DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: The_Professor on August 08, 2007, 04:56:50 PM
-
If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?
By Steven D. Levitt
The TSA recently announced that most airplane carry-on restrictions will stay in place for at least another year, until new X-ray technology has been fully installed. Surprisingly, one item that will now be permitted on board is a lighter. While it seems crazy to keep people from bringing toothpaste, deodorant, or water on a plane, it doesn?t seem so strange to ban lighters, which could be used to start fires. I wonder whether the lighter manufacturers were lobbying for or against this rule change ? on the one hand, having 22,000 lighters confiscated per day would seem good for business; but on the other hand, maybe fewer people will buy lighters if they can?t travel with them.
Hearing about these rules got me thinking about what I would do to maximize terror if I were a terrorist with limited resources. I?d start by thinking about what really inspires fear. One thing that scares people is the thought that they could be a victim of an attack. With that in mind, I?d want to do something that everybody thinks might be directed at them, even if the individual probability of harm is very low. Humans tend to overestimate small probabilities, so the fear generated by an act of terrorism is greatly disproportionate to the actual risk.
Also, I?d want to create the feeling that an army of terrorists exists, which I?d accomplish by pulling off multiple attacks at once, and then following them up with more shortly thereafter.
Third, unless terrorists always insist on suicide missions (which I can?t imagine they would), it would be optimal to hatch a plan in which your terrorists aren?t killed or caught in the act, if possible.
Fourth, I think it makes sense to try to stop commerce, since a commerce breakdown gives people more free time to think about how scared they are.
Fifth, if you really want to impose pain on the U.S., the act has to be something that prompts the government to pass a bundle of very costly laws that stay in place long after they have served their purpose (assuming they had a purpose in the first place).
My general view of the world is that simpler is better. My guess is that this thinking applies to terrorism as well. In that spirit, the best terrorist plan I have heard is one that my father thought up after the D.C. snipers created havoc in 2002. The basic idea is to arm 20 terrorists with rifles and cars, and arrange to have them begin shooting randomly at pre-set times all across the country. Big cities, little cities, suburbs, etc. Have them move around a lot. No one will know when and where the next attack will be. The chaos would be unbelievable, especially considering how few resources it would require of the terrorists. It would also be extremely hard to catch these guys. The damage wouldn?t be as extreme as detonating a nuclear bomb in New York City, of course; but it sure would be a lot easier to obtain a handful of guns than a nuclear weapon.
I?m sure many readers have far better ideas. I would love to hear them. Consider that posting them could be a form of public service: I presume that a lot more folks who oppose and fight terror read this blog than actual terrorists. So by getting these ideas out in the open, it gives terror fighters a chance to consider and plan for these scenarios before they occur.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/if-you-were-a-terrorist-how-would-you-attack/
-
Well, I need some parameters. Am I a terrorist who's looking forward to killing myself in the process of killing as many citiszens of the great satan as possible, or am I a terrorist, looking to keep a track record of lives I've taken, in the name of Allah & my idol Usama? Am I workding alone, part of a small sect of terrorists, or a member of a large contingent of AlQeada critters?
-
I'd find a train with a chlorine tank on it. Blow up the chlorine and kill 100,000 or so people.
-
Excellent. Wouldn't require too many involved, 3 or 4 max to take over the engine, though someone should now how to accelerate the train for maximum effect, unless the idea is to try and "park" it somewhere then blow it up remotely
-
All you'd really have to do is get the information on the particular trains route and shoot it with a grenade launcher as it passed by a populated area.
Boom.
72 virgins.
-
You think we have some terrorists with grenade launchers here on our soil? Or is that a needed 1st step?
-
This is great. Folks who complain about appeasing terrorists and who talk so loudly about national security above all I now get to watch plan terrorist attacks. This ought to be interesting.
-
This is great. Folks who complain about appeasing terrorists and who talk so loudly about national security above all I now get to watch plan terrorist attacks. This ought to be interesting.
I don't get your beef, Prince. How is this discussion appeasing anyone? If anything it demonstrates gaping holes in our national security, which BTW is a big issue for me, if you hadn't notived. And excuse my deflection here, but what I don't get is you have a beef about this, while your open border mentality rams a hole the size of saturn thru our national security :-\
-
I don't get your beef, Prince.
That's because I don't... nevermind, bad joke.
Anyway, I'm not really complaining. I'm fine with people trying to imagine how a terrorist would attack. I just think it's a little humorous that the people doing the imagining, and calling for the imagining, are the folks who complain about the New York Times and talk about how the government needs more surveilance powers and complain how doing this or that is just giving the terrorists what they want. Now I get to watch those folks brainstorm for terrorist plots. It's funny.
-
I don't get your beef, Prince.
That's because I don't... nevermind, bad joke. Anyway, I'm not really complaining. I'm fine with people trying to imagine how a terrorist would attack. I just think it's a little humorous that the people doing the imagining, and calling for the imagining, are the folks who complain about the New York Times and talk about how the government needs more surveilance powers and complain how doing this or that is just giving the terrorists what they want. Now I get to watch those folks brainstorm for terrorist plots. It's funny.
Who's arguing for "more"? I've been arguing for what's current. And the latter part makes no sense what-so-ever, I'm afraid, regarding this appeasement reference. But at least you have no beef, and just finding something humerus. there are many comedians who people fawn all over and I'm wondering "he's supposed to be funny?"
-
My idea which never really came to fruition was for a "Fuck America" competition limited to male Americans under the age of seventeen, with a seniors' division for the 17-to-20 year olds. The U.S. government through a panel of academic war planners hands out a $50,000 monthly first prize for the best "terrorist" idea of the preceding month, with multiple runner-up prizes of gaming software and hardware. The top four winners each year get to participate in a cluster-fuck with four porno actresses of their choice, and share a monetary award directly proportional to the total number of Third World people killed during the preceding year by American and Israeli forces. I think there's a lot of potential in this idea because in addition to the practical value of tricking young and destructive minds into analyzing the vulnerabilities of American homeland security, it really says a lot about what America really is all about.
-
>>"You think we have some terrorists with grenade launchers here on our soil? Or is that a needed 1st step?"<<
Do I think they do?
...
Probably.
But you laid out a scenario that would work out just as well.
-
>>Now I get to watch those folks brainstorm for terrorist plots. It's funny.<<
We didn't want you to have all the fun!
::)
-
not that hard to get weapons
doesn`t it simply require going to any crime ridden area to buy them?
every single friend I know who lives in DC has a gun.
on explosives.
last I heard most terrorist know how to make this stuff.
we even talked about how to make it here .
I remember asking is it ok to talk about it to bt .
and don`t forget a car with several cans of gas do alot of damage
that`s why fedaeral building had those car barriers
but nothing else
-
not that hard to get weapons
doesn`t it simply require going to any crime ridden area to buy them?
every single friend I know who lives in DC has a gun.
on explosives.
last I heard most terrorist know how to make this stuff.
we even talked about how to make it here .
I remember asking is it ok to talk about it to bt .
and don`t forget a car with several cans of gas do alot of damage
that`s why fedaeral building had those car barriers
but nothing else
anyone can easily make gunpowder. put some nails in a bucket or some contianer and a crude fuse and blooey!
-
Teargas in the ventilation shafts of a suburban walmart or home depot on a saturday. Wouldn't kill anyone but it would shatter any feeling of safety. Hit five or six metropolitan areas simultaneously.
-
<<Teargas in the ventilation shafts of a suburban walmart or home depot on a saturday. Wouldn't kill anyone but it would shatter any feeling of safety. Hit five or six metropolitan areas simultaneously.>>
Yeah THAT'S bad. The only thing left for them after that would be a Harold Ramis movie deal.
-
We didn't want you to have all the fun!
Planning terrorist attacks? No, that's all you, pal.
-
Yeah THAT'S bad. The only thing left for them after that would be a Harold Ramis movie deal.
You act like you think the end result of a terror attack should be a high body count. It isn't. The end result should be fear.
-
There may be a legitimate reason for this brainstorm , perhaps to make preparation to make such a thing less likely .
But I don't want to do it on the internet.
If the theory is that we could do a better job of finding vulnerability than Al Queda,I would hate to be the "winner".
-
wimp... ;)
-
uhm how about peeing in a half full bottle of clorox and throw it into a vent system
and hoping it don`t blow up on you.
in a mall that will do some serious damage.
a pizza hut had this happen it was fowl.
people just don`t know how dangerous bleach is.
-
Now I get to watch those folks brainstorm for terrorist plots. It's funny.
I tend to agree with Prince. This is funny, not so much in the stand-up comic way, but more in the carnival sense.
-
anyone can easily make gunpowder. put some nails in a bucket or some contianer and a crude fuse and blooey!
