Lou Dobbs talking for us !!!!

hmmm...

Where the SUN rise from today? From the West?

As they say, FACT is stranger than FICTION.

Regards
GCStrat :)
 
guys,

Lou Dobbs is using centuries old device of divide and rule, it worked then seems like it works now,

for these guys we are just immigrants they just simply does'nt care legal/illegal,

just bcz we are legal Lou is not going to fight for us and no one will,
 
The Dobbster doesn't speak for anyone but himself. He is a 'social activist' masking as a journalist. I have seen tons of newscasts from him where he only has negative things to say about H1 and practically every visa alphabet he has memorised. Apparently he forgets (or deliberately omits to mention)that we cannot self-petition for GC... cannot claim benefits from the Social Security and Medicare payments we make.... and cannot competitively make higher wages because we need to beg the next employer to continue H1/GC sponsorship.

To give credit to him though, because without him, we probably wouldn't realise the scope of illegal immigration, and other social issues... and that's why I label him a social activist! But no, he ain't an ally to the legal migration groups at all.
 
ufo, you are right. let's say that the amnesty will just be for legal immigrants. we all know what he will say. let's increase visa. no. let's do x, no. and something tells me that he is against chain migration. and i don't think he would like to see the spouse of a hb1 worker hold a job.
 
Ratings ..

I always take comments from all these journalists and radio talk show hosts with a pinch of salt. Their primary goal is to increase ratings and they will do what is necessary to increase them. I would not put to much weight into what they really mean and if they really care.

What is scary is that a lot of Americans blindly follow what these so called "jounalists" have to say and form their opinions based on mostly biased coverage. Real issues are rarely discussed. Only "hot button" issues are taken up and everyone puts their own little "spin" to it.

regards,

saras
 
Exactly!

A racist like Lou talking for us means.....we are doing something very wrong....I don't know what...may be our silence regarding the immigration hype.

The way he wins the hearts of American people is by taking a stand on this issue. Other media guys claims impartial and they always have hidden agenda. I watch his show because I hate his opinions (most of them), also because he is does not keep his agenda hidden.

He seems really ignorant about the real issues. One of his shows he alleged Mexico of importing poverty to the USA. In fact the whole world knows that Western societies exported/created poverty by looting or destabilizing the so-called 3rd world. Once you (the western world) get rich, you call yourself civilized and all others (victims) as uncivilized.

Since Lou started to oppose the Bush stand on immigration....I was kind of thinking that, Bush's agenda has something good in it. The more I study Bush’s plan on immigration; I became more convinced (whether it will be approved by the House or Senate). I think Bush thinks more humane than these so called "activist".




saras76 said:
I always take comments from all these journalists and radio talk show hosts with a pinch of salt. Their primary goal is to increase ratings and they will do what is necessary to increase them. I would not put to much weight into what they really mean and if they really care.

What is scary is that a lot of Americans blindly follow what these so called "jounalists" have to say and form their opinions based on mostly biased coverage. Real issues are rarely discussed. Only "hot button" issues are taken up and everyone puts their own little "spin" to it.

regards,

saras
Click to expand...
 
All things aside ...

JANHK said:
Exactly!

A racist like Lou talking for us means.....we are doing something very wrong....I don't know what...may be our silence regarding the immigration hype.

The way he wins the hearts of American people is by taking a stand on this issue. Other media guys claims impartial and they always have hidden agenda. I watch his show because I hate his opinions (most of them), also because he is does not keep his agenda hidden.

He seems really ignorant about the real issues. One of his shows he alleged Mexico of importing poverty to the USA. In fact the whole world knows that Western societies exported/created poverty by looting or destabilizing the so-called 3rd world. Once you (the western world) get rich, you call yourself civilized and all others (victims) as uncivilized.

Since Lou started to oppose the Bush stand on immigration....I was kind of thinking that, Bush's agenda has something good in it. The more I study Bush’s plan on immigration; I became more convinced (whether it will be approved by the House or Senate). I think Bush thinks more humane than these so called "activist".
Click to expand...

