Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Hey Nick how many immigrants do you have staying at your house?
I never cease to be amazed!
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
Hey Nick how many immigrants do you have staying at your house?
Last edited:
Nick, I think at the time our grandparents went to the USA and started a new life there, the USA encouraged legal immigration, people passed through Ellis Island, and established an alien residency.
Let's not forget that in all of Europe, we get all sorts of people asking for asylum, entering illegally (I speak of the problems that the Italians have with illegals from Libya/Africa), and those that have come here from other parts of Europe (because they have family).
Let's not forget that immigration has been a big topic on BBC radio over the years.
Let's not forget that in all of Europe, we get all sorts of people asking for asylum, entering illegally (I speak of the problems that the Italians have with illegals from Libya/Africa), and those that have come here from other parts of Europe (because they have family).
Let's not forget that immigration has been a big topic on BBC radio over the years.
Nick, The napalm, etc was "sic" American humor. I do empathize, but there are estimates of between 15 and 20 million illegals in the US now. It's having an affect on our country. There are illegals that fly the US flag upside down under the Mexican flag. If they want to come here so bad, they could learn to respect our country. Learn the language and history like past immigrants, and do it "legally". I won't empathize to the ruination of the US, our laws and our culture.
Pat
Supporter
Well Nick,
How's the empathy for immigration working for you over there? British media reports Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases. As this progresses, I guess you're OK with your wife having to wear a burqua?
It would be caring and empathetic. How do the French members feel about the Muslim riots in Paris? Are you empathetic when your shop or car is burned?
The problem is not immigration, it's uncontrolled illegal immigration.
I am a first generation American with (gasp!) immigrant parentage. But the difference is my folks came through the front door legally, learned far more about U.S. history than the current high school graduate and made a respectable living for themselves and their family. I think Al and others on the "right side" of this contend nothing else. If you want to come here, go through the system, follow the rules and have a legitimate way to contribute to society and support yourself. Those were the rules my folks followed and to selectively make some follow the rules and not others is blatant discrimination to court a particular voting block.
The border can be secured if the decision is made to do so. San Diego did it. The current Federal administration does not.
How's the empathy for immigration working for you over there? British media reports Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases. As this progresses, I guess you're OK with your wife having to wear a burqua?
It would be caring and empathetic. How do the French members feel about the Muslim riots in Paris? Are you empathetic when your shop or car is burned?
The problem is not immigration, it's uncontrolled illegal immigration.
I am a first generation American with (gasp!) immigrant parentage. But the difference is my folks came through the front door legally, learned far more about U.S. history than the current high school graduate and made a respectable living for themselves and their family. I think Al and others on the "right side" of this contend nothing else. If you want to come here, go through the system, follow the rules and have a legitimate way to contribute to society and support yourself. Those were the rules my folks followed and to selectively make some follow the rules and not others is blatant discrimination to court a particular voting block.
The border can be secured if the decision is made to do so. San Diego did it. The current Federal administration does not.
Attachments
Last edited:
Jeff,
I wish it was as easy as you wish it is, but the hard facts are out there for you to look up if you dare. The recidivism rate for drug users like crack, heroin, and cocaine is about 87%. That is after repeated stints in rehab and jail where the access to drugs is limited. The drug user has a very low rate of success in getting clean and staying clean. I don't know what your experience is with this addiction, but my wife and I have been involved with this problem for over 20 years. Your solution will not work untill some type of rehabilitation program is created to take away the addiction.
The same could be said for addicts of cheap labor that has led to the illeagal immigration problem. The only way to stop anarchy and the disregard for law and order is to create laws that the general public agrees to adhere to and then enforce those laws upon the smaller group that wants to rebel against the laws. If there are no consequences for bad behavior, then society will decide its own response to every rule according to each individuals self gratification. That is a recipe for chaos in ordered society. I don't advocate a society that does not allow differences, but I do advocate for the rule of law. That is the American way and some where in the decades that have passed, we have forgotten that fact and embraced the idea that you can do anything that you wish and get away from any form of punishment because "it's not my fault".
The immigration to America is not what is what we are calling for but the elimination of law breaking and the influx of illegal immigration. It's a nice thought that taxing the process would work, but first you have to have documentation in order to regulate and tax. The documentaion will only be created when we find a way to put a cork in the dike.
