This May Be The Most Politically Incorrect Post Ever.

Rather we should open the borders and make it easy to become a citizen. People don't become citizens because its not worth the risk of waiting around to be rejected, they cross the border and just get to work. If we make it simple to become a citizen, it won't be worth an immigrants time to try to deal with these criminal human smugglers that operate on the border. This will bring in more people into the tax structure, and mean that we can focus on patrolling the border, since there won't be a pro-immigrant bloc, or one nearly as powerful, since immigrants will be comming in large numbers and legally. The resources we have can then be focused on the border crossings, which will be drug smugglers and criminals. We don't need a closed border, we need an open one.

As far as student visas, we should increase them, we have the ability to to take the brightest and most motivated people in the world and bring them here. Why should we be cutting back on that? We want these people, they're a large part of the reason why we're as advanced as we are.

As far as english, the US, despite what we think sometimes, has an amazing ability to absord immigrants. We started off as a bunch of anglos, then came eastern europeans, germans, poles, etc, then italians, medeteraneans, etc etc. We don't even recognize there being a difference now. All of them took time to learn english, and all of them brought as much of their culture with them and added it to the US as they adopted US customs. Hot-dogs and Hamburgers are emblematic american foods, and they're foreign, for example. The spanish speaking immigrants that are here today, they are learning to speak spanish. People that are 'fresh off the boat' don't speak it too well, but that's allways been true.

Originally posted by Majic
Native Genius

Originally posted by Nygdan
If you want to shoot america in the foot, then yeah, go ahead, prevent smart people from comming here.
And they're not taking anyone's place. There isn't a 'place' for everyone, its based on merit.

This is no secret in the academic world.
My only complaint is that we aren't more aggressive about bringing them here, and that our schools aren't as competitive as they should be.

So you are assuming that there is no talented people in the US that see no hope of ever having a good education and thus most of the talent that the country could produce is already being produced?

I don't agree with you.

No one is saying that all americans are idiots and that the US won't surivive if it weren't for smart foreigners. Its a fact that we pick up some of the best talent from the world and bring them to the US, and that we benefit greatly from this. In science, and even in more intangible cutlural other areas.

Talent Show

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
So you are assuming that there is no talented people in the US that see no hope of ever having a good education and thus most of the talent that the country could produce is already being produced?

I don't agree with you.

No, I'm saying that there's no such thing as too much talent in America.

The history of America is one of imported excellence.

Would you turn Einstein away because he was German?

My point is that it is very much in the best interests of the United States that we attract the very best people the world has to offer, because if we don't, someone else will.

And for whatever it's worth, I don't agree with what your version of me has to say, either.

I know for a fact that America produces no shortage of native talent.




[edit on 11/8/2006 by Majic]

Originally posted by Majic
My only complaint is that we aren't more aggressive about bringing them here, and that our schools aren't as competitive as they should be.

No kidding. Actually after lengthy discussions with my Spanish professor (An incredibly interesting French Tunisian who's been teaching since he was 23) I've become rather interested in taking my American butt to a European school for a few semesters, not necessarily immediately- but once I've got my first degree and have some money... sounds like they run my kind of place over there. Then of course I'll bring my substantially upgraded brain back here and put it on auction for American companies.

Double-Reverse Braindrain to the left on 2, break! (sorry, football season, you know?)

The Three C's

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Actually after lengthy discussions with my Spanish professor (An incredibly interesting French Tunisian who's been teaching since he was 23) I've become rather interested in taking my American butt to a European school for a few semesters, not necessarily immediately- but once I've got my first degree and have some money... sounds like they run my kind of place over there. Then of course I'll bring my substantially upgraded brain back here and put it on auction for American companies.

Sad but true.

We Americans love to brag about how we're the best at everything, but I think we're falling behind the rest of the civilized world in basic education.

We should learn from our counterparts overseas, stop packing so many unnecessary and gratuitous frills into American education and instead focus on the fundamentals.

If American schools would simply focus on the Three C's: Comprehension, Calculation & Composition, we would lead the world in the field of education.

Not that we don't have some damn good schools, mind you, but in aggregate, we need to dispense with the nonsense and get our educational infrastructure geared toward teaching the basics, and letting students spend more time thinking for themselves when it comes to more esoteric studies.

Too true Majic.

American schools expect children to be stupid, and children are always happy to live up to such simple standards.

