Conservative white men probably have no problem with this.. [Archive]

Turbografx

05-01-10, 04:08 PM

I guess the best idea is giving Texas back to Mexico ?
I mean it belonged to, if some time ago :D

I've heard that the plan is for the Mexicans to come settle here in such numbers that they will effectively be able to take control... Oh wait, basically they're going to pull a TEXAS on US!

And you have a problem with illegal immigrants ? Ask your indians.
;)

Greetings,
Catfish

That's where we've one-upped the Mexicans, we took care of that problem.

@OP:

That would suck so much ass. You would lose your job and your home if you rent, the mess of unpaid bill and so on that you would have to attend to, if you were "detained" for 15 months.

Dowly

05-01-10, 04:56 PM

Ok... So, what's the news? His FATHER was a 'Nam vet, not he. News worth = -100. :doh:

SteamWake

05-01-10, 05:00 PM

Ok... So, what's the news? His FATHER was a 'Nam vet, not he. News worth = -100. :doh:

Wonder if he saw John Kerry over there. :haha:

CaptainHaplo

05-01-10, 05:04 PM

Funny Torvald - more racism and hate from you.

Had you actually read the entire article - you would have found this:

Veloz was automatically a citizen at birth, though his parents never obtained his certificate of citizenship. In 2006, Veloz was convicted of receiving stolen property after purchasing a car that had been stolen. He served eight months and was about to be released from prison when he was turned over to ICE.

So what you have here is a criminal who LACKS the proper documentation to demonstrate he is a citizen. First of all - his conviction of a crime seriously curtails his normal rights as a citizen to start with - and the fact he was born outside this country - yet failed to insure he had all his own ducks in a row, just shows how everyone wants to blame others instead of take responsibility for themselves.

Had he not been trafficing in stolen property, it wouldn't have been an issue - that isn't ICE's fault. Had he had his documentation in order (which BTW I have mine - its not hard to get) - it wouldn't have been a problem. Both of these issues were his failures.

Stop trying to race bait and make it out like all the poor immigrants are getting the railroad.

Dowly

05-01-10, 05:05 PM

Gots no idea, too drunk for that. :doh:

krashkart

05-01-10, 05:29 PM

I guess the best idea is giving Texas back to Mexico ?
I mean it belonged to, if some time ago :D

And give up the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders? Have you gone mad?!? :stare::rotfl2:

http://www.dallascowboyscheerleaders.com/gallery/swimsuit_2009/index.htm

Turbografx

05-01-10, 06:38 PM

So what you have here is a criminal who LACKS the proper documentation to demonstrate he is a citizen. First of all - his conviction of a crime seriously curtails his normal rights as a citizen to start with

Had he not been trafficing in stolen property, it wouldn't have been an issue - that isn't ICE's fault.

You're reading a lot into it. I didn't see trafficking stolen property, I saw "bought stolen car".. I guess his stolen property senses weren't working that day. If you buy something used from an individual how do you tell if it is stolen? Ask for a receipt?

GoldenRivet

05-01-10, 07:05 PM

If you buy something used from an individual how do you tell if it is stolen? Ask for a receipt?

:haha:

ask for a copy of the title :doh:

Im guessing you have not purchased a used car from a private owner before?

you dont just walk up to a random shady dude and say "Nice car, here is cash, ill take the keys, Kthxbi!"

and yes, Torvald is one of our more racist members here at subsim based on what i have read... He loves to start most of these sorts of threads with jabs at conservative white guys for some reason :hmmm:

something tells me if i had started multiple threads out with "Bet the ghetto ass black folks would be mad about this!" i would get the ban hammer in about 10 seconds flat. The guy is an instigator. Period

anyhow, yeah, you buy stolen property, you ARE guilty by the letter of the law of trafficking stolen goods.

a lot of what you buy, and the circumstances under which you bought it has to do with the extend to which you are punished, but its the same as being "guilty by association"

for example: hop in a car with your friend, your friend stops and the bank, and comes running out with all their money and drives off... guess what my friend, in the law's eyes you are an accessory to armed bank robbery ;)

sucks, but **** happens.

as far as "giving Texas back to the Mexicans" comments

why dont we give America Back to the British so the British can give it back to the Native Americans and so on and so on and so on.

you really could say this garbage about any state / nation / country / continent except maybe Antarctica. :doh:

I have had to (yes as a whitey cracker honky) prove my citizenship to the authorities before.

it took about 30 seconds, and ended with "Thank you sir, have a nice day."

anyone who cant handle this is a real nancy boy

EDIT:

On another note, Texas is not the issue here dude... CALIFORNIA is the issue.

California is a perfect scale model as to what unchecked illegal immigration can do to a nation.

I say give California back to mexico... oh wait, they already took it back

(notice the flag pole at left)

http://perfidem.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/att00000.jpg

Weiss Pinguin

05-01-10, 07:59 PM

And give up the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders? Have you gone mad?!? :stare::rotfl2:

http://www.dallascowboyscheerleaders.com/gallery/swimsuit_2009/index.htm
If nothing else, at least think of the cheerleaders!

Happy Times

05-01-10, 08:13 PM

EDIT:

On another note, Texas is not the issue here dude... CALIFORNIA is the issue.

California is a perfect scale model as to what unchecked illegal immigration can do to a nation.