Garry
Veek, I'm first generation as well on my fathers side. His family did it legally. A lot of the problems we have today are due to the amnesty in the 80's. We have had a huge influx of illegals since, thinking they would receive the same treatment. Legal immigration is not mean, cruel, or unfeeling. It's legal, the word is "legal", the process is "legal". There is an ulterior motive to mass illegal immigrant amnesty, and we all know what it is, whether we admit it or not. Common sense will tell you that.
Veek,
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
You have obviously not met my wife but as she removed the "promise to obay" clause from our wedding vows I suspect she may not agree.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Garry,
One thing that people fail to mention is that a lot of the recidivism rate come from the fact that as a felon they can not get a job, and selling drugs is one way for these people to make some money, but in turn they end up not only having drugs around, they also end up hanging with people who do drugs, If they were legal, all the above mentioned problems would automaticly go away. As well as the crime needed to buy the drugs to begin with.
One thing that people fail to mention is that a lot of the recidivism rate come from the fact that as a felon they can not get a job, and selling drugs is one way for these people to make some money, but in turn they end up not only having drugs around, they also end up hanging with people who do drugs, If they were legal, all the above mentioned problems would automaticly go away. As well as the crime needed to buy the drugs to begin with.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
I firmly believe in funding rehabilitation.
Also, I think you kind of missed the mark of my post. Making something illegal rarely stops it. Now, somethings like murder, etc. have to be, but alcohol use, drug use, illegal immigration? better to legalize and tax and regulate.
Some basic stastics here:
Social Indicator Comparison Year USA Netherlands
Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 36.9% 1 17.0% 2
Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 5.4% 1 3.0% 2
Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+) 2001 1.4% 1 0.4% 2
Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population 2002 701 3 100 4
Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros) 1998 €379 5 €223 5
Homicide rate per 100,000 population Average 1999-2001 5.56 6 1.51 6
Far LESS drug use in the Netherlands, and most European countries, where drug laws are more lax.
Also, I think you kind of missed the mark of my post. Making something illegal rarely stops it. Now, somethings like murder, etc. have to be, but alcohol use, drug use, illegal immigration? better to legalize and tax and regulate.
Some basic stastics here:
Social Indicator Comparison Year USA Netherlands
Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 36.9% 1 17.0% 2
Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 5.4% 1 3.0% 2
Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+) 2001 1.4% 1 0.4% 2
Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population 2002 701 3 100 4
Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros) 1998 €379 5 €223 5
Homicide rate per 100,000 population Average 1999-2001 5.56 6 1.51 6
Far LESS drug use in the Netherlands, and most European countries, where drug laws are more lax.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
It may have been cynicism, or it may be accurate observation. I will let others judge.
"Garry,
One thing that people fail to mention is that a lot of the recidivism rate come from the fact that as a felon they can not get a job, and selling drugs is one way for these people to make some money, but in turn they end up not only having drugs around, they also end up hanging with people who do drugs, If they were legal, all the above mentioned problems would automaticly go away. As well as the crime needed to buy the drugs to begin with.<!-- google_ad_section_end --> "
Jim,
That is a very good point and one that I agree with in principle, but that is a problem with sentencing from the courts regarding possession crimes and intent to distribute crimes. There is a disparity of justice toward lower income groups which tend to use crack rather than the more expensive drugs like cocaine. But Jeff's proposals are not feasable with regards to taxation as the means to slow consumption in the US. In order for that to work there has to be a program of rehabilitation that works and currently that has not happened. If you think we can tax our way out of the drug addiction nightmare you are wrong. We have unsuccessfully tried to impart "luxury taxes" on tobacco and alcohol as well as other developed nations such as England, Denmark and Russia. These taxes have been unsuccessful at reducing teenage consumption and the general rise of alcohol abuse is growing. Their governments are concerned, but taxation has not slowed the growth of dependency.
I fear the same thing would happen in the US regarding drug abuse. Once a person is addicted, there is little hope of shaking off the dependency. Plus, how do we insure that people who are driving are not impared or a danger to the rest of the sober world. There are tests, but do we require that every person who gets behind the wheel of a car has to have a urine or blood test before we give them the keys or before they can start the car?
That solution will never work even if we could solve the logistics problem. In short, it sounds good on paper because you would reduce the prison poulation, but that could be reduced with a change in sentencing guidelines. There would be less ex-cons so to speak and the general population could still impart its public disgust with that type of behavior. If that was tried and it was demonstrated that crime could be reduced and more tax money saved from lower incarceration rates, then the US might consider other measures to help with this problem.
