's not my fault, nor my problem, that you didn't do any research or back up your thread title and expect me to be a mind reader and divine the "true" meaning of it. Complaining that I'm playing "gotcha" isn't backing up your claims either. So either back it up or get off of it.
it's not relevant to my point
Which is what exactly? No offense, but it seems to rather mercurial in this thread, changing from one post to another.
rules are rules
they can't vote until all the hoops are jumped through
*Sigh* As I've pointed out before, they've jumped through the hoops. The only hoop they've got left is the approval from the Govt, which I'm sorry, but 5 and a half months seems reasonable for the government to go through these petitions and approve or deny them in time for the election. If you feel that it is unreasonable for the government to do that, please explain to me your rationale, preferably something other than the "they should just be happy to be here" line.
the US government works slow, but probably a hell of lot faster than most in the world
Care to back that claim up at all?
it's ridiculous these people come here and start suing people
they should shut up and be grateful, not come here and litigate
Well, no individual has been named in the suit, all the article mentions is Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is a part of the Federal Govt. The article also states that these people have been waiting for years. How long would you have them wait?
-
Protest what?
There have been huge demonstrations across the United States
about crackdowns on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
The lawbreakers and the lawbreaker supporters don't
want US law enforced.
They don't give a rats ass about US law.
And when did participating in a protest become wrong?
Lawbreakers (aka Illegal Aliens) protesting our laws and policies is wrong.
They should have no say in our laws and policy, they are not citizens of this country!
We don't care what they think!
As to waving Mexican flags, I don't see you throwing a fit about Rich's Irish Flag
(although the true Irish flag doesn't have the shamrock) avatar.
Rich is an Amercian Citizen.
Rich didn't come here illegally and then wave the flag of some shithole he left.
Rich is not a lawbreaker sending all his money back to the shithole and then wave the shithole flag.
I'm really beginning to lose some patience here. The article, and my posts responding to it, have concerned LEGAL IMMIGRATION. Jeez, I don't know how many times I have to say this. You obviously don't know jack about what I think about illegal immigration, because none of my posts in this thread have concerned it. This whole rant of yours above (italicized) is about illegal immigration. If you want to argue about illegal immigration, fine, take it to another thread. Let's stick with legal immigration here, and not lump the two together, because they are TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE THINGS. Hopefully I've cleared that up, I'm not sure how much clearer I can make the point that my posts are about LEGAL IMMIGRATION.
makes a whole lotta sense to proudly wave the flag of the country that was
sooo bad....such a shit hole......you had to flea by any means possible.
Do these people have a brain?
Do the Irish have a brain? Their country was pretty much a shithole when most of them left it too, many of them were starving. And yet I still see Irish flags, and not that there's a damned thing wrong with it.
Oh here comes the "pigeon hole".
This is getting old. I notice that you didn't bother to answer either question. Is it wrong to celebrate your heritage? Or is claiming that your opinion is being marginalized the only response that you can make?
If someone disgrees with Fatso and thinks lawbreaking illegal aliens sneak in here then start
protesting our country, waving the flag of the shithole they left is unacceptable ...
Look. See those big read letters in this post that say "Legal Immigration"? That's what my posts were about. I had assumed, from the content of the article that didn't mention illegal immigration, that your posts were about the same. You don't know jack shit about what I think about illegal immigration, so keep your words out of my mouth please. You're no more of a mind reader than I am, so quit pretending, okay? Seems like you're the one doing the pigeonholing here.
well by gollly I am going to imply they must be a racist!
Yeah, if people disgree with Fats they are racist and that will end the discussion.
Pathetic.
Tell you what. Point out one time, any time in the history of this forum, that I've ever called someone who disagreed with me a racist and I'll apologize. Really, I'd like to see this. I'll definitely not hold my breath on this one. Playing the victim card (and a transparently false one) rather than backing up any of your claims isn't helping your cause at all. Not one iota.
BTW...what a heritage to celebrate. They have really accomplished so much in the last century!
Since when do you get to decide whether or not someone's heritage is worth celebrating? What gives you that almighty, all seeing power that you can make that determination? Your statement probably isn't racist, but it is almost certainly elitist.
-
Reply #12, good post, Fatman.
-
Thanks UP, I like your signature quote. :o
BT has a real point about the level of debate in here, and I'd like to be one of the better ones. I'd hate to see this board shut down.
-
I'd dislike seeing it shut down too. This is the only place I really get to argue politics.
-
1. Who have I demonized, how so,
You obviously imply I am a racist (equals demonize) and I believe it is because
that is becoming standard practice against anyone opposed to stopping
the illegal invaders from coming to this country.
