Ignorant wrote:
>>No, it didn't. The Monroe Doctrine was about European colonization in
>>the Western Hemisphere, not about US claims on other nations. You're
>>again showing your ignorance of history.
>
> Please read your own statement.

No, read yours.

First, I wrote:
Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor do
people south of our border. BTW, the US has no claim on Central
or South America, and most of North America is comprised of
Mexico and Canada. Go figure.

Then you replied:
Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which the US said exactly
that. It has the right to do what ever it wants in the
Americas.

The Monroe Doctrine is not license or right for the US "to do what ever
[sic] it wants in the Americas." It is very specific in its scope.

> Let me rephrase what you said "European
> colonization", meaning the US lays claim to the western hemisphere

Wrong. The US doesn't lay claim to the western hemisphere. It had four
elements. First, Monroe proposed that the American continents were
"henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by
any European powers." Second, he proposed that nations in the western
hemisphere were to remain (by distinction) republics by nature rather
than monarchies (this followed on the heels of attempts of installing an
emperor in Mexico and elsewhere). Third, Monroe stated that the United
States would regard as a threat to its own peace and safety any attempt
by European powers to impose their system on any independent state in
the western hemisphere. Finally, Monroe reaffirmed that the United
States would not interfere in European affairs.

Don't take my word for it. Go read it for yourself, dimwit:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/monrodoc.html

> I was a
> clear declaration of a US claim to the hemisphere.

No, Monroe did not lay claim to the entire freaking hemisphere. The US
was, in a sense, protector of the hemisphere, but we did not lay claim
to it.

> You don't see that then I am sorry for you.

I actually studied it, so I know what I'm talking about. Save your pity
for your own misunderstandings of the matter.

>>>It has the right to do what ever it wants in the Americas.
>>
>>That's not the case at all. If it were, we'd have Mexico paying us to
>>take care of their citizens who've flooded our border states.
>
> I agree and better still we would not have any mexicans come here without
> the help of the american government.

In a sense they do have the assistance of the Feds. The INS isn't
enforcing the laws, and the Border Patrol is underfunded.

> The fact is they are generating income and providing low cost workers needed
> by the US to make it competitive and keeping jobs within the US.

The jobs are here, but their families aren't. Illegal immigrants siphon
over $9 billion a year and send it home to Mexico. Labor is Mexico's
biggest export. It benefits the Mexican economy more than ours,
especially when you consider the impact illegals have on our education,
welfare, and healthcare systems.

> Your argument doesn't make sense.

Ipse dixit. Why doesn't it make sense? Be specific.

> Why do US presidents time after time
> grant amnesty to illegals and render them "legal". It does two things. 1.
> it takes away the arguement that they are "illegal"

Irrelevant. That in itself isn't an argument for amnesty, and it only
explains that an action has taken place -- but not WHY it has taken
place. Try again.

> and 2. It pomotes and
> encourages more "temporary illegals" to come across the border until the
> next president makes them legal.

That may (and does) happen, but that isn't WHY it happens. Try again.

> That is reality and what you say is pure rhetoric and makes no sense at all.

You're a ****ing joke. I encourage you to review the following list of
logical fallacies. See if you can figure out the ones that apply to your
statement of "reality."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

>>>Any system you come up with is dependant on the young who are working.
>>
>>No, only those which tax and spend. The issue of dependence, though, is
>>fundamental in any program which taxes and spends since it diminishes
>>workers' savings.
>
> A government gets it's money from the workers and the less number of workers
> the less money that government has to spend.

Only if it collects x amount per worker. That's not how our system
works. It's based on a "progressive" tax which generally punishes
achievement and encourages sloth. Revenues are a function of tax rates
in relation to economic activity. Increased levels of economic activity
combined with lower tax rates (which usually spurs economic activity)
can produce more revenue than higher tax rates (which usually slow down
economic activity) and a slower economy. JFK and Reagan both cut tax
rates, and net revenues increased as a result of the economic activity
which followed in each instance. We've also seen the same effect with
the tax rebates in the last couple years, particularly in the last quarter.

But, again, you're just plain wrong. Revenue has nothing to do with the
number of workers.

>>>It's
>>>a pyrimide where you need productive growth.
>>
>>"Productive growth" isn't a function of population growth, which is at
>>the core of your argument.
>
> Productive growth is needed in any stock market growth but in terms of
> people working and paying taxes then with all the jobs not being filled now
> because of a decreasing population you would need to tax the remaining
> working force 80% to cover all the baby boomers.

No, it would require more than that in a static analysis. The economy,
though, isn't static.

