I agree with that and I do keep confusing the two. I've allowed myself to become mentally lazy and just equate the two.
I don't know very much about the specifics of the immigration laws but it doesn't take a policy expert to know that they don't work. Hopefully, after the latest INS debacle, that there will be serious reform in this whole regard. Michael Corrigan Programmer Endora Digital Solutions 1900 Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 630-627-5055 ext.-136 630/627-5255 Fax ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Community Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:35 AM Subject: RE: Nukes Michael: First, don't confuse citizenship with amnesty. Those getting amnesty are not being made citizens. Every year, one media outlet or another does a story about new citizens, and they are just as proud today as they were 10, 20, 30, 50 years ago. I think you have a valid point about the fact that they came here _illegally_. However, maybe it's time our immigration laws change. This is about the third time we've granted mass amnesty to illegal immigrants. Maybe it's time we start letting more immigrants in legally and end this fiction. We positively need immigrant workers. We waste a lot of money trying to secure our border against illegal immigrants. Crossing the border illegally is very dangerous. Why save ourselves the money and them their lives and let them cross legally and easily? The resources on the border then could concentrate more fully on keeping drugs from crossing the border, and possibly terrorists. Also, the birth rate in Mexico has declined significantly, so the number of workers who want to come here is declining; if we continue to make it hard for them to come here, fewer will come, which is bad for business. So, an easier crossing would help counter that trend. H. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Corrigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 6:40 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Nukes I've heard those too, but I just can't get passed the fact that these people broke the law. They are called illegal immigrants for a reason because what they did was illegal. I had this discussion with my father a few weeks back (he supports amnesty) and asked what I would have done back when all of the Irish came over. Would I send them back? My response was that if they were here illegal, then yes. I was listening to the radio this morning and a Republican from the House (I forget his name) was discussing this issue and he said that this sends a message to all of those people that did it right. They filled out all of the paper work, went through all of those citizenship classes, took the tests, waited years to get their green cards... the message is "you're suckers!" And he's right. US Citizenship isn't what it used to be. I know people who've gone thought the process and were so proud the day they became citizens. My father had employees that he helped get theirs. I'd like to get their impression of the amnesty plan. I can't help but think that their citizenship just doesn't feel the same anymore. Michael Corrigan Programmer Endora Digital Solutions 1900 Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 630-627-5055 ext.-136 630/627-5255 Fax ----- Original Message ----- From: Howard Owens To: CF-Community Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 7:39 PM Subject: Re: Nukes Here's six reasons Republicans/Conservatives might support immigration reform (written by smartertimes.com) -- whether the points are valid or not is besides the point ... the point is, there are possible alternative explanations for Bush's action. 1. Republicans tend to oppose government regulation. Restrictions on immigration are merely a regulation of the labor market. 2. Republicans are the pro-business party. Business supports immigration as a way to reduce labor costs. 3. Republicans are the pro-growth party. Immigration helps create economic growth. 4. The Democrats are the party that has in recent decades been strongly linked with American blacks and with American labor unions, constituencies who have opposed increased immigration on the grounds that it would drive down wages of American-born workers. While the position of organized labor has undergone some adjustments, the resistance persists at some level. But Republicans are not constrained by it. 5. Republicans don't actually hope to win many Hispanic votes. But they hope to win the votes of non-Hispanic white soccer moms by appearing sympathetic to Hispanics. 6. Republicans don't actually hope to win many Hispanic votes. But they hope to win votes and contributions from non-Hispanic rich people who would like to make it easier to employ more Hispanics at low wages. ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- from: "Michael Corrigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:53:24 -0600 >I think that this is very true. The whole system is designed to promote or to perpetuate the domination by two parties. An example is during debates. I thought that it was ridiculous that Nader wasn't allowed to join the debates because he didn't have a certain percentage in the polls. I don't remember the percentage, but I want to say 10%. The "polls" was not a standard poll, but was picked out of an assortment. Additionally, Gore nor Bush wanted to debate him because I think that he would have really embarrassed them because he's a really good debater. I'm not a fan of Nader's politics, but I think that he brings up some really interesting points and would have made those debates much more challenging for all involved. But neither Bush nor Gore wanted to have to spend any time >or money fighting