GabiandVi

Remembered in context and with the understanding that, as the Soviet style communists would put it, people and parts of history can be "rehabilitated." The victor writes history, and in this age, often a person with an agenda rewrites it.
We can't forget history. We should definitely remember it, but it only to be learned from. I see it too often brought up as "proof" in the present.
As for Lincoln and the civil war, take a look at the Red River campaign to get an idea of what some significant underlying motivations for the war actually were, and then look at "reconstruction." It was evil and set progress back by decades if not centuries (in terms of many things including race relations.) These are aspects of our history that are almost always forgotten.

I look Greek though I have no Greek heritage. Walking around in Greece, no one ever suspected me of wrong-doing, but if I were held by police for some sort of disturbance in Greece, or a traffic violation, or shoplifting, etc., I would have had to prove who I was. At that point, any ID I held would indicate my residency status. What's wrong with that? I knew people who lived in Greece illegally, and they were very careful not to break any laws or get themselves in any situations where they would be asked for ID by officials. It seems like common sense to me. Do illegals in the US actually expect to be able to be ticketed for speeding without their illegal presence being discovered? That's a sad commentary on how inefficient and ineffective our law enforcement is if that's the case.
In China, I was obviously a foreigner. If I hit another bike-rider with my bike and could not produce evidence of residency, I would have been deported after paying a hefty fine, paying off my victim, or serving time in Chinese prison. (My friend, a legal resident of China, was stopped at the airport from traveling abroad during holidays because he was embroiled in such a scenario.) What's wrong with that?
The AZ law specifically states that if the police apprehend someone for another reason, and they suspect that the person is not a legal resident, they are duty bound to pursue details of that person's residency status and detain any who cannot prove legal residency. I don't see anything wrong with that EXCEPT that it should include everyone, not just suspected illegals. EVERYONE who is EVER stopped by the police should have their details checked out. I'm shocked to learn this isn't common practice.
Once their details are checked and they are discovered to be illegal residents, are we supposed to ignore current federal law? I just don't get where the problem comes in.

I look Greek though I have no Greek heritage. Walking around in Greece, no one ever suspected me of wrong-doing, but if I were held by police for some sort of disturbance in Greece, or a traffic violation, or shoplifting, etc., I would have had to prove who I was. At that point, any ID I held would indicate my residency status. What's wrong with that? I knew people who lived in Greece illegally, and they were very careful not to break any laws or get themselves in any situations where they would be asked for ID by officials. It seems like common sense to me. Do illegals in the US actually expect to be able to be ticketed for speeding without their illegal presence being discovered? That's a sad commentary on how inefficient and ineffective our law enforcement is if that's the case.
In China, I was obviously a foreigner. If I hit another bike-rider with my bike and could not produce evidence of residency, I would have been deported after paying a hefty fine, paying off my victim, or serving time in Chinese prison. (My friend, a legal resident of China, was stopped at the airport from traveling abroad during holidays because he was embroiled in such a scenario.) What's wrong with that?
The AZ law specifically states that if the police apprehend someone for another reason, and they suspect that the person is not a legal resident, they are duty bound to pursue details of that person's residency status and detain any who cannot prove legal residency. I don't see anything wrong with that EXCEPT that it should include everyone, not just suspected illegals. EVERYONE who is EVER stopped by the police should have their details checked out. I'm shocked to learn this isn't common practice.
Once their details are checked and they are discovered to be illegal residents, are we supposed to ignore current federal law? I just don't get where the problem comes in.