When I think about the years I spent in school, I get sick to my stomach. The god-(hydroelectric plant) grownups told me I was learning something. Those (mules) said I was in the program for "gifted" students...

I got the equivalent of 3 history courses, just repeated several times: we covered snapshots of Rome, the British Empire, and America up to the civil war: under 500 years of history in only 3 nations, yet I had "social studies" every single year for 13 years!

I got 13 years of spelling classes and one workshop on how to cookie-cut a 5 paragraph essay!

I got basic math and learned how to solve for x in simple algebra

Science? I learned that plants produce Oxygen and animals produce CO2... 13 times. I still just barely understand how electricity works, except that flying a kite in a storm attracts it.

PE? When I graduated highschool I weighed 270 pounds. Eating pizza 5 days a week and not having access to anything cold other than soda between the hours of 7 and 3 probably had a lot to do with that. It takes a hell of a lot of dodgeball to work off that kind of a meal.

If I could change anything about my childhood, I'd keep every soul-crushing minute of the little stuff- even the time I blew it with a cheerleader and then had to kick my best friend's butt for laughing about it... because I'd rather ask to trade in the 13 years I wasted in school for a real education.

The fact of the matter is that I was introduced to ALMOST NOTHING new in 3 years of Junior high school, and only a little bit new in 4 years of highschool.

If we ran things efficiently, sorted the workers and the slackers into different tracks, hammered out the basics in K-5 without spending a whole week talking about the first thanksgiving, etc etc, you'd have kids ready for highschool level material by the time they were 12, done with it by the time they were 15, then you could let them choose a major and complete an associates degree by the time they were through public school, and you're doing it without an increase in teacher man-hours or facilities, it's simply a matter of proceedural efficiency and setting serious standards.

When it's logistically possible to give every child a shot at an associates degree, (and thereby a half-price college education for all intents and purposes) but instead we can't even get every child to legitimately earn a highschool diploma, it's real hard to feel comfortable about our odds of holding an edge over countries which already do almost as well if not better than us with less opportunity, especially as the disparity of means between our nations continues to shrink.

In 30-40 years, the days when you had to be proficient in English to be a serious commodity in business or global politics will be over, and that's gonna mean that a lot of Americans are screwed, because I don't think we've got a shot in hell of picking up Japanese, Mandarin, or Hindi on nearly the same level that Japan, China, and India have picked up English.

Originally posted by chissler
I understand the people we speak of here have committed horrific acts. But we still can not remove their basic human rights. We live in a civilized society, when we begin to remove the basic rights of people, where do we draw the line? Rather than leaving this in the middle of the continuum, we always invoke the rights of every human.

No matter what we have done in life, we have the right to die in a respectable manner. Even if we have committed murder, and taken another souls life, we still have the right to die with respect. Some like it, some don't. But it is our society, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Now on this point, I have to strongly disagree with you. I'll use the BTK killer as an example. One of his victims was a little boy. He wrapped a bag around the boys head, bound him with duct tape, then masturbated while that poor little boy suffocated in front of him. This monster has NO rights in my opinion. Have him, and people like him die with respect? Sorry, I cannot see your point on this one. I think Saddams human meat grinder is too good a fate for this pond scum.

Originally posted by chissler
If we were to execute people in this manner, what would make us any better than the murderers on the street? We would be on the same level, and no better. But wait, they are criminals, it is the right thing to do. Well if I go out and rob a bank, does that give you the right to pop a bullet in my head? No, so why do we grant this right to our government?

I love your passion on this subject, but again I have to disagree. If someone commits a horrendous crime - again I'll use an example. That guy down in Florida who was caught on a car wash video surveillance abducting that little girl. He forced that innocent child to perform oral on him, then strangled her. Can you imagine the terror she felt? Can you imagine how her family must feel? He deserves to die. Killing him does not put those who put him to death on the same level - not even close IMHO.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Press 1 for english is not an inconvenience. It is not a problem. There's nothing wrong with it. I think it would be healthy for people who are really upset about it to step back and ask themselves why. Is it a problem because pressing one hurts your finger and wastes precious milliseconds of your day, or because you are scared of the fact that demographics are changing and not everyone in this nation is like you? In my experience, anger is caused by 2 things, almost exclusively: injury, and fear of injury. If pressng one makes you angry, and it's not injuring you, then I suspect that maybe you're afraid of spanish-speakers gaining the majority. You should investigate the reason for this fear in yourself and then do whatever you need to do to find out if that fear is warranted or not.

