Another reason we are screwed in California

[Nopal]

I thought "complete deportation, send-them-all-back" was 'the middle' and an "Amnesty", given that your typical illegal (along with their employer...who is likely also an illegal) has committed a slew of tax violations that are all felonies, and that is for the most benign sort of illegals. Then you got ID theft, possession for fake/false IDs, child endangerment, etc.

Part of how Law Enforcement works is even getting tangled up in the system is a real PIA, and can easily "break" you, in that it ends up changing you from employed and housed into unemployed and homeless and awful hard to climb out of that hole.

Buddy got arrested for trespassing on rural land, and they let him go same day, but did tow his truck and it was days and near $1000 to get it back, and he ended up losing a high paying construction gig, then dings on credit when he maxed CCards to cover rent, etc.

The reason we (for the most part) don't need Security Guards lurking over the stale bread at every supermarket is the hassle from getting even charged with shoplifting so outweighs the value of the bread only the crazy would try. And that is while still "presumed innocent".

Want to bring the whole "illegal" thing to a swift and screaming conclusion? Just "treat everyone equally". Like my trespassing buddy, arrest on suspicion, do bit of quick investigation(no, he doesn't have some permission from any authorized person) then transport to a location where it is LEGAL TO RELEASE them, after collecting fingerprints, mug shot, etc and running their records.

For illegals, I guess they would have to hire a lawyer for any court date inside the USA, otherwise it goes to bench warrant. Just like my buddy, they wouldn't be allowed to trespass just because 'it was on my way to my court date'. lol.


PS-Yes, we also just need to treat Americans who employ illegals and break tax laws the same as other Americans who blow off the IRS. The IRS can and will SUDDENLY "red tag" everything you own, including biz partnerships, accounts etc and make the highest possible 'estimate' for the tax you owe if they find you have employees but just don't feel like doing the whole tax thingy. But only if your employees are regular Americans. They like to do it like that because it makes it harder for you to hire a tax lawyer. They call it "breaking the bones".

^^^

See Rumland, I rest my case.

[The Last American Hero]

Except for "politically active"(Obama-Bots) Democratic Party true believers, most US born Hispanics I've met don't support Amnesty and their less forgiving culture calls for real punishments for any illegals caught in the USA.

And that includes those whose parents were illegals.

They understand "That was then, this is now" and that it is necessary and proper for a govt to change its policy to address new conditions, for exactly the same reasons you didn't need a permit to clear cut Redwoods or dam rivers 100 years ago.

Another platitude we are always hearing is "Your ancestors were immigrants, too, so why are you now against immigrants". You could use that same illogic for any law or new problem we face.


I see immigration as a two pronged question:

1) do we want or need immigrants today? (is the USA in need of more population to meet urgent defense or viability needs, is our native population in worrisome decline?)

2) if "yes", then after looking around the world, which would be the most desirable immigrants to attract (given that since about 2000BC education, civic duty and moral character have been much more important than strength and manual labor).


For #2, where would Mexicans fall among the 200-odd nationalities, each with lots of people willing to come to USA? Solidly in the lower 1/3 and at the bottom of Latin American groups, except that unlike other Latin Americans many Mexicans cling to 'confusion' over the sovereignty of USA once in the USA, due how we 'stole' land from Mexico.

The President of Mexico was saying "Mexicans have a unique claim to live in the territory in question that no other groups have" (or words to that effect).
On the other hand, Apache gave US Army permission to cross their lands during the MexAmerican War and agreed to be part of USA, not Mexico, and had never agreed to be part of Mexico.

Thus Mexicans are the one particular nationality that was singled out for rejection by the Indigenous Peoples of the USA, in deference to all other groups, and for good reason. While Indians may have beefs with US Govt and "Pale Face", they have never said "We want to be part of Mexico", because they see how Mexicans treat their Indigenous People.