>>>No growth and productivity
>>>results in great loses and the old dependent on 401's goes down the
> tube.
>
>>Productivity has increased in most industries even with fewer workers.
>>Profits have continued to grow because of such efficiency. Your argument
>>is baseless.
>
> Company growth and government income are different.

Ipse dixit. You don't know what you're talking about. See above. Want
some charts, or will they only confuse you more?

> Yes companies can make more money by decreasing their work force and
> becoming more productive but they are not giving it to the government.

I wish they weren't, but they are.

> Most
> of the time the work force reduction is mandatory to just stay in business.
> The market forces always go to cheap labor so to say anything different is
> really weird.

LOL, you should exit the discussion if that kind of crap is your best
response (same with "anything you say is rhetoric" -- gimme a break).

>>I've actually taken several courses in economics, including some taught
>>by the kinds of people who like socialist programs like "the care" and
>>Social (in)Security. What is undeniable is that SS programs and others
>>are inefficient, and the inefficiencies are unrelated to demographics.
>
> at the same
>
> I agree but the SS is still taken out of every pay check and the less number
> of pay checks the less money there is.

No, see above. SS is based on a percentage of payroll (half from
employer, half from employee; all of it if one is self-employed).
Payrolls increase (not just the number of paychecks, but the size of
them) as the economy grows. Companies don't hire just to have workers,
so your argument is only half-right at best. I think you might be sharp
enough to realize that.

>>We don't need immigration reform, we need tax reform.
>
> I wasn't saying anything about immigration reform, only stating what the
> policy is now which encourages illegal immigration. I am perplexed how this
> is translated by many here as immigrant driven rather than US driven.

What state are you in? You must not live in Florida, Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona, or California.

> Illegals don't hire themselves ask Walmart.

Neither does Walmart. Some of their contractors did. It's only a
question if Walmart actually knew about it, or approved of it.

> Why would they knowingly hire or anyone hire one?

They don't. The contractors, though, apparently understand the issue
well enough to know that the illegal workers in their hire NEEDED papers
to work for them. That's the issue that will go to court. It will only
affect Walmart legally if Walmart knew about it or encouraged it.

> They can't very well hide and they don't speak the
> language.

I'm sure it's safe to say you're not in Texas or California. They don't
have to hide except on the journey here. Once they're in, they're in.
There's not much they can do to get deported short of breaking other
laws or in the event that INS actually enforces law.

> The answer is pretty obvious. They are wanted here.

Non sequitur. Most illegals are undocumented or have fraudulent
documentation. Most of them work off the books, undercutting people who
are here legally and legitimately. Many of them in my area find work for
sub-contractors in the building trades, landscaping, and other such
labor. They do a good day's work for much less than what many others
require, especially if union workers demanding scale. You say they don't
hurt anyone. Tell that to someone who doesn't get as much work, if any,
for $15 an hour because someone working off the books and here illegally
will do the same job (and just as well) for less than minimum wage.

I'm all for getting the best price, and I admire the hard work
immigrants do. I also think we should apply our laws equally to
everyone. That goes for minimum wage (if we're going to have one) to tax
withholding to immigration.

>>The way it stands now, Congress will likely increase tax rates as the
>>baby boomers mature. This will skim a lot off the tax-deferred savings
>>of those who were wise enough to save for retirement to benefit those
>>who weren't. That would be wrong, but that's what I expect to happen
>>because of government's inherent shortsightedness and preference for big
>>programs over self-sufficiency.
>
> So who's to blame for that?

Government. They never should've gotten into the entitlement business.

> People don't know how to live without government programs

There were times when our government didn't pay people not to work, not
to plant certain crops, or fund their retirements. People got by.

> vs the immigrant from a country who never had one to
> begin with.

Irrelevant. Why should they come here for entitlement programs?

> The mind set and resourcefulness are different. You have
> people living on the side of a slope with an open flame kettle for meals.
> These are the working homeless.

Most illegal immigrants have housing. What are you talking about?

>>>It never gets to the
>>>people nor does the US care where it goes as long as it can buys
> influence.
>
>>Bullshit.
>
> See the movie "Blackhawk Down".

Somalia was a hellhole, and it still is. There was no government there,
which is why it was so risky going there. Try again.

>>Not always. We didn't offer aid to the Saudis in the 1990s.
>
> So we then offered aid to save their necks later on. Then we set a base up.

We were there to save their necks in the first place. We used their
bases, and they built us more.

> We also
>>offer aid whether we have bases or not. The offer to Turkey wasn't for
>>aid, but increasing it. Pay attention to the news next time.
>
> We pay to use bases in Turkey as they are there. The additional aid was for
> the "use" of the base for war.

