The joke is with our politicians who claim that if we don’t allow the illegal immigrants the price of our produce will double. Guess what that’s cheaper than the price of our taxes doubling to cover the social services they use. Dave H., it’s the border states with Mexico that feel the pressure the most. They are over run.
Dave.
You just don’t get it do you?
This is a debate about USA domestic politics.
As such it is improper to include discussions about the plight of a native people not in the USA, no matter how strongly you feel you were wronged, insulted or threatened by them.
Please stick to USA politics and leave the Australian Aboriginal people out of it.
Ahhh, yes. Tony is always right. Again.
I wonder why we bother to think. I think that I’ll just ask Tony what my opinions should be from now on.
Steve Featherkile said:Dear Steve. Thank you for once again acknowledging my infallability. QED.
Ahhh, yes. Tony is always right. Again.
Steve Featherkile said:I too wonder why you bother to think. Please let me know when you want some more advice. I will be only too pleased to set you on the right path.
I wonder why we bother to think. I think that I'll just ask Tony what my opinions should be from now on.
TonyWalsham said:
Dave. You just don't get it do you?This is a debate about USA domestic politics.
As such it is improper to include discussions about the plight of a native people not in the USA, no matter how strongly you feel you were wronged, insulted or threatened by them.
Please stick to USA politics and leave the Australian Aboriginal people out of it.
Tony, if I believed you’d been appointed to referee this discussion and determine its parameters, I’d follow your advice. I don’t believe that’s the case. Have I missed something? It may be you’re a more important person than I thought on this forum. If that’s the case, please let me know. I’m OK deferring to authority.
You haven’t addressed any of the issues I raised about my experiences with my Aboriginal neighbours. That leads me to believe you’re clueless about these issues because you have no personal experience of them. Lucky you.
I don’t “feel” I was “wronged, insulted or threatened”. That’s almost funny! Under pressure, I go devoid of feelings - they get in the way of progress. I dealt with what I had to deal with, and now it’s over. I don’t forget, but I don’t hold grudges, either.
I never brought “the Australian Aboriginal people” into it. I brought a specific group of Australian Aboriginals into it. To suggest I’m attacking Aboriginals in general is daft. My disagreement with Ken, Jerry et al. is based on the premise that it’s unreasonable to tar all members of ANY group - illegal immigrants, Australian Aborigines, left-handed tuna fishermen - with the same brush.
Dave,
One thing I’ve learned in sparring with Tony is that he never fully reads and understands a posting. If he did, his responses would not be so daft. Tony is a card carrying Secular Progressive, and like all of them, wants to stamp out people who thing differently.
Still, he does make good stuff.
We have border towns here IN TEXAS that are totally run by hispanic governments and totaly ignore the states mandates on running the town.In one of the towns a business had on there sign "WE WIN ! " We had a restaraunt in Houston this yr. accepting Mexican currency for payment exchange. That really riled up the locals ! There starting to control the housing construction crews as well. I could go on and on .
Chuckle! “KILLOGS”, indeed!
Steve, I don’t use radio, but I like reading the posts about it and other things (e.g., steam locos) I don’t own or use. The parts of Tony’s posts that I actually understand are interesting and informative, and I find Dave’s spare, direct writing style much to my liking.
Had lunch with the Aboriginal Liaison Officer at work today, a middle-aged lady who’s a graduate of the School of Hard Knocks. I started telling her about my reference to the Aboriginal neighbours from hell, intending to ask her if she found it offensive.
I never got to put the question before Mary (that’s not her name) figured out where I was going. She cut in with the remark that anyone engaging in anti-social behaviour such as I’d experienced deserved the title.
As far as that sort of behaviour in general is concerned, Mary’s view was that all you need do is replace “Aboriginal” in the expression with whatever applies - for example, “illegal immigrant”.
She did point out that it’s important to understand where folks are coming from - Aboriginal men, in particular. However, she made it clear that a crook upbringing was no excuse for the bad behaviour of adults, and she understood that, at the time, my main concern was protecting my family.
She recounted a story from her own childhood where another Aboriginal family in the mixed neighbourhood where she lived was behaving badly. Everyone else, including Mary’s family, hated their behaviour. As Mary pointed out, there are a lot of white Australians who generalise about Aboriginals, and her family was keen not to be tarred with the same brush.
However, there were limits to the criticism Mary’s family would put up with, as a white lady who was talking to Mary’s mother discovered when she referred to the neighbours from hell as “boongs”. Mary’s father overheard the remark (it’s analogous to “nigger”), and quietly asked the white woman to leave their home. The white lady immediately went all apologetic, but Mary’s father wasn’t having a bar of it. The woman was never allowed in Mary’s parents’ house again.
