Egypt: the worst country in the world? (3 Viewers)

[Enron]

Well when you read his sentence "illegal immigrants have no rights" literally, that is what that sentence means. But we all know thats not what Andy meant, and we all know that, so why nitpick on linguistics?

Specification might help.

Saying "illegal immigrants have no rights could mean a number of things".

Saying "illegal immigrants to have no right to a job, insurance, a lawyer, etc means exactly what it states".

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Bjerknes]

It's part of the problem, but it won't solve the issue whatsoever. Just take a look at the Mexicans who come here now... they have zero guarantee of a job, yet they still take the risk of moving here illegally.

Not gonna work, Enron.

 

[Bjerknes]

Specification might help.

Saying "illegal immigrants have no rights could mean a number of things".

Saying "illegal immigrants to have no right to a job, insurance, a lawyer, etc means exactly what it states".

Well, I'm tired of semantics regarding illegals. This sort of bending-over-backwards for them is unnecessary. They have no rights under the Constitution apart from trial by jury.

 

[Enron]

It's part of the problem, but it won't solve the issue whatsoever. Just take a look at the Mexicans who come here now... they have zero guarantee of a job, yet they still take the risk of moving here illegally.

Not gonna work, Enron.

Don't call me Enron.

Anywho, it could work and it would put pressure on big business to stop hiring the illegals. You see, I'll admit that it's not going to solve the entire problem because illegal immigration is more than a single problem that can be solved by one simple solution. But at least I realize this unlike conservatives and liberals. I can think out of the box. I know that simply building walls or moving all of "them" from here to "there" isn't going to solve the issue "whatsoever".

Number one, Mexico is a shit place to live. It's America's playground along the coast, a third world country in the south and center and a war zone in the north. Mexican people have very little prospects, most of the jobs they can get are either subsistence farming in cartel held areas, work at US owned factories, or becoming involved in the drug trade somehow. It isn't difficult to see why "they" would cross deserts to make $5 an hour doing something most people wouldn't do for $10.

And then we have everyone else, all the other spanish speakers finding their way to the US. Add in the Asians that somehow appear by the boat loads in every major city and it's easy to see we've got a problem.

The bottom line is Mexico needs to sort itself or we need to sort Mexico.

Number 2, if we're going to increase border patrol or customs we need to do it "all the way". We can't keep half assing it like it's a jobs bill or health care reform and relying on unstable militia groups, overworked police departments, and theoretical walls to keep them out. We're one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world, we have one border to patrol and we can't do it. We need to quit wasting money in occupation overseas and actually build a force that can not only keep illegal immigrants out, but make sure bomb suit wearing mofo's can't get in either.

Number 3, we can't keep ignoring the fact that corporate America plays a huge roll in this issue. Companies don't go our of their way to pay Americans solid wage, they go out of their way to pay illegals $5. It's a fact and the government needs to regulate this. We can do as much racial profiling and mass deportation as we want, but if corporations are going to continue to circumvent those efforts than the immigration legislation means nothing. The effort would be all for naught.

I'm not an expert, I don't claim to be. This may not be the entire scope of issues involved, but I see that it's a bigger picture than people claim it to be. My suggestions are obviously not going to "save the day", but they're far better than anything anyone else on this forum has offered.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

 

[Bjerknes]

Don't call me Enron.

OK, sorry, Enron.

Anywho, it could work and it would put pressure on big business to stop hiring the illegals. You see, I'll admit that it's not going to solve the entire problem because illegal immigration is more than a single problem that can be solved by one simple solution. But at least I realize this unlike conservatives and liberals. I can think out of the box. I know that simply building walls or moving all of "them" from here to "there" isn't going to solve the issue "whatsoever".

Good one on ya', then.

Number one, Mexico is a shit place to live. It's America's playground along the coast, a third world country in the south and center and a war zone in the north. Mexican people have very little prospects, most of the jobs they can get are either subsistence farming in cartel held areas, work at US owned factories, or becoming involved in the drug trade somehow. It isn't difficult to see why "they" would cross deserts to make $5 an hour doing something most people wouldn't do for $10.

