Economic Justice

[jmkiser 0]

You got a little hot under the collar there,didn't you? That happens when somebody speaks the truth. I didn't say,"Force everybody in America to learn english." I didn't even say make it the official language- I said, make it a requirement- not even a prerequisite- for any kind of blanket amnesty offered. That's a good thing. See, they want something from us- if they don't want to play,mother Mexico is right next door. They can just go home. I said,a 50% tax on money moved to Mexico,because it makes sense for us to make efforts to block the funneling of dollars into Mexico. I don't remember what the numbers were, but quite a bit- in the billions I believe- is sent back to Mexico by american workers, which fuels the economy there. The goal is to keep that money here. That's not a bad thing for either side. Notice as well, I am not saying that you can't send money- but, it will cost you. Don't like the law? You don't have to live here. Mother Mexico is still right next door. Once again, you shout that I am spitting rhetoric, which is fine, but then present nothing else. First of all, why is it rhetoric? Wouldn't any idea just be rhetoric under your definition? I believe it was you that stated that you don't care- if you didn't mean it, then don't say it. As it was/is, the information that I had to go from said that you in fact did not care about a subject yet still wanted to voice an opinion. That would make your opinion highly suspect, would it not? Interestingly enough, your last paragraph once again did you in when it comes to your ignorance as far as where Illegals actually reside,and the impact they have on the economy. Here is a link for you. You want to say you care,start by seeing some facts: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?page...esearchlistda29 A tad hostile on your part, but still good stuff. See you tommorow.

A tad hostile, yes, because this is painful to read. First off, just because someone gets upset doesn't mean they are faced with truth... need to work on your logic there. You present no truths... what you present are ridiculous ideas.I've already argued against them to which you haven't responded. All you continue to do is blast me because I have no alternative. Just because I have no alternative doesn't mean that your ideas are ridiculous.We'll go through this againMaking English a requirement = force everyone to learn English ... what are you going to do to those who haven't learned it yet, have learning disabilities, or flat out just don't want to? Ship them back to Mexico? You can't just deport every Mexican who can't speak English.Also, a 50% tax on money that the illegal immigrants send back to Mexico is just ridiculous. It's immoral, unethical, wrong, and all you're doing is just using the "illegal" tag to line your pockets with cash. Not only does it not solve any problems, but you are taking people's earned money (whether they are legal citizens or not) for no good reason at all. This isn't just a goal to "help" our economy, it's petty theft just like most of the taxes that we are faced with today.The huge overall problem with what you are presenting is that you are violating human rights to boost up our society. What I keep repeating is that if you are going to go so far as to violate people's human rights, then actually do it with plans that are effective in solving the "problem" that our nation is faced with. So to recap:Your plans are ineffective, violate human rights, and solve nothing.I have no plans and that is still ok.And you still haven't answered my question on what the specific problem is that we're trying to fix? Are we trying to deport illegals? Are we trying to stop more from coming in? What are we trying to do?Edit: I checked out F.A.I.R. for two seconds until realizing that they are a one-sided activist group. Please present me with something more substantial.

[DonkSlayer 1]

English is as established as it is going to get in this country. Everyone's fear of the Spanish language taking over in this country is ill-advised. It's not going to happen and you could only benefit from knowing a few words of Spanish yourself. Hell, you could get a job as a translator if you cared to learn Spanish as a second language.The unity provided by language that you speak of isn't going to change because the government made English "official" or not. Our economic system isn't going to improve because they already use English.The government making English the official language is like the government apologizing to the African Americans for slavery. Doesn't change a damn thing.

1st, you're a jerk for making assumptions about me "fearing" Spanish, etc. Do you think you can successfully bring people over to your opinion but making rash assumptions and insulting their character, or are you just hiding behind your computer screen, insulting people to make yourself feel better? Any pleasure you get from that is fleeting, I promise. I believe in a national language for purpose of unity..and yes, a national language where if you go to the DMV you have to be able to speak/understand enough English to get a license, is better for our country. It will force more to have at least a generic understanding of the language, and will cut costs down of translators, etc. for official public documents. Having Spanish as an official language of the US would be better than no national language at all, but would be rather nonsensical, given that English is the most widely used and understood.

A tad hostile, yes, because this is painful to read. First off, just because someone gets upset doesn't mean they are faced with truth... need to work on your logic there. You present no truths... what you present are ridiculous ideas.

You suck as a person. Stop being hateful, dude.

Making English a requirement = force everyone to learn English ... what are you going to do to those who haven't learned it yet, have learning disabilities, or flat out just don't want to? Ship them back to Mexico? You can't just deport every Mexican who can't speak English.