If there were referees for this bizarre exercise they'd have to hit the buzzer for this one Professor, it has been done. Extreme right wingers did this to a few gay bars in Soho in the late 90's in the UK. I believe they even killed a pregnant woman walking outside.
-
>>Planning terrorist attacks? No, that's all you, pal.<<
We're speculating. You're doing your best to actually help them accomplish an attack.
Pal.
-
If there were referees for this bizarre exercise they'd have to hit the buzzer for this one Professor, it has been done. Extreme right wingers did this to a few gay bars in Soho in the late 90's in the UK. I believe they even killed a pregnant woman walking outside.
A few times in Atlanta, too. Abortion clinics and gay bars there.
-
Well, unfortunately, gunpowder and any damaging substance like nails, etc can cause problems. So, it is actually pretty miraculous we haven't experienced even MORE trouble.,...sigh.
-
Well, unfortunatley, gunpoweder and any damaging substance like nails, etc can cause problems. So, it is actually pretty miraculous we haven't experienced even MORE trouble.,...sigh.
Maybe they consider it cliche. ;)
-
I doubt any idea posted here has not been thought of before. I think the ventilation shaft idea at a mall was on 24 last year.
-
We're speculating.
Yes, on how to attempt a successful terrorist attack on American citizens.
You're doing your best to actually help them accomplish an attack.
Not at all. I simply advocate for intelligent anti-terrorism proposals rather than fearfully casting about for whatever more-government-power policy feels good.
-
Yes, on how to attempt a successful terrorist attack on American citizens.
More like pinpointing weaknesses. sorta like libertarians sitting in the bleachers complaining that govenment sucks.
-
I doubt any idea posted here has not been thought of before. I think the ventilation shaft idea at a mall was on 24 last year.
That is a good point Bt. I'd say Fox (and other movie & TV studios as well as publishing companies) owe much more careful thought as to how they approach these hypothetical scenes of terrorist attacks.
Still, I'd hate to wake up and find any ideas of mine that have come to fruition, even if I were 99% sure that there was no way any terrorist would have read them on this site.
-
On the other hand, perhaps the folks at Fox hoped that just maybe a couple of the facilities managers for malls saw the show and wondered if their sites could be target hardened. Locked access, key control, vetting of maintenance personnel and vendors, etc etc etc.
-
>>Not at all. I simply advocate for intelligent anti-terrorism proposals ...<<
Fine. Of course what you advocate helps the terrorists, not Americans.
-
Of course what you advocate helps the terrorists, not Americans.
And what is it that I advocate? Yeah, I do know, but I'm thinking perhaps you don't.
-
More like pinpointing weaknesses.
With all the comparisons to World War II, I'd think folks would be against that.
sorta like libertarians sitting in the bleachers complaining that govenment sucks.
Cute, but I don't recall having speculated on how to kill American politicians or citizens.
-
Cute, but I don't recall having speculated on how to kill American politicians or citizens.
Who is speculating on how to kill citizens. If anything I am pointing out possible flaws and offering solutions.
-
>>There may be a legitimate reason for this brainstorm , perhaps to make preparation to make such a thing less likely .<<
Do you really think terrorists haven't thought of just about everything we could come up with, and more? I mentioned rail because my wife works in that industry and we talk about what could happen and what they are doing about it all the time.
This little conversation is much less harmless that advocating the removal of intelligence gathering, claiming the war is lost, calling the president a Nazi, or leaking secret information as the left does on a daily basis.
Get a grip.
-
Cleverly fill a shampoo bottle with an explosive. Then go through the Homeland Security line at the airport. They will confiscate the shampoo and toss it into a barrel about ten feet away from all the waiting travelers. Then blow it up with a timer several hours later.
This will demonstrate how idiotic Homeland Security and their procedures really are.
-
I think we should be getting from more experience people on this subject.
ex. a co-worker of mine is from ireland and he know most if not all possible targets .
simply from 1st hand experience.
he`s talks about power and water as targets
-
Who is speculating on how to kill citizens.
I suggest you go back and read this thread.
If anything I am pointing out possible flaws and offering solutions.
I'm sure you are.
-
he`s talks about power and water as targets
Depends on your goals. If you want to cripple infrastructure to make it difficult for the government to get you, that is something to look at.
If you want to make the general populace scared, malls and airports are the way to go.
-
This little conversation is much less harmless that advocating the removal of intelligence gathering, claiming the war is lost, calling the president a Nazi, or leaking secret information as the left does on a daily basis.
Possibly. That doesn't take anything away from the humor of watching you speculate on how to commit acts of terrorism. If you were less self-righteous about it, that might lessen the humor, but I doubt it.
-
I suggest you go back and read this thread.
I have.
I'm sure you are.
On the other hand, perhaps the folks at Fox hoped that just maybe a couple of the facilities managers for malls saw the show and wondered if their sites could be target hardened. Locked access, key control, vetting of maintenance personnel and vendors, etc etc etc.
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=3535.msg31601#msg31601
Which is a more workable solution than your ideas about the illegal immigration situation which is basically to make it legal.
-
hey!!
I got it
give away free contaminated salads in the streets.
since it`s vegetables nobody will believe it`s bad.
remember spinach -ecoli
people still wanted to eat it
they refuse to believe vegetables can get people sick
it even pointed out that most food poisoning is caused by vegetables than meat.
due to the fact people don`t bother washing them.
or maybe free fruits would be better
-
I suggest you go back and read this thread.
I have.
Good, then maybe you noticed the answer to your question of who (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=3535.msg31513#msg31513) is speculating on how to kill citizens.
On the other hand, perhaps the folks at Fox hoped that just maybe a couple of the facilities managers for malls saw the show and wondered if their sites could be target hardened. Locked access, key control, vetting of maintenance personnel and vendors, etc etc etc.
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=3535.msg31601#msg31601
Which is a more workable solution than your ideas about the illegal immigration situation which is basically to make it legal.
Please feel free to explain why that is so.
Almost as humorous as watching folks like Richpo suggest terrorist plots, is watching folks who routinely snipe at libertarians for "sitting in the bleachers complaining that govenment sucks" puff themselves up and declare that libertarian solutions are unworkable, particularly in the light of how poorly the so-called more practical solutions seem to be working now. But I confess, I am always happy to be persuaded that I'm wrong. (Almost always. That whole Dubai Ports World thing was a really nasty though eye-opening event.) So please, by all means, make your case. Prove me wrong. Either way, I get something out of it.
-
But I confess, I am always happy to be persuaded that I'm wrong.
Simple. Resources are finite. Services are finite. Jobs are finite. Housing is finite. Food is finite.
And yet you want to open borders so that the 5.5 billion who don't live within the territory of the US can march right in and demand all of the above as if it is some universal right.
So how about we meet halfway. Open borders to anyone who can put 25k in escrow for a year while they get established?
Isn't that close to the requirement for legal immigrants. They need to have a sponsor who takes responsibility for them?
-
but isn`t our food cheap because of illegal immigration?
and the jobs taken are usually the one nobody else will take
I`ved worked in a farm
lets just say ,it`ll be awhile I`ll be back there again.
backbreaking is right.
-
but isn`t our food cheap because of illegal immigration?
Depends on whether you consider the majority of migrant workers illegal. I would hope most of them would have work visas.
-
And yet you want to open borders so that the 5.5 billion who don't live within the territory of the US can march right in and demand all of the above as if it is some universal right.
It may come as a major shock, but not everyone in the entire world wishes to live in this country. ;)
-
If current estimates are correct at least 20 million people think this country provides a better way of life.
Perhaps you are implying that illegal immigration is an issue blown out of proportion. Much ado about nada. This is just politicians creating an issue so they can provide a solution and in the process gain more power.
-
And yet you want to open borders so that the 5.5 billion who don't live within the territory of the US can march right in and demand all of the above as if it is some universal right.
It may come as a major shock, but not everyone in the entire world wishes to live in this country. ;)
By all means, please go elsewhere. (not specific to Js, obviously, unless he wishes to go elsewhere)
-
Simple. Resources are finite. Services are finite. Jobs are finite. Housing is finite. Food is finite.
Yet we have an ample supply of much of this. And I disagree that jobs are finite.
And yet you want to open borders so that the 5.5 billion who don't live within the territory of the US can march right in and demand all of the above as if it is some universal right.
Did the people who live in Minnesota all move to New York? Did the people who live in Colorado all move to New Hampshire? Did the people who live in Arkansas all move to California? What makes you think we are at risk of all 5.5 billion people moving to the U.S.? That's not reasonable, and you know it.
Besides which, you're also missing part of the plan: open trade. No NAFTA nonsense, just open trade. Let the economic situation rise for people in Mexico, and the "flood" of them coming to the U.S. will diminish. And at the same, we will have a sharing of resources that will ultimately benefit us both.