My guess - and that’s all it is - is there a lot of decent Hispanic folks in the US who loathe the behaviour of the minority, legal and illegal, who give them a bad name. I’m also guessing these Hispanic folks would be as touchy about racist put-downs as Mary’s father was.
To the limited extent that Tony’s comments can be viewed as a condemnation of racist invective in general, I agree with him. My initial response to this thread was motivated by a post containing a comment I think most Hispanics would regard as blatantly racist. I chose not to let it pass without putting another point of view.
mark Dash.... said::lol: :lol:
Took the test, tied with Clinton and Edwards, which doesn't surprize me, already voted for Hillary twice for sen, and twice for president the first time she was in that office!!
Sorry, I’ve been out of town for a few days. Just getting caught up with all this. (Interesting discussion, by the way…)
Quote:So how much longer a path are we expected to give him? Another 36 years? If he hasn't tried to obtain citizenship after all that time, I'd say his time is up!
Going back to Ken's number (where did you get 36 from, mate?), I'll say it again. If a man illegally enters a country, works hard for 36 years and behaves in a way you'd expect a good neighbour to behave, it's reasonable to offer him a path to citizenship.
Ken Brunt said:Ken, as I understand it, no illegal immigrant, 36 years or 36 hours, has any pathway to US citizenship. That's why proposals, like McCain's, that provide such a pathway make sense.
Sorry, I've been out of town for a few days. Just getting caught up with all this. (Interesting discussion, by the way......)Quote:So how much longer a path are we expected to give him? Another 36 years? If he hasn't tried to obtain citizenship after all that time, I'd say his time is up!
Going back to Ken's number (where did you get 36 from, mate?), I'll say it again. If a man illegally enters a country, works hard for 36 years and behaves in a way you'd expect a good neighbour to behave, it's reasonable to offer him a path to citizenship.
I think McCain is also saying that, to qualify for the pathway, the illegal must register for the tax system. Since a 36-year guy is more likely to have some sort of regular income than a 36-hour guy, it follows he should be more seriously considered for access to the pathway.
I’m not saying economics is the only reason a long-term illegal should be considered for citizenship, but it is an important one. Folks who have been working for a significant period of time have shown something about their desire to be in America that short-term illegal immigrants have yet to demonstrate.
Once in the tax system, it’s a fair thing to allow people on the pathway access to limited benefits. The benefits, whatever they are, should be proportional to the taxes the individual is paying.
Quote:The only thing they've shown me is their utter disregard for our laws. And the hope that some bleeding heart liberal would feel sorry for them and give them a shortcut. Every American in this country has ancestors either European, Middle-eastern, African or Asian that had to go through the same process . Why should a certain percentage be given an easier road or amnesty just because all they have to cross is a river and some desert to get here instead of an ocean? If they put as much time and effort into straightening out their own country as they do trying to circumvent our Immigration Laws, maybe we wouldn't be having this problem!
I'm not saying economics is the only reason a long-term illegal should be considered for citizenship, but it is an important one. Folks who have been working for a significant period of time have shown something about their desire to be in America that short-term illegal immigrants have yet to demonstrate.
KEN - standing ovation from this nut in the peanut gallery
OMG! mark and I agree on something! Did the temperature in H*ll suddenly drop?
As things currently sit, if an illegal immigrant were able to get on the tax rolls, then his employer would be required to pay half of his social security, unemployment compensation, worker’s accident insurance and minimum wage. There goes the illegal’s job because the employer just replaced him with another illegal that’s not on the rolls. Things won’t change until the big corporate farmers that hire these illegals get their hands out of the pockets of the big business supporting Republican lawmakers.
Warren Mumpower said:Warren Ditto for you 2 standing ovation from this nut in the peanut gallery
As things currently sit, if an illegal immigrant were able to get on the tax rolls, then his employer would be required to pay half of his social security, unemployment compensation, worker's accident insurance and minimum wage. There goes the illegal's job because the employer just replaced him with another illegal that's not on the rolls. Things won't change until the big corporate farmers that hire these illegals get their hands out of the pockets of the big business supporting Republican lawmakers.
Warren Mumpower said:Don't forget the Democrats. Their pockets are pretty deep, too.
As things currently sit, if an illegal immigrant were able to get on the tax rolls, then his employer would be required to pay half of his social security, unemployment compensation, worker's accident insurance and minimum wage. There goes the illegal's job because the employer just replaced him with another illegal that's not on the rolls. Things won't change until the big corporate farmers that hire these illegals get their hands out of the pockets of the big business supporting Republican lawmakers.
Not likely, Steve. The Democrats would be too busy trying to raise taxes so they can get more welfare benefits for the guy after he gets fired.