As unpleasant as it may be, this isn't our problem. And since they thought it would be a good idea to chant "Osama Osama" at a match in Azteca, I have even less sympathy for them. But they have their own nation, they have their own corrupt government that needs to be sorted out, just like ours. We can't help them out. We need to spend time saving this nation before it dissolves into the rest of history's superpowers.

We are not the World Police, nor the World's charity service. Most hate us despite the fact we blow billions on them every year. And it's not like we're helping Darfur in any way either.

And then we have everyone else, all the other spanish speakers finding their way to the US. Add in the Asians that somehow appear by the boat loads in every major city and it's easy to see we've got a problem.

If they are legal immigrants, it's not so much of a problem.

The bottom line is Mexico needs to sort itself or we need to sort Mexico.

We need to sort out Mexico? What's the suggestion here apart from military force?

Number 2, if we're going to increase border patrol or customs we need to do it "all the way". We can't keep half assing it like it's a jobs bill or health care reform and relying on unstable militia groups, overworked police departments, and theoretical walls to keep them out. We're one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world, we have one border to patrol and we can't do it. We need to quit wasting money in occupation overseas and actually build a force that can not only keep illegal immigrants out, but make sure bomb suit wearing mofo's can't get in either.

This I agree with. But unfortunately, the folks we voted for in Washington seemingly have no intention of this. But why should they? These guys are owned by special interests, including those who employ illegals.

Number 3, we can't keep ignoring the fact that corporate America plays a huge roll in this issue. Companies don't go our of their way to pay Americans solid wage, they go out of their way to pay illegals $5. It's a fact and the government needs to regulate this. We can do as much racial profiling and mass deportation as we want, but if corporations are going to continue to circumvent those efforts than the immigration legislation means nothing. The effort would be all for naught.

While it is true, the government has been allowing these shenanigans for a long time. Most of the supposed "regulation" the government has imposed on us over the years has been nothing of the sort, especially how they regulated that Glass-Steagal should be repealed in the 90's. Other policies have simply been a bane on the American public.

It's quite apparent that the federal government has no real intention of regulating anything that REALLY matters, especially what happens on Wall Street. And since that is the case, the states have to take the reigns and decide what is best for them, which is what Arizona has done. Even though some Neo-Cunts posing as Tea Party members say they will crack down on illegals does not mean they will, and I would certainly not bet on them doing so.

Until we get a legitimate federal government in there, the states will have to deal with certain issues by their lonesome.

I'm not an expert, I don't claim to be. This may not be the entire scope of issues involved, but I see that it's a bigger picture than people claim it to be. My suggestions are obviously not going to "save the day", but they're far better than anything anyone else on this forum has offered.

One thing you didn't mention is the legalization of certain drugs. That would halt cash flow for so many suppliers that they would put up one last stand and finally be eliminated. But of course, that won't happen. Too much money in it for a minority here.

 

[Seven]

Well when you read his sentence "illegal immigrants have no rights" literally, that is what that sentence means. But we all know thats not what Andy meant, and we all know that, so why nitpick on linguistics?

It's not nitpicking on linguistics. Later on he actually denies them two or three specific human rights.

 

[Seven]

Well, I'm tired of semantics regarding illegals. This sort of bending-over-backwards for them is unnecessary. They have no rights under the Constitution apart from trial by jury.

Again. No rights. You give them ONE right. That's not humane.

 

[Bjerknes]

Again. No rights. You give them ONE right. That's not humane.

If you think we don't award illegal immigrants enough rights, then don't come here, asshat. Simple enough, isn't it?

It's also funny how you're all-of-a-sudden a human rights activist, yet when it comes to Palestinians, you couldn't care less.

People see you're full of shit. Just ask Tahir, he was right.

 

[Seven]

If you think we don't award illegal immigrants enough rights, then don't come here, asshat. Simple enough, isn't it?

It's also funny how you're all-of-a-sudden a human rights activist, yet when it comes to Palestinians, you couldn't care less.

People see you're full of shit. Just ask Tahir, he was right.

I've never said anything about Palestinians not having human rights. Overall I think very few countries award illegal immigrants enough rights. But that's also because I ask myself why you think you're better than an illegal immigrant, just because you happened to be born in the States. Which, thank God, did not happen to me by the way.