And no, I am not proposing to let immigrants come here and demand jobs or housing or food or goods or services for free. I propose getting out of the way of people coming here and earning/paying for these things. I confess, I'm still mystified as to why you think a larger labor/consumer/tax base is so unworkable.
So Juan wants to come here from Mexico and work for a living. He wants to support his family, shop at local stores, buy a car, maybe even buy a house. What the frak is that to you or me unless we're employing him or selling to him? If Juan does the work and earns the money, should I be offended by his country of origin? No, of course not. If he is handing over money for food, should I be upset that he was born in Mexico? No, of course not. So why should I want to stand in his way to come here and do these things? What do I gain? If I stand in his way, and he sneaks past to work without paying taxes, is that a better outcome for the economic infrastructure here then if Juan was allowed to come, and work and pay taxes like everyone else here? Seems to me that everyone is better off if we stay out of his way.
So how about we meet halfway. Open borders to anyone who can put 25k in escrow for a year while they get established?
Isn't that close to the requirement for legal immigrants. They need to have a sponsor who takes responsibility for them?
If it's that close, how can it be considered halfway? How about something a little more reasonable. How about check points like Ellis Island used to be. We can even tech it up, make people scan fingerprints so we have something on record, get their names into computers and on they go. Anyone whose fingerprints are linked to serious criminal activity and, for lesser offenses, who hasn't also waited a reasonable waiting period, doesn't get in. Otherwise, most folks just go right in. I'm sure there are other details that would be worked out, but while it is not completely free access, it is also not ridiculously and needlessly impeding the progress of people who want to come here and work and maybe build better lives for their families.
-
Prince,
There are two types of immigrants.
Legal and illegal.
I have no problems wth legal immigrants. I don't quite understand why you don't have a problem with illegal immigrants.
Trying to make this some kinda ethnic thing is bullshit.
It's about rewarding those who take shortcuts and game the system.
You want free trade, push for it. Merge Canada and Mexico with the US in some kind of European Union for all i care. Don't secure the border. Move it.
You want to ease immigration restraints. Push for it. But let's not paint those who want the rules enforced as bigots, just because you disagree with those same rules.
Do a better job of selling your ideas instead of taking the lazy way out and demonizing those who disagree.
-
Prince, There are two types of immigrants. Legal and illegal. I have no problems wth legal immigrants. I don't quite understand why you don't have a problem with illegal immigrants. Trying to make this some kinda ethnic thing is bullshit. It's about rewarding those who take shortcuts and game the system. You want to ease immigration restraints. Push for it. But let's not paint those who want the rules enforced as bigots, just because you disagree with those same rules. Do a better job of selling your ideas instead of taking the lazy way out and demonizing those who disagree.
Here here
-
wellll
it is a little bit ethnic thing
when talking about illegals
very few times people have europeans or my people(canadian) in mind
when the last anyone complain about the irish.
it`s not like they`re all here legally
I know many who came here as visitors and are still here long after
and when I bring up the subject I never really get an answer
on this subject some ethnic groups are more illegal than others
-
wellll
it is a little bit ethnic thing
when talking about illegals
very few times people have europeans or my people(canadian) in mind
when the last anyone complain about the irish.
it`s not like they`re all here legally
Kimba, with all due respect, this is the erroeneous effort frequently made on this topic, taking the key component, that of the illegality of the act, by crossing into our country illegally, and trying to make it an ethinic/racial thing, simply because we happen to border Mexico. If it were Ireland that we bordered, then it would be majority Irish crossing into this country illegally.
The former is everything to this topic. The latter is simply circumstantial, and has nothing to do with the former. Yet used by many open border advocates by way of trying to apply the race card, when that is such a literal cop-out :-\
-
I said alittle ethnic
it`s not a blatant thing
just subtle like when we think illegal
south of the border come to mind
never north
I`ve personally help deport somebody from quebec.
-
I said alittle ethnic
it`s not a blatant thing
just subtle like when we think illegal
south of the border come to mind
never north
I`ve personally help deport somebody from quebec.
Perhaps in your mind.
In my mind i wouldn't know an illegal immigrant from a legal immigrant without seeing who runs when INS rolls up.
-
I don't quite understand why you don't have a problem with illegal immigrants.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Some people think the problem is immigrants being here illegally. I think the problem is the laws that have made legal immigration so difficult that risking death and imprisonment is a preferable option for far too many immigrants. Not all the time, but sometimes the problem with people doing something illegal rests not with the people, but with the law(s).
Trying to make this some kinda ethnic thing is bullshit.
I'm not trying to make this some kinda ethnic thing. The example with the Juan from Mexico is just an example. You want one with Ivan or Sean or Jean, I can do that too. I used a Mexican because that seemed the most relevant. The point wasn't to care about the person's ethnicity, but to get out of the way of the immigrant.
It's about rewarding those who take shortcuts and game the system.
For you perhaps. I disagree. It's about getting out of the way of people who are not doing anything more than trying to earn money to make lives for themselves and their families. And that goes for whether they come from Mexico or Ireland or Iraq or Iceland or Greece or Russia or Brazil or Kenya or India or Canada or any place else. This isn't about ethnicity. This is about people.
You want free trade, push for it. Merge Canada and Mexico with the US in some kind of European Union for all i care. Don't secure the border. Move it.
You want to ease immigration restraints. Push for it. But let's not paint those who want the rules enforced as bigots, just because you disagree with those same rules.
I did not paint anyone as bigots. You'll note, I did not use the word 'bigot' or 'racist' any other form thereof (direct, implied or otherwise). I also did not condemn anyone for disagreeing with me. I can only guess, but my guess is that you're offended by the paragraph with the example of Juan from Mexico. Since the discussion had turned to closing out borders, and since Mexico shares a border with the U.S. and since most of the illegal immigrants many folks complain about come from Mexico, that seemed like a reasonable example to make. But you're offended. Okay, so let's try something different so you don't feel like you're being called a bigot.
So Sean wants to come here from Ireland and work for a living. He wants to support his family, shop at local stores, buy a car, maybe even buy a house. What the frak is that to you or me unless we're employing him or selling to him? If Sean does the work and earns the money, should I be offended by his country of origin? No, of course not. If he is handing over money for food, should I be upset that he was born in Ireland? No, of course not. So why should I want to stand in his way to come here and do these things? What do I gain? If I stand in his way, and he sneaks past to work without paying taxes, is that a better outcome for the economic infrastructure here then if Sean was allowed to come, and work and pay taxes like everyone else here? Seems to me that everyone is better off if we stay out of his way.
If you're still offended, I suggest the problem lies with you, not with me. The name of the guy in the example, the imaginary guy's country of origin are secondary at best. The point (if you've been paying attention you'll know this by now) is not from where the immigrant comes, but what whether we, the U.S., should be trying to obstruct him. I say the answer is no, we should not. I repeat, seems to me that everyone is better off if we stay out of his way.
And in reply to this point, you managed to focus on the nationality of the guy in the example and to ignore the genuine issue of the immigration policy. I was talking about the policy, clearly and in a straightforward manner. And rather than try to convince me I'm wrong, you pull some rant about how unfair it is for me to make this "some kinda ethnic thing". Here is a clue: I'm not the one making this about ethnicity.
Do a better job of selling your ideas instead of taking the lazy way out and demonizing those who disagree.
I did not demonize anyone. I argued my case that we are better off letting people come here and work. I asked pertinent questions. Should I care what a worker's nation of origin is so long as he does the work? Should I care whether someone is from another country when he spends his money with my business? We are talking about immigration, are we not? Immigration is people from other countries coming here to work and live and play, is it not? So why the frak are you offended that I dared to address the issue? If the issue is immigration, then we ought to be talking about the whys and wherefores of people coming here from other nations. That isn't demonizing anyone. That is addressing the issue. If that offends you, then I suggest you don't have a case to make and have no frakking business telling me that my idea is unworkable because you're obviously not willing to discuss the meat of the issue.
If you want to convince people your ideas practical and workable and all the things you seem to think libertarian ideas are not, then you need to try harder. So far, I have to say, your attempt to persuade me that I'm wrong on immigration is flimsy, weak, insubstantial, tenuous and feeble. Do a better job of selling your ideas rather than taking the lazy way out and piously bitching about imaginary slights.
-
Why are we better off allowing immigrants to bypass legal channels to gain entry into this country? That is the issue.
You say they come here illegally because legal entry is too onerous. Fine reform legal entry.
But in the meantime let's not make those who come here illeaglly some kind of saints.
They aren't.
They are cheaters.
-
Why are we better off allowing immigrants to bypass legal channels to gain entry into this country? That is the issue.
On the contrary, the question we should be asking (and that I have been asking all along) is why are we better off with onerous legal burdens for people seeking legal entry into the U.S.? That is the issue.