We also give them aid unrelated to the use of our bases.

> It is a NATO country dude, really man.

And that's irrelevant, dude. We have a duty to compensate our hosts for
land they let us use.

>>>Give us bases and get aid or don't give us bases and no aid. Going to
> the
>>>people? Boy are you naive.
>>
>>Everywhere we've had bases, there's been a boom in the economy. Many
>>Filipinos wanted the US out of the Philippines; the most vigorous
>>defenders of America in the Philippines continue to be those living in
>>and around our bases. Those people benefitted from the economic activity
>>provided. That's true even in places like Saudi Arabia, where some
>>business people want us to remain though Wahabis want us out. I think
>>you're the naive one.
>
> I never said people don't want our money and quite the contrary they do.
> The US uses the aid to not only political advantage but to a military one.

So?

> You are the one saying the US are saints in giving humanitarian aid without
> expectations.

We do that, too.

> We expect things for money spent.

Not always. I argue that we never get the things we expect, so we
shouldn't dish out money like we do.

> How much money are we giving the pilipinos now without bases vs before when
> we had bases there? Where did that money go to?

I'm not going to try and track down every cent in various forms of aid
we give them (not enough time). We don't give as much because we're not
getting as much. We are supporting them militarily again so I know the
amount is rising for arms aid (total military aid of about $100m). I
know Presidents Bush and Arroyo last meeting resulted in the US
committing to $1b in trade benefits. We also have education funding and
other programs on the table with the Philippines (as well as other
nations) without any ties to military cooperation. As for where the
money went from earlier aid, a lot of it went to the Marcos family and
their cronies; a lot of it went to various programs for the citizens. We
don't micromanage our allies' nations; that would make them colonies,
not allies. After Marcos was deposed, though, a lot more money made it
to the people -- especially in relief assistance following the eruption
of Mount Pinatubo.

>>Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity. Before certain Supreme Court
>>rulings, schools didn't have to offer ESL or educate children who
>>should've been in a different country.
>
> This is the kind of double talk I am referring to. It is an illegal act to
> enter this country without documentation and any illegals should be
> deported. What part don't you understand in that simple concept.

I *do* understand that concept. Go ask the ****ing Supreme Court why
*they* don't get the concept.

> You even have the Supreme Court protecting illegals because they are needed
> here.

That's *not* why the SC mandates that states apply programs to them.

> Don't tell me the Supreme Court had to make that ruling as they could
> have ruled any way they wanted.

Actually, I'd say that they're supposed to rule on the basis of the
Constitution, but it's clear that they don't do that very often.

> Did they ever rule slavery as
> unconstitutional? No.

Irrelevant issue.

> They had to have come to a conclusion that illegals
> are needed here for the cheap labor and therefore their children had a right
> to go to school. There is no other way to see that.

Yes there is: the right way. The Supreme Court has based their decisions
about illegal immigrants (children and adults) on case law, not on
economic necessity. See PLYER V DOE, 1982. The Court's decision was
based on equal protection of individuals.

>>>Medical care, we don't want
>>>infectious diseases spread
>>
>>That's NOT why we provide free medical care to criminal aliens. They
>>could receive such care in their native countries and await visas and
>>come here legally.
>
> That's true so why do we provide it then?

Hospitals used to deny medical care to illegal aliens. One of them sued
a hospital. The case went to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that
aliens were ENTITLED to the same treatment as legal citizens. I don't
recall any of the relevant cases, but I believe most of them use PLYER
as precedent and use the same equal protection finding.

>>>and we want to encourage illegals in coming here
>>>so we provide free child prenatal care so they can have babies here.
>>
>>That's NOT why we provide such treatment. We do it because the Court has
>>required care to be administered without consideration of legal status.
>
> For having future babies, I beg your pardon?

We used to deport pregnant women. Border officials still try to herd
pregnant women back across the border. Once they're here, and once they
give birth, their child is a ticket to welfare and other benefits, as
well as citizenship for the entire family.

> These are not acute medical
> emergencies. The Court does not see legal residency as an issue?

No. Equal protection.

> That is my
> whole point as there is no difference in the courts or out in the streets as
> to illegal vs legal immigration. That is by intent not initiated by the
> illegals but by the US.

Bullshit, ipse dixit.

>>>Most
>>>of these people are working the money goes into the federal withholding
> that
>>>they never see again.
>>
>>They should work and pay taxes in their homelands. We have processes for
>>legal immigration. They're in violation of our laws.
>
> Only one law that is not enforced by the Courts themselves so you again rely
> on that non legal distinction between illegal and legal immigrant.