[Rumline]

It's not the mere act of addressing illegal immigration that's the issue for the Hispanic community. It's the intransigence of some candidates, and frankly, many of their supporters, which cast the GOP in a bad light (in their eyes). For proof of that you can see how many here immediately jumped in the illegals-are-the-source-of-all-evil bandwagon when the OP was about Hispanics in general. Yeah, the Democrats are all-too-happy to take advantage of that, but the current situation is not entirely of their making.

I understand you now. Thanks.

I run into issues like that on both sides of the aisle...larger groups being condemned for the actions/words of some of their members. The differences between the "official published position," the de facto position, and the positions of outspoken members are often hazy. Corporations and "smaller" organizations often take tight control of their message to ensure that nothing gets said on their behalf that does not align with their goals. They have to run a tight ship because when something crazy gets said, any lack of repudiation by the organization is often seen as tacit approval.

I'm not sure that's even possible for political parties to do. They want to attract as many votes as possible, including the extremist versions of their platforms, and will often "throw a bone" to keep the various sub-groups happy and pulling the lever for their party. Although maybe if they exhibited some backbone to keep the crazies in line they'd get more respect. Like if the Republicans pulled Todd Akin off and conceded his Senate race. They were going to lose it anyway, but at least maybe they could have saved their party from so much collateral damage.

[rootuser]

Really?

Then you're talking about a collective which somehow imposes no rules whatsoever upon the individuals within it. I know of no such collective. Even families impose such things.

Rules are restrictions upon behavior and are precisely the thing I speak of. "Forced acquiescence" here clearly means that one must submit to the rules of the collective in order to gain the benefits of being in the collective.

In the absolute, which doesn't exist in any form, you are right, but then the absolute of individualism is pure anarchy which doesn't exist either. In practice, collectives do impose some rules, and individualism also follows some rules of a collective. I can't remember which, but some philosophers argue that individualism and any form of society at all cannot coexist, as well as no true collectives can ever exist, even in Marxism or communism.

But reliance is part of that. More precisely, the survival benefits of being part of the collective eventually translate into dependence upon the collective for survival.

The "parasitic" nature of the collective comes into play when the collective imposes constraints upon the individual by force while not giving anything of substance back for it (certainly, not as much as one is giving up). States are not the only collective entities to do that.

As mentioned above, in the absolute, this is of course true. But a collective that gives nothing or gives very little does not survive for very long. As the example of Guatemala, the collective in some places is the difference between life and death. The people who belong believe that life is important enough to compromise their own rights. The same is true in Somalia. Of course sooner or later you end up with "leadership" that is out for themselves, purely taking from the collective and not giving anything themselves.

Self-responsibility requires the power of choice on the part of the individual. Becoming part of a collective means giving up at least some of that power and submitting to the will (or rules) of the collective in order to obtain the benefits of being in the collective. Near as I can tell, that is an invariant. Since becoming part of the collective means giving up at least some power of choice, by definition this means a reduction of the ability to be self-responsible. If one retains self-responsibility in that case, then one is retaining responsibility without having the requisite power. Responsibility without power is a trait of scapegoats.


That a society is collective does not automatically imply reliance on the state. I simply said that reliance on the apparatus of the state is generally the means by which the collective enforces its will, not that it's always the means.

The power of choice is important, this is a great argument and I agree 100%. I think this is settling in the realities of your ideas. You are right that many collectives don't offer much choice over many things.

If the trend has been towards individualism, then it must also yield greater self-reliance and a reduction of reliance on the state. But we have seen exactly the opposite trend. This is why I contend that you are incorrect about the trend towards individualism.

The trend is towards selfishness. That is very, very different.

I'm not confusing the two. Some examples of the trend would be Heller, affirming the right of the individual. The massive changes in the courts around gay marriage laws, again affirming the rights of the individual. But, if those were the only changes I would say we are becoming very individualistic, but as you point out, we've headed the collective route in a lot of ways, so maybe that is why the trends only vary by a few points trending toward individualism? Not sure honestly why some think tanks believe the trend is in that direction over the last generation.

It's sold by the left as collectivism and sold by the right as individualism. But yes, in both cases, the trend is towards authoritarianism.