You say they come here illegally because legal entry is too onerous. Fine reform legal entry.
Golly, you're smart. Why didn't I think of that. Oh, wait, I did.
But in the meantime let's not make those who come here illeaglly some kind of saints.
They aren't.
They are cheaters.
Who said they were saints? Fine, we can call them cheaters. Most of them are also people who are making the well being of their families a priority, and they are willing to work and work hard to that end. So why should they be punished with ridiculously labyrinthine laws just for wanting to move from there to here to find work? Maybe because my father had to move several times from one state to another to find work during his life, I just don't see why someone who wants to move from one place to another to work is something we should be trying to stop. And when millions of people find risking death in a desert preferable to the legal system, when what they want is not to violate anyone's rights but to work and make a living, I'd say that indicates there is something wrong with the legal system.
And while we're calling them cheaters, let's be clear about the "game". It's a "game" where the "rules" are severely stacked against the players, and can change at any time. And where failure can mean people, oneself and/or one's family members, suffer from lack of clothing, food and medicine. So why is it so upsetting that some people want to cheat? Seems quite understandable to me. On the other hand, thinking that to solve this problem we need to make the "rules" harder or even just more strictly enforced, that is the opposite of understandable. It makes no sense at all.
-
So basically your position is if you don't agree with a law you have an obligation, no, a right to break it.
And i guess with that display of civil disobedience, accepting consequences for your actions would be the righteous thing to do.
So let the illegals come in, and let those that get caught get deported.
And i believe that is the status quo.
So nothing changes.
-
If a terrorist were able to open a channel for importing lots o people into the US illeagally , resulting in a trebleing of the flow, would he have hurt us much?
-
I won't be specific as to techniques, partly because I don't really know. I can, however, offer some thoughts about possible terrorist strategy and our security responses to an organized terrorist threat and the likely freelance, loosely-affiliated cells that might spring up here and move to a drummer heard or imagined.
The first point to note is that we can withstand a lot. Witness 9-11 and before that the tumult of Vietnam, the sacrifices of WWII and the dislocations of the Great Depression. Nobody's going to take us down in a world as now configured. Thus, assuming a central intelligence ("al Qaeda Central," say, and bin Laden and Zawahiri) planning a true "war" on the US and the West, to the extent our defenses literally force them to take a "what opportunity offers" approach, we must assume that they would opt for a sustained campaign with a defined and achievable goal as their purpose. I will leave the details of that formulation to general discussion. I will note that one successful, spectacular, additional attack could send us reeling, but we'll get up and come back with renewed ferocity, and they know it. A kill-strike is beyond their capability, indeed anyone's as the world is now configured. One key is to line up in advance through diplomacy all "responsible parties," those with influence over terrorist policy and operations. As is now clear from events and hopefully is becoming clear from these thoughts, the emphasis going forward should be on US-smaller scale, pinpointed intelligence, military and law-enforcement strikes, and not on setting the fuse for a conflagration, if that can be avoided.
As to loosely-aligned cells, the danger they pose in a rational world (assuming they could not get true WMD materials without central, coordinated support) is similar to, but greater than judged by damage from an individual event, the curse of criminality we now deal with every day, and should be dealt with similarly: steeped up patrols, etc. in a security-conscious populace.
-
So basically your position is if you don't agree with a law you have an obligation, no, a right to break it.
What was that you were saying in another thread about "the old misstate my arguments and then attack them technique of discussion"? I don't believe I said anywhere that anyone had either an obligation or a right to break a law simply because one disagrees with it. I am pretty sure what I said was that some people trying to get around this particular set of "rules" in this particular "game" was understandable. Understandable is a far cry from an obligation or a right to disobey.
Stop trying so hard to ferret out hidden meanings that I'm not putting into my posts.
And i guess with that display of civil disobedience, accepting consequences for your actions would be the righteous thing to do.
So let the illegals come in, and let those that get caught get deported.
And i believe that is the status quo.
So nothing changes.
And start paying attention to what I do say. Let's see now, you have asserted that my ideas are unworkable because I want the whole rest of the world to move to the U.S., that my ideas are useless because I'm just supporting the status quo, and that I'm accusing people of bigotry for disagreeing with me. None of which is true in the least. The conclusion to which I am inexorably led is that you think my ideas are unworkable because you apparently don't know and don't give a damn what they actually are. So much easier to just make wild accusations, declare that your ideas are workable and mine are not, and then proclaim victory. By all means, have at it. No point in having a conversation if you refuse to participate. No point in typing more if you refuse to read it. I'm done.
-
Here here
The phrase is "hear, hear" unless Bt is a dog and you are calling him home. ;)
And really Bt and Sirs, you attack Prince's argument, but is your argument anymore respectable?
In its most boiled down form, you are basically saying that where one is born (which no one has any control over) should be a limiting factor on one's life. After all, even in the rosiest scenarios, most of these people are unskilled and will be denied entry into the United States or at best allowed entry after more than a decade, which they cannot afford to wait so long.
So, it boils down to arbitrary national boundaries (from an historical perspective) and basically where one was born. Ultimately you two believe that should be a major deciding factor in one's life and you call Prince and my notion of open borders radical and unrealistic?
-
And really Bt and Sirs, you attack Prince's argument, but is your argument anymore respectable?
Yea, the idea of supporting legal actions, while denouncing illegal actions is soooo disrespectful. Yea, that Rule of Law thing is so overrated ::)
-
Yea, the idea of supporting legal actions, while denouncing illegal actions is soooo disrespectful. Yea, that Rule of Law thing is so overrated ::)
Yes, yes, the rule of law. Just because it is a law does not make it right Sirs.
Now answer the post I actually wrote and not the rubbish you wrote for yourself.
Your argument, at its very base is that people deserve special priveleges based on where they are born. Correct?
-
Why doesn't Mexico do something about the state of their economy in order to find work for it's citizens?
If we're losing all these jobs to Mexico, why aren't they filling them?
Also, the problem with our borders isn't just Mexicans coming in illegally. It's OTM's. We're finding people from all over the world are coming in through Mexico.
So we can't listen to their conversations, and we can't stop them from coming into the country illegally. In fact, we should make it easier.
Uh huh.
-
Your argument, at its very base is that people deserve special priveleges based on where they are born. Correct?
Not necessarily where they are born, but based on citizenship, however that status was achieved.
You may think current regulations are onerous, they may be, i don't know. But to say that national borders should be as easy to cross as going from Georgia to Tennessee doesn't ring right either.
So what is the middle ground. What minimum standard s would you set for eligibility?
What other reforms would you propose?
-
Yea, the idea of supporting legal actions, while denouncing illegal actions is soooo disrespectful. Yea, that Rule of Law thing is so overrated ::)
Yes, yes, the rule of law. Just because it is a law does not make it right Sirs.
Yea....and? Strangely, I actually beleive there should be laws in place if you wish to come into this country, be it live or work. Silly me, being supportive of National security & Economic stability
Your argument, at its very base is that people deserve special priveleges based on where they are born. Correct?
No, not "deserving" of special priveleges, simply lucky. I'm thanking God on a daily basis for being born in this country, with its Constitution and Democratic rule of law we live under. And of course it's the envy of those born in lesser, more poverty stricken countries. It has very little to do with trying to make this a classwarfare kind of act (that you're trying to pull), and more so a geographic happenstance. I truely feel for those born in 3rd world countries. But we neither have the resources or the economic structure to take in every poverty stricken soul across this globe. We DO contribute the MOST amount of charitiable donations, incl foods, clothing, and $$$$ than any other nation. We also provide a huge amount of Government $$$'s (i.e. tax dollars) to many of these same countries, so we're "giving" 2 fold. So don't try to sit across from your keyboard, and infer that this Country or myself are trying to be greedy, self serving, and not wanting to help the less fortunate. That's another all-too-frequent disingeneuous tactic used when the discussion of illegal immigration comes up.
One more time, this isn't an issue of being anti-immigration. This is an issue of being anti ILLEGAL immigration. A difference the size of the Grand Canyon
-
Yea....and? Strangely, I actually beleive there should be laws in place if you wish to come into this country, be it live or work. Silly me, being supportive of National security & Economic stability
Nobody was concerned about those before 1957?
-
Your argument, at its very base is that people deserve special priveleges based on where they are born. Correct?
Not necessarily where they are born, but based on citizenship, however that status was achieved.
You may think current regulations are onerous, they may be, i don't know. But to say that national borders should be as easy to cross as going from Georgia to Tennessee doesn't ring right either.
So what is the middle ground. What minimum standard s would you set for eligibility?
What other reforms would you propose?