While I see your point, I have to say that it is not a fear for me in any way. It is a resentment. As I've said previously, I have a problem with the fact that it is mandated. And no, it doesn't hurt my finger to press 1, and hey - those milliseconds add up!

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Sounds like something my great grandma would have said... of course she'd be talking about you: Illegal immigrants did a number on my grandma's country, namely the Choctaw nation.

You pretty much make my case for me. Well said.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
That's right. Resident aliens should pay taxes to support citizens without reaping the benefits of the programs that they help us pay for. They're second class citizens because they aren't white like us and speak with funny accents. [ / ignorance ]

That's not what I said, nor did I imply it. I'm saying very simply, that I think that it is wrong for people who come here and have made no contributions whatsoever who are able to reap the benefits. If someone contributes, they should absolutely be able to collect. For the record, I take offense at your making it a racial issue.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Are you really speaking from a sense of fiscal and moral responsibility or are you just expressing a general lack of sympathy for those with whom you share nothing in common? Here's a way to check: Do you favor incarceration for drug users?

Share nothing in common? Where are you coming from? I truly do not understand. I do not murder, I do not rape. So no, I do not share that in common with the scum of which I speak. A true menace to society, deserves to die IMO.
And to answer your question, no, I do not favor incarceration for drug users.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
So that your kids won't have to go to those countries later in life with M-16s in hand. We tried isolationism before and by the time we got our heads out of our nethers this highstrung little Bavarian who could have been dealt with by a company of drunken Marines on leave back in the early 30s had a first air force and tank army roaming Europe at will and jack-slapping every friend we had. What could have ended as a bar brawl in Munich or a police action in Czechoslovokia turned into a world war, and the resulting shakeup of the geopolitical landscape yielded a subsequent coldwar to boot.

Any other questions or do you feel like yours sons are getting a pretty good deal now?

You have a good point, but I disagree with you. There are countless billions going abroad every year. How much goes to Israel alone every year? (I'm not knocking Israel, just making a point.) There are so many things that need to be addressed right here. And I truly believe that almost every public school out there is not getting a good deal.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'd like to end on a similar note because I don't know you. I want to make it clear that although I have a sarcastic and confrontational style I bring no malice to this discussion; I'm just emphatic. I'd be interested in hearing your take on my side of things... even if that take is that I'm some kind of socialist moron, cause hey... I might be.

It's all good, my friend. Nothing like a good debate. If I ever meet you, I'll buy you a beer. Stay Cool.

I propose this question then lombozo:

If we remove the rights of this man, who I agree does not deserve to see the light of day, where do we draw the line next time?

We are not in a position to pick and choose who we execute and who we murder. I agree 110% that the BTK Killer is a waste of human skin, he does not deserve any basic human rights, but unfortunately he still has these rights. He only has these rights because it allows our society to operate in a just manner.

Removing their rights, and murdering them in a despicable manner, does what? Does it bring back the victims? Does it get him to hell any quicker? No, it only leaves a dark spot on our judicial system and our society.

Revenge is sweet, but it isn't going to solve anything. We need to continue to operate in a civilized manner, which unfortunately means granting rights to individuals who do not deserve them.

Originally posted by chissler
I propose this question then lombozo:

If we remove the rights of this man, who I agree does not deserve to see the light of day, where do we draw the line next time?

We are not in a position to pick and choose who we execute and who we murder. I agree 110% that the BTK Killer is a waste of human skin, he does not deserve any basic human rights, but unfortunately he still has these rights. He only has these rights because it allows our society to operate in a just manner.

Removing their rights, and murdering them in a despicable manner, does what? Does it bring back the victims? Does it get him to hell any quicker? No, it only leaves a dark spot on our judicial system and our society.

Revenge is sweet, but it isn't going to solve anything. We need to continue to operate in a civilized manner, which unfortunately means granting rights to individuals who do not deserve them.

Glad you hopped on this thread Dude.
It isn't revenge that I'm speaking of. I use the word justice. Believe it or not, I actually am against killing. I'm not a blood thirsty heathen. That being said, I do believe with all my heart and soul that these cold blooded killers should be executed. They will never be a contributing member of society. They serve no purpose, other than to make people scared to walk alone at night.
I'll go one further, and now I'm really going to take some heat. Nygdan is going to be all over me for this. That woman who drowned all of her children in the bathtub one by one - Kill her. I don't want to hear post-partum depression, or mental problems, "Oh poor woman, she was depressed....." I don't disagree that these are true illnesses, and real issues. They are. But she killed her own children. It was pre-meditated, right down to the fact that she removed the rug so the children couldn't get traction on the floor as they fought.

