|
|
November 08, 2005
New Polls Show Strong Support for Border Wall, Ending Anchor Baby Law "About half of Americans say children of illegal aliens should not receive automatic citizenship, and Comments
The border fence is the most probable immigration reform. Focus here. It brings together the minority immigration reformers with the large % of population paranoid about terrorist attack. Thus you get a doable political union. It is the only immigration reform proposal that has that unique union and thus makes it practical to achieve. Focus, focus, focus. But lose the birthright part. As the poll shows, it is too devisive and will kill the overall bill. Interior enforcement and work visas are too abstract and step on too many citizens livelihood. Focus on the border fence like a laser beam, and you will get it. And that would be a big victory, because at least you keep out the most violent (gangs) and most uneducated. We will lose against the economics of politics regarding interior enforcement and visas. And to keep democrats on our side, stay away from birthright citizenship. We have too many bleeding heart liberals in USA. Think like Henry Clay. You must present an obvious win-win for everyone, no matter their philosophical tendencies. Posted by: Shelby Moore on November 8, 2005 02:41 PM Only 50% favor chaning the citizenship laws? That is it? I would have guessed a super majority would easily favor it. After all, we are the only industrialized nation that still allows this nonsense. Just goes to show you, there are plenty of fools in this world. Like this moron: " But Mr. Martin said it's the wrong way to attack illegal immigration. He said if the border can be controlled, the question is irrelevant, and if the border cannot be controlled, the change could create a generation of disaffected youths without access to the opportunities provided by American citizenship. This Martin deserves the dumb*ss of the year award. He thinks if we solve the border problem , anchor babies would go away. And like so many liberal thinkers that never think all the way through the logical conclusion of a problem, our citizenship laws still reward those who break our laws and come into the country illegally. This thinking is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. "If you can breach our defenses, ignore our laws, we will reward you with an American citizen baby that you can then use for your selfish puropses of sponsoring you into the US later". Illogical. True, border control would help a lot, but that is only part of the anchor baby problem. People come here legally on visa's in many cases just to have an anchor baby (I have seen it first hand). He is just trying to deflect the criticism. Liberal scum lawyer. And the problems in Europe are not because of citizenship issues. It is mass immigration gone awry. Bringing people with nothing in common to your culture into your country in massive numbers. End anchor babies NOW. Our forefathers NEVER intended to allow illegals, and any two bit con artist with the means to get here, the ability to abuse our nation and its citizenship. Posted by: Weary Citizen on November 8, 2005 02:58 PM '"The immigration issue has been cutting across party lines in the last couple of years, and these particular issues are dividing the electorate drawing a line, in a way that's beneficial for Republicans,' he said" Only in the mind of a pundit would an invasion by 30 million foreign Socialists be perceived as "beneficial". Posted by: Smitty on November 8, 2005 03:10 PM The sound of no anchor babies crying...it's so relaxing isn't it? Posted by: Born American on November 8, 2005 03:33 PM Of course, I continue to take the radical view that they should remove citizenship from even those children born here to those here illegally during the last five years. When a child is presented for welfare benefits or education benefits, it should be required that the parents provide proof that they were here legally at the time of the child's birth. If they were not, the child should not be considered a citizen and should NOT receive any benefits. Frankly, they should all then be deported. Being an unwilling witness to the cramming of our school system and its desperate attempts to meet the needs of those who should not be here and who the school system had NO idea were coming has hardened my heart--that and going to the public hospital system with my mentally-ill sister where the illegals are everywhere. I no longer see these anchor babies as cute, I see them as expensive and as those pushing aside our own children and citizens from those things created specifically for citizens by other citizens. Count me in with Born American as he posts above on this one. Posted by: J on November 8, 2005 04:27 PM Pols should take note that 75% of conservatives are in favor of building a barrier and conservatives are more consistent voters than progressives. What's more, my experience tells me that a vast majority of elderly Americans are very disturbed at our immigration policies. Elderly Americans are known to be dependable voters and are likely to react decidedly as they see everything they have done to bring this country prosperity go down the drain. As a