I'm sorry, you don't understand how official languages work. In Finland, for instance, Finnish is the official language, and Swedish is an offical secondary language, as about 10-20% of residents in Finland are native Swedish speakers. Thus, it makes a lot of sense to learn Swedish, and most Finnish school children take mandatory Swedish classes. But, you don't go into the Finn gov. offices and see Swedish all over the place. I would have no problem whatsoever with Spanish becoming an official secondary language, and I would expect a scientific poll of those who support English as the official language to swing toward my opinion on Spanish being OK for secondary.

Also, a 50% tax on money that the illegal immigrants send back to Mexico is just ridiculous. It's immoral, unethical, wrong, and all you're doing is just using the "illegal" tag to line your pockets with cash.

Please expound on why you find the 50% tax on illegal aliens to be immoral, unethical, and wrong. I understand nonsensical, because we're proposing a tax policy for people who aren't supposed to be here lol.

The huge overall problem with what you are presenting is that you are violating human rights to boost up our society. What I keep repeating is that if you are going to go so far as to violate people's human rights, then actually do it with plans that are effective in solving the "problem" that our nation is faced with.

I'm having a very hard time believing you are truly a libertarian. What human rights are being violated? If any, the right of a citizen to have his/her tax dollars support non-citizens (we can certainly debate foreign aid as well). A government FIRST and FOREMOST has a responsibility to its citizens to protect its borders and economy. Our gov. is not doing this when it allows illegal aliens to enter the US and to work, live. Sorry. It's just so. It also tramples all over the rule of law...you have absolutely no right to say I should be locked up for a parallel misdemeanor if you're not going to enforce the other law with the same penalty.

[jmkiser 0]

1st, you're a jerk for making assumptions about me "fearing" Spanish, etc. Do you think you can successfully bring people over to your opinion but making rash assumptions and insulting their character, or are you just hiding behind your computer screen, insulting people to make yourself feel better? Any pleasure you get from that is fleeting, I promise. I believe in a national language for purpose of unity..and yes, a national language where if you go to the DMV you have to be able to speak/understand enough English to get a license, is better for our country. It will force more to have at least a generic understanding of the language, and will cut costs down of translators, etc. for official public documents. Having Spanish as an official language of the US would be better than no national language at all, but would be rather nonsensical, given that English is the most widely used and understood. You suck as a person. Stop being hateful, dude. I'm sorry, you don't understand how official languages work. In Finland, for instance, Finnish is the official language, and Swedish is an offical secondary language, as about 10-20% of residents in Finland are native Swedish speakers. Thus, it makes a lot of sense to learn Swedish, and most Finnish school children take mandatory Swedish classes. But, you don't go into the Finn gov. offices and see Swedish all over the place. I would have no problem whatsoever with Spanish becoming an official secondary language, and I would expect a scientific poll of those who support English as the official language to swing toward my opinion on Spanish being OK for secondary. Please expound on why you find the 50% tax on illegal aliens to be immoral, unethical, and wrong. I understand nonsensical, because we're proposing a tax policy for people who aren't supposed to be here lol. I'm having a very hard time believing you are truly a libertarian. What human rights are being violated? If any, the right of a citizen to have his/her tax dollars support non-citizens (we can certainly debate foreign aid as well). A government FIRST and FOREMOST has a responsibility to its citizens to protect its borders and economy. Our gov. is not doing this when it allows illegal aliens to enter the US and to work, live. Sorry. It's just so. It also tramples all over the rule of law...you have absolutely no right to say I should be locked up for a parallel misdemeanor if you're not going to enforce the other law with the same penalty.