Now I pose this question to you Chissler:
Aside from the moral dilemna, which you have so passionately stated, do you not see where I am coming from?

Originally posted by lombozo

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Sounds like something my great grandma would have said... of course she'd be talking about you: Illegal immigrants did a number on my grandma's country, namely the Choctaw nation.

You pretty much make my case for me. Well said.

Touche I guess. Now on to step 2... the Choctaw STILL haven't given us amnesty mind you. Deportations begin Friday. For your convenience, please consult the BBC's weather reports and pack accordingly.

hey - those milliseconds add up!

hmm, I seem to have argued myself into a corner on this particular subject. So much for my defense of pressing 1.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
That's not what I said, nor did I imply it. I'm saying very simply, that I think that it is wrong for people who come here and have made no contributions whatsoever who are able to reap the benefits. If someone contributes, they should absolutely be able to collect. For the record, I take offense at your making it a racial issue.

For the record, I am widely regarded as a fairly offensive member.
That being said, I know full well you didn't mean it but in the denotative sense you did say it (minus the racial part) when you chose to phrase contributors as "citizens". My Uncle Harv is a citizen. He brings nothing to the table. If he ever applies for any federal money, I'll probably have to kick his butt. I agree with what you meant, but take issue with the literal meaning of the text.

Share nothing in common? Where are you coming from? I truly do not understand. I do not murder, I do not rape. So no, I do not share that in common with the scum of which I speak.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I know full well that you do not share their defining traits. My point has nothing to do with defending rapists; I refer you to my slip 'n' slide idea. I was only questioning whether you had calculated your stance or whether you were just "tough on crime" because that's what the party which espouses many of your views likes to talk about. I had you figured wrong though, if you argue for efficiency in the case of dealing with drug offenders as well, which you have affirmed, then you're just sticking to your conservative guns as opposed to walking a Republican line, and that's all good.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
You have a good point, but I disagree with you.

If I had a quarter for every time somebody did...

(I'm not knocking Israel, just making a point.)

Don't worry, I'm sure I'll get around to it later.

There are so many things that need to be addressed right here.

Totally agreed, but I think we need to pick and choose what we cut in order to pay for the things we need here based on opportunity costs, as opposed to making a clear-cut "over here or over there" call across the board.
Opportunity cost for bringing money from Israel back here... a few pissed off evangelicals and no more sword of damocles hanging over a few arab nations who are barely threats anyway: i call that a good trade.
Opportunity cost for bringing money from bases in Japan and South Korea over to domestic purposes: an increased potential for a war in a region of the world where any old Marine can tell you it really sucks to go to war (My Grandpa's brothers belabored that point to me at length when I joined the Corps).

It's all good, my friend. Nothing like a good debate. If I ever meet you, I'll buy you a beer. Stay Cool.

lol, if you think I'm contrary when I'm sober...

lombozo, I completely see where you are coming from. I can even help justify your stance, but I do not share your thoughts.

Originally posted by lombozo
It isn't revenge that I'm speaking of. I use the word justice. Believe it or not, I actually am against killing. I'm not a blood thirsty heathen.

I find a strong contradiction here.

Originally posted by lombozo
I do believe with all my heart and soul that these cold blooded killers should be executed. They will never be a contributing member of society. They serve no purpose, other than to make people scared to walk alone at night.
--
That woman who drowned all of her children in the bathtub one by one - Kill her. I don't want to hear post-partum depression, or mental problems, "Oh poor woman, she was depressed....."

Well if your not talking about revenge, what are you talking about? You say your against murder, so what would we call this?

jus‧tice 
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness:

re‧venge 
1. to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, esp. in a resentful or vindictive spirit:

It appears you are talking about revenge, but trying to convince yourself it is justice. You say your against murder, but you want to off anyone who has committed a horrific crime. I do not defend these murderers, I defend the system we stand on. Yes they are horrible people, we've been through that. But we can not undermine our system and pick and choose when we want to grant criminals their basic human rights.

Originally posted by lombozo

It isn't revenge that I'm speaking of. I use the word justice. Believe it or not, I actually am against killing. I'm not a blood thirsty heathen. That being said, I do believe with all my heart and soul that these cold blooded killers should be executed. They will never be a contributing member of society. They serve no purpose, other than to make people scared to walk alone at night.