confluence of bad policies begin intersecting and mushroom out of control, a vast majority of moderates will be ready to fight for immigration reform too. From Dan Stein's first CSPAN interview we witnessed the frustration of these mostly moderate callers. In the very near future, they will feel compelled to act on these frustrations and demand responsible action by our government. IMO, the best way to galvanize those who are sympathetic to immig ref but have not become involved is to remind them that their inaction dooms their children and grandchildren to chaos and a low standard of living. Posted by: Cynthia on November 8, 2005 04:36 PM Shelby, I disagree with you completely. I would agree with submitting a proposal for a fence separate from a citizenship change bill, but I would never accept not trying to change it because it would not pass. It may pass, 50% support the change and that is more than than those in favor leaving it as is. Besides, just because something is a tough sell and may not pass, does not mean we should not attempt to do the right thing. And ending anchor babies is the right thing to do. Morally and logically. Posted by: Weary Citizen on November 8, 2005 04:39 PM There is one thing keeping troops from sealing the border. POLITICIANS, and they should all be arrested for not acting,& obstructing justice. We already have laws. "we the big businesses" tell congress how to act, not the "we the people." that we were led to believe.. How can the elderly and the middle class pay for 20 million immigrants and their children along with 37 million poor? Big business gets tax breaks so even though they hire them, and, are the ones insisting on illegals, they pay none of the bills on the 1/3 rd. of illegals on federal assistance. Congress doesn't pay, they get 12% return on their stocks as compared to 3% that we get. The elderly and middle class pay for casinos to hire illegal labor. There are bills now to ban Chrimas vacations in Florida and to make Spanish mandatory in kindergarden. There is a large group of Americans that have had enough. Posted by: Had Enough on November 8, 2005 04:45 PM The approximate cost of building a viable, enforceable fence...$8 billion The approximate cost of implementing provisions of the REAL ID act...$250 million
The cost of enforcing our laws, protecting our citizens and sustaining our sovereignty...PRICELESS! Posted by: takn on November 8, 2005 05:35 PM It would seem to be that ending the birthright citizenship would be the quickest and most easily accomplished step to start the ball rolling in Washington. Just a stroke of the pen versus God knows how long to build a fence. It is also a no-brainer considering that we are the last country on the planet to allow this insanity to occur. I am so tired of seeing these dirty illegal mothers pushing their strollers and baby carriages with their screaming kids in soiled diapers and dried baby formula all over their clothes. It used to be that the only mexicans pushing strollers were the nannies! Now you rarely even see a pregnant caucasian.
Posted by: MEXIPHOBIC on November 8, 2005 07:48 PM While I see the wisdom in Shelby's advice (as usual), I have to agree with Weary Citizen about going ahead and going for the "whole enchilada" as they say. Sometimes a fight for something so strongly believed in and so absolutely necessary is worthwhile even if it causes defeat in the short run. The fight itself and the loss (should it occur) create a whole new set of events/ideas that can alter the scene radically. But then, I am from the Alamo state where a group of men who knew that they would more than likely be defeated stayed and fought because they had the barest of hopes of winning and because it was worth fighting for. They lost but their loss brought about San Jacinto and victory. (And then, as now, persons of Mexican heritage but Texas heart were standing with everyone else!) I don't see "losses" as losses necessarily but as steps that will take us where we must/need to go to bring final resolution. The anti-anchor baby part of this is absolutely necessary and totally worthwile. I say "go for it" and let the chips fall where they may--for now. Posted by: J on November 9, 2005 07:22 AM Our Tax dollars hard at work! Posted by: Hispanicborn on November 9, 2005 10:57 AM Genghis Kahn once said that: “The strength of a wall is only as great as the willingness of the people to defend it”. Putting up a fence without interior enforcement will no more to help us than the Great Wall helped China against Genghis Kahn. He bribed his way through and didn’t lose a man. It will only help politicians who want to give the impression of progress without it having any real effect. Posted by: Gail Roma on November 9, 2005 10:57 AM good one tkn! and just think, the $70 billion/YR figure is just the FEDERAL money spent on illegals. it doesn't include what each state has to pay for these parasites (in california its $9 billion/YR)! Posted by: ty on November 9, 2005 11:03 AM Weary Citizen, Submitted as 2 separate bills seems equivalent to what I was suggesting, as long as you don't muddle your focus in process. Some of you may have a lot of time on your hands. Most people are busy trying to