rchapstick Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 Going back on topic with immigration .... I'll just throw this out there to stir the pot, but I am beginning to think that the "problem" of immigration is just a red herring being throw out there by the tea baggers. I am not saying immigration is not a problem that needs to be addressed ... it does need to be addressed. But is is NOT the economic cure-all that deserves to be the centerpiece of a political movement (as it seems to be with the tea baggers). Rather, it is one of those easy "blame the other guy" cures that simpletons can readily latch on to. "The economy is not my fault ... lets blame it on the illegal immigrants." "Healthcare spending is out of control because of the illegal immigrants." "My state is nearly bankrupt because of services provided to illegal immigrants." While illegal immigration is a contributing factor in all of these problems, it is by no means the major problem. Nor is it even in the top 5. But because it sounds like an easy fix, Joe Lunch-pail latches onto it like a pitbull. It is right up there with the teabaggers complaining that their taxes have gone up under Obama, when in fact tax rates have gone down. Of course nobody like to pay taxes, but the complaint and the reality simply don't match up. Over to you HH ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 << Roosevelt knew we'd be going into the war by the mid to late 30s and it was a matter of when not if. We revamped war production in the mid to late 30s in anticipation of it. >> FDR was damned and determined the US WOULD go into the war, no matter what the voters wanted. He sent the US Navy and Coast Guard to protect British shipping on the North Atlantic when the US was still neutral, and US naval forces took part in the hunt for the Bismark (a US aircraft stopping it first). He also pushed the Japanese hard, virtually daring them to attack. He succeeded. Maybe it was the right move ... hard to say in retrospect, though it certainly effed up eastern Europe and led to the Cold War. FDR was another war president who had never worn his country's uniform. Discuss. The US people didn't want any part of it understandably. Euopean countries were fighting amongst themselves at least once a generation if not more often for a hundreds of years. Before WW2, the Crimean war, Russia against Japan (okay not a solely european conflict but a european power was involved) . We (the US people rather) just didn't want to be part of it. Our first experience wasn't great (ww1). If it wasn't our back yard (Spanish American war, Civil, Mexican war) we weren't interested. WW2 was the right war to fight before and in retrospect. Germany would have controled Europe and eventually we'd be next. We had already surpassed the UK in production by that time and were a sleeping giant militarily and economically. Hitler would have been extremely worried about that and its why he didn't want us into the war too early. Had he not made the mistake at Dunkirk and had Hitler defeated or at least made England unable to defend itself he would have had indirect control over Canada as a result. Eventually fighting a two pronged attack with Japan against us. I don't think there is any question. What is possibly illegal and impeachable was FDRs actions leading up to it. Congress could argue he was waging war with out its authorization theoretically or at the very least getting involved in an ongoing conflict without its approval. FDR was a threat to the Constitution in my opinion in a few ways (packing the court, some of the New Deal, build up to the war). It was an ends justifies the means mentality with him to some extent. I'm a bigger admirer of his wife than I am him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 Going back on topic with immigration .... I'll just throw this out there to stir the pot, but I am beginning to think that the "problem" of immigration is just a red herring being throw out there by the tea baggers. I am not saying immigration is not a problem that needs to be addressed ... it does need to be addressed. But is is NOT the economic cure-all that deserves to be the centerpiece of a political movement (as it seems to be with the tea baggers). Rather, it is one of those easy "blame the other guy" cures that simpletons can readily latch on to. "The economy is not my fault ... lets blame it on the illegal immigrants." "Healthcare spending is out of control because of the illegal immigrants." "My state is nearly bankrupt because of services provided to illegal immigrants." While illegal immigration is a contributing factor in all of these problems, it is by no means the major problem. Nor is it even in the top 5. But because it sounds like an easy fix, Joe Lunch-pail latches onto it like a pitbull. It is right up there with the teabaggers complaining that their taxes have gone up under Obama, when in fact tax rates have gone down. Of course nobody like to pay taxes, but the complaint and the reality simply don't match up. Over to you HH ..... My issue with immigration is a simple one. All Presidents swear to protect the constitution and the U.S. Having a porous border (on both sides) is a violation of that oath. The northern border is not defended well either but frankly its not an issue. Canada is not a 3rd world nation and its citizens by and large feel no need to come across in great numbers. The southern border is the issue. No President or Congress has addressed it adequately. The resulting expenses the states with the most illegals (SW USA primarily) have are a direct result of federal neglect of the border and I feel have a legitimate case for a lawsuit against the federal government. I think they have an open and shut case against the president and congress if one were brought to the supreme court to force the feds into defending the border better. I don't see how the supreme court could say otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Wait till this dude discovers Thai360... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100717/ap_on_re_us/us_neo_nazi_patrols Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Which Article of the Constitution requires a closed border? The USA borders were certainly wide open during the 18th and 19th centuries. Original intent will prevail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Going back on topic with immigration .... I'll just throw this out there to stir the pot' date=' but I am beginning to think that the "problem" of immigration is just a red herring being throw out there by the tea baggers. I am not saying immigration is not a problem that needs to be addressed ... it does need to be addressed. But is is NOT the economic cure-all that deserves to be the centerpiece of a political movement (as it seems to be with the tea baggers). Rather, it is one of those easy "blame the other guy" cures that simpletons can readily latch on to. "The economy is not my fault ... lets blame it on the illegal immigrants." "Healthcare spending is out of control because of the illegal immigrants." "My state is nearly bankrupt because of services provided to illegal immigrants." While illegal immigration is a contributing factor in all of these problems, it is by no means the major problem. Nor is it even in the top 5. But because it sounds like an easy fix, Joe Lunch-pail latches onto it like a pitbull. It is right up there with the teabaggers complaining that their taxes have gone up under Obama, when in fact tax rates have gone down. Of course nobody like to pay taxes, but the complaint and the reality simply don't match up. Over to you HH .....[/quote'] My issue with immigration is a simple one. All Presidents swear to protect the constitution and the U.S. Having a porous border (on both sides) is a violation of that oath. The northern border is not defended well either but frankly its not an issue. Canada is not a 3rd world nation and its citizens by and large feel no need to come across in great numbers. The southern border is the issue. No President or Congress has addressed it adequately. [color:red]The resulting expenses the states with the most illegals (SW USA primarily) have are a direct result of federal neglect of the border and I feel have a legitimate case for a lawsuit against the federal government.[/color] I think they have an open and shut case against the president and congress if one were brought to the supreme court to force the feds into defending the border better. I don't see how the supreme court could say otherwise. Actually this issue has been addressed in the past - to no avail. When the USA soldiers left the Territory of Arizona in 1861, the citizens had to defend themselves. When some of them got killed, most of the White citizens left the territory. One of those persons left behind over 1 million dollars in mining equipment. The governments said it was too bad for his lost. Oh by the way, [color:red]one of the persons that got killed before he left was his own brother.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 One asect of Arizona SB1030 is that if a person thinks a policeman is not pursuing the illegals enough, the person can personally sue the policeman. [color:red]Personally, I can not see why Conservatives approve of that facet of the law.[/color] I was speaking one day to a woman who is a Conservative and a school teacher. She informed me that illegals were in her school. After talking to her for some time, [color:red]it turned out her illegals were refugees.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Which Article of the Constitution requires a closed border? The USA borders were certainly wide open during the 18th and 19th centuries. Original intent will prevail! The various countries that have owned southern Arizona all have had one thing in common - [color:red]none of them could secure the border.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rchapstick Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Going back on topic with immigration .... I'll just throw this out there to stir the pot' date=' but I am beginning to think that the "problem" of immigration is just a red herring being throw out there by the tea baggers. I am not saying immigration is not a problem that needs to be addressed ... it does need to be addressed. But is is NOT the economic cure-all that deserves to be the centerpiece of a political movement (as it seems to be with the tea baggers). Rather, it is one of those easy "blame the other guy" cures that simpletons can readily latch on to. "The economy is not my fault ... lets blame it on the illegal immigrants." "Healthcare spending is out of control because of the illegal immigrants." "My state is nearly bankrupt because of services provided to illegal immigrants." While illegal immigration is a contributing factor in all of these problems, it is by no means the major problem. Nor is it even in the top 5. But because it sounds like an easy fix, Joe Lunch-pail latches onto it like a pitbull. It is right up there with the teabaggers complaining that their taxes have gone up under Obama, when in fact tax rates have gone down. Of course nobody like to pay taxes, but the complaint and the reality simply don't match up. Over to you HH .....[/quote'] My issue with immigration is a simple one. All Presidents swear to protect the constitution and the U.S. Having a porous border (on both sides) is a violation of that oath. The northern border is not defended well either but frankly its not an issue. Canada is not a 3rd world nation and its citizens by and large feel no need to come across in great numbers. The southern border is the issue. No President or Congress has addressed it adequately. The resulting expenses the states with the most illegals (SW USA primarily) have are a direct result of federal neglect of the border and I feel have a legitimate case for a lawsuit against the federal government. I think they have an open and shut case against the president and congress if one were brought to the supreme court to force the feds into defending the border better. I don't see how the supreme court could say otherwise. C'mon now Steve. A lawsuit? In reality the border IS defended. Is it defended completely? Adequately? No, it isn't. But the government is not abandoning the border. Your suggestions would be like suing Bush and Rumsfeld for not winning the war in Iraq soon enough. BTW Chuckwoww, saw that same wingnut on Yahoo. Classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted July 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 One asect of Arizona SB1030 is that if a person thinks a policeman is not pursuing the illegals enough, the person can personally sue the policeman. [color:red]Personally, I can not see why Conservatives approve of that facet of the law.[/color] I was speaking one day to a woman who is a Conservative and a school teacher. She informed me that illegals were in her school. After talking to her for some time, [color:red]it turned out her illegals were refugees.[/color] A refugee ca get legal status in the USA...not sure what defines a refugee today...use to be like the refugees in the 70's from Viet Nam were granted legal status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.