Example:
"Or does it only apply if your heritage isn't Hispanic?"
btw.....if millions of lawbreakers sneak in from Russia, China, Africa, ummm
lets see did I cover most PC ethics?...yeah if millions of any of the above
sneak in here as law-breakers and wave Russian Flags, Chinese Flags, ecttt...
and protest US law and try to effect US Policy and they shouldn't even be here
in the first place.....I say the exact same thing to them as the Mexicans!
2. Who have I pigeon holed, how so, and please provide an example.
See above answer
3. How would you know what crap I believe in?
Uh hello?
Isn't this a site where we post our beliefs?
b. I believe it's okay to celebrate your ethnic heritage
There you go again.
Trying to demonize and pigeon hole.
With the above statement you pretend I don't think it is ok to celebrate ethnic heritage.
But again you are wrong.
There is nothing wrong with celebrating ethnic heritage.
But if you are an illegal alien in this country as a law breaker and then proceeed to
wave a Mexican Flag at a protest of US laws that is a completely different matter.
But you can pretend it's just like a St Patricks Day celebration and live in fantasy land if you wish.
and c. I think that you're wrong.
Well I know you're wrong.
Everything else has been backed up and substantiated by facts, with links to relevant articles.
Oh yeah sure. Type it and someone may believe it.
What else would you have me do, make your argument for you?
No if I choose someone to make an argument for me, you would
be one of my last choices.
If I'm going to do that I might as well not even come in to this forum,
if I can sitat home and argue with myself.
Frankly I don't care what you do or if you do or don't ever enter this forum again.
Although I might miss kicking your ass.
Then why didn't you just say so?
Because my writing is my writing, not yours.
If you don't understand analogy then thats your problem not mine.
Quit trying to play "gotcha games" about pointless matters.
Again, I don't want the US turned in to Mexico!
(and if you don't get it....that means I also don't want
the US turned into Haiti, Guatemala, or Costa Rica)
-
Parts of it are, certainly. There are also parts that are very beautiful and unique. That would be similar to myself looking at some inner city crime infested slum and declaring that America is a shithole. That's the problem with blanket statements, they're often incorrect. You can't judge the whole by a couple of its parts, you need to take in the whole of the whole.<---- clumsy sentence!
what a bunch of baloney
of course mexico has a pretty beach
but the country is a mass failure
look at the standard of living
it's a shit hole
people are fleeing any way they can
go tell the millions and millions fleeing...."GO BACK THERE ARE PARTS BEAUTIFUL & UNIQUE!" - LOL
Your analogy does not work
it's a fantasy
sure there are poor parts in the US
But not anywhere close to Mexico vast poverty
Mexico is a disaster over the last century
While the US is a top echelon leader of advancements in almost every area of inventions and modernization of mankind
It's a Federal Case because it is the Federal Government that administers immigration policies and issues.
yes thats what I said. it will affect the whole country.
repeating what I said does not help you out of your implication that this does not involve Mexicans
This is the only court or venue that the case could be brought.
Quit changing the subject.
What does that matter.
the fact remains it is a Federal Case.
Any changes that this suit brings about will undoubtedly affect the total of naturalized American immigrants, of which Mexicans were roughly 14% in 2006. Again, I think that you're trying to make this about illegal immigration, where the vast majority of offenders are Mexican.
Any and all amnesty proposals of the past and futue involve huge amounts of Mexicans.
When one dicusses legal & illegal immigration, and the various aspects of them they
are many times inter-related.
I'm not sure why you're so determined to make this a personal issue, I haven't insulted you,
You haven't? Umm implying that I am a racist seems pretty personal to me.
More high horse fantasy land?
and I've taken the time to back up my posts and opinions with statistics and relevant links.
Yes with mostly irrelevant information.
"Oh I can post tons of stuff and pretend that settles it" ::)
So let's knock the personal crap off shall we?
Yes lets do!
No more implying I am racist.
One person in the suit is a Mexican.
Yes one and there could be many many more.
Quit implying he is the only one.
Does that make the majority of the plaintiffs Mexican?
You asked a question. I answered. I did not say the majority was anything.
Quit lying and misleading.
Judging by the demographics of NYC, which again the suit represents, I'd bet against it. Using your argument, I could safely assume that since I met a Chinese immigrant in Chinatown, all immigrants are Chinese. That dog don't hunt either.
See above:
-
Again, I don't want the US turned in to Mexico!
It's never going to happen, so why are you worried about it?
-
As I've pointed out before, they've jumped through the hoops.
But not all.
Hello?
Some is not all.
The only hoop they've got left is the approval from the Govt,
Ah yes another hoop.
And the immigrants are pissed the gvt is working faster.