You are making a lot of assumptions about me that are flat out incorrect. I guess it's time for me to pick through this.Did I ever say anything about you fearing Spanish? I don't care about bringing people over to my opinion. I just state what makes sense. If people comprehend the things that I say, then more power to them. Most people in a discussion don't care what the other person has to say because they are just trying to "beat" them. I, on the other hand, am not trying to win a battle. I make points that I feel need to be made and am MORE then open to hear something good. So far, I just haven't heard anything good. If you knew me, everything I say here I would have no problem saying to anyone's face. In fact, my life is littered with tons of good discussion with many types of different people. What are you talking about with the pleasure comment? Doesn't make any sense to me.Explain to me how making English the national language is going to increase "unity". The only people who would be more "unified" are the people who actually think the ideal of unity has anything to do with a national language... but why? Everyone in the world knows Americans speak English. Honestly, go ahead and make English the official language... doesn't matter much to me because it won't do anything. Also, why do we need to be cutting costs on translators? Are you saying we need to cut down on all the jobs we offer in this country ;-) ?How do I suck as a person? I mean.. I'm still alive... happy, healthy... I must be doing something rightQuoting myself "Making English a requirement = force everyone to learn English ... what are you going to do to those who haven't learned it yet, have learning disabilities, or flat out just don't want to? Ship them back to Mexico? You can't just deport every Mexican who can't speak English."After you quoted that, you went on a rampage about official languages. Stop stop stop stop stop... Lois spoke about making English a requirement... which is the same as forcing English on people.... which has nothing to do with an official language. I know what official languages are and the point you made about Finland backs up what I'm saying.A 50% tax on money illegal immigrants take across borders is immoral, unethical, etc. because it's just a nice way of saying thievery (as I compare a lot of other taxes our government utilizes if you recall me saying that earlier in this discussion). You want to know what kind of a Libertarian I am? If someone wants to give another person money for working for them, they should have the freedom to do so. And the person that receives that money, should have the freedom to keep it. On top of that, the government should not have the ability to put their dirty paws on any the transactions. And you think I give a damn about a few citizens feeling more tax pressure from their government? Hell no, I don't. The reason I say that is because our government is stealing money left and right from its own people every year. The economic pressure that you think the illegals being here puts on us is nothing compared to the tax pressure the American government puts on us. And no, I'm not saying abolish taxes completely... but I am saying that a majority of them can be cut.But my example shows my support of human rights, freedom, and liberty. You go on and on about illegal-this and illegal-that ... and you're really saying nothing at all. You quote that the governments first and foremost responsibility is to protect our border... what the ****? Are you serious? This government hasn't done that ever. And even if they put a giant fence up in Mexico, they are still being hypocritical because they aren't protecting the other borders of this country. There are plenty of places across the Canadian border for terrorists to cross over and plenty of places on the Washington/Oregon coast that someone could ride to in a boat. There is this lovely Penn & Teller Bullshit episode that has those details in it. They even interview the declining law enforcement in those areas. That's exactly what I mean about typical rhetoric. All this focus on the Mexican border is hypocritical and outdated. Millions of them are already here... what are you going to do... deport them? Impossible. Jail them? Ridiculous. Force them all to learn English? Impossible and stupid. What are you going to do? Sure, keep on crying about protecting our borders... our government has never done that and never will. They will protect major ports, air travel, etc... but that means nothing. All of that "protection" crap is just about the illusion of safety. This government can't realistically protect its borders nor can it make you safe. Nor is the government supposed to do that. Be realistic, please.

[DonkSlayer 1]

"You are making a lot of assumptions about me that are flat out incorrect. .Did I ever say anything about you fearing Spanish?"I quoted your response to a previous post of mine, but here it is again: "English is as established as it is going to get in this country. Everyone's fear of the Spanish language taking over in this country is ill-advised."

Explain to me how making English the national language is going to increase "unity". The only people who would be more "unified" are the people who actually think the ideal of unity has anything to do with a national language... but why? Everyone in the world knows Americans speak English.

It adds to the things that bind us as a people. Again, we have no common culture, etc...so things like an official common language would do nothing but help the situation. What keeps us from splitting apart at our among ideological/cultural seams, if not for common beliefs and systems/institutions?"How do I suck as a person? I mean.. I'm still alive... happy, healthy... I must be doing something right"You don't suck as an animal. I liked how you concentrated on yourself though..I was speaking toward your lack of ability to respectfully interact with others.

Quoting myself "Making English a requirement = force everyone to learn English ... what are you going to do to those who haven't learned it yet, have learning disabilities, or flat out just don't want to? Ship them back to Mexico? You can't just deport every Mexican who can't speak English."After you quoted that, you went on a rampage about official languages. Stop stop stop stop stop... Lois spoke about making English a requirement... which is the same as forcing English on people.... which has nothing to do with an official language. I know what official languages are and the point you made about Finland backs up what I'm saying.

I'm not sure you're making any sense. An official language would force those who cannot speak English to learn enough...because of necessity. You want to drive? You have to read English road signs. You want to vote? You have to be able to read our Constitution and the voter registration card you're signing. I'm not sure what that doesn't have to do with official languages. Also, why is it weird to you that if you're a citizen of a particular nation, you need to speak their official language in order to participate in civic life?

