In Alabama, a Harsh Bill for Residents Here Illegally

page: 21
36
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zamini
The more I think about it the more I see that a worldwide revolution, with people from all over the globe understanding each other and their goals, is the only way people will be able to crawl out of these tribal mindsets.


Fully agreed. This has been my hope for the future for a long time now, I've often expressed it on ATS. Imagine how far our species could come if we no longer spend our time, energy, and resources fighting each other. But, when you say we have to understand each other and their goals, that means everybody. Even those who subscribe to organized religions, some people are driven more by emotion than logic, and we can't go around talking down to them or calling them stupid because of their beliefs. Otherwise we'd be right back at square one, fighting each other. We'd have to strike a balance between working together, and allowing all human beings to have their own personal liberties, in which they are allowed to make their own choices, as long as they don't harm or try to force their choices on others.

There are plenty of untapped resources for all of us, out there in space. Hell, there's plenty of untapped resources in Mexico on land owned by the ultra rich, yet the elitists there and the elitists here are in cahoots and want this situation to continue. That's why they try so hard to smack down any laws that are passed that may jeopardize it.

I agree that the illegals themselves are by far not the main problem, but they are a part of it (until our species manages to do away with borders and work together). I'm not even gonna compare numbers or statistics, since nobody believes sources that don't agree with their personal opinions anyway. I live down here in the middle of it, I see with my own eyes the problems caused by floods of illegal migrants. They stress our social welfare systems tremendously, and thanks to the Spaniards and forcing their catholic beliefs on them, they won't use birth control, so they have alot of children also on the tax payer dime, children that will earn them more welfare, but that will be unguided since their father is out working his hands to the bone for hardly anything at the benefit of some rich f-er, and is far too exhausted to properly guide and mentor his children. So, they turn to gangs as their guidance. Then they end up in prison, costing the tax payer even more. All the while they don't pay income taxes, so they just take from ours. That's not right, nor is it fair. Until we find a better way for all of us, we have to deal with this problem from all angles.




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


So in other words, you support a one world government? You will never get people to get along in harmony and peace. Just won't happen. Even if you took away all money, there would still be conflict. It's our nature, it's built into us, it's how we have survived for so long. You will NEVER get anyone in the middle east to get along. Those people have been fighting each other since the dawn of time, you not going to change them now.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
A letter to McD's and the others:

Due to your compromising of American laws and traditions, I will no longer be patronizing any of your establishments. Until you enforce immigration compliance, and also stop enforcing bi-lingual (spanish) practices I will not spend one more dime with your business. Your business practices hurt Americans looking for work, and you degrade our countries traditions by requiring employees to be bi-lingual. you print and advertize in the US with spanish. We are NOT Mexico! I am encouraging everyone I know to follow suit and hopefully your bottom line will feel this. We Americans are fed up with our country being overrun by illegal immigrants, and more so identify businesses such as your with aiding and abetting this.

This is what I send to businesses who support these people.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Good for Alabama. It would be nice if Colorado would follow suit, but with John Hickenlooper as Governor (Mr. Sanctuary City himself), it won't happen. It's time to secure the border, and start enforcing these laws. Enough is enough, and ILLEGAL is ILLEGAL.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by haarvik
So in other words, you support a one world government?


If it's a government truly for the people, by the people? Absolutely. I'm not talking about the 'NWO' idea in which the elitists still run the show. And you're right, as was discussed earlier in the thread, we've evolved in tribal settings where competition and conflict amongst tribes meant life or death. I do believe we will evolve to cooperate on a global scale, though. It won't happen overnight, I realize. We will likely have to evolve to that point.

Let's look at the middle east. They are humans, too. The problem over there, is the same as it is everywhere, just a little more explosive right now. Rich, elitists control them using organized religion and indoctrination from birth to convince them the cause of their problems aren't their leaders who take ALL their wealth and resources for themselves, but other people who live very far away that wish to destroy the religion and way of life they've been indoctrinated to follow, without question. Same goes on here, and everywhere. My hope, is that all humans have a collective awakening, and tear the system down, and create one in which all the people can benefit. I know, it's a pretty tall order. But hope is hope.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 



Even those who subscribe to organized religions, some people are driven more by emotion than logic, and we can't go around talking down to them or calling them stupid because of their beliefs.