Aweeeeeee
I guess it's slower than the shithole they just left?
LOL
which I'm sorry, but 5 and a half months seems reasonable for the government to go through these petitions and approve or deny them in time for the election.
Oh I am sure you are extremely in-tune with the exxact work-loads of our government
immigration employees/officials/ect.... and if you say so....they golly it must be
If you feel that it is unreasonable for the government to do that, please explain to me your rationale,
I nor you know the details of what is behind this process.
Of course we can "easy out" and assume "hell it's just racism".
yeah.....thats the ticket.
Get real, how in the world would you or I know enough of the
details how this particular government agency is handling it's
day to day order of business to decide if there is any mishandling
or malice involved?
Of course I am sure a judge will sort it out.
And then we'll see won't we?
Care to back that claim up at all?
No I am not going to waste a bunch of research time proving the obvious.
It's pointless to me to be asked to prove 2+2=4
Is it a far reach to assume the US government is better than most of the
world in orders of business like processing citizenship... ect...and does not
lags behind Cuba, Sudan, Ethiopia, Bolivia, Viet Nam, China, ect x1000.... most of the world?
Although you could have a point that the US may be worse because everybody
is trying to get in here, and shit-hole countries that nobody wants to move to
would be excellent at customer service because they process 1 application
to move to hell per year!
The article also states that these people have been waiting for years. How long would you have them wait?
See above
-
Reply #12, good post, Fatman.
Oh Boy
when do I get a cheerleader!
Cheerleaders make right. LOL
Open border cheerleader to boot.
(http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/data/media/2/cheerleader.jpg)
-
"It's never going to happen, so why are you worried about it"
You don't think Canada/The United States/Mexico will be one entity
sometime in the future? UP I do actually think if current trends continue,
millions and millions of uneducated poor flooding our borders and
producing children like rabbits (btw which means more global warming)
that the United States will slowly drift towards an existence of a much
lower quality life. I think the primary language in the United States within
30 years will be Spanish. On the other hand I believe that these events
could very well lead to a civil war within the United States when people
realize and see the country they once knew slipping into a much different existence.
-
You obviously imply I am a racist (equals demonize) and I believe it is because
that is becoming standard practice against anyone opposed to stopping
the illegal invaders from coming to this country.
Good grief, can you please try reading for context? Damn man. I didn't imply that you're a racist, I asked you a yes or no question that you're still twisting and squirming away from. I'm starting to believe that you live in a world of your own making. Further, who the fuck is talking about "illegal invaders"? I've made it a point numerous times in this thread to point out that I'm talking about legal immigration, and you keep dragging up the illegal argument, over and over again. Evidently the big red letters weren't enough for you, so I'll say it again, my opinions in this thread are regarding legal immigration, and since I haven't addressed illegal immigration you'd be better off sticking to that, rather than taking off on the illegal immigration tangent.
btw.....if millions of lawbreakers sneak in from Russia, China, Africa, ummm
lets see did I cover most PC ethics?...yeah if millions of any of the above
sneak in here as law-breakers and wave Russian Flags, Chinese Flags, ecttt...
and protest US law and try to effect US Policy and they shouldn't even be here
in the first place.....I say the exact same thing to them as the Mexicans!
Again, who the hell is talking about illegal immigrants? The article didn't say a damned thing about illegal immigrants, the statistics I've posted deal exclusively with legal immigrants. Lord have mercy, what the hell are you talking about?
See above answer
I did. Evidently you feel that because I asked you a simple question, you're better off making the victim claim rather than answering the freaking question, when you're not ranting about illegal immigrants in a thread dedicated to legal immigrants. You still haven't made your case.
Uh hello?
Isn't this a site where we post our beliefs?
Yes it is. Most of us here even take the time to dig up and research and document articles and arguments. I haven't seen you do that once yet. So far, all you've done is misconstrue my arguments regarding legal immigration into being some kind of supporter for illegal immigration. I'm getting tired of it. I don't know your beliefs, that's why I ask questions, rather than making blanket and irrelevant remarks. You might try that sometime, you may be surprised on my position regarding illegal immigration.
There you go again.
Trying to demonize and pigeon hole.
With the above statement you pretend I don't think it is ok to celebrate ethnic heritage.
But again you are wrong.
Let's look at the sentence in it's entirety, shall we? Here's what I said: The only personal opinions that I've given prior to this post in this thread are that a. I think that English should be a national language for safety and communication reasons, b. I believe it's okay to celebrate your ethnic heritage, and c. I think that you're wrong. How are you getting that I'm trying to say that you're against celebrating ethnic heritage? I stated my beliefs, and no matter how hard you try to claim otherwise, I've left the stating of your beliefs to you. I haven't tried to demonize or pigeonhole you, I think you're running at the windmill.