However, until such time that rehab is shown to have developed credible sytems of ridding users from addictions, I am skeptical of the "legalize and tax" approach. Making something more expensive will not slow down addiction as the cartels have proven. They are making record profits according to several sources in the US which attempts to measure the growth of their businesses. It sounds so simple to get rid of criminal sanctions for drug abuse, but there are underlying problems that this approach's proponents have not addressed. As I said before, I have first hand knowlege of working with drug rehab, the ex-con problem of employment, the crazy "justice" system (justice for the rich and famous..prison for the poor and middle-class), and lack of both rehab credibility and resources. I have seen perfectly great people with great educations and employment spiral out of control using drugs even after expensive rehab was tried repeatedly, incarceration, more rehab, etc.,etc., ad nauseum. Sorry guys, it just won't work.
Garry
One thing that people fail to mention is that a lot of the recidivism rate come from the fact that as a felon they can not get a job, and selling drugs is one way for these people to make some money, but in turn they end up not only having drugs around, they also end up hanging with people who do drugs, If they were legal, all the above mentioned problems would automaticly go away. As well as the crime needed to buy the drugs to begin with.<!-- google_ad_section_end --> "
Jim,
That is a very good point and one that I agree with in principle, but that is a problem with sentencing from the courts regarding possession crimes and intent to distribute crimes. There is a disparity of justice toward lower income groups which tend to use crack rather than the more expensive drugs like cocaine. But Jeff's proposals are not feasable with regards to taxation as the means to slow consumption in the US. In order for that to work there has to be a program of rehabilitation that works and currently that has not happened. If you think we can tax our way out of the drug addiction nightmare you are wrong. We have unsuccessfully tried to impart "luxury taxes" on tobacco and alcohol as well as other developed nations such as England, Denmark and Russia. These taxes have been unsuccessful at reducing teenage consumption and the general rise of alcohol abuse is growing. Their governments are concerned, but taxation has not slowed the growth of dependency.
I fear the same thing would happen in the US regarding drug abuse. Once a person is addicted, there is little hope of shaking off the dependency. Plus, how do we insure that people who are driving are not impared or a danger to the rest of the sober world. There are tests, but do we require that every person who gets behind the wheel of a car has to have a urine or blood test before we give them the keys or before they can start the car?
That solution will never work even if we could solve the logistics problem. In short, it sounds good on paper because you would reduce the prison poulation, but that could be reduced with a change in sentencing guidelines. There would be less ex-cons so to speak and the general population could still impart its public disgust with that type of behavior. If that was tried and it was demonstrated that crime could be reduced and more tax money saved from lower incarceration rates, then the US might consider other measures to help with this problem.
However, until such time that rehab is shown to have developed credible sytems of ridding users from addictions, I am skeptical of the "legalize and tax" approach. Making something more expensive will not slow down addiction as the cartels have proven. They are making record profits according to several sources in the US which attempts to measure the growth of their businesses. It sounds so simple to get rid of criminal sanctions for drug abuse, but there are underlying problems that this approach's proponents have not addressed. As I said before, I have first hand knowlege of working with drug rehab, the ex-con problem of employment, the crazy "justice" system (justice for the rich and famous..prison for the poor and middle-class), and lack of both rehab credibility and resources. I have seen perfectly great people with great educations and employment spiral out of control using drugs even after expensive rehab was tried repeatedly, incarceration, more rehab, etc.,etc., ad nauseum. Sorry guys, it just won't work.
Garry
The world has changed since Ellis Island, I personally didn't invade anywhere and nor did my ancestors, you can be as New Testament as you like, the West under the current system, has run it's course and desperately needs an upgrade. The East (as has always been predicted) is in ascendency and you can dick around all you like with all the logic and rhetoric of the last century because you will never ever see this again:
If the West wishes to continue as a "model of freedom and democracy" it had better get it's own house in order before it starts lecturing (and killing) others.
Someone on this forum recently said I should be "grateful"for America and in some ways (historically) I am, but it many ways, I am very ungrateful and I am just a tiny tip of a huge iceberg. This isn't an anti US rant because we're in it too and just as guilty. We made our choices and had to go the way we went because fiscally, we had no choice following WWII.