JANHK,

Love him or hate him but Bush has always stuck to his guns. For better or for worse this man does have some strong convictions and I have yet to see him waiver to much. This has ofcourse led to a lot of problems.

Although I do not agree with a lot of Bush's policies, he has always been compassionate about "immigration" and more so about illegals. I think his plan is fair. The conservative Republicans that are taking a hard line against illegals are doing so purely as a political move. It is a well known fact that is is IMPOSSIBLE to deport 13 million people. Entire industries would collapse if this happened. Its not even possible logistically. How are they going to be deported? Who is going to catch them? Are there enough resources to do so? What will happen to farms, the meat industry and the hotel industry??? If the house bill makes all illegals "felons" then they would have to be arrested and put in jail. Is there jail space for 13 million people? Who is going to enforce this and who is going to catch them? If the 13 million illegals are forced to leave this country and get visas before re-entring then who is going to fill their positions while they are gone? How many are going to opt to return? What is the guarantee that they will be given work visas to return? What about their children who may be in school .. the list goes on and on.

As you can all see, the House bill is totally impractical and was done to appease the conservative republican base. The republicans in the House want to be perceived as strong on "National Security" and "Border Control". They are using this stupid, inhumane and completely impractical bill to serve this purpose. The Democrats are no different. They are trying to win the Hispanic vote by pushing radical "amnesty" provisions.

regards,

saras
 
Last edited by a moderator:
saras76 said:
It is a well known fact that is is IMPOSSIBLE to deport 13 million people. Entire industries would collapse if this happened. Its not even possible logistically.
Click to expand...

Actually, to respond to this, I am going to quote a comedian who's talk show I watch almost every night.

"Impossible to deport 13 million? Mexico did it!".
 
Saras, I think it is a pure politicial move from supporters of amesnty to claim that Republicans are in favor or deporting 11-20 million people as "mass deportations". As far as I know what was proposed was to enforce common laws and gradually, slowly let people self-deport them. Can people sell property and go back home ? Of course. That's how they came here someday, right ? If you do that the population would be gradually reduced by attrition. Some can be deported occasionally as well. If you do that, you would have plenty of time to bring in folks on legal status to replace many positions.

Every time that Rebublicans brought up the reduction by attrition plan, that silences people right away. It does because they know that works and that puts an end to their arguments.

My goal is not to start a discussion regarding the right or wrong of doing that. I am just saying that I believe that the action of letting 11-20 million people go is feasible if you do that slowly, by attrition.



is fair. The conservative Republicans that are taking a hard line against illegals are doing so purely as a political move. It is a well known fact that is is IMPOSSIBLE to deport 13 million people. Entire industries would collapse if this happened. Its not even possible logistically. How are they going to be deported? Who is going to catch them? Are there enough resources to do so? What will happen to farms, the meat industry and the hotel industry??? If the house bill makes all illegals "felons" then they would have to be arrested and put in jail. Is there jail space for 13 million people? Who is going to enforce this and who is going to catch them? If the 13 million illegals are forced to leave this country and get visas before re-entring then who is going to fill their positions while they are gone? saras
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It sounds easier than it is ...

marlon2006 said:
Saras, I think it is a pure politicial move from supporters of amesnty to claim that Republicans are in favor or deporting 11-20 million people as "mass deportations". As far as I know what was proposed was to enforce common laws and gradually, slowly let people self-deport them. Can people sell property and go back home ? Of course. That's how they came here someday, right ? If you do that the population would be gradually reduced by attrition. Some can be deported occasionally as well. If you do that, you would have plenty of time to bring in folks on legal status to replace many positions.

Every time that Rebublicans brought up the reduction by attrition plan, that silences people right away. It does because they know that works and that puts an end to their arguments.