There is nothing wrong with celebrating ethnic heritage.
Thank you for finally answering that query. At least you and I have one piece of common ground.
But if you are an illegal alien in this country as a law breaker and then proceeed to
wave a Mexican Flag at a protest of US laws that is a completely different matter.
But you can pretend it's just like a St Patricks Day celebration and live in fantasy land if you wish.
Here you are with the illegal immigrant argument again. Gah! What can I do to make it clearer? I am not addressing illegal immigration in this thread, nor have I addressed it. Everything I've posted pertains to legal immigration. Legal immigrants celebrating their heritage, be it Hispanic, Polish, Swahili, whatever, is certainly relevant to the Irish waving a flag. I certainly did not mention St. Patrick's day. So please, quit putting your words in my mouth, because honestly, they taste funny.
Well I know you're wrong.
Then it's simple. Prove it.
Everything else has been backed up and substantiated by facts, with links to relevant articles.
Oh yeah sure. Type it and someone may believe it.
Did you not read any of the links or statistics? Or do you feel that they're irrelevant? So far I haven't seen you do a bit of research, and your dismissive attitude is rather insulting when I've spent a good portion of the morning digging through facts and web searches to make my argument. Why don't you try doing that?
No if I choose someone to make an argument for me, you would
be one of my last choices.
That's probably a good thing for me.
Frankly I don't care what you do or if you do or don't ever enter this forum again.
Although I might miss kicking your ass.
I hate to break this to you, but so far you haven't been kicking anyone's ass. All you've done is persist in making yourself look bad. I ask a question, I'm labeling you a racist. I post a fact, and link it, and it's not true because anyone could write it and believe it. I consistently point out that I'm not referencing illegal immigration in this thread, and 85% of your posts are concentrated solely illegal immigration. So if you want to think that you're kicking my ass, go right ahead. I think most people reading this know better.
Then why didn't you just say so?
Because my writing is my writing, not yours.
If you don't understand analogy then thats your problem not mine.
Quit trying to play "gotcha games" about pointless matters.
I still don't understand what your problem is. I am quite adept at picking up subtleties, one of my hobbies is Russian literature, which full of analogies and allegories. I don't see how I'm supposed to realize that your thread title is an analogy, especially when you defended that the suit was about Mexican (vs. other Hispanic) immigrants. I'm not a mind reader, don't expect me or anyone else on this forum to be. Don't post something, defend it, then try and pretend that it's supposed to be an analogy. And hey, a thread title is not a pointless matter. It sums up the heart of the thread, or why would there be such a hubbub about Lanya posting a thread title claiming that Republicans want women to die of cancer? Don't pretend that you don't know and realize this, we both know that you're smarter than that.
Again, I don't want the US turned in to Mexico!
(and if you don't get it....that means I also don't want
the US turned into Haiti, Guatemala, or Costa Rica)
Societies and cultures change throughout history as they're exposed to other societies and cultures. You might not want it, but it's inevitable. The Celts probably didn't want Roman culture imposed either. But I'm not going to go into this with you, that's a topic for another day.
what a bunch of baloney
of course mexico has a pretty beach
but the country is a mass failure
look at the standard of living
it's a shit hole
people are fleeing any way they can
And that's different from Ireland in the potato famine how? Countries change, adapt, and evolve. Currently, the world's richest man lives in Mexico. That's not to say that most of Mexico isn't impoverished, but you seem to want to broad brush it and say that this is the case for the whole country "but the country is a mass failure ". It isn't. As for the standard of living thing, should the Scandinavian nations exclude Americans from emigrating there because their standard of living is higher than ours? Where do you draw that line?
go tell the millions and millions fleeing...."GO BACK THERE ARE PARTS BEAUTIFUL & UNIQUE!" - LOL
A totally irrelevant misconstruction of my argument. Are you advocating that we, as a nation, should have said the same thing to Irish potato farmers?
Your analogy does not work
it's a fantasy
sure there are poor parts in the US
But not anywhere close to Mexico vast poverty
Are you saying that the richer parts of Mexico are poorer than the poor parts of the US? I was using your argument in a hypothetical, but you chose to change tack rather than rebut it.
Mexico is a disaster over the last century
What does this have to do with anything? The thread is about legal immigration, not Mexican history.