Well, maybe it should be slightly easier than having to drive through Chattanooga ;)
Ideally? I don't think one's place of birth should have any effect on what is available to them. I agree though that this is not a commonly held view, but equality is a big deal to me.
Minimum standards? I think that background checks would be fair and some sort of standards could be set for rejecting criminals who have not repaid their debt to society. Other than that, I don't really see a problem with setting up an agreement between Mexico, Canada, and the United States to allow any citizen in any of those three nations to travel freely between those countries. Anyone may live, work, and visit any place in any of those nations freely, without any undue process.
I know that many people scoff at such a thing, but Europeans do it and have overcome many of the arguments I've heard against it. Even Sirs great question of "what other country would be asked to produce documents in another language?" I answered readily that there are actually many countries that produce documents in multiple languages. In fact, you should check out Toronto's government.
I just don't see this mass catastrophe that many people predict but have very few actual facts to support.
-
No, not "deserving" of special priveleges, simply lucky. I'm thanking God on a daily basis for being born in this country, with its Constitution and Democratic rule of law we live under. And of course it's the envy of those born in lesser, more poverty stricken countries. It has very little to do with trying to make this a classwarfare kind of act (that you're trying to pull), and more so a geographic happenstance. I truely feel for those born in 3rd world countries. But we neither have the resources or the economic structure to take in every poverty stricken soul across this globe. We DO contribute the MOST amount of charitiable donations, incl foods, clothing, and $$$$ than any other nation. We also provide a huge amount of Government $$$'s (i.e. tax dollars) to many of these same countries, so we're "giving" 2 fold. So don't try to sit across from your keyboard, and infer that this Country or myself are trying to be greedy, self serving, and not wanting to help the less fortunate. That's another all-too-frequent disingeneuous tactic used when the discussion of illegal immigration comes up.
One more time, this isn't an issue of being anti-immigration. This is an issue of being anti ILLEGAL immigration. A difference the size of the Grand Canyon
"A class warfare kind of act"
Yet, in the sentence right before you talk about poverty stricken countries. Some of whom can thank United States policies for their very place in the world. But yeah, we better not discuss class...that would be bad.
I truely feel for those born in 3rd world countries.
Yeah you do.
So don't try to sit across from your keyboard, and infer that this Country or myself are trying to be greedy, self serving, and not wanting to help the less fortunate.
Heh. You said it, not me.
But this is your argument, not mine. Mine has nothing to do with the plight of third world countries. You're just making an argument and putting it in my mouth.
That's another all-too-frequent disingeneuous tactic used when the discussion of illegal immigration comes up.
Then don't do it.
One more time, this isn't an issue of being anti-immigration. This is an issue of being anti ILLEGAL immigration. A difference the size of the Grand Canyon
It isn't a Bantustan, it is really a different country!!! ::)
-
Minimum standards? I think that background checks would be fair and some sort of standards could be set for rejecting criminals who have not repaid their debt to society. Other than that, I don't really see a problem with setting up an agreement between Mexico, Canada, and the United States to allow any citizen in any of those three nations to travel freely between those countries. Anyone may live, work, and visit any place in any of those nations freely, without any undue process.
That dovetails with my concept of virtually expanding the borders to include Canada and Mexico. I would think that legal systems and property rights would have to be synchronized in all three regions. Same with taxation laws. Much like what the European Union has attempted but with an acknowledgment of home rule.
-
Yea....and? Strangely, I actually beleive there should be laws in place if you wish to come into this country, be it live or work. Silly me, being supportive of National security & Economic stability
Nobody was concerned about those before 1957?
I was born in '63 ;)
-
....One more time, this isn't an issue of being anti-immigration. This is an issue of being anti ILLEGAL immigration. A difference the size of the Grand Canyon
"A class warfare kind of act" Yet, in the sentence right before you talk about poverty stricken countries. Some of whom can thank United States policies for their very place in the world. But yeah, we better not discuss class...that would be bad.
Ahh, so it's the U.S.'s fault for all other failed countries. ::) My point of bringing up poverty Js was simply to add a FACTUAL concept to this dicsussion. Are you trying to claim there are many poverty stricken countries that the U.S. envies?? Trying to make this a classwarfare thing is when someone tries to claim poverty caused by a big bad mean rich person, in this case, the U.S,, and apparently has little to do with the circumstances & choices one makes, or governent that person's country runs. That's ALL you big guy
I truely feel for those born in 3rd world countries.
Yeah you do.
Yea, I do
So don't try to sit across from your keyboard, and infer that this Country or myself are trying to be greedy, self serving, and not wanting to help the less fortunate.
Heh. You said it, not me.
You're right, I said it, in demonstrating how erroneous it is
But this is your argument, not mine. Mine has nothing to do with the plight of third world countries. You're just making an argument and putting it in my mouth.
No, There's 2 arguements currently, 1 that became a tangential subject facilitated by yourself with the classwarfare tactic. One about illegal immigration and 1 about 3rd world countries vs the U.S. If you want to stick with just illegal immigration, then by all means, please do so
-
Minimum standards? I think that background checks would be fair and some sort of standards could be set for rejecting criminals who have not repaid their debt to society. Other than that, I don't really see a problem with setting up an agreement between Mexico, Canada, and the United States to allow any citizen in any of those three nations to travel freely between those countries. Anyone may live, work, and visit any place in any of those nations freely, without any undue process.
That dovetails with my concept of virtually expanding the borders to include Canada and Mexico. I would think that legal systems and property rights would have to be synchronized in all three regions. Same with taxation laws. Much like what the European Union has attempted but with an acknowledgment of home rule.
Then it seems we agree much more than we disagree.
-
Ahh, so it's the U.S.'s fault for all other failed countries. ::)
No, not all. In some countries we do hold some responsibilities for our actions. We pumped billions of dollars into the Duvaliers in Haiti, yet none of that money ever reached the infrastructure or the actual people of that nation. It is miserably poor and yes, we are responsible for our actions - are we not?
My point of bringing up poverty Js was simply to add a FACTUAL concept to this dicsussion. Are you trying to claim there are many poverty stricken countries that the U.S. envies??
First, I never said that. Second, countries don't feel envy. You are placing a personal human emotion on an abstract concept of nationhood. Honestly Sirs, to call that a "FACTUAL concept" or even a "concept" at all is a grave injustice to thinking people everywhere.
Trying to make this a classwarfare thing is when someone tries to claim poverty caused by a big bad mean rich person, in this case, the U.S,, and apparently has little to do with the circumstances & choices one makes, or governent that person's country runs. That's ALL you big guy
Dear Lord! The sad part is that you actually believe that is what class struggle is about, don't you? See, this is why you need to read Marx before you go out and start making comments like that. Sirs, you obviously have no idea what class is, let alone any concept of class struggle.
Yea, I do
In your little office with your air conditioning and bottled water, I bet you do.
You're right, I said it, in demonstrating how erroneous it is
That's called a strawman. You build it so you can knock it down.
No, There's 2 arguements currently, 1 that became a tangential subject facilitated by yourself with the classwarfare tactic. One about illegal immigration and 1 about 3rd world countries vs the U.S. If you want to stick with just illegal immigration, then by all means, please do so
Who died and made you king of how many arguments there are? (By the way, you say there are two, but then you mention three)
My argument is completely economic, but also uses historical components (in that I can point to successes in open border policy).
-
Ahh, so it's the U.S.'s fault for all other failed countries. ::)
No, not all. In some countries we do hold some responsibilities for our actions. We pumped billions of dollars into the Duvaliers in Haiti, yet none of that money ever reached the infrastructure or the actual people of that nation. It is miserably poor and yes, we are responsible for our actions - are we not?
We are responsible for OUR actions, which doesn't include what monies & resources other governments keep for themselves and NOT distribute to their people. Or are you advocating we bypass all soverign governments and do air drops any damn place or time we want?
My point of bringing up poverty Js was simply to add a FACTUAL concept to this dicsussion. Are you trying to claim there are many poverty stricken countries that the U.S. envies??
First, I never said that. Second, countries don't feel envy.
NOOO? You've got to be kidding. People coming here from other countries don't evny America? People coming from impoverished and destitute countries come here........why then??
Honestly Sirs, to call that a "FACTUAL concept" or even a "concept" at all is a grave injustice to thinking people everywhere.
Amazing, calling a poor country poor in comparisom to the U.S., is some form of injustice. Because "thinking" people know better? Yea, no elitism in that comment. And you get away with this in other debate circles?
Trying to make this a classwarfare thing is when someone tries to claim poverty caused by a big bad mean rich person, in this case, the U.S,, and apparently has little to do with the circumstances & choices one makes, or governent that person's country runs. That's ALL you big guy
Dear Lord! The sad part is that you actually believe that is what class struggle is about, don't you?