I don't get the outrage, either. I have to show ID all the time - at the doctor's office, writing a check, to view an apartment, to lease an apartment, to get a job, to buy alcohol, to buy a car, to get my car inspected, to rent a car, to open a bank account, to fly, to register for a class, to take my daughter out of the hospital, etc. Years ago I was pulled over for speeding. I had to show my driver's license. It took forever because the police had to call in my details and wait to find there were no bench warrants out for my arrest.
I'm amazed anyone can get anything done in this country without proper ID, and I hope to G*d that the police are verifying IDs of everyone they stop for any reason. It's due to laxness with regard to that that serial murderers and child molestors slip through the hands of the police. On the other hand, how many times do we hear of a violent criminal being caught due to a traffic violation? Should we say everyone should be inspected except those we suspect might be here illegally? Or should we say that if we find they are here illegally, we should ignore that law completely? What's the problem?
In China, I had to show my passport with my visa to sleep anywhere but in my apartment. When I had visitors spending the night in my apartment, the apartment managers/landlord, had to photocopy their passports and register their stay with the foreign police. My husband carries his passport with him everywhere here because he expects he'll be asked for it at every turn. In his country, he had to carry his national ID with him at all times, and here his passport is the equivalent until he gets his GC.
Greeks also had to carry their national IDs everywhere they went, and I was supposed to carry my passport and GC. I didn't always carry them because I didn't want them to be stolen, but I was VERY WELL AWARE that if I got into any trouble it was going to be double because I didn't have my IDs. I knew I'd eventually be bailed out because I was there legally and could prove it after the fact, but of course I knew I'd be asked to prove it if I ever got into any other trouble. You'd have to be an idiot not to know that. Again, what's the problem?

I find it interesting that we have come to the point in our understanding where we think that a tax cut is something we have to "pay for", where we equate paying the government less of the money we've earned with the government paying us money we haven't earned, and where "fair share" means somebody pays more than somebody else. Just saying.

I look Greek though I have no Greek heritage. Walking around in Greece, no one ever suspected me of wrong-doing, but if I were held by police for some sort of disturbance in Greece, or a traffic violation, or shoplifting, etc., I would have had to prove who I was. At that point, any ID I held would indicate my residency status. What's wrong with that? I knew people who lived in Greece illegally, and they were very careful not to break any laws or get themselves in any situations where they would be asked for ID by officials. It seems like common sense to me. Do illegals in the US actually expect to be able to be ticketed for speeding without their illegal presence being discovered? That's a sad commentary on how inefficient and ineffective our law enforcement is if that's the case.
In China, I was obviously a foreigner. If I hit another bike-rider with my bike and could not produce evidence of residency, I would have been deported after paying a hefty fine, paying off my victim, or serving time in Chinese prison. (My friend, a legal resident of China, was stopped at the airport from traveling abroad during holidays because he was embroiled in such a scenario.) What's wrong with that?
The AZ law specifically states that if the police apprehend someone for another reason, and they suspect that the person is not a legal resident, they are duty bound to pursue details of that person's residency status and detain any who cannot prove legal residency. I don't see anything wrong with that EXCEPT that it should include everyone, not just suspected illegals. EVERYONE who is EVER stopped by the police should have their details checked out. I'm shocked to learn this isn't common practice.
Once their details are checked and they are discovered to be illegal residents, are we supposed to ignore current federal law? I just don't get where the problem comes in.

I don't get the outrage, either. I have to show ID all the time - at the doctor's office, writing a check, to view an apartment, to lease an apartment, to get a job, to buy alcohol, to buy a car, to get my car inspected, to rent a car, to open a bank account, to fly, to register for a class, to take my daughter out of the hospital, etc. Years ago I was pulled over for speeding. I had to show my driver's license. It took forever because the police had to call in my details and wait to find there were no bench warrants out for my arrest.
I'm amazed anyone can get anything done in this country without proper ID, and I hope to G*d that the police are verifying IDs of everyone they stop for any reason. It's due to laxness with regard to that that serial murderers and child molestors slip through the hands of the police. On the other hand, how many times do we hear of a violent criminal being caught due to a traffic violation? Should we say everyone should be inspected except those we suspect might be here illegally? Or should we say that if we find they are here illegally, we should ignore that law completely? What's the problem?
In China, I had to show my passport with my visa to sleep anywhere but in my apartment. When I had visitors spending the night in my apartment, the apartment managers/landlord, had to photocopy their passports and register their stay with the foreign police. My husband carries his passport with him everywhere here because he expects he'll be asked for it at every turn. In his country, he had to carry his national ID with him at all times, and here his passport is the equivalent until he gets his GC.
Greeks also had to carry their national IDs everywhere they went, and I was supposed to carry my passport and GC. I didn't always carry them because I didn't want them to be stolen, but I was VERY WELL AWARE that if I got into any trouble it was going to be double because I didn't have my IDs. I knew I'd eventually be bailed out because I was there legally and could prove it after the fact, but of course I knew I'd be asked to prove it if I ever got into any other trouble. You'd have to be an idiot not to know that. Again, what's the problem?

Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "politics makes strange bedfellows?" Are you really going to reject every political move you agree with just because of the strange bedfellows who are behind it? And what about Byrd, for one small example? Do you disagree with everything he stood for because he was a member of a white supremicist group? If so, you'd have to agree with this Arizona law.
If you aren't anti-illegal immigration, then by definition you are pro-illegal immigration. Do you really support open borders and the exploitation of illegal workers? I think you must be the racist you see behind every corner. Let's just legalize slavery again. Or, because the slaves in this case desired the bondage to begin with because they consider it beneficial to themselves, let's just give them full rights of LPRs. That makes sense!
Why control immigration at all? Why would any nation that's not just a bunch of bigots want to do that? Uh oh, I guess the entire world if filled with bigots. Every country controls immigration. What horrible citizens they all have. Imagine this! They actually expect their immigration laws to mean something. Racist pigs!!!
Nice picture. Really, though, what does it have to do with the rights of Arizona to have this law or not? Nothing! Let's say that everyone who wrote this law is a member of the KKK like Byrd was. Let's say that only KKK members supported this law. If it is constitutional, that changes nothing.

So stop using that stupid, completely incorrect argument.
It comes down to whether you believe there is a life involved or not, and if there is a life involved, when does the convenience of one person outweigh the life of another? If you believe there is a life but that life is not as significant as the right to choose, then say so. If you don't believe there is a life involved, then say that. But surely, anyone with an inkling of an open mind can understand and respect the compulsion of others who believe that abortion is the ending of a life to seek protection for that life. I never understand the contempt I see for people who are fighting for what seems to be the most basic issue in, well, in life.
And if abortion is the ending of a life, by definition, it is murder, just as, btw, the death penalty is.
So stop using the "abortion for the health of the mother" defense. It's stupid and completely incorrect. See above.

Wrong. Murder is a legal definition. Murder is also a moral definition. The latter existed before the former. The latter is the reason for the former. Have you utterly forgotten this, or did you never understand it?

I might say yes if it weren't for the fact that I have a child. I never found death a scary idea before she came along. It's not really about being afraid of death. I just don't trust anyone to look after my child as well as me, even my husband.

Total BS! Your original response to the picture was "Do you lack common sense!" You delude yourself. You never showed any concern for the poster of the picture. You were being dramatic and fabricating outrage.

Total BS! Your original response to the picture was "Do you lack common sense!" You delude yourself. You never showed any concern for the poster of the picture. You were being dramatic and fabricating outrage.

Total BS! Your original response to the picture was "Do you lack common sense!" You delude yourself. You never showed any concern for the poster of the picture. You were being dramatic and fabricating outrage.

But here's the thing, there are millions of people around the world who don't even have the chance to immigrate illegally or overstay a non-immigrant visa and who also have NO WAY to immigrate legally but who would love to do so. This boy benefited from 15 years of living in the US. While I might agree to some sort of dispensation for children brought to the US to stay illegally that they should not face a ban if they return as adults to their own countries, any sympathy I have for this boy is tempered by the sympathy I have for all those people around the world who haven't had the chances he has taken such great advantage of.