While the US is a top echelon leader of advancements in almost every area of inventions and modernization of mankind
Almost all of those areas of inventions and modernizations included, and were aided by, the contributions of foreign born scientists that immigrated to the US. Einstein, Fermi, the list could get very long.
yes thats what I said. it will affect the whole country.
repeating what I said does not help you out of your implication that this does not involve Mexicans
Let's stick with what I said, and not what I supposedly implied. You stated that the majority of those affected by the suit were Mexicans, I said that they weren't, and went on to link to a couple of pages of demographics supporting my claim. You haven't linked to or added any research to support your claim. Why is that?
Quit changing the subject.
What does that matter.
the fact remains it is a Federal Case.
I'm changing the subject? I'm not the one obfuscating the debate by adding irrelevant articles (illegal immigration), supposed implications of whatever form you want to believe, or claiming that someone is calling me a racist. You would do well to stick to your argument and not run off on wild goose chases. And yes, it is a Federal Case, for the reasons that I previously mentioned.
Any and all amnesty proposals of the past and futue involve huge amounts of Mexicans.
And what exactly does this have to do with naturalized citizens bringing suit to force the govt to move faster in approving or denying citizenship applications? Do you not want any immigration at all?
When one dicusses legal & illegal immigration, and the various aspects of them they
are many times inter-related.
How? One is legal and one isn't. While some aspects may be related, I haven't addressed those in my posts. You're tending to assume that I'm covering both subjects, which despite my many labored efforts to prove to you otherwise, I'm not.
You haven't? Umm implying that I am a racist seems pretty personal to me.
More high horse fantasy land?
I've asked you a question, which you eventually answered, and somehow I'm supposed to be trying to paint you as a racist. If I thought that you were a racist, or if I wanted to call you one, I would. I tend to be rather direct in confrontation. Have you found that post of mine yet where I've ever called someone in this forum a racist? If you're reading things into what I'm saying that I am not, in fact, saying, that's an issue that you need to address, because it's going to lead to a lot of false impressions.
Yes with mostly irrelevant information.
"Oh I can post tons of stuff and pretend that settles it"
Irrelevant as to what? Perhaps you'd like to try and post some "relevant" information?
Yes lets do!
No more implying I am racist.
Then quit reading that implication into my statements.
Yes one and there could be many many more.
Quit implying he is the only one.
And there could be only the one. We don't know, so let's act on that. You're tilting at windmills again with the implication thing.
Does that make the majority of the plaintiffs Mexican?
You asked a question. I answered. I did not say the majority was anything.
Quit lying and misleading.
Where did I supposedly lie and mislead? I do note however, that you didn't deem it necessary to answer the question in your answering post.
Judging by the demographics of NYC, which again the suit represents, I'd bet against it. Using your argument, I could safely assume that since I met a Chinese immigrant in Chinatown, all immigrants are Chinese. That dog don't hunt either.
See above:
Hey, I'm using your argument. Defend it or lose it.
-
But not all.
Hello?
Some is not all.
The last hoop is dependant upon the speed of the govt., hence the lawsuit. You're saying that they shouldn't sue to make the govt move quicker on this. Why?
Ah yes another hoop.
And the immigrants are pissed the gvt is working faster.
Aweeeeeee
I guess it's slower than the shithole they just left?
LOL
You haven't produced any evidence that would make me think so. Just some elitist rambling.
Oh I am sure you are extremely in-tune with the exxact work-loads of our government
immigration employees/officials/ect.... and if you say so....they golly it must be
Actually, I'm not. You're the one who stated that our govt is probably faster than their home nation, so where's your facts and evidence to support it. It's your argument, not mine.
I nor you know the details of what is behind this process.
Of course we can "easy out" and assume "hell it's just racism".
yeah.....thats the ticket.
Who is assuming it's of a racial motivation, and why do you keep referencing that when I haven't referenced it once?
Get real, how in the world would you or I know enough of the
details how this particular government agency is handling it's
day to day order of business to decide if there is any mishandling
or malice involved?
Who is claiming malice? From the article: The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, asserts that the agency violated immigrants? due process rights by routinely failing to finish their applications within a 180-day time period that Congress has set as a standard[/b].
I see no implication of malice, only an incompetent government agency not following its Congressional mandate. Also from the article: It also asserts that the Bush administration did not follow regulatory procedures in November 2002 when it ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation to deepen its background checks of citizenship applicants. I see no malice here either, just more incompetence in not following the regulatory procedures. So please, where are you coming up this malice bit? Is it some kind of implication that I'm evidently missing?
Of course I am sure a judge will sort it out.
And then we'll see won't we?
That's usually the point of a lawsuit.
Care to back that claim up at all?
No I am not going to waste a bunch of research time proving the obvious.
It's pointless to me to be asked to prove 2+2=4
Then don't make the claim if you refuse to support it. If it's true that the US is faster in processing citizenship applications than the nations that they came from (your claim), that info should be fairly easy to find.