In order to find a solution, radical methods are called for and pain will have to be endured because I don't think anyone can justify moralising to the world at large on the one hand and producing the most disgusting pornography freely available on the Internet on the other for example.
I don't think anyone cares enough at the moment to sacrifice their lifestyle, cars and posessions for the good of a nation as a whole, and if you don't speak up and act in the common good with good sense, the crazies will have control.
Murder, drug taking, uber socialism, political correctness, beaurocracy, celebrity cults, pure corporate greed, political graft and sleaze are these really the "freedom tools" we're selling to the Afghans, Iraqi's et al? Are these the symbols of the West's greatest achievements?
If I was a Mexican, an Afghan or anyone from a poor and underdeveloped country, I would say "fuck you" I want some of that shit too because the peddlars of same rubbish also show their weakness for dollars and ice cream and their unwillingness to die for what they believe in.
I'll tell what the Afghans have ALWAYS been about shall I?
Money, bribes, wonga, status. A tribal system cannot and will not ever be "democratic" as we understand it. This is not thread drift, this is just an example of current Western hyprocrisy and decadence which we are forcibly attempting to share with others. It's not as if there isn't an amazing amount of historical precedence for all of this stuff anyway - everywhere in the world. We been there, we done it, we cut our losses and we out of it (unless invited back by friends
)
It has to get worse before it gets better, but if we owe anything to our families futures we should learn to get along and share each others problems and find solutions. People inthe rest of the world look at us and hate us, not personally, but for what we represent - and I for one agree with them...
If the West wishes to continue as a "model of freedom and democracy" it had better get it's own house in order before it starts lecturing (and killing) others.
Someone on this forum recently said I should be "grateful"for America and in some ways (historically) I am, but it many ways, I am very ungrateful and I am just a tiny tip of a huge iceberg. This isn't an anti US rant because we're in it too and just as guilty. We made our choices and had to go the way we went because fiscally, we had no choice following WWII.
In order to find a solution, radical methods are called for and pain will have to be endured because I don't think anyone can justify moralising to the world at large on the one hand and producing the most disgusting pornography freely available on the Internet on the other for example.
I don't think anyone cares enough at the moment to sacrifice their lifestyle, cars and posessions for the good of a nation as a whole, and if you don't speak up and act in the common good with good sense, the crazies will have control.
Murder, drug taking, uber socialism, political correctness, beaurocracy, celebrity cults, pure corporate greed, political graft and sleaze are these really the "freedom tools" we're selling to the Afghans, Iraqi's et al? Are these the symbols of the West's greatest achievements?
If I was a Mexican, an Afghan or anyone from a poor and underdeveloped country, I would say "fuck you" I want some of that shit too because the peddlars of same rubbish also show their weakness for dollars and ice cream and their unwillingness to die for what they believe in.
I'll tell what the Afghans have ALWAYS been about shall I?
Money, bribes, wonga, status. A tribal system cannot and will not ever be "democratic" as we understand it. This is not thread drift, this is just an example of current Western hyprocrisy and decadence which we are forcibly attempting to share with others. It's not as if there isn't an amazing amount of historical precedence for all of this stuff anyway - everywhere in the world. We been there, we done it, we cut our losses and we out of it (unless invited back by friends
)It has to get worse before it gets better, but if we owe anything to our families futures we should learn to get along and share each others problems and find solutions. People inthe rest of the world look at us and hate us, not personally, but for what we represent - and I for one agree with them...
Keith, I like your post. I think your take on Afghan is right. I trust the dream to initiate a democratic system in the East is good, but will take a long time to accomplish, if ever.
Yet, while the Russians, and the Brits cut their losses and left, we can see what happened when Afghan was left unattended, and the Taliban took control, harboring terrorism. I am not sure the Afghans will buy the western dream.
Look what happened when Iran went to far west under the Shah back in the 1970s and what Khoemeni did when he took power. Iran is still reeling from that and its the kids of those who allowed the Islamic Republic to be founded that want to break with this totalitarian regime. Again these folks who ushered in the new republic believed in utopia on earth. And as we know, that isn't possible.
I used to believe in live and let live, and I think peace is worth all the effort we can give it. Unfortunately the military will be need at some time to impose peace.
Yet, while the Russians, and the Brits cut their losses and left, we can see what happened when Afghan was left unattended, and the Taliban took control, harboring terrorism. I am not sure the Afghans will buy the western dream.