Which is why I don't waste my time arguing it.
No offense, but your ignorance of the term "border fence" cannot be an excuse for any journalist or editor writing about it. In fact, if that is the excuse, it would be more shameful than their blatant attempt at manipulation. And you yourself have implied that "border fence" is no euphemism for what it names when you stated that you see "separating fence" as an equivalent term. Therefore there is no reason to suddenly change the term that has been in use for over a decade except to manipulate the perceptions of the reader. "Border fence" describes it exactly - a fence on the border. It's not as though the term has been "friendship fence" or even "protecting fence." Though a MUCH better argument can be made that the "only" purpose of a fence is to protect the contents within it than that its "only" purpose is to separate the things on either side. And yet I'm sure you would agree with me that "protecting fence" would be blatant attempt at manipulation. Why, then, would you deny that "separating fence" is not so?
As for others on this thread, do not be so sure they are as ignorant as you of the term, "border fence." My point that you chimed in on was that they were not commenting on the unique twisting of the term, but arguing that the twist was defensible because a fence can only be used to "separate." (Which as stated before is a ridiculously simplistic definition and not even accurate.)
Sorry. Perhaps in the same way you extracted from what I've written that I was trying to establish a pattern of bias with one example.
What is there to debate? As you have stated, it's pretty basic. Why waste time stating the obvious?
The point of this, as I've stated, was that I found this example to be interesting because it was so blatant. (By that I mean not very subtle or clever.) You argue that it isn't. About that, we can have a discussion.
But not every topic on VJ is meant to be a debate. Some are just thrown out there because they are interesting.

Which is why I don't waste my time arguing it.
No offense, but your ignorance of the term "border fence" cannot be an excuse for any journalist or editor writing about it. In fact, if that is the excuse, it would be more shameful than their blatant attempt at manipulation. And you yourself have implied that "border fence" is no euphemism for what it names when you stated that you see "separating fence" as an equivalent term. Therefore there is no reason to suddenly change the term that has been in use for over a decade except to manipulate the perceptions of the reader. "Border fence" describes it exactly - a fence on the border. It's not as though the term has been "friendship fence" or even "protecting fence." Though a MUCH better argument can be made that the "only" purpose of a fence is to protect the contents within it than that its "only" purpose is to separate the things on either side. And yet I'm sure you would agree with me that "protecting fence" would be blatant attempt at manipulation. Why, then, would you deny that "separating fence" is not so?
As for others on this thread, do not be so sure they are as ignorant as you of the term, "border fence." My point that you chimed in on was that they were not commenting on the unique twisting of the term, but arguing that the twist was defensible because a fence can only be used to "separate." (Which as stated before is a ridiculously simplistic definition and not even accurate.)
Sorry. Perhaps in the same way you extracted from what I've written that I was trying to establish a pattern of bias with one example.
What is there to debate? As you have stated, it's pretty basic. Why waste time stating the obvious?
The point of this, as I've stated, was that I found this example to be interesting because it was so blatant. (By that I mean not very subtle or clever.) You argue that it isn't. About that, we can have a discussion.
But not every topic on VJ is meant to be a debate. Some are just thrown out there because they are interesting.

You either didn't read the question through, or you are saying that the date that the US finds it does not, at that point, need any engineers, no special skills visa for engineers should ever be granted again, ever in the future, and that particular special skill should be ruled out for any future need.

By that logic the only thing higher taxation on the rich is supposed to achieve is to redistribute the wealth. Therefore, every headline should refer to such a tax as a "redistribution tax."
You are certainly entitled to your emotional response to an attempt to control borders. Apparantly, the media outlet responsible for that headline agrees with you. But if you condone this sort of manipulative language being used by the media, then turnabout is fairplay.

Good for your fiancee's family. But it is irrelevant to the point. There is NO WAY to come legally unless you have an immediate family member to petition you or you have a special skill or you win the greencard lottery.
As for the US not being the center of the universe, you are preaching to the choir. But it doesn't change the UNDENIABLE fact that, while your fiancee's family and Sachincky's family haven't expressed any desire to come here, MILLIONS around the world do to the point that some even risk dying in ship containers etc. to get here. Meanwhile, unless they fit the criteria listed above, there is no way for them to come LEGALLY.