That would involve lying. And sooner or later that will come back to haunt folks. Their beliefs are stupid, period. The reason why they believe is not stupid, it is serious. But the belief itself is ridiculously stupid. Talking down to people? Man up, words don't cut off heads like religious fundamentalists. They don't shoot hundreds of millions like the conquistadors. They don't gas people like the popes Zyklon B. Why don't we do ourselves a favor and NOT forget the atrocities committed upon our brothers and sisters under the guise of a religious belief in order to get rid of these ideas.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by daskakik
 


Once again, our agents trying to stop the flow of weapons across the border is a DOMESTIC policy, not a law. Mexico can no more blame us for guns coming across the border, than we can blame the Mexican government for allowing drugs to cross into the U.S. And yes, Mexican officials not only turn a blind eye to drug smuggling, but are often complicit directly providing resources to smugglers or even smuggling the drugs themselves.


It is part of an agreement settled upon by both parties. You asked for proof of these agreements and I gave them. So can you stop acting like the US is the victim.

For example, I am not obligated to give my neighbors son money but if I make an agreement to pay him for mowing my lawn then it is my obligation to give him money when he does his part.

They don't turn a blind eye to drug smuggling any more than the border patrol, they are just unable to stop it. If you had read the links that I posted you would see that they are working on it together so if the guns and/or drugs are getting through they both must be turning a blind eye.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zamini
Talking down to people? Man up, words don't cut off heads like religious fundamentalists.


No, but words often lead to violence. I wasn't suggesting we'd be able to coexist with extremists. I made it clear that personal liberties would have to be respected so long as others aren't harmed, and cutting heads off clearly falls into that category, no? Violent extremists would have to be dealt with, and eliminated. But, it seems to me that you would want to somehow outlaw religion itself? How would you go about that without becoming Adolf Hitler? Some people need to put a name on their spirituality, and they have every right to do so as long as they don't harm others. What you're suggesting is still the tribal mindset you want to see us crawl out of. Without respect for ALL people, and their beliefs (as long as others aren't harmed)...there will be division and conflict. If organized religion fades out, it must do so on it's own lack of merit...not at gunpoint.



Why don't we do ourselves a favor and NOT forget the atrocities committed upon our brothers and sisters under the guise of a religious belief in order to get rid of these ideas.


I'm not saying we forget, or tolerate violence in the name of religion...but we can't get rid of organized religion. That would violate personal liberties, it's not yours or my place to tell people what they're allowed to believe...just as it's not theirs to tell us.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 



But, it seems to me that you would want to somehow outlaw religion itself?


Outlaw the hell out of religious organizations as the Vatican.


How would you go about that without becoming Adolf Hitler?


Stop pointing at the straw people you create.


Some people need to put a name on their spirituality, and they have every right to do so as long as they don't harm others.


As soon as that turns into corrupting of beliefs, by say - laundering money for organized crime, which is what is happening, that right becomes a right to abuse. In that respect, if these organizations are willing to reorganize into something free of criminal behavior - then by all means, they have the right to do that.

But more often than not it's just running around in circles, which is also what is happening right now - you have to understand that the big big majority of politicians and lawmakers are ignorant on what is happening out there, including what the real issues are with subjects like immigration, so what you get are static solutions; ie "kick x amount out" "pardon x amount", neither of which is an actual solution to the problem but is more akin to fighting symptoms.


If organized religion fades out, it must do so on it's own lack of merit...not at gunpoint.


Nobody is saying that. But the religion is kind of off topic.


That would violate personal liberties, it's not yours or my place to tell people what they're allowed to believe...just as it's not theirs to tell us.


And that is totally not what I am saying.

What I am saying is, these things are done under the guise of religion. Once the criminally minds in these institutions are gone I'm sure you will see the religions flourish and balance themselves out with each other naturally.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zamini

How would you go about that without becoming Adolf Hitler?


Stop pointing at the straw people you create.


What? I'm not creating straw people, I was trying to understand your position.



What I am saying is, these things are done under the guise of religion. Once the criminally minds in these institutions are gone I'm sure you will see the religions flourish and balance themselves out with each other naturally.


No argument there. Criminal activities harm others, and that goes far beyond personal liberties, and would have to be stopped. Seems we are both in agreement on that. If we were in charge, churches certainly would no longer be as free from scrutiny as they are currently...



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 



Again, you're wrong. It was Carter that deregulated the economy, but it was finished just in time for Reagan to take credit for it. Reagan never deregulated anything, in fact he increased the amount of regulations.


You might think you are telling the truth, but you are repeating propaganda lies.

Sounds like the latest propaganda from the free market priests of the Mises institute of voodoo economics. There was some deregulation under Carter, but Reagan was the champion of dereg. Either way, Neither Carter's era nor Reagan's, or any era of loose regulation has been economically stable. Dereg always leads to a boom followed by and economic bust where far more was lost than ever gained. The sixties and the nineties were the best periods of economic growth in U.S. and world history. Both periods were the result of an increase in regulations, and a crack down on illegal immigration.