My goal is not to start a discussion regarding the right or wrong of doing that. I am just saying that I believe that the action of letting 11-20 million people go is feasible if you do that slowly, by attrition.
Click to expand...

marlon,

You raise some very good points but I still feel that there are to many hurdles in the way of deporting 13 million people no matter how much time they are given. I bet a growing number of illegals now have US citizen children who are going to school and are American by law, what is to be done with them? Should families be expected to separate or should American kids be expected to go back with their parents only to return after they are 21 and can sponsor their families? These issues are way to complex to be solved by a piece of legislation that enforces laws ...

The US chose to ignore their own laws for years on end and they created this monster. Now they are trying to correct decades of mistakes through one piece of legislation that is far from being fair .... you cannot let 13 million people live in your country for years and then expect them to leave because you feel that it was a mistake. As reasonable as it may sound to us legals, the real world does not work this way.

The other point about people selling their homes and moving back over a period of time is not applicable because people who are here illegally do not want to go back. They broke the laws once and they will break any news laws again to be here. Enforcement of any tough law is going to be a nightmare because the numbers are just out of wack ... that is what I feel.

regards,

saras
 
It was Jay Leno! Heh!

Here's another line:
"What are these illegals gonna do if we don't give them Amnesty? LEAVE???"

GaramChai2go said:
Who was the comedian, sometimes these guys are very funny.....
Click to expand...
 
I totally understand you are saying. The problem is that a chaotic relationship cannot be fixed without causing hardship on people. That is what I believe and unfortunately that's the truth. Or they grant amnesty and most likely doesn't fix the problem and piss off citizens, or they get a tougher measure and cause inconvenience to illegal folks, even making go back with kids who have US citizenship, etc. I know that's not easy. According to studies, the immigrant population is reduced by 400,000/year naturally, therefore reduction happens gradually if some persists to stay.

By the way, on the radio last week they say the US constiution doesn't automatically grant citizenship. People are doing that out of convenience, but the constitution itself seems to have clause "subject to the jurisdiction" that doesn't make that automatic if one is not here legally.


Note:please note I am not discussing the rights or wrongs of granting amnesty. I am just discussing about deportations.



saras76 said:
marlon,

You raise some very good points but I still feel that there are to many hurdles in the way of deporting 13 million people no matter how much time they are given. I bet a growing number of illegals now have US citizen children who are going to school and are American by law, what is to be done with them? Should families be expected to separate or should American kids be expected to go back with their parents only to return after they are 21 and can sponsor their families? These issues are way to complex to be solved by a piece of legislation that enforces laws ...

The US chose to ignore their own laws for years on end and they created this monster. Now they are trying to correct decades of mistakes through one piece of legislation that is far from being fair .... you cannot let 13 million people live in your country for years and then expect them to leave because you feel that it was a mistake. As reasonable as it may sound to us legals, the real world does not work this way.

The other point about people selling their homes and moving back over a period of time is not applicable because people who are here illegally do not want to go back. They broke the laws once and they will break any news laws again to be here. Enforcement of any tough law is going to be a nightmare because the numbers are just out of wack ... that is what I feel.

regards,

saras
Click to expand...
 
The 14th Amendment of the USA as defined in Wikipedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Section 1 seems to have an interpretation that even children born to illegal immigrants AND tourists while in the USA automatically get citizenship. And there are hyperlinks to one or two Supreme Court cases dealing with the citizenship of individuals who were born to foreign parents.

marlon2006 said:
By the way, on the radio last week they say the US constiution doesn't automatically grant citizenship. People are doing that out of convenience, but the constitution itself seems to have clause "subject to the jurisdiction" that doesn't make that automatic if one is not here legally.
Click to expand...
 
Hello All,

Migration of people from poor countries to rich countries is a post-colonial fact. And it will continue to be like that in future if there is an imbalance in economic powers and standard of living.

I am from India and the way India and the Indian govt. dealt with migration is a really amazing thing to notice. Of course some of India's political problems are partly due to this migration policy. Just note the following:-

1) India invited, gave food and shelter to 30-35 million people during the time of Bangladesh war. It is more interesting to note that this was done by a fascist prime minister; Indira Gandhi!

