Full Version: It's not about Immigration

From: UncleSteve [#7]
 2 May 2006
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#6] 3 May 2006

quote:
slavery where the owner had to supply all the basic needs: food, clothes, shelter, medical.


Not just slavery..... The law reads (or at least id did 25 years ago) that if you wanted to bring someone into the country to work, ie, be a nanny for your kids, you had to guarantee them a job for a minimum length of time (one year?) and take responsibility for their room, board, etc.

No guarantee, no nanny!


From: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#8]
 3 May 2006
To: ALL

I wrote our Rep and Senator's telling that that I have never been a single issue voter but since I feel so stongly on this issue, I told them all if they don't vote to secure our borders FIRST I will vote against them. Our Republican Rep answered in about 2 days saying he feels the same, time will tell with him. Our Republican Senator who's in deep crap with the Lobbiest that was recently nailed to the wall wrote me on his stand re Immigration. Wrote back to him saying He needs to vote to secure the borders first than deal with the immigration problem later. Haven't heard back from him and am still waiting to hear from the other Senator.

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#9]
 3 May 2006
To: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#8] 3 May 2006

Dave,

That's the way to do it. You're setting a good example.

Thank you.

From: kmccutch [#10]
 3 May 2006
To: ALL

If you go to WWW.numbersusa.com you can send your Senators
and Rep faxes about the immigrant situation.
Keith


From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#11]
 3 May 2006
To: kmccutch [#10] Unread

Keith,

I think we should mention that people on "either side" of the issue should let their wishes be known.

It's not a one-sided issue.

Thanks for the link.

EDITED: 3 May 2006 by DGL


From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#12]
 3 May 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#11] 3 May 2006

Even if you don't support it, is anyone here familiar enough with the arguments against securing the boarder to post a summary here? (I'm talking about having uncontrolled/unrestricted passage, not the terms of a policy based passage.) I honestly don't understand what's controversial about this part of the debate.

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#13]
 3 May 2006
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#12] 3 May 2006

Ken,

Can the borders ever be truly secure?

From what I've heard, if the proposed 700-mile-long fence were to be built, along the Mexican border, to be effective, it would have to be 100 ft. tall, with half of that height underground.

Welcome to East Berlin.

What about the Canadian border? What about the coasts? What about airspace?

From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#14]
 3 May 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#13] 3 May 2006

What about trying and at least reducing the problem? (devil) 

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#15]
 3 May 2006
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#14] 3 May 2006

Harvey,

I'm not opposed to that at all.

If the fence idea doesn't fly, electronic surveillance will probably be the next best thing, but that can easily become heavy grist for the conspiracy theorists, knowing it can be used on anyone.

Good luck to those having to make the crucial decisions.

From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#16]
 3 May 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#13] 3 May 2006

edited to add: the last two posts were made as I was typing.

Is an impenetrable wall necessary, how about the ability to detect and intercept as an alternative?

Detect: Satellite, ground vibration, string two wires as a capacitance based sensor. Infrared, computer vision... go high tech.

Intercept: helicopters, and ground vehicles.

How about a plant based barrier to slow those that have passed the sensor line.

Those caught need to be identified by some means not perceived as easy to mutilate (finger prints); Use a retina scan or some other biometric.

Currently there is no deterrent. It's taken for granted if you get stopped on your first attempt, you'll make it on your second. -No risk, easy, lots of perceived potential gain...

EDITED: 3 May 2006 by KDEVORY


From: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#17]
 3 May 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#15] 3 May 2006

What the hell David, Bush has already been tapping our phones and taking away more and more of our Constitutional rights in the name of security, all the while the borders are basically wide open for anyone to walk in.

Spending 40 Billion in 2005 alone for Homeland Security is a joke. Even Halburton in a non bid contract could build your fence for that kind of money and still have money left over to give Foreign Aid to the Saudi's; who really need it since the price of oil is so low.