Is it a far reach to assume the US government is better than most of the
world in orders of business like processing citizenship... ect...and does not
lags behind Cuba, Sudan, Ethiopia, Bolivia, Viet Nam, China, ect x1000.... most of the world?
Who's talking about better? We're talking about faster, not better. Please stay on topic. An argument could be made that a lot of despotisms are a lot more efficient form of govt than ours, but that doesn't make them better. They have partisan courts, if any. If they want you in, they'll get you in, and if they don't, they won't. And again, if you're not going to support your claim that our government is faster, then please don't make it.
The article also states that these people have been waiting for years. How long would you havethem wait?
See above[/i]
I don't see your response.
-
Reply #12, good post, Fatman.
Oh Boy
when do I get a cheerleader!
Cheerleaders make right. LOL
Open border cheerleader to boot.
(http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/data/media/2/cheerleader.jpg)
Your comment was neither necessary nor appropriate. Prince didn't claim to agree with me, only that it was a good post. Please restrain yourself, and take a look at Pooch's post in the BT thread.
-
Oh Boy
when do I get a cheerleader!
Turn around counterclockwise three times, click your heels, close your eyes real tight, and wish, wish, wish.
As for the picture,there is no need for that. Come on, this ain't fifth grade.
-
You don't think Canada/The United States/Mexico will be one entity sometime in the future?
No, I don't. Possibly we might arrange a better trade arrangement, but no, I don't see Mexico, Canada or the U.S. giving up their sovereignty any time soon.
UP I do actually think if current trends continue, millions and millions of uneducated poor flooding our borders and producing children like rabbits (btw which means more global warming) that the United States will slowly drift towards an existence of a much lower quality life. I think the primary language in the United States within 30 years will be Spanish. On the other hand I believe that these events could very well lead to a civil war within the United States when people realize and see the country they once knew slipping into a much different existence.
When the economic situations in Mexico and Central America improve, the "flood" of immigrants from those countries will slow down. There is no reason to assume that capitalism that has helped this country cannot help other countries. We need more of it, not less. I understand your concerns, but I honestly do not believe we are going to avert such things by trying to stop people from making a better life for themselves. More open trade in labor and goods will benefit all of us. The more we try to control life, control people, control trade, the fewer benefits we will receive and the more problems we will cause. Quality of life is not protected by interfering with trade, just ask the Soviets. Ask the Venezuelans if their quality of life is being protected. I believe if we are going to stop the "flood" and the trends about which you seem concerned, we need to try what has worked for us, liberty and capitalism, not regulations and socialist style control.
-
Good grief, can you please try reading for context? Damn man. I didn't imply that you're a racist,
Yes you absolutely did!
"Or does it only apply if your heritage isn't Hispanic?"
It's quite clear.
But remain in denial.
By the way you also with your very first post in this thread called me "hysterical".
Which by the way there was no evidence to support that when you said that.
My post did not attack you or call you any demeaning terms.
But you started the personal name-calling.....NOT ME
You started the personal attack.
Go look, thats what I love about message boards.
The words dont lie!
I asked you a yes or no question that you're still twisting and squirming away from.
No it was not at all a simple quesstion, it was a way for you to imply I was a racist and
now it is you squirming away from throwing bombs that have no foundation.
I'm starting to believe that you live in a world of your own making.
Further, who the fuck is talking about "illegal invaders"?
Does your "who the fuck" qualify as what your high horse comment
was about to read a post by Stray Pooch about civil debate?
Name calling and "who the fuck" and your preaching about how to live like Pooch?
LOL
I've made it a point numerous times in this thread to point out that I'm talking
about legal immigration, and you keep dragging up the illegal argument, over and over again.
Yes I too am talking about non-US Citizens but I am also discussing illegal immigration.
You are not the only one responding to my original post.
XO made a comment.
I know from past history XO is "soft" on illegal immigration.
I felt his comment further opened the discussion to include both types of immigration.
If you go back and look "Mr Researcher" you will notice that my first mention
of Mexican Flag waving was a response to XO, not you.
People that are not US Citizens both legal and illegal are bitching, moaning,
and suing people before they are even citizens. I don't like it. I am free
to include both. If you don't want to include both, fine, but you can not
dictate to me how I respond to XO and how the thread evolves.
Evidently the big red letters weren't enough for you,
Is this more of the civil Pooch gospel you preach but don't live by?
so I'll say it again, my opinions in this thread are regarding legal immigration,
and since I haven't addressed illegal immigration you'd be better off sticking to that,
rather than taking off on the illegal immigration tangent.
See above.
Again these people are not even US citizens and they are already
running to the courts suing people.