No, that would be you, when you keep comparing people from other countries and their rationales for coming here, with the added inferrence of how we don't want them here because.......well, I can only assume that you think that America thinks they don't deserve to be here. Now, are you going to focus on illegal immigration, or keep making this about this tangential conversation you claimed you never were apart of??
Yea, I do (feel bad for others who are born in less advanced, poverty stricken countries
In your little office with your air conditioning and bottled water, I bet you do.
Yea, I do. You really want to bet on this?? >:( Anything else you wish to claim you know so well about me??
You're right, I said it, in demonstrating how erroneous it is
That's called a strawman. You build it so you can knock it down.
In the presence of the master, apparently
My argument is completely economic, but also uses historical components (in that I can point to successes in open border policy).
While mine is completely about LEGAL vs ILLEGAL immigration, and has ZIP to do with ethnicity or how poor a person is, and is also based on economic principles, policies, and resources, with the added component of my being an intimate part of one of those resources currently being stripped down by both illegal immigration and ever increasing government bureacrcy. (i.e. in that I can point to the acute failures and probable outcomes of an open border policy)
-
What is the difference between an open border and a loss of sovereignty?
Can the laws at the border be even in both directions?
I don't think that Mexico would be willing to give up its controll of its border in the same terms as they want us to.
Canada on the other hand makes no virtue of nationalism , so perhaps an agglomeration would not offend them .
http://www.alphadictionary.com/goodword/word/agglomeration
-
Gosh, who wold want Mexico? Sorry, but morethan half of the provinces are controlled by the Army due to drug lords. And even then, it apparently isn't working. Sure, they've got oil, but is that eonugh for all the anarchy we would have to put up with id we "merged"?
Canada? Better match. Not the inherent problems with Mexico. And the possible oil reserves in the Arctic Circle might be of significant benefit to all. We also offer much to the equation, obviously.
But Mexico? Nyet!
-
Gosh, who wold want Mexico? Sorry, but morethan half of the provinces are controlled by the Army due to drug lords. And even then, it apparently isn't working. Sure, they've got oil, but is that eonugh for all the anarchy we would have to put up with id we "merged"?
You bring up a valid point.
However:
if Mexico had our legal system and property rights would the corruption that allows drug lords to set up fiefdoms still flourish?
Would investment in the various states of Mexico flourish if political stability were at hand?
and if decent employment opportunities were there because of the added investment would the need to emigrate still be as strong?
-
All excellent points, BT. Think Mexico would "go for it"? (hypotheically)
-
Depends on how the deal was structured.
and how it was sold.
-
What is the difference between an open border and a loss of sovereignty?
Well, an open border is merely a border that people can cross with minimal interference. A loss of sovereignty would involve replacing the government or the government's authority with some other government or authority. There is nothing about open borders that removes the authority of the government to be the government of the nation. If the U.S. had open borders, we would still have laws and public roads and police and courts and all sorts of pointless regulations and all those other things government currently does. Why people keep trying to equate open borders with a loss of sovereignty I don't know. It makes no sense at all. Having an open border does not remove laws. Most of the states in this United States have essentially open borders, and they all still have state governments. One can travel from city to city here without needing travel permits, yet the cities still have borders and governments and police. Why would having open national borders result a loss of sovereignty for the nation?
-
Prince,
The problem with your scenario of crossing state borders vs national borders is that the states have reciprocity and uniform laws.
That is not the case with Mexico and the US.
-
What is the difference between an open border and a loss of sovereignty?
Well, an open border is merely a border that people can cross with minimal interference. A loss of sovereignty would involve replacing the government or the government's authority with some other government or authority. There is nothing about open borders that removes the authority of the government to be the government of the nation. If the U.S. had open borders, we would still have laws and public roads and police and courts and all sorts of pointless regulations and all those other things government currently does. Why people keep trying to equate open borders with a loss of sovereignty I don't know. It makes no sense at all. Having an open border does not remove laws. Most of the states in this United States have essentially open borders, and they all still have state governments. One can travel from city to city here without needing travel permits, yet the cities still have borders and governments and police. Why would having open national borders result a loss of sovereignty for the nation?
The several States of the United States have given up soverenty to the Federal government .
-
Gosh, who wold want Mexico? Sorry, but morethan half of the provinces are controlled by the Army due to drug lords. And even then, it apparently isn't working. Sure, they've got oil, but is that eonugh for all the anarchy we would have to put up with id we "merged"?
Canada? Better match. Not the inherent problems with Mexico. And the possible oil reserves in the Arctic Circle might be of significant benefit to all. We also offer much to the equation, obviously.
But Mexico? Nyet!
When Germay was reunited there were lots of problems caused by the differences ,but they wanted it to happen so much that they put up with it.
-
Well, Mexico might want it but why would the majority of Americans? It would have to be a massive SELL JOB.
-
Perhaps not.
How would you like to telecommute from Acapulco?
If the political stability were there and the legal system there and the necessary infrastructure, would you consider working from your own villa on the beacht?
-
How would you like to telecommute from Acapulco?
There are already parts of Mexico where English is the defacto language because of all the American immigrants.
-
There are already parts of Mexico where English is the defacto language because of all the American immigrants.
Yeah but Mexico has these onerous immigration laws where you are required to have a usable skill or be self supporting with a proven income or pension.
It is so unfair.
-
Well, Mexico might want it but why would the majority of Americans? It would have to be a massive SELL JOB.
If you are going to to, go now.
Don't wait for the etherially delicious cuisine to be replaced by Big Macs and marketed Love.
-
The problem with your scenario of crossing state borders vs national borders is that the states have reciprocity and uniform laws.
That is not the case with Mexico and the US.
Uniform laws? Like, drug laws? No, that can't be it. Pornography laws? No, that can't be it. Gambling... no, no, that's not it either. Sex offender laws? No, not that either. Taxes, taxes must be... no, wait, that's not it either. No, don't tell me, I'll figure it out... (For those keep score at home, that was sarcasm.)
-
The several States of the United States have given up soverenty to the Federal government .
Izzat so? Anyway, what makes you think open borders would result in the U.S. loosing sovereignty? Who, exactly, would overrun our government if we had open borders?
-
Uniform laws? Like, drug laws? No, that can't be it. Pornography laws? No, that can't be it. Gambling... no, no, that's not it either. Sex offender laws? No, not that either. Taxes, taxes must be... no, wait, that's not it either. No, don't tell me, I'll figure it out... (For those keep score at home, that was sarcasm.)
It's called the constitution. And for those keeping score at home, that wasn't sarcasm.
-
There are already parts of Mexico where English is the defacto language because of all the American immigrants.
Yeah but Mexico has these onerous immigration laws where you are required to have a usable skill or be self supporting with a proven income or pension.
It is so unfair.
Many nations are like this. I looked in to emigrating to New Zealand and Australia. The skinny of it is that you'd better have a good skill or it is almost impossible. It is because they do not want you to come overthere and "mooch" off them. And, there are age limits for the same reason, according to their Immigration Service. Pretty smart, wouldn't you say?
-
It's called the constitution. And for those keeping score at home, that wasn't sarcasm.
I'm sure it wasn't. But it also wasn't supporting your assertion of uniformity of laws. I used to live in Louisiana, where the state legislature routinely wrote exclusions for the city of New Orleans into state laws. Look at Nevada, the only state that allows brothels to operate legally. We don't have uniformity of laws between states or between cities even. The laws and the cultures can vary widely from one state to another. Even federal law is being challenged. (A handful or so of states are trying to keep state law allowed medical marijuana clinics open even though the feds keep raiding the clinics in the name of the "war on drugs".) And many people within the U.S. travel to other states specifically to visit those other places and cultures. And in some cases, those differences in laws can make a big difference in job opportunities for individuals. And I've even heard that some folks, citizens mind you, occasionally move from one state to another based on things like which state has better welfare programs. So if you want to argue that open borders is okay between U.S. states but not between the U.S. and Mexico, you're going to have to try harder.
-
It is because they do not want you to come overthere and "mooch" off them.
Of course, if they didn't have programs for people to mooch off of in the first place, they wouldn't need those restrictions, now would they?
Pretty smart, wouldn't you say?
No. I'd say it shows their priorities are misaligned.
-
<<Dear Lord! The sad part is that you actually believe that is what class struggle is about, don't you? See, this is why you [sirs] need to read Marx before you go out and start making comments like that. Sirs, you obviously have no idea what class is, let alone any concept of class struggle.>>
That was the funniest part of the whole thread. The concept of sirs sitting down to a steaming mug of coffee with a big fat copy of Das Kapital in front of him on the kitchen table, struggling through page after page of Marx' turgid prose, turning purple, sputtering and foaming at the mouth as he goes. Better loop a few strings of garlic round your neck before you start, sirs.