But my example shows my support of human rights, freedom, and liberty. You go on and on about illegal-this and illegal-that ... and you're really saying nothing at all. You quote that the governments first and foremost responsibility is to protect our border... what the ****? Are you serious? This government hasn't done that ever. And even if they put a giant fence up in Mexico, they are still being hypocritical because they aren't protecting the other borders of this country. There are plenty of places across the Canadian border for terrorists to cross over and plenty of places on the Washington/Oregon coast that someone could ride to in a boat. There is this lovely Penn & Teller Bullshit episode that has those details in it. They even interview the declining law enforcement in those areas.

I already said that our country doesn't do a good job of it. Doesn't mean it's right or OK. What's your problem with the word "Illegal?" If your mere presence breaks the law..you are an illegal. I didn't call the illegal a bad person, unable to contribute..but they need to make themselves legal if they wish to remain.

That's exactly what I mean about typical rhetoric. All this focus on the Mexican border is hypocritical and outdated. Millions of them are already here... what are you going to do... deport them? Impossible. Jail them? Ridiculous. Force them all to learn English? Impossible and stupid. What are you going to do? Sure, keep on crying about protecting our borders... our government has never done that and never will. They will protect major ports, air travel, etc... but that means nothing. All of that "protection" crap is just about the illusion of safety. This government can't realistically protect its borders nor can it make you safe. Nor is the government supposed to do that. Be realistic, please.

First, I believe you're very misinformed if you don't believe a government should protect its sovereign borders. The vast, vast, vast majority of political and social philosophers would disagree with you. Do you favor some sort of world-community? If so, I would understand more where you're coming from.Second, the bolded parts should disband any thoughts that you are capable of mature debate.Third, we cannot hope to catch all criminals, but we catch the ones we can. Impossible to deport every illegal alien? True. Reason enough to not deport any of them? No. Jailing them is ridiculous..more of our money going down the tubes to support non-citizens. Force them all to learn English? Only in the sense that we are creating an environment where it is necessary to speak the common and official language in order to contribute and "melt" into our society. An official language would not "force" anyone to learn it..but their economic well-being would certainly depend on it.

[BWToth 0]

So, I go out of town for the weekend, and I come back to find this thread in shambles, I'm mildy disheartened. Oh well.

[DonkSlayer 1]

So, I go out of town for the weekend, and I come back to find this thread in shambles, I'm mildy disheartened. Oh well.

Slightly off topic. Your Lois is my JM.

[jmkiser 0]

The things that you bolded show nothing on my maturity or immaturity to hold a discussion. You can't validate many of my points and then continue to rip on how I can't have a discussion.I understand that you think making English the "official" language might bring some sort of emotional air of unity to the United States, but the point I was originally making with Lois (not with you) is that doing so is not solving any of the illegal immigration problems. Nothing in this country is actually going to change if you make English the "official" language... so in reality, it's a useless concept. If it makes a bunch of Americans feel more united, then hey... have at it :-)Ah, and that quote about the Spanish language was meant as an overall quote over a group of people that are actually worried. If you have an unreasonable fear, then you are part of the group, if you don't, then you're not.Making English the official language is not going to force people to learn anymore English then they were already going to learn before the government made it "official". You speak as if making it official is going to open up people's eyes who didn't actually realize that the most Americans speak English.I guess my problem with the word illegal comes along with the fact that these people actually are... illegal. I'm not necessarily pro-world-community, I'm actually quite the opposite. I am much more along the lines of an isolationist... except that our government has already ruined that. Thinking that would be isolationist, though, doesn't mean we shut off the borders. My beliefs run along the line that people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they aren't invading other people's personal rights.... but then I see how you are going to come back with how illegal immigrants are costing people this, this, this, and so on. Problem with that, though, is that they wouldn't if our country wasn't in the taxation rut that it is. This government has too much power to tax too many people for too much money and put it to uses that the American people do not have any control over. Overall point being is that a few immigrants coming over the border to provide labor for a price wouldn't be that big of a deal if our country was on it's own correct track.... because we're not, though, now we have people jumping on immigrants as if they owe us something... which in all honesty, they don't. They provide labor, they get paid... end of story. The money they get doesn't NEED to be put back into this economy. The United States government owes its people money before illegal immigrants do. On the other topic of border security, though, you never actually argued against my points. All you said is that a vast majority of political and social philosophers would disagree with me. Well, who and what are they saying?Onto what I'm actually saying, though, is that our current "security focuses" are hypocritical ... bordering on lying. In no way am I saying that people entering this country shouldn't be inspected, but to say that our government cares or even has the ability to enforce our borders is a complete lie. I pointed out the examples of the Canadian border and investigation that Penn and Teller did on the minimal police force of towns on the (Washington or Oregon... I forget which state) sea-side borders. They showed how easy it would for mass groups of people to enter into this country with ease... but what's the overall point of all of this? National security and safety are complete and utter illusions. The only reason things are so strict for aircrafts is because 9/11 happened. It's not like the government cares if large masses of members from Al Qaeda (sp?) are actually able to reach American lands. If they did, they would go to every length possible to stop that from happening... which they haven't even scratched the surface of doing. The government plays to American's fears, but what Americans don't realize is that this is all an illusion of safety that is being created... with the increasing airport security and talks of border security to the country just south of us. Notice the word security being used over and over and over again... how secure can the government really make you... even MORE important... how much security should the government even really be responsible for? The meaningfulness of the actions taken by our government are small and have almost no effect on my safety as a human being who lives in America. The odds of me dieing due to the causes of terrorism or other international causes are about as good as being struck by lightning. The majority of the problems for the American people are internal, not external.