2) During and before this migration, people were coming to India from Tibet and no one knows how many came. India accommodated them too.

3) Then came the migration from Srilanka. Again, India took them in.

4) During the time frame...Indians were migrating to Gulf countries illegally. It is estimated that in KSA alone, 500K Indian are illegal.

My point is that, this post-colonial social change will happen unless rich countries make more efforts to economically develop the poorer countries rather than exploiting them. Looking from another perspective, illegal or legal immigration is induced by the rich countries to make their life more comfortable.

What do I have to talk against the illegal immigrants? A piece of paper called visa? But that will not change my or an illegal immigrants ultimate intention.....to migrate. Apart from this piece of paper what is the real difference? If I am not getting a GC after so many years, then I will get deported too......many be with a stamp on my passport that I cannot enter the country for 10 years or so (that is what done by the Gulf Govts).

I don't think legal immigrants are better than illegals or the otherway around....both are just immigrants....both look after their families. In fact illegals cannot go anywhere because to become an illegal they might have paid lots of money to the smugglers. Take the example of people trying to go to Gulf Countries from India, even by selling their only piece of land back home.

Friends, these are just modern realities of life...and I personally don't think I have more right to this country than an illegal immigrant. Because of this, I don't think it is nice to talk about deportation.

These are just my opinions.









marlon2006 said:
I totally understand you are saying. The problem is that a chaotic relationship cannot be fixed without causing hardship on people. That is what I believe and unfortunately that's the truth. Or they grant amnesty and most likely doesn't fix the problem and piss off citizens, or they get a tougher measure and cause inconvenience to illegal folks, even making go back with kids who have US citizenship, etc. I know that's not easy. According to studies, the immigrant population is reduced by 400,000/year naturally, therefore reduction happens gradually if some persists to stay.

By the way, on the radio last week they say the US constiution doesn't automatically grant citizenship. People are doing that out of convenience, but the constitution itself seems to have clause "subject to the jurisdiction" that doesn't make that automatic if one is not here legally.


Note:please note I am not discussing the rights or wrongs of granting amnesty. I am just discussing about deportations.
Click to expand...
 
Sure, it is fact and happening for decades, but the host country - it doesn't matter which country - can and should control it, otherwise if it doesn't, do you think whatever country could get overwhelmed, don't you think ? It is just very convenient when people thinks one can go and come to other's country as wish. Life is not like that. I don't think that way. I think my place is where I came from. If it is not very good, it is up to me and my community to fight and improve it, not invade someone's else place. I am sorry but that's how I was educated, to take responsibilities of my unsuccess and live with it, not making others (citizens from other countries) pay the price.

Now a very, very important point:
Isn't the idea of comodism just extend this situation ? By allowing people to continue sending remittances back home and fuel the corrupted governments there, isn't that going to create a band-aid for the ones here but continue to fuel the inequalities in the poor countries and just generate more and more poor, oppressed people back home ?



JANHK said:
Hello All,

Migration of people from poor countries to rich countries is a post-colonial fact. And it will continue to be like that in future if there is an imbalance in economic powers and standard of living.

I am from India and the way India and the Indian govt. dealt with migration is a really amazing thing to notice. Of course some of India's political problems are partly due to this migration policy. Just note the following:-

1) India invited, gave food and shelter to 30-35 million people during the time of Bangladesh war. It is more interesting to note that this was done by a fascist prime minister; Indira Gandhi!

2) During and before this migration, people were coming to India from Tibet and no one knows how many came. India accommodated them too.

3) Then came the migration from Srilanka. Again, India took them in.

4) During the time frame...Indians were migrating to Gulf countries illegally. It is estimated that in KSA alone, 500K Indian are illegal.

My point is that, this post-colonial social change will happen unless rich countries make more efforts to economically develop the poorer countries rather than exploiting them. Looking from another perspective, illegal or legal immigration is induced by the rich countries to make their life more comfortable.

