the demand works both ways. Demand for visas exceeds supply; so does demand for low-wage workers.
Dana Andy Ousterhout writes: > Unfortunately, becoming legal just isn't about following a process. There > are limits as to how many, etc can come in. There are illegal immigrants > because demand exceeds supply. Both on the work visa front as well as on > the available job front. > > So what this means is that we have a stupid law in place that is trying to > artificially hold up/control salaries all the while supply and demand are > working for adjustments. > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:44 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Colin Powell: "This is BS" > > > People just don't get that line, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Sure we need people to > do the shit work of the country and its great they are willing to do it and > get paid like shit (still better then where they are from) but get your ass > legal. I'm all for legal immigrants i f'ing hate illegal immigrants though > do the due diligance to get yourself legalized. > > > "When I came back from Korea, I had no money, no skills. Sure, I was good > with a bayonet, but you can't put that on a resume - it puts people off!" > Frank Barone, "Everybody Loves Raymond" > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:21 PM > Subject: Re: Colin Powell: "This is BS" > > > > good analysis except for immigration. If they deport all illegal aliens > > thy'll have to shut down the Riverwalk and probably the rest of San > Antonio > > too. Talk about throwing resources down a hole.... > > > > Doug White writes: > > > > > You well may have a point. As long as the current campaign finance > programs are > > > in place, you end up getting the best government you can buy. > > > > > > My government prof in College (a staunch republican, he) used to say > that the > > > only difference between the political parties is who decides who gets > what. > > > > > > I would predict that IF the Democratic party could consolidate all their > > > factions and adopt a slightly left of center platform, while avoiding > extremism > > > on either side, concentrate on the economy, the deficit, and the > national debt > > > (as Clinton did) they would win by a fairly wide margin. On the other > hand, if > > > they remain extreme left-wing, and as widely split as they are, they > will hand > > > the election over to the current administration. > > > > > > I have no problem with a defense policy of cutting off danger to the US > at the > > > pass, but I also feel some nationalism would go a long way, by not > financially > > > supporting those regimes worldwide for only short-term friendships. The > > > American people must realize that any nation we consider friends, are > friends > > > only to the extent of their own interests, be it political, or > financial. > > > Unfortunately our friendship is likewise for sale, and we get so > indignant when > > > those policies come back and bite us. > > > > > > As for me, I would start with a closed border policy and strong emphasis > on > > > deportation of illegal immigration. The main thinking here is that if > we are to > > > be considered a nation of laws, then we must respect and enforce all > laws, or > > > remove them from the books. Selective enforcement and unequal justice > is > > > insidious, and is led mostly by the political aspirations of > prosecutors. > > > > > > ====================================== > > > Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! > > > For CF hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com > > > ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 > > > ====================================== > > > If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "John Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 7:16 AM > > > Subject: RE: Colin Powell: "This is BS" > > > > > > > > > | <cf_insert_2_cents> > > > | Do you agree that no matter who gets elected, there will be more of > > > | the same "something". By that I mean, more of the same selling out to > > > | whatever special interests they hold dear. How can anyone rise to the > power > > > | of the presidency without selling their soul on innumerable occasions? > > > | </cf_insert_2_cents> > > > | > > > | -----Original Message----- > > > | From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > | Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:56 AM > > > | To: CF-Community > > > | Subject: Re: Colin Powell: "This is BS" > > > | > > > | > > > | If n fact he is just another mouth piece, no. Last thing we need is > more of > > > | the same. > > > | > > > | Dana > > > | > > > | Michael Dinowitz writes: > > > | > > > | > His backstory once made him very attractive to me as a candidate. > Problem > > > | is, > > > | > he's become just another mouthpiece for the powers that be and is > just not > > > | > someone I'd vote for anymore. > > > | > Just as an aside, let me throw this into the mix. > > > | > > > > | > http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/powelldoctrine_s > > > | hort > > > | > .html > > > | > His military doctrine about when and how to use force. Seems he feel > it > > > | only > > > | > applies to himself, not to others.... > > > | > > > > | > > I dunno... I could conceive of voting for him and I am sure as > hell not > > > | a > > > | > > Republican. This may change if he appears to have been dishonest. > I also > > > | > > wondered if he wasn't the source for that story. > > > | > > > > > | > > Dana > > > | > > > > > | > > jon hall writes: > > > | > > > > > | > > > Perhaps it may appear so on the surface, but I really can't > agree. The > > > | > > > administration want's Powell to be a "yes man", but obviously he > > > | > > > doesn't like it. Cheney is the one who originally wrote the BS > in the > > > | > > > first place. > > > | > > > Much has been made about Powell disagreeing with the > administration on > > > | > > > a lot of issues. The problem is that he is outnumbered in the > White > > > | > > > House with Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice usually lining up against > him. > > > | > > > > > > | > > > My take is the almost extreme opposite of this somehow being a > sign of > > > | > > > weakness on Powell's part. I see it as a sign of strength that > he > > > | > > > disagree's so much with the party line, but refuses to try and > make it > > > | > > > an issue of right and wrong in the public eye. Especially since > the > > > | > > > American voter only really cares about the truth when their > party > > > | > > > doesn't have the White House. I doubt Powell would have gained > more > > > | > > > Democratic supporters than Republican supporters he would have > lost if > > > | > > > he refused to go along with the White House. > > > | > > > > > > | > > > When it comes down to it, the first black man to have a chance > of > > > | > > > becoming President has more important things to worry about than > > > | > > > whether or not one reason to go to war with Iraq is better than > > > | > > > another. > > > | > > > He has a strong support base on the right currently and can't > > > | > > > let the media screw up his image by painting him as a maverick, > and I > > > | > > > can't help but draw a parallel between David Palmer in the show > 24, > > > | > > > and Powell. Playing ball now will go a long way in the future. > > > | > > > > > > | > > > -- > > > | > > > jon > > > | > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > | > > > > > > | > > > Monday, June 2, 2003, 10:24:00 PM, you wrote: > > > | > > > MD> Powell, who I once thought I respected, is nothing more than > a > > > | "yes man" > > > | > for > > > | > > > MD> Bush and the forces in the state department. He is > definitely not > > > | in > > > | > charge of > > > | > > > MD> anything. > > > | > > > > > > | > > > > > > | > > > >> On the evening of February 1, two dozen American officials > gathered > > > | in a > > > | > > > MD> spacious conference room at the Central Intelligence Agency > in > > > | Langley, > > > | > Va. The > > > | > > > MD> time had come to make the public case for war against Iraq. > For > > > | six > > > | > hours that > > > | > > > MD> Saturday, the men and women of the Bush administration > argued > > > | about what > > > | > > > MD> Secretary of State Colin Powell should--and should not--say > at the > > > | > United > > > | > > > MD> Nations Security Council four days later. Not all the secret > > > | > intelligence about > > > | > > > MD> Saddam Hussein's misdeeds, they found, stood up to close > scrutiny. > > > | At > > > | > one point > > > | > > > MD> during the rehearsal, Powell tossed several pages in the > air. "I'm > > > | not > > > | > reading > > > | > > > MD> this," he declared. "This is bulls- - -." > > > | > > > >> > > > | > > > >> http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030609/usnews/9intell.htm > > > | > > > >> > > > | > > > > > > | > > > > > > | > > > > > | > > > > | > > > | > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