[jmkiser 0]

And apologies on derailing your thread ;-)

[BWToth 0]

And apologies on derailing your thread ;-)

I agree, in principle, with most of the things you are saying actually. But, I just know how this converstation is going to go as long a Lois is involved.Well, with regard to idea of national security, and most of these issues it is a catch-22, The govt. could in theory increase 'security' significantly, but at the same time certain civil liberties would be trampled on, so where does the balance lie? That's usually the crux of most of the arguments between the two sides on this issue. Personally I'm not will to sacrifice much, if any personal freedom for a small decrease in the already miniscule odds that I'm going to get blown up by terrorists in my lifetime.

[jmkiser 0]

I agree, in principle, with most of the things you are saying actually. But, I just know how this converstation is going to go as long a Lois is involved.Well, with regard to idea of national security, and most of these issues it is a catch-22, The govt. could in theory increase 'security' significantly, but at the same time certain civil liberties would be trampled on, so where does the balance lie? That's usually the crux of most of the arguments between the two sides on this issue. Personally I'm not will to sacrifice much, if any personal freedom for a small decrease in the already miniscule odds that I'm going to get blown up by terrorists in my lifetime.

Ah, cheers to that! May my 'security' be damned! :-D Give me liberty or give me death!

[DonkSlayer 1]

And apologies on derailing your thread ;-)

We're going to disagree on some stuff, that's fine. I can't understand how you're isolationist but don't care to control immigration. I will never agree that solidifying our institutions will do well for our American identity and therefore unity. We can do without name-calling and other derogatory phrasing. Again, I agree with you that we don't do well about securing our borders..but please don't mistake me for one who thinks there's a serious threat of Al-Qaida coming over through Mexico. I'm not concerned with that subject at all. If there is illegal activity happening on our borders, however..our federal government should absolutely put forces in place to correct it as soon as possible. I agree with you that people should be able to do what they want...but they can't break laws. You may argue as a Libertarian that some laws are unjust (personal use of drugs, etc) and that's fine..but you can't really believe that "doing what you want" means disregarding national borders, do you? Should I be able to go set up shop in Great Britain without any passport, business license, medical records, etc? Does it make sense for a country to allow it to happen? Here are a couple of articles/studies:http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.htmlhttp://www.bestsyndication.com/Articles/20..._statistics.htmIllegal immigrants from Latin America are costing us more..I can't find anything (and I did try) that shows they're contributing more than they cost. Personally, even if they were all doctors and computer engineers, I believe in the upholding the law on principal to the point that I believe we should deport as many as we can find anyway.

[jmkiser 0]

Ah, it's Al-Qaida... gotcha... I can never seem to spell that rightEdit: I agree that illegal immigrants are costing us money. I think where I differ from Lois (especially with the 50% tax idea) is that the responsibility is on us... not them. I always hear about how we're schooling children whose parents are being taxed and situations that are similar, but those are all domestic issues that can and should be taken care of by Americans in the first place. Regarding the example of how tax money and schools are effected... imagine if school was private. If people who had children were the ones responsible for paying for their education instead of charging everyone with the bill. Little Julio wouldn't be getting an education on the taxpayer's backs then.. especially if it was costing the schoolsThank you for the recognition on my position on the issues regarding the fact that I'm a Libertarian. Yes, a lot of my views come from a base factor that I believe the current laws are unjust. My reaction to snowballing conflicts reflects that original belief and I probably could have clarified that better earlier on.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Ah, it's Al-Qaida... gotcha... I can never seem to spell that right

Dude, I've seen Al-Qaeda, Al-Quaeda, and heard it pronounced about 100 different ways. Details.