 

[Bjerknes]

I've never said anything about Palestinians not having human rights.

Indeed. You don't really care about them.

 

[Bjerknes]

Overall I think very few countries award illegal immigrants enough rights. But that's also because I ask myself why you think you're better than an illegal immigrant, just because you happened to be born in the States. Which, thank God, did not happen to me by the way.

Our Constitution says that illegal immigrants should not have their life or possessions taken from them, so that actually covers human rights issues.

But what do you think, Andries? Should we provide illegals with taxpayer-sponsored support? Should we make them citizens?

 

[Seven]

Our Constitution says that illegal immigrants should not have their life or possessions taken from them, so that actually covers human rights issues.

But what do you think, Andries? Should we provide illegals with taxpayer-sponsored support? Should we make them citizens?

Are you fucking insane?

 

[Seven]

Article 1.
•All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
•Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 6.
•Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 18.
•Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
•Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 23.
•(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
•(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
•(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
•(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 25.
•(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
•(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

[Enron]

OK, sorry, Enron.

I really dislike that name. If you feel the need to address me in a post use my real name.

As unpleasant as it may be, this isn't our problem. And since they thought it would be a good idea to chant "Osama Osama" at a match in Azteca, I have even less sympathy for them. But they have their own nation, they have their own corrupt government that needs to be sorted out, just like ours. We can't help them out. We need to spend time saving this nation before it dissolves into the rest of history's superpowers.

We are not the World Police, nor the World's charity service. Most hate us despite the fact we blow billions on them every year. And it's not like we're helping Darfur in any way either.

We need to sort out Mexico? What's the suggestion here apart from military force?

It is our problem as the state of their nation forces them to leave.

There are many ways to help Mexico besides invading. Working with their law enforcement and military to come up with strategies to take out the cartels and stabilize the nation is a start.

Introducing them to the idea of labor law and labor unions to force companies to raise the domestic wage and relieve pressure on the cost of living.

As much as you hate Mexico, if you want Mexicans to stop coming over, you're going to have to realize that they need help solving their domestic issues. Helping them with their domestic issues will go a long way in dealing with our immigration problems.

This I agree with. But unfortunately, the folks we voted for in Washington seemingly have no intention of this. But why should they? These guys are owned by special interests, including those who employ illegals.

It doesn't take away from the fact that its an issue that needs addressed if we're going to progress.

While it is true, the government has been allowing these shenanigans for a long time. Most of the supposed "regulation" the government has imposed on us over the years has been nothing of the sort, especially how they regulated that Glass-Steagal should be repealed in the 90's. Other policies have simply been a bane on the American public.

It's quite apparent that the federal government has no real intention of regulating anything that REALLY matters, especially what happens on Wall Street. And since that is the case, the states have to take the reigns and decide what is best for them, which is what Arizona has done. Even though some Neo-Cunts posing as Tea Party members say they will crack down on illegals does not mean they will, and I would certainly not bet on them doing so.

Until we get a legitimate federal government in there, the states will have to deal with certain issues by their lonesome.

You repeated my argument and told me things I already know and have probably already discussed with you at one point or another. So I guess that means you also agree that this too is an area in need of address.

One thing you didn't mention is the legalization of certain drugs. That would halt cash flow for so many suppliers that they would put up one last stand and finally be eliminated. But of course, that won't happen. Too much money in it for a minority here.

The only drug that's remotely close to legalization is marijuana and I don't think the cartels push much Ganja.

It's going to be interesting when white people figure out that legalization of drugs can be profitable for them too. Switzerland is a good example of this.

 

[Enron]

If they are legal immigrants, it's not so much of a problem.

No I was talking about illegal immigrants. The second highest number of illegal immigrants in the US are from Asian countries.

 

[mikhail]

Well, I'm tired of semantics regarding illegals. This sort of bending-over-backwards for them is unnecessary. They have no rights under the Constitution apart from trial by jury.

I was under the impression that the US constitution applies to all people within its borders.

 

[Enron]

I was under the impression that the US constitution applies to all people within its borders.

Depends on when and who is interpreting it.