It is not how I sound, it is how you sound. Liberal elitists are the biggest bigots of all.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


You hit the nail on the head with this statement.


There are plenty of untapped resources for all of us, out there in space. Hell, there's plenty of untapped resources in Mexico on land owned by the ultra rich, yet the elitists there and the elitists here are in cahoots and want this situation to continue. That's why they try so hard to smack down any laws that are passed that may jeopardize it.


Mexico has always been poor, because it is controlled by an oligarchy of rich families who have controlled the nation since its inception. You people need to do some research and learn something about history.

Like people from all over the world, Mexicans have always sought to move and live in the U.S., because we established individual right, opportunity for all through democracy and a market system that for the most part evenly enforces a fair set of rules allowing market competition, and therefore improved efficiency.

Employment of illegal immigration is a way for crooks to screw everyone, including the immigrants.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by daskakik
 


Once again, our agents trying to stop the flow of weapons across the border is a DOMESTIC policy, not a law. Mexico can no more blame us for guns coming across the border, than we can blame the Mexican government for allowing drugs to cross into the U.S. And yes, Mexican officials not only turn a blind eye to drug smuggling, but are often complicit directly providing resources to smugglers or even smuggling the drugs themselves.


It is part of an agreement settled upon by both parties. You asked for proof of these agreements and I gave them. So can you stop acting like the US is the victim.

For example, I am not obligated to give my neighbors son money but if I make an agreement to pay him for mowing my lawn then it is my obligation to give him money when he does his part.

They don't turn a blind eye to drug smuggling any more than the border patrol, they are just unable to stop it. If you had read the links that I posted you would see that they are working on it together so if the guns and/or drugs are getting through they both must be turning a blind eye.


You DO realize that the Zetas cartel is Mexican Special Forces right?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
You DO realize that the Zetas cartel is Mexican Special Forces right?


Actually were Mexican Special Forces. Trained by the US at WHISC (Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) located in Fort Benning, Georgia, USA.

What's your point?
edit on 7-6-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Sounds like the latest propaganda from the free market priests of the Mises institute of voodoo economics.

I don't advocate ``Voodoo economics``....... You do, iirc you said earlier in this thread that the govt should have more control over the means of production, i.e, ``Supply-side economics``or ``Keynesian economics`` or some type of fascist, neoliberal economic system.



Dereg always leads to a boom followed by and economic bust where far more was lost than ever gained.

The booms and busts often come from governments creating safety nets for businesses to do things that they normally wouldn't do. Like in the 90's when the government wanted everyone to own a home, and they made banks loan out money to people that they knew couldn't afford to ever pay them back.

People borrowed the money, spent the money -- the boom and when it was time to repay they couldn't -- the bust. The two together, the boom and the bust.



The sixties and the nineties were the best periods of economic growth in U.S. and world history. Both periods were the result of an increase in regulations, and a crack down on illegal immigration.

What specific regulations made our economy great in the 60's? It was Clinton that ``deregulated`` the banks and signed the ``Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act`` that eliminated ``Glass-Steagall``, creating a safety net for these banks and starting our current financial crisis.
edit on 7-6-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: 60



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


Yes, you do advocate voodoo economics.

I did not say that government should have more control over the means of production, stop making things up.

The booms and busts come from corrupt business practices, like this latest housing boom created by intentional over rating of mortgage bonds.

The 1960ties was the strongest period of economic growth in our nations history.

The 90ties was also a period of our strongest economic growth, most of which, during that time Clinton actively regulated business activities, enforcing the laws which Reagan and Bush ignored. Forcing corporations to meet the legal requirements for public safety actually forces those companies to hire people, in order to do the things necessary to keep from polluting our environment, or from cheating people through fraud.

Start enforcing regs, making business pay for what government must do to protect the public, let those costs be reflected in the products as they are a part of the cost of those products.

Kick out the illegals, or most of them. Make the employers of those illegals pay massive fines as their debt to society for their crimes. Those illegals who want to remain in the U.S. will have to cooperate with the government in collecting fines from the criminals who employed them.

Doing these two things could possibly restart our economy alone.

It was Newt Gingrich and the republican congress that pushed the banking deregulation, Clinton foolishly signed the bill in a compromise. It was his biggest mistake as a president.

Glad to see that you recognize that de-regulation created our current economic crisis, however, eliminating Glass -Steagall didn't create a safety net for the banks, it simply allowed them to commit fraud at will, which they immediately began doing.