From: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#18]
 3 May 2006
To: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#17] 3 May 2006

I think it was Saudi Arabia that just lowered their price of gas in their country because the previous 60 cents per gallon was a "hardship for their citizens".

From: UncleSteve [#19]
 3 May 2006
To: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#17] 3 May 2006

quote:
Bush has already been tapping our phones


Does this mean you are coming out of the closet? The only calls being "tapped" according to the reports in the news AND from the White Tower, er, House were int'l calls to the middle east.....

Salam!


From: Mick [#20]
 3 May 2006
To: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#8] 3 May 2006

Hi Dave,

Here in Colorado if someone trespasses on your property and you feel your life is threartened, it is cool (legal) to shoot them.

The (illegals, immigrants, aliens etc., etc.) are trespassing on our country, and they are threatening my (way) of life.

Maybe don't shoot em, but sure as HELL get them outa here !

There are many LEGAL ways to immigrate to OUR country.

Mick

EDITED: 3 May 2006 by MICK


From: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#21]
 3 May 2006
To: UncleSteve [#19] 3 May 2006

You caught me :S 

From: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#22]
 3 May 2006
To: Mick [#20] 3 May 2006

Mick,

Now don't you go shooting ET. He's a good Alien. Where is Agent's Scully & Mulder when you need them to track down the bad ones

It was great seeing you in Vegas!


From: Bieb (HABIEB) [#23]
 3 May 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#13] 3 May 2006

And who will build this fence? The Mexicans? LOL

Yeah!! put a fence up north too... keep them pesky Canadians out, (unless they come with good beer)

LOL... just to lighten it up a bit...


Harold


From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#24]
 3 May 2006
To: Bieb (HABIEB) [#23] 5 May 2006

I don't think they would have a problem being paid to build something to keep out the competition.

From: Franklin (FW_HAYNES) [#25]
 3 May 2006
To: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#17] 4 May 2006

1. The wire tap thing is so old news and has been for a while. It never was the extent that "some" democrats made it out to be. It was only on "some conversations from out of country lines to suspected and known links to certain groups out side of the U.S. Your phone was never bugged and neither was over 97% of the rest of America.
2. I and two of my friends have worked with Haliburton in the past. They make bids like everyone else, they just have proof of ability to be able to do the job going for them, so they do get put at the top of the list a lot of times. And all of this stuff with Chaney and Haliburton is false since he has no shares in the company any more and hasn't been connected with them in years. Again, misrepresented information.
Politically, we all differ in this forum, but instead of turning a thread about a current situation that does affect us as business owners into a reason to bash the administration with old issues that doesn't hold alot of water is a waste of time.
I personally feel that both the republicans and democrats have worked to flush this country down the toilet by pandering to their own power. Its time that a third party take the reins for a while. Unfortunately, no third party can raise the funds to stand up to the bigwigs.
Anyway, off of my soap box on this issue. On a lighter note:
An economic survey of our area was done. And though it is an estimate, it shows that our city actually gained more money this week because of Monday than they would have made if it were a normal day. Turns out, more people (primarily hispanics I guess) went to the stores on Sunday to buy stuff they would probably have bought on Monday. apparently, there was also a boost in sales at some of the local theatres and restaurants also, probably because these people out stocking up for the boycott felt that since they were not going to work the next day that that would have been a good time to eat out and go to the movies.
Also, I heard an interview with a lady who supported the boycott by spending all day Saturday and Sunday silk screening protest shirts and selling them at the rally on Monday. I don't think they quite got the whole idea of what the boycott was all about.


From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#26]
 3 May 2006
To: Franklin (FW_HAYNES) [#25] Unread

Franklin,

Here in Oxnard, the protest had little impact. The farmworkers put their hours in, over the weekend, so they could protest Monday. :-) 

Just shifted their shopping and work days, to those other than Monday.

Show messages:  1-6  7-26  27-35

Back to thread list | Login

© 2024 Project Beehive Forum