work and keep up with their hectic lives. Be realistic! Brighright citizenship will get us stereotyped as being non-loving of children. That is about the worst political stereotype there is in USA. It will thus injure everything we try to do. Stop the illegals and then you stop the anchor babies. You don't need the birthright law to stop anchor babies. Also the law will end up unconstitutional in our kangeroo courts. Posted by: Shelby Moore on November 9, 2005 12:49 PM J, The opposition won't fight us. They run sneaky legislation attached to big spending bills and semantic propoganda. We have to judge on what the voters will really push for. A anti-terrorist fence might get traction (probably not). Gail, I don't think any of it will work. However if all of us complaining, assuming we are 1% of the population, moved our assets into GOLD, then entire thing would be over with tomorrow. The dollar would collapse, the illegals would rush home to live off the land, because there wouldn't be any jobs for them here. The corrupt dollar fiat system would be destroyed. Then we can rebuild our country the way it should be. But that is too easy. You all want to do it the impossible way. Good luck. Posted by: Shelby Moore on November 9, 2005 01:14 PM Shelby, the condescending tone is unwarranted. And beleive it or not, there are many who do not buy into your "buy gold" to solve the economy problem. Gold has been the worst investment of all choices over the last 40 years (look it up). And by the way, as a person who understnads economics, your desire to go back to the gold standard is a waste of time. Now, for your statement "some of you may have a lot of time on your hands", that is about hte most condescending statements ANYONE on this board has made to posters, including Ralph. So knock it off. It is none of your business how much time we have. "Brighright citizenship will get us stereotyped as being non-loving of children. That is about the worst political stereotype there is in USA." Finally, not sure what you are thinking, but you are expressing your opinion and personal preferences here. Just like me. What you say is not fact. So keep that in mind. You are not the almighty "oz". I will stop there but you are really starting to get under my skin. And that's a shame because we both agree on the damage caused by illegal immigration. In the future, please debate, not attack. Beleive it or not your arrogance is unwarranted. IMHO. Posted by: Weary Citizen on November 9, 2005 04:07 PM Shelby, I have had time to cool down. Your post got me going, but I doubt you meant to be antagonistic (at least I hope not). Anway, my apologies if I took your post the wrong way. Posted by: Weary Citizen on November 9, 2005 04:23 PM Weary, You perceive an arrogance that is not there. I am just stating my opinion. The poll shows that 50% are not for birthright citizenship. How much more clear do you need it to be? It is not my opinion. The poll is telling you that we have 50% of the population that does not agree. And you want to try to force it? As for economics, I think you do not understand monetary inflation. Maybe you subscribe to the Keyesian model, which is the new science since the last great depression, which says that the history of rome and economics for many 1000s years (before and after rome) is all false, and now we can just print $. The fact that Gold is the worst investment in a SPECULATION economy where the govt steal 8% of your $ every year, by increasing the money supply by 8% every year, is precisely why it is the BEST asset to retain value when the SPECULATION system does it final grand crash, as it did in the Roman empire and many, many other instances throughout history. Did you not study the Dark Ages after the Roman fiat imploded? So Weary, please tell me why you think the world economy will not collapse? And then tell me if it does collapse, why Gold will not skyrocket, just as it did in 1979, when we had the same stagflation we are seeing now? It is difficult abstract concept to understand. I would like for you to demonstrate your economics knowlegde please. I have made numerous posts on the complete logic behind the economics of impending crash of world financial system and thus the value of Gold. Please refute them with your claimed expertise. Any way, humbug. I don't care. Go on with what you want to do. Just remember me in a few years. You will remember me I am very sure. Posted by: Shelby Moore on November 9, 2005 04:40 PM Weary Citizen, A debate I am having with Ralph in a much older archive, I think clearly illustrates the strength of my argument. Please consider this: http://www.steinreport.com/archives/008614.html Ralph wrote: Shelby replied: What I did say, is that the impending great depression will devastate the financial system we have now in USA. Just as did to financial systems in the last Great Depression. The breakdown in world trade is a natural reflex of the implosion of overextended world financial systems. And it will happen again and again and again and again, because lifeforms are inherently greedy. It is nature. Nature runs in intense competition booms and them shakeout busts, where the strongest survive. It is evolution. Always has been.