[Loismustdie 0]

Slightly off topic. Your Lois is my JM.

Lol. I gotta sleep- Charles Schwab is killing me. I will post tommorow.

[BWToth 0]

Lol. I gotta sleep- Charles Schwab is killing me. I will post tommorow.

I'm still waiting.

[Loismustdie 0]

I'm still waiting.

I finished with you 2 weeks ago. If you want to weigh in on some of the ideas I presented past a hostile takeover, go back at least 2 pages.

[BWToth 0]

I finished with you 2 weeks ago. If you want to weigh in on some of the ideas I presented past a hostile takeover, go back at least 2 pages.

Yeah, I read all that...it was at that point that you went off into the rant about 'illegals' to which the replies have already been supplied by others.But you didn't respond to them.Post #101....

[Loismustdie 0]

Yeah, I read all that...it was at that point that you went off into the rant about 'illegals' to which the replies have already been supplied by others.But you didn't respond to them.Post #101....

First of all, not others. One other. 2nd of all, really what it comes down to is there is not much to say. However,just for you, let's get this party going again: A tad hostile, yes, because this is painful to read. First off, just because someone gets upset doesn't mean they are faced with truth... need to work on your logic there. You present no truths... what you present are ridiculous ideas.I've already argued against them to which you haven't responded. All you continue to do is blast me because I have no alternative. Just because I have no alternative doesn't mean that your ideas are ridiculous.We'll go through this againMaking English a requirement = force everyone to learn English ... what are you going to do to those who haven't learned it yet, have learning disabilities, or flat out just don't want to? Ship them back to Mexico? You can't just deport every Mexican who can't speak English.Also, a 50% tax on money that the illegal immigrants send back to Mexico is just ridiculous. It's immoral, unethical, wrong, and all you're doing is just using the "illegal" tag to line your pockets with cash. Not only does it not solve any problems, but you are taking people's earned money (whether they are legal citizens or not) for no good reason at all. This isn't just a goal to "help" our economy, it's petty theft just like most of the taxes that we are faced with today.The huge overall problem with what you are presenting is that you are violating human rights to boost up our society. What I keep repeating is that if you are going to go so far as to violate people's human rights, then actually do it with plans that are effective in solving the "problem" that our nation is faced with.So to recap:Your plans are ineffective, violate human rights, and solve nothing.I have no plans and that is still ok.And you still haven't answered my question on what the specific problem is that we're trying to fix? Are we trying to deport illegals? Are we trying to stop more from coming in? What are we trying to do?Edit: I checked out F.A.I.R. for two seconds until realizing that they are a one-sided activist group. Please present me with something more substantial. I believe this is the post where I left off, and I will use this and other to help illustrate why I am right and awesome and all the usual thing sthat go with that. #1 Making learning english a requirement for citizenship. That's pretty easy to grasp for most. Knowing english, the predominate language in this country of ours,opens doors that would be otherwise shut to the new citizen. I am not advocating that everyone learn english,what I am advocateing is that if you want to apply for citizenship, you must do so The funny thing is, we are arguing about something that is already in place- there are test, both English and Civics test that you need to take as part of the citizenship process. If you want to be a citizen, gotta know the language. My thing is if we are to offer any amnesty becaus eit is so out of hand we need to make sure to preserve that. You will find that when you talk to mexican citizens they resent what illegals are doing,and don't understand why they don't make more of an effort to assimilate. As far as "You can't just deport everybody..." stop right there. Yes, we can. We don't have to offer amnesty, and we could most definitely send them all back, if we were so inclined. As of yet, we are not. #2 A 50% tax on money sent to Mexico is not a violation of any rights,it's a way of blocking the flow of cash into Mexico. Nobody is saying that you can't send money, it will just be taxed. Obviously, there would be circumstances where exceptions would be needed- sick relative,etc. However, do you realize how much cash has been going over there over the past 10 years? Why do you think the Mexican government fights any efforts to block illegals? Because they are a ****ing goldmine of new cash into Mexico, every day. One thing that is great about this tax is the money will be used to better our schools- the same schools that the now legal, former illegals frequent as well. Everybody wins. So, to recap, part of my plan is already required, the other part would be just fine, nobodys rights are being violated,especially because they(the person trying to become legal) don't have to be here. The system has been used against us for to long, now it's time to tighten the reins. What are we trying to do? Create an amnesty program that says."We give, but guess what? These are the terms." If you want to play, sign here. If you don't,bye-bye. No hard feelings. You stated that maybe people in San Diego had a problem with illegals- here, let me find the direct quote:And c'monnnnnnnnn does it really matter people? I'm sure those in San Diego think so, obviously, but it's not an issue that is killing our economy. Sure, they use up some money, but when was the last time our government gave a damn about puking a few dollars here or there for some nonsensical things? So, I gave you a link to a sight that gives you nationwide numbers,state by state. Look at the numbers- it's a nationwide problem. Whether ot not the site is one sided is irrelevant- thats why I gave you a direct link to the page where it gives hard data for you. Not to mention, this isn't an issue that has 2 sides-people are here illegaly, it screws it up for the rest of us. The system isn't built to take care of that which shouldn't exist.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