Look what happened when Iran went to far west under the Shah back in the 1970s and what Khoemeni did when he took power. Iran is still reeling from that and its the kids of those who allowed the Islamic Republic to be founded that want to break with this totalitarian regime. Again these folks who ushered in the new republic believed in utopia on earth. And as we know, that isn't possible.
I used to believe in live and let live, and I think peace is worth all the effort we can give it. Unfortunately the military will be need at some time to impose peace.
Dom thanks, the point is that we, us, they, me whatever have perenially tried to enforce the "democratic" system on nations for centuries in the name of Trade or more realistically, a pecuniary advantage of some kind for the colonising nations. I grew up thinking that the "Pink" map represented some kind of advantage for those thus coloured and of course to Us here in good old Blighty. The Empire thus, was a Good Thing Without Oil.
The reverse has shown to be true but it does not mean (with the benefit of hindsight) that our ancestors were wrong, that's just the way it was then and it is quite wrong to judge these events with the benefit of modern enlightenment. The result of colonisation was inevitably "lines drawn in the sand" (partition)and classic examples of this are Northern Ireland, Kuwait, Pakistan, Palestine to name but a few and political expedience then is no excuse for murder now.
Your example of Iran is interesting. Another "line in the sand" sponsored largely by the USA. Come the revolution, who did the US support? Our old friend Saddam.
How on earth are we now supposed to convince these people that our versionof democracy will work for them, when we have truly changed sides more often than the Vicar of Bray (please look him up).
My point is, and was, we need to look to ourselves urgently before we pontificate and moralise on others. All Western Nations need to bring peace within their own borders as there are wars raging now in your back yards which are out of control. The Military will always prioritise in favour of their own budgets and politically, it's always best to highlight a "common foreign enemy" to both unite and divert the populations attention away from more pressing domestic issues - a well known political tactic.
All I ask is: Are you sure you know who the (your) enemy REALLY is?
The reverse has shown to be true but it does not mean (with the benefit of hindsight) that our ancestors were wrong, that's just the way it was then and it is quite wrong to judge these events with the benefit of modern enlightenment. The result of colonisation was inevitably "lines drawn in the sand" (partition)and classic examples of this are Northern Ireland, Kuwait, Pakistan, Palestine to name but a few and political expedience then is no excuse for murder now.
Your example of Iran is interesting. Another "line in the sand" sponsored largely by the USA. Come the revolution, who did the US support? Our old friend Saddam.
How on earth are we now supposed to convince these people that our versionof democracy will work for them, when we have truly changed sides more often than the Vicar of Bray (please look him up).
My point is, and was, we need to look to ourselves urgently before we pontificate and moralise on others. All Western Nations need to bring peace within their own borders as there are wars raging now in your back yards which are out of control. The Military will always prioritise in favour of their own budgets and politically, it's always best to highlight a "common foreign enemy" to both unite and divert the populations attention away from more pressing domestic issues - a well known political tactic.
All I ask is: Are you sure you know who the (your) enemy REALLY is?
Keith,
I have to agree with a lot of what you say, I also find it “interesting” that the West rushes to the aide of countries with large oil deposits, ( I understand they have now found large lucrative mineral deposits in Afghanistan) in the name of democracy. Whilst ignoring the plight of for example the citizens of Zimbabwe.
I think the opening credits of have I got news for you sum it up fairly succinctly!!
YouTube - Have I Got News For You - Intro
I have to agree with a lot of what you say, I also find it “interesting” that the West rushes to the aide of countries with large oil deposits, ( I understand they have now found large lucrative mineral deposits in Afghanistan) in the name of democracy. Whilst ignoring the plight of for example the citizens of Zimbabwe.
I think the opening credits of have I got news for you sum it up fairly succinctly!!
YouTube - Have I Got News For You - Intro
Guys,
Nick's video sums it up. But, now that the announcement about the mineral wealth of Afghanistan was announced, if we pull out and give the country back to the people (and the Taliban), the Taliban will take over the country, as they did before, and then can bankroll their own nuclear arsenal. Can we let that happen?
Nick's video sums it up. But, now that the announcement about the mineral wealth of Afghanistan was announced, if we pull out and give the country back to the people (and the Taliban), the Taliban will take over the country, as they did before, and then can bankroll their own nuclear arsenal. Can we let that happen?
