Re: Will Brink has thick nippled tits!

Lucas Buck <sbcpark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:58:02 -0600, Jason Earl <jearl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Lucas Buck <sbcpark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:41:26 -0600, Jason Earl <jearl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

DZ <12407@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Jason Earl <jearl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sure, we could always follow Russia's example. We could simply
screw up our country so badly that it is the sort of place that
people emigrate away from instead of immigrating to. Personally, I
would rather start adding Cinco de Mayo to the list of holidays I
observed. The West has been poaching the best and brightest from
mother Russia forever, and even the cold war did little to really
change that.

If you open the borders, and I can't see what else can follow
logically from your propositions, then no one from any country's
"best" would want, or be able to come anymore. I suspect the giant
mess the place would become, wouldn't be really livable for you
either.

Americans have been complaining about the current wave of immigrants
since the Pilgrims first sailed from the Old World. The established
folks had bad things to say about the Irish, the Germans, the
Italians, the Chinese, and the Russians, to name just a few. All of
these groups were linked to higher crime

Your data for this is... what?

At the very least you should have enough grasp of history to know
about the issues that the U.S. had with Irish and Chinese immigrants
in the 1800s.

I don't think that I should have to "prove" issues that you probably
should have covered in your junior high American Heritage class.

Do you even read what you write before you post it? There is a
difference between "being the victims of racial/national bias" and
being "*linked to higher crime*". The latter is a rather specific,
objective claim -- do you have ANY source to support it?

Here's the first google response:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/famine/america.htm

The unsanitary conditions were breeding grounds for disease,
particularly cholera. Sixty percent of the Irish children born
in Boston during this period didn't live to see their sixth
birthday. Adult Irish lived on average just six years after
stepping off the boat onto American soil.

Those who were not ill were driven to despair. Rowdy behavior
fueled by alcohol and boredom spilled out into the streets of
Boston and the city witnessed a staggering increase in crime,
up to 400 percent for such crimes as aggravated assault. Men
and boys cooped up in tiny rooms and without employment or
schooling got into serious trouble. An estimated 1500 children
roamed the streets every day begging and making mischief.

Quite frankly, compared to the Irish the current wave of immigrants is
rather tame.

There is literally a wealth of information on these two racial
groups in particular, and lots more on the other groups if you care
to look.

You forget that 150 years ago my ancestors were actually forced
out of the United States because of their beliefs. Until the 1976
there was actually an extermination order on the books for people
of my faith in the state of Missourri.

Boggs' order was unconstitutional, and even if it wasn't it was
beyond his powers under the state constitution.

And...

And LDS being intimidated out of one state does not equal "forced
out of the United States".

Actually, that's precisely what happened. Utah, and the other
places that the Mormons settled were not part of the United States
when they left. They were Mexican territory.

Uh, it was my understanding that most fled Missouri in the opposite
direction -- for *Illinois*, not Utah, in 1938. Wikipedia seems to
concur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_Order

Sure, they settled in Nauvoo, Illinois first before leaving the United
States entirely. They were driven out of Illinois as well, but not
before building a fairly remarkable city. At its height Nauvoo
rivaled Chicago in size. For the record the Mormons were driven from
Ohio before being driven from Missouri.

I didn't think that you wanted to hear the entire sordid tale, but I
could go on at length about this particular bit of history.

If you can't see the similarities between driving unwanted Mormons
into Mexico and driving unwanted illegal aliens into Mexico then I
am not sure what to say.

Your argument is so weak, all you can do is put words in my mouth?
I'm not advocating driving illegals anywhere; I want them to
repatriate to their home countries. I want the US to provide an
incentive for illegals to repatriate, by establishing a system for
them to "get in line" with other unskilled would-be immigrants
around the world and by drying up the underground illegal-labor
market.

How is this different from forcing them from the country at gunpoint?
Instead of rounding them up you would simply guarantee that they
couldn't get gainful employment. Heck, that way you don't have to
bother to round them up. You simply point the guns at the employers
and starve them out of the country.

The problem with that, of course, is that not all illegal Latins are
from Mexico. Worse, the reason that these people immigrated to the
U.S. is that there are no jobs where they came from either. Faced
with the prospect of going home to starve or staying in the U.S. and
throwing themselves on the mercy of our social welfare system they'd
probably be better off in the States. I know I wouldn't leave if I
was in their situation. Your plan just guarantees that most of these
people will shift towards even more illegal activity. They won't
really have a choice.

The United States has a long and storied history of issues with the
current wave of immigrants and outsiders (of which you happen to be
completely ignorant).

Uh huh. One of us certainly is.



I simply pointed out a clear example of how the contemporary
Americans were wrong. IMHO, of course. Some people still think
that it was a mistake to let the Mormons live.

That's weak, even by straw man standards.

OK, point out some differences.

Besides, the Latin culture has a lot of stuff going for it.

Sure, that's why so many people from elsewhere are flocking into
Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, Colombia, Venezuela...

Their governments leave a lot to be desired. Much like the Irish
when they flocked to the United States.