I forgot the biggest problem I have with disccussing issues with conservatives (blanket statment) is their failure to use logic or rational thought when making determinations about policies and issues.

Was trying to stay out of this but am bored so I will jump in. I will start with the quote above. It is one of several inaccurate statements you have made. In fact you fit the stereotype of left wing politicitons by calling those your arguing against a racist, ect. When I started reading the post I knew from your early posts that you would eventually call someone that disagreed with you a racist. You also have time and again critisized the inner city school system. The problem with this is that the people that run these schools, designed the ciriculum, and refuse to deal with and try to pass laws to keep other schools from dealing with any discipline problems, are in lock step with the views you have expressed. The NEA has ruined the schools because they were hijacked by left wing lobbyists. You have already poo poo'd charter schools in an earlier post. Why was that? What do you propose?

[BWToth 0]

Was trying to stay out of this but am bored so I will jump in. I will start with the quote above. It is one of several inaccurate statements you have made. In fact you fit the stereotype of left wing politicitons by calling those your arguing against a racist, ect. When I started reading the post I knew from your early posts that you would eventually call someone that disagreed with you a racist. You also have time and again critisized the inner city school system. The problem with this is that the people that run these schools, designed the ciriculum, and refuse to deal with and try to pass laws to keep other schools from dealing with any discipline problems, are in lock step with the views you have expressed. The NEA has ruined the schools because they were hijacked by left wing lobbyists. You have already poo poo'd charter schools in an earlier post. Why was that? What do you propose?

Well, when I called him a racist, that may have been to harsh, the comment made was difinitely racially motivated whether he truly is 'racist' in his heart of hearts is beside the point, I think you can be unconscously racist.Well, charter schools in theory are alright, but the have been shown to take 'good' kids from schools in effect gerrymandering (i'm not looking the spelling up right now) districts and creating situations where schools that were bad off are getting worse. Actually, i dont think charter schools is what i'm referring to, i'm taking about the things were the govt. gives money to kids who have good test scores so that they can go to other schools, like private schools.I propose strict laws for equal funding and pay for schools and teachers on a national scale. Also things like teach for america should be more widesread. Teach for America is actually hard to get into nowadays and many applicants are rejected...this seems absurb, Buck up and give the resources and manpower so that kids who want to enter this program can do it, there is definitely a need.The national laws would also apply to the districts where on the small scale cirriculum and disipline policies are not uniform, this is where the govt. should step in an make these things uniform across the board so we don't have states like SC and Montana falling behind in test scores and teacher pay.What do the "Conservatives" propose? As far as I've heard something along the lines of "These people in the bad nieghborhoods, in bad schools, put themselves in that position in the first place. But if they try hard they can get themselves out if they want to, but they are lazy and stupid so they probably won't and if that's the case so be it, it's not my responsibility"

[DonkSlayer 1]

Well, when I called him a racist, that may have been to harsh, the comment made was difinitely racially motivated whether he truly is 'racist' in his heart of hearts is beside the point, I think you can be unconscously racist.Well, charter schools in theory are alright, but the have been shown to take 'good' kids from schools in effect gerrymandering (i'm not looking the spelling up right now) districts and creating situations where schools that were bad off are getting worse. Actually, i dont think charter schools is what i'm referring to, i'm taking about the things were the govt. gives money to kids who have good test scores so that they can go to other schools, like private schools.I propose strict laws for equal funding and pay for schools and teachers on a national scale. Also things like teach for america should be more widesread. Teach for America is actually hard to get into nowadays and many applicants are rejected...this seems absurb, Buck up and give the resources and manpower so that kids who want to enter this program can do it, there is definitely a need.The national laws would also apply to the districts where on the small scale cirriculum and disipline policies are not uniform, this is where the govt. should step in an make these things uniform across the board so we don't have states like SC and Montana falling behind in test scores and teacher pay.What do the "Conservatives" propose? As far as I've heard something along the lines of "These people in the bad nieghborhoods, in bad schools, put themselves in that position in the first place. But if they try hard they can get themselves out if they want to, but they are lazy and stupid so they probably won't and if that's the case so be it, it's not my responsibility"