What do I have to talk against the illegal immigrants? A piece of paper called visa? But that will not change my or an illegal immigrants ultimate intention.....to migrate. Apart from this piece of paper what is the real difference? If I am not getting a GC after so many years, then I will get deported too......many be with a stamp on my passport that I cannot enter the country for 10 years or so (that is what done by the Gulf Govts).

I don't think legal immigrants are better than illegals or the otherway around....both are just immigrants....both look after their families. In fact illegals cannot go anywhere because to become an illegal they might have paid lots of money to the smugglers. Take the example of people trying to go to Gulf Countries from India, even by selling their only piece of land back home.

Friends, these are just modern realities of life...and I personally don't think I have more right to this country than an illegal immigrant. Because of this, I don't think it is nice to talk about deportation.

These are just my opinions.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ufo, the discussion on the radio was talking about the passage below. Read and see if that makes sense:

http://www.newswithviews.com/public_comm/public_commentary32.htm

"
How did all this nonsense get started?

In post Civil War America, politicians wanted to amend the Constitution to address injustices to the black slaves. The 14th Amendment was intended to provide citizenship to those that had endured slavery. The Amendment states in part, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States..." Unfortunately too many self serving politicians and advocates for illegal immigrants ignore an important phrase in the Amendment. That phrase is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

To understand the correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment we need to understand what the co-author of the amendment wrote about the Amendment. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard wrote, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." Senator Howard wrote the addition phrase specifically because he wanted to make it clear that the simple accident of birth in the US is not sufficient to justify citizenship"


ufo2002 said:
The 14th Amendment of the USA as defined in Wikipedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Section 1 seems to have an interpretation that even children born to illegal immigrants AND tourists while in the USA automatically get citizenship. And there are hyperlinks to one or two Supreme Court cases dealing with the citizenship of individuals who were born to foreign parents.
Click to expand...
 
attrition will never work. in theory it might, but it will never work. go take a course of how the courts work. how politics work, how agencies at every level work, and other things. this "third way" won't work. and the second it does, say hello to amnesty.

and you forget it will take years. several lections will take place. do you honestly belive it will work? and in order to do it, you will have to do may things. you will know this if you take the courses i told you about. and assuming you can do these things, the very far-left and the very far-right will come after you like a bunch of wild dogs. remember the pork nominations? it stands no chance of working. none.

and can you please tell some of your friends to stop lying whne they say they don't want to deport millions of people? we all know the basic plan is to have half leave and then find the other half. isn't that deporting millions of people?

please don't say attrition will work. any person that knows anyhting about american system wil ltell you it can't. look at REAL ID. 2008 looking good? and assuming they do it on time, that is three years. just make a deal.
 
You mean, the attrition option unlikely will be implemented and executed, that is what you mean by "never work". If that's what you mean, yes, in the current stage is hard to make it pass, as it is hard to make amnesty pass as well.

Now something that - God forbidden - we should not overlook. I just hope that politics of leaving the borders while open and the continual influx of uncontrolled people coming here will not bring another 9/11 or worse, a nuke blowing one of the major cities. I hope that never happens, but if so, I guess is only then you would see people taking this seriously, and then you would see more rigid programs in place.

TheInquisitor said:
attrition will never work. in theory it might, but it will never work. go take a course of how the courts work. how politics work, how agencies at every level work, and other things. this "third way" won't work. and the second it does, say hello to amnesty.

and you forget it will take years. several lections will take place. do you honestly belive it will work? and in order to do it, you will have to do may things. you will know this if you take the courses i told you about. and assuming you can do these things, the very far-left and the very far-right will come after you like a bunch of wild dogs. remember the pork nominations? it stands no chance of working. none.

and can you please tell some of your friends to stop lying whne they say they don't want to deport millions of people? we all know the basic plan is to have half leave and then find the other half. isn't that deporting millions of people?

please don't say attrition will work. any person that knows anyhting about american system wil ltell you it can't. look at REAL ID. 2008 looking good? and assuming they do it on time, that is three years. just make a deal.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top