As I said, you forget the plurality of Great Depressioins in the history of the earth. And now above, you agree you forgot. You used the word "never". "never" is clearly incorrect. "Most economists and investors do agree with me. That is why they continue to invest in our economy." Do your research adequately before you make false claims. I have read most of the prominent economists, and although many do believe in the short-term boom in our economy, a vast majority a long-term for the West that is in decline. "The standards of living of Americans barely declined during the 70s, and the inflation had absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigration. And the real per capita GDP of the nation has continued to grow steadily since the 70s, unemployment has dropped significantly, and standards of living have increased dramatically." Hahaha. Used to be that only the man needed to work for the family to have a nice life. Now both parents must work. Standard of living has been cut by 50% at least. Of course we have more gadgets now, and we have more zeros (0s) at the end of our net worth, but the bottom line wealth is that both parents work, no one has any time for happiness. What kind of wealth is that? Backwards! You are measuring everything in paper, just as Americans are. Wait a few years when the paper is worthless, then you see that very little true wealth has been created since 1971. Instead, most of our factories are gone. Most of our populace doesn't know how to mow the grass. And moreover, when the speculation period ends in the next great depression, all that paper will make good toilet paper. hahaha, you really believe the speculation mantra! (edited to be less rude: I think you are foolish) Apologies to Ralph for losing my civility for a moment. Posted by: Shelby Moore on November 10, 2005 05:39 AM Ralph wrote: Let me add that Warren Buffet, the USA's most successful and prolific investor, owns more silver than any other person in the world. He is shorting the US dollar with silver, also with enormous foreign currency holdings. You want to bet against Warren Buffet? Posted by: Shelby Moore on November 10, 2005 06:09 AM Ralph, It is time to throw the statistics at you, so we can expose your nonsense once and for all. Readers can refer to following page for a plethoria of historical statistics on US economy: http://hussmanfunds.com/html/datapage.htm
Ralph wrote: The fact remains he has hedged (shorted) against the value of the dollar with a significant % of his porfolio. He must think there is significant risk. Also in the last Berkshire roundtable notes, he talks about selecting companies that do well in inflationary periods. So his dollar-denominated strategy also expects higher inflation. He has written articles for Money magazine warning of the perils of our huge trade deficit and our NEGATIVE savings rate. Do some Google searches to educate yourself.
We also have for the 1st time in the history of this once great nation, a NEGATIVE savings rate, so that we can buy all those "better" things. Just look at the statistics: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PSAVERT.txt See above page, in 1970 (before the gold debasement and massive monetary inflation), we had a personal savings rate of roughly 10%. In the 1990s, it declined precipitiously towards 4%, and then after turn of this century, it has headed towards 1%, and now in 2005 (since monetary inflation has increased from roughly 7% to 12%), the personal savings rate is now consistently NEGATIVE (BELOW ZERO!!!)!!! As to subjective measures, such as better food, I can tell you without a doubt, that our food is much worse. We have a serious problem with obesity in this country. You should eat my homemade southern cooking sometime, then you will know what food used to. But we can't afford food made from natural ingredients any more. Who has time to daily gather and chop the fresh herbs, produce, etc and slow cook it, mash the homemade corn mean, etc.. Instead we eat highly processed foods which have all their natural nutrients destroyed and removed. So thus our bodies need more food to get the same nutrients, and thus we are obese. I am 40 years old, and most people guess my age as a teenager, because I figured out that I should make my quality of life higher than in USA, by escaping the consumtion binge society. We are what we eat. And that is one of the truest indications of how low our standard of living is compared to what it used to be. Ralph in short, you believe all the lies put out by the govt. You believe the BS. But people know inherently that their lives have gotten faster, more materialistic, but much less happy and lower quality. More quantity or larger does not imply quality. Quality is subjective. We spend and don't save because we are not contented. We are not happy. We do not care about tomorrow. There is no other way to explain a NEGATIVE savings rate. Our standard of living is a massive addiction. It is proven in your NEGATIVE savings rate. That is a fundamental change in our society and it coincides with the massive monetary inflation, which I will detail later in this post.