Agreed. Bad for everyone IMHO.

Fair enough, but note that this means your beef with others revolves around their usage of the term, not around the logic which follows from the definitions they're using.

It is around the usage of the terms for sure, some of the logic as well, but definitely I understand their arguments. Saying all Hispanics and Latinos are a threat because their societies are collectivist is just not the case in and of itself. There is much more to the story.

What much of the argument seems to be, is that Hispanics and Latinos vote Democrat and those dirty Democrats are collectivists (which they are not, they are a perversion of such ideas) and that only the individualistic republicans (again which they are not, only a perversion of such) can save us. Hispanics and Latinos vote Democrat for a lot of reasons not only because they are from a collective society looking to give up their rights. There is an assumption that collectivism is left and individualism is right, but these things do not scale only horizontally they scale vertically as well, something that is purposely ignored by those who want to pervert the definitions.

All around you make good points, but I hate to see our politicians attempting to dumb down Americans by slapping labels on everything. I think most of the people here can see through it however.

[EGrove]

More here[/URL]
In California the white population is dwindling while the hispanic is increasing.
You do the math.

We need to get past race and color lines and remember that if you were born here you were taught the same way as the next American...because you went through the same system. Its not about if you are Hispanic, black, asian or white...its about if you were born here or if you just crossed the border and are here illegally. I wouldn't doubt that Hispanics born in America value the constitution and the American way more than Hispanics who came here illegally.

[Nopal]

We need to get past race and color lines and remember that if you were born here you were taught the same way as the next American...because you went through the same system. Its not about if you are Hispanic, black, asian or white...its about if you were born here or if you just crossed the border and are here illegally. I wouldn't doubt that Hispanics born in America value the constitution and the American way more than Hispanics who came here illegally.

It's not even about that. I wasn't born here. I value the constitution. So do my parents, hunting buddies, etc., not all of which were born here. Heck, a few of those that I know value the constitution did cross the border illegally a few decades ago. Did they break the law? Yes, though they made good on that (paid fines, left the country to get their visas for green cards and what not), but they did it precisely because they value everything the US has to offer, including said constitution. On the flip-side I know of many American-born, American-taught folks who don't value the constitution at all.

The problem is more along the lines of pigeon-holing people. If we're talking Hispanics, then the issue of whether they're illegal or not is immediately brought up by conservatives, followed by the issue of whether they are the root of all that is wrong with America. That, I believe, is what's pushing many traditionally conservative Hispanics away from conservative politics and everything it stands for. But be that as it may, with such a large legal Hispanic population in states such as California, the only way we're screwed is if we insist on piling up on Hispanics every time they're brought up as a political force. Yes, the issue of illegal immigration is something that needs to be addressed, but the way conservatives are going about it paints them in the worst way possible (and liberals are only happy to help in painting that picture).

[Jimi Jah]

I like Ike, the last US President to enforce Federal immigration laws. The USA is now a pansy waisted, politically correct nation without a fundemental belief in the rule of law.

PC will take us down, without complaint. The founders must be turning in their graves. Dead Romans are laughing at us.

That twice deported Mexican illegal alien that killed those two cops in Excremento is a product of those same PC policies. Expect more of the same as it's all over except for the fat senorita singing.

[Sikvenum93]

More here[/URL]
In California the white population is dwindling while the hispanic is increasing.
You do the math.

This is bad how? This is why Ive always said the GOP needs to attract minorities but so far they havent. Its their own fault.

[kcbrown]

In the absolute, which doesn't exist in any form, you are right, but then the absolute of individualism is pure anarchy which doesn't exist either. In practice, collectives do impose some rules, and individualism also follows some rules of a collective. I can't remember which, but some philosophers argue that individualism and any form of society at all cannot coexist, as well as no true collectives can ever exist, even in Marxism or communism.

Yes, exactly. So it then becomes a question of the degree.

Your argument is that the degree of individualism is on the rise here in the United States. But it is precisely because the degree of individualism is directly related to the degree of liberty that your argument is incorrect on that point.