Okay, I'm not Chissler, but I'll jump in. I know where you're coming from. I understand completely. It's a visceral reaction, and I have exactly the same one. There are some situations that are so heinous, repulsive, and inhuman they virtually cry out to our basest instincts for us to demand the extermination of the perpetrator. Which is exactly why the government should have no role in the process. To say "Killing is the ultimate wrong and if you kill someone, we'll kill you" is illogical at best. The government needs to serve as a buffer between our basic visceral instinct to extract violent retribution and the position of a civilized society to not be barbaric.

We can prevent these human monsters from terrorizing the citizenry by incarcerating them permanently. And economically, if there's no threat of execution, there's no lengthy and expensive appeals process to maintain. No they'll never be contributiong members of society, but neither will many others due to serious physical or mental handicaps, and I know you wouldn't advocate executing them. Eliminate the continued threat with permanent incarceration.

Here's some info for consideration-

According to Amnesty International, during 2005 at least 2,148 people were executed in 22 countries, 94% in China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the United States alone. [url=http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html]>SOURCE

Originally posted by yeahright
We can prevent these human monsters from terrorizing the citizenry by incarcerating them permanently. And economically, if there's no threat of execution, there's no lengthy and expensive appeals process to maintain. No they'll never be contributiong members of society, but neither will many others due to serious physical or mental handicaps, and I know you wouldn't advocate executing them. Eliminate the continued threat with permanent incarceration.

Exactly.

As I've indicated above, the figures were much lower in cases where capital punishment is not being pursued.

Over $2 million is spent on appeals, while $750,000 could house an inmate for forty years.

I'm no mathematician, but I do have some common sense.

Originally posted by yeahright
Look at that again- 94% of executions in 2005 were in China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and The United States! Great company, huh?

Need we say more? Great point!

Originally posted by chissler
lombozo, I completely see where you are coming from. I can even help justify your stance, but I do not share your thoughts.

Originally posted by lombozo
It isn't revenge that I'm speaking of. I use the word justice. Believe it or not, I actually am against killing. I'm not a blood thirsty heathen.

I find a strong contradiction here.

jus‧tice 
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness:

re‧venge 
1. to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, esp. in a resentful or vindictive spirit:

It appears you are talking about revenge, but trying to convince yourself it is justice. You say your against murder, but you want to off anyone who has committed a horrific crime. I do not defend these murderers, I defend the system we stand on. Yes they are horrible people, we've been through that. But we can not undermine our system and pick and choose when we want to grant criminals their basic human rights.

You make it pretty hard to rebutt. From here on out I dub thee Chissler as "Mr. Research". I understand where you're coming from as well, so on this particular point we shall agree to disagree, even though I'm right.

We've been agreeing to disagree since the beginning. Great thread.

Theres about 10 other points to attack here, I think I'll reread that initial post and give it another go here.

Originally posted by lombozo
Why do we dump Billions of dollars per year on other countries, when my kids don't have computers in their schools.

First of all we will get past the, computers in their schools, statement and look at it from the broader perspective. The message here is, why do we care for children who are on another continent when we have those before our eyes who need help?

It really is a great question that has plenty of room for discussion.

First and foremost we need to acknowledge that we are all humans. Whether we are Canadian, American, African, etc., we are all humans and deserve the same treatment. Now if we look at the poverty levels in America, and compare them to those in Africa, I believe it becomes very clear why we spend billions on these children.

Children in Africa are dieing from starvation, dehydration, or malnutrition. Children in America are not dieing from these problems. So first, we are trying to at least get these kids on the same playing level. If a kid dies in New York, or a kid dies in Rhwanda, it is a loss of life. The amount of suffering does not change. The only variable here is who suffers. Are we willing to place all of the suffering on others?

To think so would be hypocritical of everyone who came before you. Both World Wars? The rest of the world stepped in to fight for a cause. They fought because every life was important. It didn't matter what part of the world you were from, what religion you stood for or political agenda you held, every life held importance.

So for us to stand here today and say, we need to take care of our own first, is a tad bit selfish in my opinion. Please, take no offense. America is the most powerful nation on earth. This role comes with some expectations and I would like to think many people cherish this role. We should be willing to cut a few corners here and there to save a life. Even if it is on the other side of the world.

Cool, you know where to find me.
Looking forward to our next debate.