If you recognize that de-regulation created our current economic crisis, why do you still support it. The same thing goes for illegal immigration. Both policies only support the crooks, while screwing over everybody else.

edit on 7-6-2011 by poet1b because: add line about restarting economy



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Yes, you do advocate voodoo economics.

No I don't. Supply Side, Trickle Down/Voodoo theories both depend on lowering taxes and reducing regulatory burdens in order to free up entrepreneurs to promote increasing wealth so the government can have more money. They hope to generate more wealth to pay for the Warfare/Welfare state or any type of massive government spending program. Much like Keynesianism, which is why it seems so imperialistic.



I did not say that government should have more control over the means of production, stop making things up.

You just said that the govt should force companies to hire people.




The booms and busts come from corrupt business practices, like this latest housing boom created by intentional over rating of mortgage bonds.

But, don't you ever ask yourself why all these people feel safe in taking such risks, or how these institutions get so big and dangerous in the first place?



The 90ties was also a period of our strongest economic growth, most of which, during that time Clinton actively regulated business activities, enforcing the laws which Reagan and Bush ignored. Forcing corporations to meet the legal requirements for public safety actually forces those companies to hire people, in order to do the things necessary to keep from polluting our environment, or from cheating people through fraud.

Clinton also singed NAFTA. He put sanctions on many countries, entered us into a few wars and he got lucky because congress wouldn't let him push through many of his big govt spending bills. He also made it extremely easy for people to get mortgages. Many of the things he did have come back to hurt us.



Doing these two things could possibly restart our economy alone.

I doubt that.



Glad to see that you recognize that de-regulation created our current economic crisis, however, eliminating Glass -Steagall didn't create a safety net for the banks, it simply allowed them to commit fraud at will, which they immediately began doing.

I never said removing the Glass-Steagall act created a safety net, the Gramm–Leach–Bliley act did. Glass-Steagall had very little to do with trying to stop banks from committing fraud.



If you recognize that de-regulation created our current economic crisis, why do you still support it. The same thing goes for illegal immigration. Both policies only support the crooks, while screwing over everybody else.

I never said deregulation caused our economic crisis. If only ex-Goldman Sach CEO's or ex-JP Morgan CEO's, crooks control our regulatory boards how can you trust that the government regulations that they impose will help to benefit us and not their companies?

I don't support illegal immigration. I just feel bad for them, since many of things our government does hurts their economy needlessly. I just think that if the U.S allowed Mexico to sell its goods here many illegals wouldn't need to flock here. Allow their country to freely trade with ours and then you can send them back. That way when they go back they all won't starve to death.
edit on 7-6-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 



No I don't.


Yes you do, otherwise, why would you make statements like this, and other statements blaming regulations on U.S., economic policies.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


How would the free market ``screw`` the middle class?


I never stated that government should force businesses to hire people. That is just nonsense you made up.

Why is it, that instead of looking at the truth, you only aim to weasel around and try to make claims that are not true, while denying the reasons you make such foolish claims?

Then you go on to claim that Clinton

got lucky because congress wouldn't let him push through many of his big govt spending bills.
which is just more free market talking points nonsense.

You deny the ideological roots that you have been conned into believing, and yet you consistently use their twisted logic to base your opinions on. This statement of yours is completely wrong, economic prosperity began well before the repub free market scammers got control of congress, and they did very little to control spending

Mainly the repub congress under Clinton concentrated on writing loop holes that allowed the corruption practiced by Wall Street that created our current economic collapse. They got rid of the regulations that you claim burden our economy. You really need to wake up to the reality

Then you makes this additional voodoo economics statement.


He also made it extremely easy for people to get mortgages.


You try and pretend that this is the root of the problem, NOT that the banks falsified the credit ratings on mortgage bonds, all due to the repub congress you want to praise, eliminating regulations that prevented banks from committing this fraud.

Yeah, elimination of Glass-Steagall did allow the wide spread fraud we have seen from the banks, combined with a GW admin that refuse to enforce the laws against white collar crime as well as illegal immigration. You are never going to wake up to the reality of this until you face the fact that the ideals you are expressing are based on one big con job perpetrated by the right wind media.


I never said deregulation caused our economic crisis


Then why did you make these statements?


Most Americans enjoy a heavily regulated economy. You guys asked for, now deal with it.

The U.S has very few regulations compared to the rest of the world. We use have far less before Reagan, and we've been heading down hill ever since his administration.