In terms of union with Canada, you've already got the union that BT is talking about. Virtually open borders, ownership of most of our industry, commerce and finance, total and complete cultural domination (except for Quebec) and now with our Conservative Prime Minister, complete subservience in foreign policy. Harper is the bozo that (in opposition) criticized the Liberal government for not sending troops to Iraq. But that's as close as you want to get. What you don't want is a bunch of Canadians voting in your Federal elections - - you'd go from red to blue in a New York minute.
-
It is because they do not want you to come overthere and "mooch" off them.
Of course, if they didn't have programs for people to mooch off of in the first place, they wouldn't need those restrictions, now would they?
Pretty smart, wouldn't you say?
No. I'd say it shows their priorities are misaligned.
How so?
-
<<Dear Lord! The sad part is that you actually believe that is what class struggle is about, don't you? See, this is why you [sirs] need to read Marx before you go out and start making comments like that. Sirs, you obviously have no idea what class is, let alone any concept of class struggle.>>
That was the funniest part of the whole thread. The concept of sirs sitting down to a steaming mug of coffee with a big fat copy of Das Kapital in front of him on the kitchen table, struggling through page after page of Marx' turgid prose, turning purple, sputtering and foaming at the mouth as he goes. Better loop a few strings of garlic round your neck before you start, sirs.
In terms of union with Canada, you've already got the union that BT is talking about. Virtually open borders, ownership of most of our industry, commerce and finance, total and complete cultural domination (except for Quebec) and now with our Conservative Prime Minister, complete subservience in foreign policy. Harper is the bozo that (in opposition) criticized the Liberal government for not sending troops to Iraq. But that's as close as you want to get. What you don't want is a bunch of Canadians voting in your Federal elections - - you'd go from red to blue in a New York minute.
Well, if we that merged, then I want those cool RCMP unifroms to repalce our boring looking ones. Brendan Frasier can be the poster child.
-
<<Well, if we that merged, thne I want those cool RCMP unifroms to repalce our boring looking ones. Brendan Frasier can be the psoter child.>>
Why not buy straight from the factory in Taiwan?
-
I'd say it shows their priorities are misaligned.
How so?
Because, um, if they didn't have programs for people to mooch off of in the first place, they wouldn't need those restrictions, now would they?
-
;D
Well, at least it's not from the so-called Democratic Republic of China.
-
Why not buy straight from the factory in Taiwan?
I'd say they would have more luck buying them from the manufacturer, Les V?tements Cooper Inc., of Montreal , Quebec.
-
Ouch..and he lands a whopper.
-
Taiwan was just a wild guess. But I concede it was a stupid one - - what Canadian government would risk the embarrassment over a national symbol like the Mounties' uniform?
-
Why not buy straight from the factory in Taiwan?
I'd say they would have more luck buying them from the manufacturer, Les V?tements Cooper Inc., of Montreal , Quebec.
Just a guess, but the fabric is probably imported due to cost considerations.
-
So if you want to argue that open borders is okay between U.S. states but not between the U.S. and Mexico, you're going to have to try harder.
If my argument is that migration between states is not the same as migration between nations based on the uniformity of laws and your argument is that different states have different laws, my counter argument would be that the states may have different laws because that right is granted by the constitution. And the federal constitution is supreme to the states. So if the federal constitution makes it illegal to do something , for example deny the right to vote to a certain class of people then the states can't go pass a law denying that right.
If you would like to argue that the constitution of Mexico is a carbon copy of the US Constitution i would like to see your analysis.
.
-
The problem with your scenario of crossing state borders vs national borders is that the states have reciprocity and uniform laws.
That is not the case with Mexico and the US.
Uniform laws? Like, drug laws? No, that can't be it. Pornography laws? No, that can't be it. Gambling... no, no, that's not it either. Sex offender laws? No, not that either. Taxes, taxes must be... no, wait, that's not it either. No, don't tell me, I'll figure it out... (For those keep score at home, that was sarcasm.)
extradition laws
-
The several States of the United States have given up soverenty to the Federal government .
Izzat so? Anyway, what makes you think open borders would result in the U.S. loosing sovereignty? Who, exactly, would overrun our government if we had open borders?
If the resulting agglomeration were democratic I might not mind.
-
Taiwan was just a wild guess. But I concede it was a stupid one - - what Canadian government would risk the embarrassment over a national symbol like the Mounties' uniform?
Good point , when he Army switched to that goofy beret it was embarassing to learn that they were going to be from China.
But if that were the best manufacturer and lowest bidder then why not?
http://www.garmentworkercenter.org/
Shop at No Sweat
(http://www.nosweatapparel.com/NS-TOP-NAV-NEW/UNION-MADE-ns-logo.gif)
GWC receives 5% of all purchases made through this link!
-
my counter argument would be that the states may have different laws because that right is granted by the constitution. And the federal constitution is supreme to the states. So if the federal constitution makes it illegal to do something , for example deny the right to vote to a certain class of people then the states can't go pass a law denying that right.
I'm going to ignore the whole "right granted by the constitution" thing for now. Anyway, yes, we have a federal constitution as a fundamental law of the land. And people from Mexico don't live under that constitution. But then, people who live in Montana don't live under the constitution of the state of New York either. Yet, citizens of Montana are allowed to migrate to New York without much legal impedance from the state of New York. And of course, no one is suggesting that people from Mexico be exempt from the laws of the U.S. Any Mexican immigrants denying people the right to vote ought to be prosecuted. Oh, and before you start on your "they're here illegally" bit, I've already said that the laws regarding that should change. So no, I'm not advocating law breaking. I'm advocating changing the laws, not entirely unlike when some advocated changing the law to repeal Prohibition, or abolitionists who wanted slavery to be illegal.
In any case, I have yet to see an explanation as to why the fact that Mexico is not under the U.S. Constitution is grounds for strict control of immigration. So far it looks like a "they're different" argument, but I'm not going to assume you mean that.
If you would like to argue that the constitution of Mexico is a carbon copy of the US Constitution i would like to see your analysis.
I have no idea why I would argue that. And I don't know what relevance it has to the discussion. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate?
-
But then, people who live in Montana don't live under the constitution of the state of New York either.
But both live under the constitutiion of the United States.
In Mexico, they don't.
And i would assume borders would be open both ways in your perfect world.
Just as they are from New York to Montana and from Montana to New York.
or is that not what you are advocating?
-
But both live under the constitutiion of the United States.
In Mexico, they don't.
And I'm still waiting for an argument as to why that matters.
And i would assume borders would be open both ways in your perfect world.
Just as they are from New York to Montana and from Montana to New York.
or is that not what you are advocating?
I don't recall mentioning a perfect world, but yes, I think both countries should have open border policies. However, whether or not Mexico follows suit should not hinder the U.S. from choosing the better course.
-
However, whether or not Mexico follows suit should not hinder the U.S. from choosing the better course.
Why should a one way transfer be the better course for the United States? Why not arrange reciprocal rights first? Like there exists between Montana and New York citizens, which was the cornerstone of your argument.
-
I have decided that I know what Al Quieda could do to hamstring and hogtie us more than any other thing that they could afford to do.
And since I am quite sure that they won't take my suggestion , I feel free t share it witht he world.
Osama could hand himself in at the Hauge , then hire more lawyers than Coka-cola , ......American Lawyers .
By the time the case was done we would all owe him money.
-
Why should a one way transfer be the better course for the United States? Why not arrange reciprocal rights first? Like there exists between Montana and New York citizens, which was the cornerstone of your argument.
Aren't you the guy to criticizes me for being an idealist, not considering the practical issues? And now you want to know why can't we just make Mexico be like the U.S. before we open the border?
And you're still haven't explained why we should care that Mexico has a different constitution than the U.S., which apparently is the cornerstone of your argument. Any chance you'll around to that explanation sometime soon?
-
Why should a one way transfer be the better course for the United States? Why not arrange reciprocal rights first? Like there exists between Montana and New York citizens, which was the cornerstone of your argument.
Aren't you the guy to criticizes me for being an idealist, not considering the practical issues? And now you want to know why can't we just make Mexico be like the U.S. before we open the border?
And you're still haven't explained why we should care that Mexico has a different constitution than the U.S., which apparently is the cornerstone of your argument. Any chance you'll around to that explanation sometime soon?
The 13 Colonies that met in convention to write our Constitution coud have been soveren states , if they were not under pressure to pool their strength.
There were many compromises hammered out in the Constitution and as a result the very diffrent states surrendered sgnifigant soverenty to the Federal Government .
Remember that there was a period between the Declaration of Independance and the Constitutional Convention , and that signing in was volentary .
The government of Mexico seems to feel no compulsion to undergo such a negotiated deal , but without the negotiation what is the deal?
-
Why should a one way transfer be the better course for the United States?
Question repeated.