Yes, but they FOLLOWED THE LAW, entered WITHIN the system... and
many were not allowed entry beyond Ellis Island and got sent back.
(And if you think Mormon oppression in the mid-19th century was
severe, look what the Brits did to the Irish.)

They didn't have much choice. The Atlantic was in the way.

Oh right, you don't actually believe that happened.

???

As far as language is concerned English is an abomination anyhow.
Spanish is a much saner language.

But Spanish is the language of the WHITE EUROPEAN MURDEROUS
LOOTING RAPIST CONQUERORS, you racist pig. Stick with Nahuatl.

I was not commenting on the values of the people that brought
Spanish (or English, for that matter) to the new world. I just
happen to like the fact that it is much easier to spell in Spanish
and sounding out words is ridiculously easy.

Sure, I'll grant you that Spanish is a much easier language for
stupid people to learn than English.

(Facetiousness aside, sure, Spanish has more regularity than
English, as do all the Romance languages.)

Something we can agree on.

Most Americans living overseas never learn enough of the local
language to do more than order an ice cream cone.

MOST Americans LIVING overseas? Uh, right.

There are lots of Americans living overseas. In fact, there are
enough that just about any major city on the planet has an American
school.

And you assert that MOST Americans LIVING overseas "never learn
enough of the local language to do more than order an ice cream
cone". I'd say that's such complete, utter bull*** on its face
that you can't support it with even a tenous source.

Uh, I've lived overseas. In several countries. I went to an American
school, with a pile of kids from the American embassy. The kids from
the other embassies (Russian, Italian, Japanese, etc.) all knew
Spanish (and English). If they didn't know Spanish, they learned it.
The Americans didn't know Spanish, and they didn't learn it either.

Here's another example though. How many servicemen do we have that
spend years in Germany, Korea, Iraq, or other parts of the world?
Now, how many of these servicemen come back with a working knowledge
of the language of the country where they served?

Not that this really matters, of course. I just think it is funny how
rabid Americans get about people in the U.S. learning English, and yet
you can go just about anywhere in the world and you'll find enclaves
of Americans that don't speak the local language. At least the
children of the Mexican immigrants learn English in school. American
children when they go overseas tend to go to American schools where
they are taught in English.

If anything I tend to believe that the correct way to sort this
out is to let the market take care of most of the details. Right
now we have an economic system that is heavily dependent on
illegal workers. Ignoring that reality is at least as ridiculous
as opening up the borders completely. Part of any solution is
going to have to include some sort of incentive for our current
illegal population to come out of the shadows.

Replace "illegal" with "slave" and you sound just like an 1850s
plantation owner.

Poor uneducated people have always had very few options.

When they are *systemically* kept poor and uneducated, there is
always an option: revolution. Meanwhile, they can quit making
themselves poorer by not having children that they cannot easily
support.

Actually, the real solution to be poor and uneducated is education.
That's really one of the beauties of the United States. Education is
relatively inexpensive and there are lots of opportunities for poor
but educated people.

Revolution is always an option, but the odds of a revolution actually
putting someone in charge that isn't totally corrupt are not
particularly good. If you look at history you'll find a lot of
revolutions. However, even if the revolution is successful chances
are good that the people that end up in power will be as corrupt or
possibly more corrupt than the people that were ousted. You can
literally count on one hand the revolutions that didn't end up with a
country worse off than when it started. America was very very lucky.

As for children only in the wealthiest of societies are children seen
as a burden. In the rest of the world children are basically your
retirement fund. The more children that you have the better chance
you have of being well cared for in your old age. For the poorest
level of America that is still basically the case. Children are much
less expensive than 401K plans, and after they get to a certain age
they can even do valuable work.

Finally, of the things that I learned in Chile is that maintaining
relatively low levels of corruption is in many ways more important
than freedom. Pinochet was a dictator, but it is hard to argue that
his actions weren't good for the country.

That's the way of things. I don't apologize for the way things are.
Forcing these illegal aliens out of the country back to homes where
there are no jobs available at all is arguably worse than slavery.

Exactly what the opponents of manumission always said.

On a practical level what did emancipation actually do for the blacks?
Not much, because they were still second class citizens. That's
basically my problem with your plan for illegal aliens. I don't want
a large group of people that lives in the U.S., but doesn't have the
same access to jobs, justice, and social programs as everyone else.
That's basically a recipe for the type of inequality that lingered in
the U.S. for nearly a hundred years after slavery was finished.

People come to the United States because they have little hope where
they currently live. The real problem is that there are large parts
of the world where living conditions are so bad that it is shocking.
No matter how hard we try things are still going to be far better in
the worst parts of the U.S. than in large areas of the world. The
idea of patrolling the border with Mexico (without a moat and sharks
equipped with lasers) is just ridiculous. People are going to sneak
in to the United States. The question really becomes what we do with
these people once they are here.

Any plan that concentrates on punishing illegal immigrants that are
gainfully employed by taking away their access to legal work is bound
to create a worse situation than what we currently have.

Jason
.