Again, who the hell is talking about illegal immigrants?
I am because I don't think non-American citizens should come over here
and start suing people....Illegal invaders do this and other non-US citizens
attempting to become citizens also are doing this as this article shows.
The article didn't say a damned thing
about illegal immigrants, the statistics I've posted deal exclusively with legal immigrants.
Lord have mercy, what the hell are you talking about?
SEE ABOVE.
This thread is not exclusively micro, it is also macro.
I am do not like people in general that are non-US citizens coming to
this country and start bitching, moaning and suing people and our government
and they are not even US citizens.
in a thread dedicated to legal immigrants.
Oh so I start the thread but you get to decide how narrow a discussion it will be?
LOL
Yeah sure.
I do not like non-US Citizens living in this country over here complaining and suing people
and that includes illegal invaders and the groups listed in the article.
Most of us here even take the time to dig up and research and document articles
and arguments. I haven't seen you do that once yet.
More lies or you never read posts.
Many, many, many of my posts are sourced.
Just yesterday someone implied "home schooling produced dumbasses".
I quickly posted sourced facts that proved home schooled children have higher SAT scores.
Slam shut case over.
Let's look at the sentence in it's entirety, shall we?
We certainly can, but I am not buying it.
I haven't tried to demonize or pigeonhole you,
I absolutely think you are.
But I know you don't know what you aretalking about so
it really doesn't matter except I wanted to point it out.
Well I know you're wrong. Then it's simple. Prove it.
On what part?.... that I am hysterical?
Go look up the term. You were clearly wrong there.
Or maybe your statement that they had
"jumped through all the hoops" when clearly they have not.
or maybe when you started the personal insults but later
when you get punched back you come up with a lying line
like this "I haven't insulted you"
blah blah blah
"I think most people reading this know better"
You think this is some kind of freaking popularity contest?
I dont care what other biased people think about our discussion
ZERO VALUE.
You think I care if UP cheerleads for you because he and I have
tangled in the past and he hates me.
-
Your comment was neither necessary nor appropriate.
What? Kind of like your demeaning words and throwing the first punch
in threads....dropping F-bombs and then pretending your the Pooch apostle?
Prince didn't claim to agree with me, only that it was a good post.
Oh please. That guy is settling old scores. Whatever
Please restrain yourself, and take a look at Pooch's post in the BT thread
Oh ok Judas.
-
No, I don't. Possibly we might arrange a better trade arrangement, but no,
I don't see Mexico, Canada or the U.S. giving up their sovereignty any time soon
I hope you are right, but I do not agree.
Everything is moving towards "one world".
Trade agreements are bringing down borders.
The internet is tearing down border barriers.
World economics is tearing down borders.
Do we even have a southern border? LOL
There is lots of discussion/books/believers in the "end of the nation state".
Technology is accelerating the end of the nation state.
There are influential people that believe that something along the lines of the UN will eventually rule the world.
I don't think that is that far fetched.
I dont like it.
But I think it's probably inevitable.
ps: uh oh this thread is only to be about legal non-us citizens!
do we have fat mans permisssion to discuss?
-
You think I care if UP cheerleads for you because he and I have tangled in the past and he hates me.
I absolutely do not hate you or anyone else here.
-
I'm done with you. You can't provide an intelligent debate. I guess that I was expecting too much. My apologies.
-
Trade agreements are bringing down borders.
The internet is tearing down border barriers.
World economics is tearing down borders.
You say tear down. I say open. Significant difference between the two concepts.
ps: uh oh this thread is only to be about legal non-us citizens!
do we have fat mans permisssion to discuss?
'Tain't funny, McGee. Let it go.
-
When the economic situations in Mexico and Central America improve, the "flood" of immigrants from those countries will slow down. There is no reason to assume that capitalism that has helped this country cannot help other countries.
True.
Capitalism could be the savior.
Problem is I think most of the poor uneducated immigrants are going to become a voting base that will
one day crush/limit/hamper capitalism.
We need more of it, not less. I understand your concerns, but I honestly do not believe
we are going to avert such things by trying to stop people from making a better life for themselves.
We could become a Japan.
More open trade in labor and goods will benefit all of us. The more we try to control life, control people, control trade, the fewer benefits we will receive and the more problems we will cause. Quality of life is not protected by interfering with trade, just ask the Soviets. Ask the Venezuelans if their quality of life is being protected. I believe if we are going to stop the "flood" and the trends about which you seem concerned, we need to try what has worked for us, liberty and capitalism, not regulations and socialist style control.
I understand your points, but we don't agree.
They need to go through the struggle there in their own countries to bring about capitalism.
Not come here and lower our standards.
