Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country
protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of
illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might
protect
its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and,
once here, to stay indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand
the thinking behind these protests.


Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me
in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the
beds
and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors; I've
done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest
(except for when I broke into your house).


According to the protesters, not only must you let me stay, you must
add me to your family's insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide
other
benefits to me and to my family (my husband will do your yard work
because he too is hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in
part).
If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends
who will
picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my right to be there.


It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do,
and
I'm just trying to better myself. I'm hard-working and honest, um,
except
for well, you know.

And what a deal it is for me!! I live in your house, contributing only
a
fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about
it
without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being an
anti-housebreaker. Oh yeah, and I want you to learn my language
so you can communicate with me


Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?! Only in America..
Say by to your future Social Security funds.

BLAM!

Interesting analogy. Unfortunately, neither of the political parties
look at illegal immigration from such a viewpoint.... one of morality
and justice. It's really about economics and political power.

The Democrats want to legalize illegal immigrants because Latinos tend
to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Granting easy citizenship to
immigrants would result in a major swing of political power (as well
as a significant increase in tax revenue). But it will not stop
-illegal- immigration because these people are jumping the border for
jobs, not freedom or citizenship, and employers are required to pay US
citizens at least the minimum wage. Also remember that the largest
industry in the US is agriculture. So we would have both legal -and-
illegal immigrants.

The Republicans actually -want- immigrants -- they just don't want to
grant them citizenship. Not only does that prevent them from voting,
but also prevents them from being paid any minimum wage, thus insuring
that there is an ample supply of cheap labor in the US (hence the
proposed "guest worker" program). This will eventually drop the wages
of -all- blue-collar workers in the US, citizen or not, because of job
competition between citizens and guest workers. But, of course, guest
workers will still have to pay taxes.

So whether your martini is shaken or stirred, it will still get you
drunk. Don't like the choices? Vote independent.

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Interesting analogy. Unfortunately, neither of the political parties
look at illegal immigration from such a viewpoint.... one of morality
and justice. It's really about economics and political power.

The Democrats want to legalize illegal immigrants because Latinos tend
to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Granting easy citizenship to
immigrants would result in a major swing of political power (as well
as a significant increase in tax revenue). But it will not stop
-illegal- immigration because these people are jumping the border for
jobs, not freedom or citizenship, and employers are required to pay US
citizens at least the minimum wage. Also remember that the largest
industry in the US is agriculture. So we would have both legal -and-
illegal immigrants.

The Republicans actually -want- immigrants -- they just don't want to
grant them citizenship. Not only does that prevent them from voting,
but also prevents them from being paid any minimum wage, thus insuring
that there is an ample supply of cheap labor in the US (hence the
proposed "guest worker" program). This will eventually drop the wages
of -all- blue-collar workers in the US, citizen or not, because of job
competition between citizens and guest workers. But, of course, guest
workers will still have to pay taxes.

So whether your martini is shaken or stirred, it will still get you
drunk. Don't like the choices? Vote independent.




Good post Frank though I'd like to add that Bush is courting the Latino
& Black vote with his choices of Rice, Gonzalez and less recently
Powell. With that its still the rich white male society that makes the
decisions that really matter sorry to say.

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:54:00 -0400, jim wrote
in :

snip
Good post Frank though I'd like to add that Bush is courting the Latino
& Black vote with his choices of Rice, Gonzalez and less recently
Powell. With that its still the rich white male society that makes the
decisions that really matter sorry to say.


Well, Bush isn't the president because he's smart. The real wealth and
power are held by the people in the shadows behind him. Just like
Reagan, he's the charismatic false-front that was used to install the
current power brokers. He was selected, based on his race and gender,
by the same power brokers that selected Powell, Rice, Gonzalez, and a
few others (including a female SCOTUS candidate). It's all a political
dog-and-pony show.

Want to know who holds the -real- power in government? Follow the
money.

Frank Gilliland wrote:

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:54:00 -0400, jim wrote
in :

snip

Good post Frank though I'd like to add that Bush is courting the Latino
& Black vote with his choices of Rice, Gonzalez and less recently
Powell. With that its still the rich white male society that makes the
decisions that really matter sorry to say.



Well, Bush isn't the president because he's smart. The real wealth and
power are held by the people in the shadows behind him. Just like
Reagan, he's the charismatic false-front that was used to install the
current power brokers. He was selected, based on his race and gender,
by the same power brokers that selected Powell, Rice, Gonzalez, and a
few others (including a female SCOTUS candidate). It's all a political
dog-and-pony show.

Want to know who holds the -real- power in government? Follow the
money.



No arguement from me on that. Independant party(s) are too weak to form
any opposition and if they did become strong enough they would be
assimilated by special interest groups. Aint democracy grand?

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:24:29 -0400, jim wrote
in :

snip
No arguement from me on that. Independant party(s) are too weak to form
any opposition........


I'm not talking an "independent party" because there isn't such a
thing. Personally, I have to side with Ben Franklin and say that
political parties should be illegal. After all, some of the most
infamous dictators rose to power as a member of a political party
within an apparently legitimate and democratic form of government:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictators:

"Modern dictators have usually come to power in times of emergency.
Frequently they have seized power by coup, but some, most notably
Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany, achieved office
by legal means and once in power gradually eroded constitutional
restraints."

Sounds a lot like what Bush is doing, huh?

Frank Gilliland wrote:

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:24:29 -0400, jim wrote
in :

snip

No arguement from me on that. Independant party(s) are too weak to form
any opposition........



I'm not talking an "independent party" because there isn't such a
thing. Personally, I have to side with Ben Franklin and say that
political parties should be illegal. After all, some of the most
infamous dictators rose to power as a member of a political party
within an apparently legitimate and democratic form of government:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictators:

"Modern dictators have usually come to power in times of emergency.
Frequently they have seized power by coup, but some, most notably
Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany, achieved office
by legal means and once in power gradually eroded constitutional
restraints."

Sounds a lot like what Bush is doing, huh?




For some reason Ross Perot springs to mind.

Agreed about what Bush is up to.

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:14:07 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

+++The Democrats want to legalize illegal immigrants because Latinos tend
+++to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Granting easy citizenship to
+++immigrants would result in a major swing of political power (as well
+++as a significant increase in tax revenue). But it will not stop
+++-illegal- immigration because these people are jumping the border for
+++jobs, not freedom or citizenship, and employers are required to pay US
+++citizens at least the minimum wage. Also remember that the largest
+++industry in the US is agriculture. So we would have both legal -and-
+++illegal immigrants.
*************

Overwhelmingly Democrat? At least not in Dade County Florida recently.
That may have been a fact prior to 2000. The hispanic vote is nearly
split in half.

The agricultural insustry has recently lost immagrint worker to the
construction industry as they are paying on average about $5 an hour
more.

james

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:24:29 -0400, jim
wrote:

+++No arguement from me on that. Independant party(s) are too weak to form
+++any opposition and if they did become strong enough they would be
+++assimilated by special interest groups. Aint democracy grand?
************

The rules are stacked against a 3rd party from gaining any serious
power from the main two.

Aint democray grand?

james