First, the Court doesn't enforce laws; the Court interprets laws. The
Supreme Court has never made a finding that our immigration laws are
unconstitutional, nitwit. They HAVE found, for whatever reason(s), that
entitlement programs must be operated without respect for legal status.
Many of us find that inconsistent, as well as very expensive. I
encourage you to read about immigration issues. The following site has
some very helpful information, but they *are* activists who want less
(not zero) immigration.

www.fairus.org

>>>All these programs are here to help the illegals as
>>>they always have a "don't ask don't tell" policy concerning legal
> status.
>
>>Bullshit. Healthcare programs exist for the benefits of legal citizens
>>and legal aliens.
>
> Because of community health issues

Bullshit.

> illegals are encourged to apply for this
> help as they want to prevent an illegal having a baby that will be a burden
> to the State and other conditions such as TB etc.

Stop making up shit, you ignorant ****. Name one government program
which *encourages* illegals to apply for healthcare assistance for TB or
anything else.

Illegals usually wait until something's gone out of hand to go to an
emergency room. They're afraid of deportation. They're reliance on
EMERGENCY ROOMS is at the heart of the problem. One-third of the Texas
state budget now goes for public health care expenses. ER bills of
aliens are usually picked up by taxpayers. States aren't reimbursed for
this by the feds.

http://www.illinoisleader.com/letter...ew.asp?c=10056
http://bigjweb.com/artman/publish/article_1606.shtml
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/co...y.asp?aid=5098
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=10568
http://www.kgun9.com/story.asp?Title...ramOption=News

Etc.

>>>If a police officer finds an illegal he does not call the border patrol,
>>
>>He used to do that.
>>
>>>why?
>>
>>Because most police departments are (a) too overburdened with illegal
>
> The rest is bull as aren't you afraid of all these terrorist out there.

Not bull, you bitch. I live about 200 miles from the border. Parts of my
city are no longer distinguishable as an American city. Every
convenience store does Mexico cash transfers for illegals. Many citizens
are turned away from ERs this time of year because the illegals have
inundated them. Etc.

> Let's see give an illegal a ten year prison term and how much would that
> cost at $20,000 a year.

Idiot. We don't imprison illegals unless they commit other crimes. We
deport them.

>>No, most farm workers are American citizens and those with green cards
>>(meaning LEGAL aliens). Illegals take jobs from migrant farm workers.
>
> Now you got it, they are legal because they were granted legal status by the
> sign of the presidential pen.

No, clueless dolt. They have green cards because they go through INS
processing. You're confusing green cards and visas with amnesty. A green
card isn't amnesty. It's a legitimate step to citizenship.

http://www.us-immigration.org/

>>>Even Governor Reagan back then wanted to break the United Farm Workers
> Union
>>>and encourged illegals here to take their jobs.
>>
>>What's your source for this information?
>
> Every Governor in the history of the state has asked for presidential legal
> amnesty especially during the boycott years.

Ipse dixit.

> You got to be kidding.

No, I'm not. You haven't supported any of your bullshit above, so I
don't expect you to support any below.

> I marched with Mr Chavez.

Sure you did.

> There was no protection
> of union organizers and if you didn't know that Mr Conservative did not like
> unions.

He was president of one, asshole. It was called the Screen Actors Guild.
Maybe you forgot that while emoting over shit you don't comprehend.

> Let me give you a clue here as most Republican conservatives don't
> like unions. Shocking isn't it.

Why did all those union voters overwhelmingly vote for Reagan in '80 and
'84?

> Here's another hint, Bobby Kennedy marched with us and he was not a
> Republican like Reagan. Here's another shocker, Democrats like unions.

Why do Democrats raise taxes on union workers so much?

> Oh, and I don't have any reference for the above so I must be wrong;

You're wrong regardless. Reagan was president of SAG, a union. He had
nothing against them. Many union members are Republican, and they help
elect GOP candidates. Democrats like unions because those high union
wages are taxable despite all the fawning about being for the common man.

>>>I suppose I would have to tell you what State right?
>>
>>It depends on the context of your question, not on semantics.
>
> The State Department refers to "states" so the term can apply to a country
> such as Texas or a state of the union such as Texas.

Your claim is based on semantics, just as I predicted. Context, though,
remains determinative.

> There were blacks who fought for Texas independence and after the fight was
> won you enslaved them.

I didn't enslave anyone. I was born well over a 100 years later.

> Even after letters from leaders for their freedom.
> It never mentions that at the Alamo does it?

WTF does that have to do with anything in this thread, much less your
rambling posts?