Do you not think there should be any limits to how many poor uneducated immigrants we take?
Would it be ok to add 30 million more? 75 million more, 100 million more?
Fly them in non-stop 24/7.
Double thriple the amount coming in now?
After all much of the world is dirt poor.
So hundreds of millions would like to come
Hell living in a tiny 1 bedroom apt and working at Walmart they would be Kings compared to
where they now sit.
I want limits. Do you?
Do you not support any limits on immigration to the United States?
-
'Tain't funny, McGee. Let it go.
UP you know it was! ;)
-
I'm done with you.
Oh no you're not.
I still have another long ass thread of yours to respond to.
I am sure much of it is the same stuff I have already responded to.
I'll look tomorrow and see if there's anything worthy of my time.
You can't provide an intelligent debate.
What?... like the name calling you started in this thread or
the F-bombs you drop then lecture me to "be more like Pooch"?
::)
footnote:
Oh and since we're "done" as you say:
i did want to tell you one thing, if you were sincerely
offended by me goofing on your name Fatman by calling you fats
or fatso I meant no harm, I figured your name was "tongue in cheek"
anyway. But I apologize if you really find those words hurtful because
you have a real weight problem or eating disorder.
-
Capitalism could be the savior.
No, capitalism will never be a savior. It's just a tool, but it doesn't work if we don't use it.
Problem is I think most of the poor uneducated immigrants are going to become a voting base that will
one day crush/limit/hamper capitalism.
One reason why we should have less regulated trade with other countries. Again, when the economic situations in their home countries improve, they will have less impetus to come here.
Do you not support any limits on immigration?
I'm not opposed to minor things like check points, kinda like Ellis Island used to be. Check for sick people, look for known criminals, et cetera. Most folks answered a few questions and were admitted. Legally. No waiting for years, no labyrinthine red tape. And they were here legally. And we're a better country for it, imo. Some modern updates would be okay, like checking fingerprints as a way of checking for known criminals and the like. That is about as far as limiting immigration should go, imo.
But of course, you should not separate this from the fact that I also want to see better trade between the U.S. and Mexico and other countries. Again, capitalism, when the government started pulling back the New Deal nonsense that hampered capitalism, pulled the U.S. out of economic depression about as bad as anything in Mexico these days. I believe capitalism can help Mexico do the same, but, as I said before, only if we use it. The thing is, Mexico would not benefit alone. We would too.
-
But I apologize if you really find those words hurtful
If we'd all start with thinking about that, rather than ending there, we'd all be much better off. Myself included.
-
Apostle of the Pooch? Jiminy Crickets, I seem to have somehow become a cult!
Heck, it was bound to happen eventually. Now if someone will just mix up a batch of Kool-Aid and tell my wives to come hither, we can all wait for the spaceship.
I have read the thread and I have only a few random observations.
1) Immigrants to this country should file lawsuits. It is so American it ought to be a prerequisite.
2) Thanks, fatman, for posting that citizenship requirement information. It was interesting, relevant and answered a lot of questions I have had but was too lazy to look up.
3) If the previous point makes me a cheerleader, I want a nicer dress. And an image consultant.
4) Actually, I want that anyway.
The fact is, I think the lawsuits are justified if the government is not meeting the congressionally mandated deadline. However, I also think that increasing the background requirement should have been coupled with a substantial increase in approval time - as inconvenient as that would be for the folks waiting. The SBIs we conducted for American citizens needing security clearances could take months to years, and there were far fewer of those. The ones that took longest to complete were those that involved people who had been out of country. That pretty much includes 100 percent of the alien population (except their kids who were born here). I think it is unrealistic to expect a six-month wait time to be sufficient under the post 9-11 rules. But the law is the law, and for those who have faithfully applied and legally resided here, there is nothing more American than expecting the government to live up to its own rules.
In spite of that, however, I do not believe applications should be expedited just because an election is on the way. There will be other elections. The backlog should be cleaned up because it is the law, and for no other reason. The law should probably be changed, but what politician on the majority side of the aisle is going to support legislation to make the waiting period LONGER? Perhaps one idea, if it could be made to pass constitutional muster, would be interim citizenships that would confer rights upon an individual after the deadline had passed but which could be revoked if subsequent investigation proved the person ineligible. Of course there is a chance of abuse there, but it might make increasing the wait time more palatable. Let's say increase the time to a year, and after that you get a citizenship "learner's permit."
Now, if you will excuse me, I'm off to write "the Tao of Pooch."
-
Now, if you will excuse me, I'm off to write "the Tao of Pooch."
Do you have a Poochlet to write the Te?
-
Now, if you will excuse me, I'm off to write "the Tao of Pooch."
"I, Chew"?