Clearly you are supporting deregulation, and yet you deny it. This is quite common among the free market faithful these days. They want to deny that the ideals they supported destroyed our economy. Slowly they are waking up to the reality that they were completely conned by the whole free market scam.

Repubs are the ones putting the foxes in charge of the hen house in the fed res.. They just succeeded in blocking an outsider from getting on the board.

The U.S. doesn't cause Mexico's problems, that is nonsense. Mexico's problem is its corrupt government, and its inability to evenly enforce a fair set of rules necessary for a economy to function effectively.

Repubs opened the flood gate to illegals, because it is just another way to fix the system to the advantage of the super wealthy, and another way to screw the middle class over. If they continue to have their way, we will all be just as poor as Mexico.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Yes you do, otherwise, why would you make statements like this, and other statements blaming regulations on U.S., economic policies.




I never stated that government should force businesses to hire people. That is just nonsense you made up.

You said Clinton ``forced`` companies to hired people and that was a good thing.



Why is it, that instead of looking at the truth, you only aim to weasel around and try to make claims that are not true, while denying the reasons you make such foolish claims?

Because you're not trying to tell the truth, you tell half truths to make your claims fit your point of view. You say Clinton enforced regulations and RR repealed regulations, but you never mention any specific government regulations that they enforced or repealed.



Mainly the repub congress under Clinton concentrated on writing loop holes that allowed the corruption practiced by Wall Street that created our current economic collapse. They got rid of the regulations that you claim burden our economy. You really need to wake up to the reality

You said the Clinton era was a era of ``good`` regulations that helped to grow our economy, but now it wasn't?



You try and pretend that this is the root of the problem, NOT that the banks falsified the credit ratings on mortgage bonds, all due to the repub congress you want to praise, eliminating regulations that prevented banks from committing this fraud.

No, I'm not pretending anything. I answered this in my previous post. The banks only felt safe doing that because of the passing of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley act. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley act repealed the second part of the Glass Steagall act, which prevented bankers from using depositors money on wild investment schemes. The first part the Glass Steagall act insured the banks depositors from any loses.

With the taxpayer insuring everyone, there was no reason for the banks to even care. Which is why passing the Gramm–Leach–Bliley act was doomed to fail from the start.



Yeah, elimination of Glass-Steagall did allow the wide spread fraud we have seen from the banks, combined with a GW admin that refuse to enforce the laws against white collar crime as well as illegal immigration. You are never going to wake up to the reality of this until you face the fact that the ideals you are expressing are based on one big con job perpetrated by the right wind media.

Even if Glass Steagall hadn't been repealed, there still would've been a bubble. With the govt printing money and just giving it away at low interest rates, the money has to go somewhere. If it wasn't the housing market, it would've been worthless stocks or something.

And, yes the govt should enforce the law. I don't listen to the right wing media.



Clearly you are supporting deregulation, and yet you deny it.

I'm not saying that the bankers should just run around doing whatever they want. I'm just pointing out that there's a difference between government regulation and market regulation.



They want to deny that the ideals they supported destroyed our economy. Slowly they are waking up to the reality that they were completely conned by the whole free market scam.

If you say so.



The U.S. doesn't cause Mexico's problems, that is nonsense. Mexico's problem is its corrupt government, and its inability to evenly enforce a fair set of rules necessary for a economy to function effectively.

NAFTA causes a lot of their problems, like I said before: the Mexican government took down many barriers against the U.S, but the U.S erected even more barriers against Mexico expanding the American market into Mexico. Never giving Mexican producers a chance to adapt to a new division of labor, because whatever goods Mexico had a comparative advantage in the U.S would deny that advantage through the use of barriers.

Many Mexican trucks and goods aren't allowed to cross the boarder, because our government claims that they don't meet certain ``green`` requirements. When it's just an obvious attempt to limit transnational shipping by Mexican companies.



Repubs opened the flood gate to illegals, because it is just another way to fix the system to the advantage of the super wealthy, and another way to screw the middle class over. If they continue to have their way, we will all be just as poor as Mexico.

I thought it was the republicans that wanted to close our boarders? Whatever, though. It isn't that smart profit wise to pay Mexicans under the table here when you can just sends jobs to Mexico and pay them a dollar a hour, which is around 11.00 Mexican dollars. That way you can look like a good guy in the eyes of Mexicans, but still make an insane amount of profits at the same time.
edit on 8-6-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Most folks from Alabama have Birth Certificates, apparently Kenyans "born in Hawaii" use Photoshop for their documentation needs and real laws and real order is disliked by that crowd.





new topics
 
36
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join