And they decided to spend more than they earn. Hahaha. So much for your theory that the economy can keep going up forever. You spend more than you earn, and I guarantee your life will crash. Our economy will crash also. But we are extremely addicted, so it won't crash without first attempting govt intervention, which will mean that Bernake (quoted as saying he would "throw $ from helicopters" to avoid deflation) will accelerate monetary inflation to stimulate our spending past the point of no return. Well they are already up to 11.5% this year. I suppose when they reach 20% or so, then we will have the hyperinflation that gripped Germany before the world war (and caused the world war). Oh yes, we will get more world wars from all this massive spending addiction, because when it crashes, it going to cause major pain in China. They been building 10 lane freeways in distant provinces, building railroads up to 15,000ft to isolated Tibet, ... massive projects funded by easy money from WalMart, but projects with no underlying economic viability in a long-term competitive global economy. When the US spending addiction spigot gets turned off, the competition of the world is going to grow extremely brutal. Nature is brutal in selecting the survival of the fittest. Wars are brutal reflexes. Well it has already begun... the competition for scare resources... oil.
Hahaha. There you go again, showing you are completely ignorant of macro economics. I read on your blog that you are an account. Obviously macro economics is a different science. Let's compare the the historical expansion of the monetary supply (M3) and nominal GDP: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/M3SL.txt Since Jan 1959 to Sept 2005, the M3 has increased, 9976 / 289 = 34.5 (3450%), and nominal GDP increased, 12590 / 495 = 25.4 (2540%). Thus we can see that the value of the dollar relative to economic production (i.e. the standard of our living) has decreased by, (34.5 - 25.4) / 25.4 = 35%. Since 1959, the central bank has stolen 35% of our hard-earned wealth, or 0.65% per year compounded. But it gets much worse if you make same calculation for more recent periods, which shows that the problem is accelerating: 1971 forward: 0.97% per year compounded Note the 2005 figure was derived from 11.5% annualized rate of M3 expansion through Oct 2005 (from other more up-to-date data source) and annualizing the nominal GDP data is 6.5%. So what does this mean? It means that irregardless of how you measure price inflation (which is a lagging effect of monetary inflation), the govt (via central bank) this year 2005, has put it's hand in each of our pockets and take 4.68% of our money, but lowering the value of the money by increasing the supply of money by 4.68% more than the economic growth. And this has been going on every year since 2000 at a 2.9% compounded rate, whilst deposit interest rates during that time were less than 2.9%, thus it is no surpise that consumers decided to spend their money as fast as they can. We are not stupid. We inherently know the govt is devaluing our $, so we don't want to hold them. And we can see the problem of monetary inflation has been increasing over the decades, and it shows no sign of decelerating. Whereas, all signals point to increased acceleration, because if they decelerated it, then global economy would crash. So instead, they will keep accelerating it, until it can not sustain itself any longer, then it will crash even more brutally. Ralph would probably prefer to use the govt's estimate of "real" GDP: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GFDEBTN.txt The problem is that estimate is based on the price inflation estimated by the govt. Not only is price inflation a lagging effect of monetary inflation, more importantly, the govt excludes most important things from core inflation, such as energy, housing, medical, etc.. So it is meaningless estimate. Also the govt uses lies such as "hedonistic pricing" to say that a newer expensive computer is not inflation, because it has a faster CPU. It is all BS. The only factual comparison is the one I did above, which compares the supply of dollars (M3) to the nominal GDP. If Ralph studied economics in college, he will know this true, if Ralph even went to college.
The numbers don't lie. You Ralph are either ignorant of the numbers, or you are trying to lie to the readers. Ralph you are not going to win a debate against me. You will realize that now or eventually. I am too well informed. You are apparently clueless. Do you dare challenge me to bring out more statistics to debase your propoganda BS? Go ahead. Posted by: Shelby Moore on November 11, 2005 10:53 AM Warren Buffet diversifies his investments. Who'd a thunk? Posted by: Ralph on November 11, 2005 02:17 PM You can read the rest of the debate between Ralph and I here: http://ralphanswers.blogspot.com/2005/11/psycho.html And here: http://ralphanswers.blogspot.com/2005/11/psycho-ii.html Ralph put his foot in his mouth regarding Warren Buffet. See the link above, where Warren's own quotes defy Ralph's asserts about Warren Buffet. Posted by: Shelby Moore on November 14, 2005 05:59 PM |
three in five support a barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to a poll that will boost Republicans looking to make those proposals part of immigration bills," the Washington Times reports. "Mr. Rasmussen said Republicans are finding themselves on the popular side of an issue that has the ability to help realign the parties. 'The immigration issue has been cutting across party lines in the last couple of years, and these particular issues are dividing the electorate drawing a line, in a way that's beneficial for Republicans,' he said."