That doesn't mean that there exist no instances of increasing liberty in this country. Such things do arise from time to time, and Heller is an example of that. But a small number of outlying examples do not make a trend. The overall trend is away from liberty. How do we know this? Simple: the rate at which new laws are passed vastly exceeds the rate at which laws are repealed or overturned.

The power of choice is important, this is a great argument and I agree 100%. I think this is settling in the realities of your ideas. You are right that many collectives don't offer much choice over many things.

Importantly, government enforced collectives most certainly do not offer any real choice, most especially with respect to whether or not to participate in those collectives. More precisely, the "choice", such as it is, is not based on whether or not one wishes to receive the benefits of being in the collective, but rather on whether or not one happens to be located within the geographic region controlled by the government in question.

I'm not confusing the two. Some examples of the trend would be Heller, affirming the right of the individual. The massive changes in the courts around gay marriage laws, again affirming the rights of the individual. But, if those were the only changes I would say we are becoming very individualistic, but as you point out, we've headed the collective route in a lot of ways, so maybe that is why the trends only vary by a few points trending toward individualism? Not sure honestly why some think tanks believe the trend is in that direction over the last generation.

The think tanks in question fail to recognize the fact that nearly every law is a restriction upon liberty, and the rate of their passage vastly exceeds the rate at which they are abandoned, overturned, or repealed. ETA: And that doesn't even include the rate at which new regulations are imposed by regulatory agencies.

It is around the usage of the terms for sure, some of the logic as well, but definitely I understand their arguments. Saying all Hispanics and Latinos are a threat because their societies are collectivist is just not the case in and of itself. There is much more to the story.

Most certainly. Nevertheless, the people in question do harken from places where most of the population is used to being controlled to an even greater degree than here, and it is normal to strive to make one's environment resemble, to some degree, that which one is used to. Even if there are specific things those people were attempting to escape, the plain fact is that they almost certainly were not attempting to escape their entire way of life. Were that the case, we'd see much greater effort on their part to abandon their culture and way of doing things (most especially as regards the passage of laws), rather than to preserve it.

That doesn't mean those people are the cause of the direction the country is headed, only that they contribute to it.

All around you make good points, but I hate to see our politicians attempting to dumb down Americans by slapping labels on everything. I think most of the people here can see through it however.

Oh, I completely agree. But dumbing down Americans by labeling everything seems to be what politicians do in the general case. That has been true for quite some time now.

[tankarian]

This is bad how? This is why Ive always said the GOP needs to attract minorities but so far they havent. Its their own fault.

Marco Rubio. Ted Cruz. Bill Flores. Rudy Garcia. John Garza. Jaime Herrera. Raul Labrador. Pete Gomez. Clarice Navarro. Brian Sandoval. John Sanchez. And many others.
All of them accused by the MSM of being "pawns of the man". Their characters assassinated. Called brown on the outside, white on the inside. And many other disgusting smears courtesy of the Democrats and their mass media propaganda machine.

[Rumline]

^ Clearly that's because they are "white Hispanics"

[tankarian]

Almost as bad as George Zimmerman, only they didn't shot somebody.
Makes you wonder why any Latino would want to be a conservative only to expose himself to such level of racism and abuse from the members of the tolerant and enlightened left.

[randian]

Makes you wonder why any Latino would want to be a conservative only to expose himself to such level of racism and abuse from the members of the tolerant and enlightened left.

Blacks have the same problem. The level of abusive vitriol from other blacks, and the left in general, is astounding.

[chris]

Blacks have the same problem. The level of abusive vitriol from other blacks, and the left in general, is astounding.

saw this on Drudge today blacks may have woken up to the racism that is the left and the democratic party


whether this gains any traction is anyone's guess but the people who are in it speak the truth. if the democrats policies were so popular and successful our economy here in this state would be booming it's not.

[tankarian]

Blacks have the same problem. The level of abusive vitriol from other blacks, and the left in general, is astounding.

Not surprising, the Democrats being the Party of the KKKlan.