Okay. This is where we disagree. This sort of road to residency and citizenship would not be a new concept in US immigration history. It is how a large portion of our forefathers established themselves here, and not so long ago.
I would want to see different restrictions for such a visa than we have for other visas, but I think there has to ultimately be a road to residency and citizenship.

Actually, Canada did just this and I'm pretty sure they are first-world. They needed workers, skilled and unskilled, and so they opened immigration to unsponsored visas. Many of the people who took these jobs were as skilled as my husband's family members, but they were happy to come to sweep floors or work in fast food joints.
And I'm not even talking about unsponsored visas. I'm talking about employment based visas. Why would you forbid any possibility for employment visas for people who hold the values that America was built on and that make America strong? I don't see why you would let the lettuce rot in the fields rather than offer visas so that people could pick it legally. You don't have to make that decision now because we have plenty of people to pick it illegally. Does that sit well with you? It doesn't with me.
I'm not talking about having a quota or offering the visas when we have unemployed Americans. But if we needed unskilled workers, why wouldn't we offer the visas? We have granted UNSPONSORED visas in the past and the people who took them did all sorts of jobs, including unskilled jobs. Why shouldn't we offer sponsored visas for people willing to do manual labor if we needed them?
And on another note, I'm not suggesting there is anything we can do about it, but the people I'm talking about would do more to improve our country than a lot of native born citizens that I serve in my job.

Actually, Canada did just this and I'm pretty sure they are first-world. They needed workers, skilled and unskilled, and so they opened immigration to unsponsored visas. Many of the people who took these jobs were as skilled as my husband's family members, but they were happy to come to sweep floors or work in fast food joints.
And I'm not even talking about unsponsored visas. I'm talking about employment based visas. Why would you forbid any possibility for employment visas for people who hold the values that America was built on and that make America strong? I don't see why you would let the lettuce rot in the fields rather than offer visas so that people could pick it legally. You don't have to make that decision now because we have plenty of people to pick it illegally. Does that sit well with you? It doesn't with me.
I'm not talking about having a quota or offering the visas when we have unemployed Americans. But if we needed unskilled workers, why wouldn't we offer the visas? We have granted UNSPONSORED visas in the past and the people who took them did all sorts of jobs, including unskilled jobs. Why shouldn't we offer sponsored visas for people willing to do manual labor if we needed them?
And on another note, I'm not suggesting there is anything we can do about it, but the people I'm talking about would do more to improve our country than a lot of native born citizens that I serve in my job.

I am completely against amnesty! We might as well open our borders. But I believe there have to be other options. I don't buy any argument that illegal workers do not suppress wages. Nor do I buy any argument that they do not result in Americans being unemployed or underemployed. By the same token, if EVERY illegal worker went home tomorrow, we would not be able to fill all the jobs with those unemployed Americans. We definitely need unskilled immigrants. I would prefer them to be legal rather than illegal, and it seems fair that we make it truly an immigrant visa. I'm not saying you couldn't extend the presence test for naturalization for these visas and maybe make every such visa short term and renewal contingient upon need and even to a particular field of employment, but I'm not against offering some such visa. In fact, I would like to see it in place.
Currently, we have no visa for people willing to work hard to get ahead. That's what our country is based on. I blame this primarily on illegal immigration.

I am completely against amnesty! We might as well open our borders. But I believe there have to be other options. I don't buy any argument that illegal workers do not suppress wages. Nor do I buy any argument that they do not result in Americans being unemployed or underemployed. By the same token, if EVERY illegal worker went home tomorrow, we would not be able to fill all the jobs with those unemployed Americans. We definitely need unskilled immigrants. I would prefer them to be legal rather than illegal, and it seems fair that we make it truly an immigrant visa. I'm not saying you couldn't extend the presence test for naturalization for these visas and maybe make every such visa short term and renewal contingient upon need and even to a particular field of employment, but I'm not against offering some such visa. In fact, I would like to see it in place.
Currently, we have no visa for people willing to work hard to get ahead. That's what our country is based on. I blame this primarily on illegal immigration.