How about restricted funding mandates? Each state gets X amount depending on the number of students, etc. At least y amount of X must go to teacher salaries, and z amount must go to books, etc. If the states dont' follow the mandate, they lose funding until the next governor election. Just a thought.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Well, when I called him a racist, that may have been to harsh, the comment made was difinitely racially motivated whether he truly is 'racist' in his heart of hearts is beside the point, I think you can be unconscously racist.Well, charter schools in theory are alright, but the have been shown to take 'good' kids from schools in effect gerrymandering (i'm not looking the spelling up right now) districts and creating situations where schools that were bad off are getting worse. Actually, i dont think charter schools is what i'm referring to, i'm taking about the things were the govt. gives money to kids who have good test scores so that they can go to other schools, like private schools.I propose strict laws for equal funding and pay for schools and teachers on a national scale. Also things like teach for america should be more widesread. Teach for America is actually hard to get into nowadays and many applicants are rejected...this seems absurb, Buck up and give the resources and manpower so that kids who want to enter this program can do it, there is definitely a need.The national laws would also apply to the districts where on the small scale cirriculum and disipline policies are not uniform, this is where the govt. should step in an make these things uniform across the board so we don't have states like SC and Montana falling behind in test scores and teacher pay.What do the "Conservatives" propose? As far as I've heard something along the lines of "These people in the bad nieghborhoods, in bad schools, put themselves in that position in the first place. But if they try hard they can get themselves out if they want to, but they are lazy and stupid so they probably won't and if that's the case so be it, it's not my responsibility"

I would like to hear more about Teach for America, don't know much about it. I would be against any national standard. The only reason there are decent schools is because they ignore the NEA and there left wing, antiamerican, anti Christian, multicultural, poitically correct view of education.Let me give you an example. Say you are a teacher, and you ask your students to take out there books. You have one student who doesn't take his book out but is yelling at one of the other kids. You ask him to be quiet and get out his book. He looks you square in the eye and says F u ck you Bi tch. What do you think should happen? One more question then I will wait before I say anymore. Who do you think is responsable for those living in bad neihborhoods?

[DonkSlayer 1]

I would like to hear more about Teach for America, don't know much about it. I would be against any national standard. The only reason there are decent schools is because they ignore the NEA and there left wing, antiamerican, anti Christian, multicultural, poitically correct view of education.Let me give you an example. Say you are a teacher, and you ask your students to take out there books. You have one student who doesn't take his book out but is yelling at one of the other kids. You ask him to be quiet and get out his book. He looks you square in the eye and says F u ck you Bi tch. What do you think should happen? One more question then I will wait before I say anymore. Who do you think is responsable for those living in bad neihborhoods?

Would you really be? No Child Left Behind is a national standard, and that's Bush's idea.And while I think the NEA is at times misguided, they have very little to do individual schools being crappy or not...it has almost everything to do with the tax base that they draw from. Social economics, my friend.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

How about restricted funding mandates? Each state gets X amount depending on the number of students, etc. At least y amount of X must go to teacher salaries, and z amount must go to books, etc. If the states dont' follow the mandate, they lose funding until the next governor election. Just a thought.

Contrary to popular belief underfunding is not the major problem of education, at least not in most school. I am sure there are some exceptions. Teacher salaries is another issue, as is being able to get rid of bad teachers.

[BWToth 0]

I would like to hear more about Teach for America, don't know much about it. I would be against any national standard. The only reason there are decent schools is because they ignore the NEA and there left wing, antiamerican, anti Christian, multicultural, poitically correct view of education.Let me give you an example. Say you are a teacher, and you ask your students to take out there books. You have one student who doesn't take his book out but is yelling at one of the other kids. You ask him to be quiet and get out his book. He looks you square in the eye and says F u ck you Bi tch. What do you think should happen? One more question then I will wait before I say anymore. Who do you think is responsable for those living in bad neihborhoods?

It's like a program for college grads to have this intensive training and then commit two years and are placed into schools around the country (you dont' choose where) usually low income, or urban schools, or rural for that matter and teach. It's like a resume building type of deal that looks good for then going back and getting graduate degrees etc. The founder of it spoke at my college graduation last may. She was a retard though.I dunno, it would depend on the past history of the child, if he does this all the time, first time he/she has done it, I'm not talking about like a script that is read for every possible scenario that could arise.Many things are responsible. Among them, you, I, and the people themselves.