off Ralph Nader and they felt that they would have if he would have gotten in the debates. Same with Harry Brown. I've teetered on voting Libertarian in the past and I've seen Harry Brown on some news programs and he would have been good in those debates too. Bush and Gore weren't worried about him too much because he's not a media darling like McCain or Nader. > >>From my recent posts, I think I've made my disdain for the current political landscape clear. I'm fed up with those in congress right now. They're all a bunch of children. Well, I should say that the "leadership" from both parties are a bunch of children. I'm tired of devotion to a party to override one's principles. It doesn't seem like anyone out there has the courage to fight for these things anymore. They're all afraid of the media. No one wants to answer tough questions. I mean Bush and Gore were going on the Oprah show for Pete's sake during the election. OPRAH!! I like the Bill O'Reilly show not because I agree with him, but because he's asking people tough questions and putting their feet to the fire. No one gets a pass on his show. He had a couple of Representatives >on last night talking about how Bush is sneaking in legislation to pass the Amnesty for Illegals legislation he wants to get through. It got tagged on to a bill that deals with things like "National Brady Bunch Day" or something like that. The house had already passed it, then it comes back with this piece of legislation attached to it. I don't like that. All because Bush is going to Mexico in a couple of weeks and he wants to show him how much he loves Mexicans I guess. Anyways, I'm fed up with the direction the country is going and I don't see anyone in the political landscape that can change that. > >Michael Corrigan >Programmer >Endora Digital Solutions >1900 Highland Avenue, Suite 200 >Lombard, IL 60148 >630-627-5055 ext.-136 >630/627-5255 Fax > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Larry Lyons > To: CF-Community > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:17 AM > Subject: RE: Nukes > > > A very good alternative would be to have more political parties, and allow > for more competition. part of the problem I believe is that the two parties > act the same as monopolies do in the corporate sphere. > > With 3, 4 or more parties, there would be a greater degree of competition > for votes, more people would find a party that it more in tune with their > beliefs etc. > > larry > > -- > Larry C. Lyons > ColdFusion/Web Developer > Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer > EBStor.com > 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 > Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 > tel: (703) 393-7930 > fax: (703) 393-2659 > Web: http://www.ebstor.com > http://www.pacel.com > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. > -- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 11:28 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Nukes > > > > > > I posted this link previously, but my solution is contained > > in this column: > > > > http://www.insidevc.com/vcs/opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_101 > > 3185,00.html > > > > Summary of the key points: > > > > -- > No state-funded party primaries. The parties conduct their own > > nomination processes at their own expense. As part of this, > > parties would > > have the option of charging dues and requiring members to > > sign a statement > > of principles agreeing to the party's agenda. > > > > -- > When you register, you would no longer be asked to join > > a party. The > > question is really a violation of privacy anyway. You would > > join a party by > > contacting the party of your choice and joining. You could > > even join more > > than one party, if you wanted. Of course, you would be bound > > by a contract > > to that party, so you would open yourself to a potential lawsuit by > > belonging to more than one party. > > > > -- > Primary ballots (to select the two nominees, regardless of party > > affiliation, to advance to the general election) and general election > > ballots would not carry political affiliation with candidates > > names. Voters > > would need to be informed about candidates, their parties and > > their views. > > > > I believe over time, this would weaken the two major parties > > and allow for > > greater diversity of candidates, as well as, perversely, > > strengthen the > > parties. > > > > H. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Todd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 8:14 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Nukes > > > > > > With this, I totaly agree. What we need to do is come up > > with a way to > > reduce party power, or eliminate it, without forcing such a > > change through > > laws that would just cause more red tape and open up further > > possilbilities > > of abuse from within the system. > > > > Anyone have any ideas? > > > > Todd > > ----- > > Todd for President > > Holding a can of worms and a can opener, for a better tomorrow. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 10:41 PM > > Subject: RE: Nukes > > > > > > > We need to rise up against the system that allows such > > agendas to take > > more > > > sway than doing the people's business. The problem isn't financial > > > contributions, or dumb elected officials -- it is political parties, > > parties > > > that pressure elected officials (and the parties carry a > > very big stick) > > > into putting partisan cause ahead of people causes. > > > > > > The biggest danger the republic faces is the unmitigated power of > > political > > > parties. > > > > > > H. > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