And my answer to your question lies in my question.
It is a one sided arrangement.
Ball in your court, dodge it or play it.
-
The government of Mexico seems to feel no compulsion to undergo such a negotiated deal , but without the negotiation what is the deal?
So you were complaining about the U.S. losing sovereignty, but you are now complaining that Mexico won't give up its sovereignty to the U.S.? What's up with that?
-
Why should a one way transfer be the better course for the United States?
Question repeated.
Yeah, I noticed that. You're stingy with your answers, but you seem persnickety about not getting answers you want.
And my answer to your question lies in my question.
It is a one sided arrangement.
Ball in your court, dodge it or play it.
No, actually the ball is still in your court. It's laying there, dead, on the floor, because you're not hitting it. The rest of us are waiting for you do something about it.
And no, the answer to my question does not lie in your question. What, exactly, is the one sided arrangement? Not demanding Mexico become a carbon copy of the U.S.? Is that your idea of a fair arrangement, Mexico forcibly restructure your government and culture, and we'll stop needlessly interfering in immigration? Now that seems a tad one-sided.
Anyway, your question is weak at best because no one was talking about a one-way transfer. Leastways, I don't recall anyone suggesting we stop people from moving to Mexico. And since you repeated the question, I'll repeat what I said before in response. Aren't you the guy to criticizes me for being an idealist, not considering the practical issues? And now you want to know why can't we just make Mexico be like the U.S. before we open the border?
Which brings us back to where we were. You keep making vague comments and asking vague questions to the effect that Mexico not being under the U.S. Constitution is grounds for strict control of immigration. So far, you haven't explained why this is so. You just just keep saying it is without offering an explanation. And for whatever reason I keep playing along, thinking eventually you'll actually explain your position. If you haven't got an explanation, then this is all a waste of time.
Please feel free to pick up the ball and resume play.
-
Let's try this again. Hopefully you can keep up.
You advocate open borders, much like the borders between states here in the US.
I state that that is an imperfect analogy because the states operate under the full faith clause which means the constitutional protections afforded a New Yorker also apply to a Montanan.
No where did i say Mexico should give up its sovereignty. I did say that their laws should reflect parity with the constitution of the US. My proposal to expand the borders was based on a federation of independent provinces much like the Canadian system. Equal protect yet a strong home rule.
I did say that open borders should go both ways and you seem to think that is not a fair request. You seem to say that i should give you a key to my house, but i shouldn't request a key to your house in return.
Your solution is hardly reciprocal and is hardly fair. Yet you think that is the best course for the US and you still haven't told me why. Talk about dead balls.
I presume you espouse this based on some high standing moral ideals and i say pooh yi to that unless parity is brought to the exchange.
-
Let's try this again. Hopefully you can keep up.
Hopefully.
You advocate open borders, much like the borders between states here in the US.
I state that that is an imperfect analogy because the states operate under the full faith clause which means the constitutional protections afforded a New Yorker also apply to a Montanan.
I'll grant you it's imperfect. (Most analogies are.) But it is still apt.
I did say that their laws should reflect parity with the constitution of the US.
And I note that I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why.
I did say that open borders should go both ways and you seem to think that is not a fair request.
No. I believe I suggested it was not an absolutely necessary request.
You seem to say that i should give you a key to my house, but i shouldn't request a key to your house in return.
No. I'm saying opening the borders does not require reciprocal action from Mexico. That would certainly be better for both countries, but not a necessity. You can give me a key to your house whether or not you get a key from me.
Your solution is hardly reciprocal and is hardly fair. Yet you think that is the best course for the US and you still haven't told me why.
Fair according to whose standard? I didn't say open borders without reciprocal action from Mexico was the best course. I referred merely to open borders as the best course. How many times have I discussed why I support open borders and still you don't know why I support them?
I presume you espouse this based on some high standing moral ideals and i say pooh yi to that unless parity is brought to the exchange.
Yes, you seem to constantly have the impression that anything I post must be based on some lofty, impractical ideals. And apparently, you get to apply your ideals, like insisting on Mexico laws reflecting parity with the U.S. Constitution, but I'm somehow the impractical one for suggesting we don't really need that. I think you've got it backwards. Trying to hammer out some deal whereby Mexico agrees to become more like the U.S. and then having open borders is a completely impractical approach. Open the borders to labor and trade, and the change in Mexico policy will follow. Not overnight, no. But eventually, yes. The problem with your plan is you're still trying to control every aspect of the situation. We don't need to try to control it all, and trying to control it is definitely not the practical solution.
-
If it is a one way transaction, there is no impetus for Mexicans to have the opportunity to work closer to home. No reason for massive investment, no reason for job creation as a result of that investment simply because the current system in Mexico is corrupt and a riskier investment than many other countries that have less corruption and greater protections in place.
Why should Del Monte build a cannery in Mexico if they have to fear that their managers will be kidnapped or their property nationalized.
Mexican risk life and limb to come here because of opportunities that are not available at home. Fix that problem and you alleviate the need to migrate. And by fixing those problems perhaps more Anglos will migrate to Mexico bringing the need for more locally produced goods and services. It's a in win for both countries.
-
Mexican risk life and limb to come here because of opportunities that are not available at home. Fix that problem and you alleviate the need to migrate.
I have said that many times. That is, in point of fact, one of the reasons I advocate open trade. And it's one of the reasons I think your plan of fix Mexico now, open border later is backwards.
If it is a one way transaction,
If what is a one way transaction?
If it is a one way transaction, there is no impetus for Mexicans to have the opportunity to work closer to home. No reason for massive investment, no reason for job creation as a result of that investment simply because the current system in Mexico is corrupt and a riskier investment than many other countries that have less corruption and greater protections in place.
Yet some businesses have already moved some operations to Mexico. I believe I heard not long ago that the Hershey Company (the one that makes the chocolate) had moved or was going to be moving a part of their operation to Mexico.
Why should Del Monte build a cannery in Mexico if they have to fear that their managers will be kidnapped or their property nationalized.
I don't know about building in Mexico, but I believe Del Monte has acquired businesses that already operated in Mexico.
-
If what is a one way transaction?
Opening the borders one way, northward.
-
Opening the borders one way, northward.
So what evidence do we have that Mexico's borders are closed or at least as strictly controlled as the American border supposedly should be? Are there people waiting for 10 years to get legal entrance to Mexico? Are there U.S. citizens who have to leave their families behind because of Mexico's immigration laws? Make the case that it would be "a one way transaction".
-
As stated earlier Mexican immigration laws require an in demand skill or visible means of support. Much like our laws.
You are advocating that the US do away with even that limited requirement, yet i see no clarion call from you for Mexico to do the same.
What's up with that?
-
As stated earlier Mexican immigration laws require an in demand skill or visible means of support. Much like our laws.
Okay. So, as I was saying: Are there people waiting for 10 years to get legal entrance to Mexico? Are there U.S. citizens who have to leave their families behind because of Mexico's immigration laws? I want to see some evidence that immigrating to Mexico is so hard open U.S. borders would be "a one way transaction". You made the assertion, now back it up.
You are advocating that the US do away with even that limited requirement, yet i see no clarion call from you for Mexico to do the same.
What's up with that?
One, I don't live in Mexico. Two, Mexico's immigration laws are not something that really come up as topic much here or anywhere else I go. I'm sure if I knew more about Mexico's immigration situation (Are there people waiting for 10 years to get legal entrance to Mexico? Are there U.S. citizens who have to leave their families behind because of Mexico's immigration laws? Are there Mexicans insisting on a tightening of border control to stop a flood of Americans ruining Mexico sovereignty and culture, stealing jobs from Mexicans, refusing to conform to Mexican society?) I might decide to form a more concerned opinion about Mexico's immigration laws. In the mean time, I tend to stick to the notion that we ought to clean up our own damn mess rather than make demands on other countries.
-
Somehow lost in this discussion between the game debaters Prince and BT is the notion of boundary and its range of purposes. Indeed, carried to a logical conclusion, Prince's "open border" tendencies might be misconstrued as the first steps to a much more communally-oriented society.
-
Yeah, that would be misconstruing my position, but not by much. Think less communally-oriented and more community-minded.
-
That's very interesting. We seem to have a budding "community of interest" in that my sentiments, at least, lie with Mexicans trying to better themselves.
I seem also to have been laboring under the misunderstanding that libertarianism shared some key precepts with objectivism, such as the inviolability of the fruits of one's labors.
-
Well, libertarianism does generally support private property rights. The mistake made by many is to assume that private property rights means greedy hoarding, and that isn't the case at all. While Objectivism extols greed, if you look around a bit more, you can find libertarians who are quite interested in charity work and helping the less fortunate. There are even folks who think that Christian principles of selflessness are more in line with libertarian ideas than socialist ideas.