I say give California back to mexico... oh wait, they already took it back

(notice the flag pole at left)

http://perfidem.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/att00000.jpg

Nice exsample of the world historys biggest migration movements that are going on.
Any American that feels offended by that has every right to feel that way.
Being labelled a WASP or some other title should be considered a compliment.

GoldenRivet

05-01-10, 08:16 PM

Nice exsample of the world historys biggest migration movements that are going on.
Any American that feels offended by that has every right to feel that way.
Being labelled a WASP or some other title should be considered a compliment.

being labeled a Mexican should also be a compliment :up:

being labeled a lot of things would be a "compliment" depending upon how the label was applied.

ie.

"You industrious, and hard working Mexicans should be proud"

vs

"You crude, racist white men should be ashamed."

just depends on how you use it in the sentence :yep:

iambecomelife

05-01-10, 09:54 PM

Somehow, I think if conservative white men were rounded up and jailed/deported, I bet they would:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/27/MNGQ17C8GC.DTL&tsp=1

As a US citizen descended from immigrants, I really appreciate you presuming to speak for us non-whites. Naturally, everyone on the other side of the immigration debate MUST be a Very Evil White Man (TM). :-?

My parents were LEGAL aliens from a former British colony who obtained US citizenship after more than a decade of residence. They paid their taxes, worked hard, and didn't rely on public assistance. If they could do it then, Latin Americans can do it now.

And where do you get off assuming that Latin Americans can't be "white"? Some South/Central Americans are physically indistinguishable from "white" Americans - even with blonde hair, etc. If and when some of them turn out to be here illegally, they will be deported too. The presumption that no "White men" will be deported is ludicrous.

CaptainHaplo

05-01-10, 09:54 PM

The flag in the background says it all.

The people screaming - have no interest in assimilating - they are out to put their ethnicity over that of the citizens of the land they are - yes - invading.

Legal immigration is about becoming american - putting your loyalty and effort into this country. This is why the ILLEGAL immigrant isn't wanted - because while they "MAY" work - they also refuse to learn the language, the history, or conform to the law.

If you want to be in America - then you need to either put America first - or recognize that while your here - follow that old saying...

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do" - instead of demanding that you be catered to through language, welfare and everything else.

tater

05-01-10, 10:44 PM

We ran into a protest today in Santa Fe. All in Spanish. Aside from the US flags placed up front by the organizers? All Mexican flags.

Snestorm

05-02-10, 12:37 AM

As a US citizen descended from immigrants, I really appreciate you presuming to speak for us non-whites. Naturally, everyone on the other side of the immigration debate MUST be a Very Evil White Man (TM). :-?

My parents were LEGAL aliens from a former British colony who obtained US citizenship after more than a decade of residence. They paid their taxes, worked hard, and didn't rely on public assistance. If they could do it then, Latin Americans can do it now.

And where do you get off assuming that Latin Americans can't be "white"? Some South/Central Americans are physically indistinguishable from "white" Americans - even with blonde hair, etc. If and when some of them turn out to be here illegally, they will be deported too. The presumption that no "White men" will be deported is ludicrous.

Great post!
I'd like to see TVM, and the like, reply now.

AngusJS

05-02-10, 01:02 AM

The people screaming - have no interest in assimilating - they are out to put their ethnicity over that of the citizens of the land they are - yes - invading.What "[ethnicity] of the citizens of the land"?

Legal immigration is about becoming american - putting your loyalty and effort into this country. This is why the ILLEGAL immigrant isn't wanted - because while they "MAY" work - they also refuse to learn the language, the history, or conform to the law.Who care's about assimilation? We are not the Borg. People can speak whatever language they like, or maintain any (legal) cultural practices they so wish.

Happy Times

05-02-10, 04:37 AM

Who care's about assimilation? We are not the Borg. People can speak whatever language they like, or maintain any (legal) cultural practices they so wish.

Oh, oh, ive heard of that! :woot:

http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/fantasyland.jpg

krashkart

05-02-10, 08:13 AM

^^ :yep: Resistance is futile.

We ran into a protest today in Santa Fe. All in Spanish. Aside from the US flags placed up front by the organizers? All Mexican flags.

What were they protesting?

People can speak whatever language they like, or maintain any (legal) cultural practices they so wish.

I can agree with all of that, although it does help matters when a common language is spoken.

Great post!
I'd like to see TVM, and the like, reply now.

White people should just take a long walk off of a short pier.

*looks at self*

Dammit! :damn:

:D

CaptainHaplo

05-02-10, 09:17 AM

Angus - not sure where your from - but the US has always welcomed legal immigrants - once they choose to become part of the "great melting pot" instead of seperate themselves. Historically, whenever any ethnic group has chosed to put themselves into their own clique, they have been shunned by the rest of America. The irish immigrants in the early 1900's are a perfect example.

Yet once that group drops its demands of primary loyalty to its previous ethnic identity, and chooses to become American first, and Irish, Scottish, Chinese, Mexican, etc - second, they are generally welcomed.

The issue here is that illegals have created for themselves this problem. Because they are here illegally, they draw the ire of the law-abiding citizenry. Because they are here illegally, they refuse to conform to the ways of our nation - costing the citizenry due to the demand for multi-language governmental services, etc.. Because they are here illegally, they are not contributing to the costs they incur, but too often avail themselves of the services the legal citizenry pays for - schools, welfare, etc.

Honstly, we wouldn't need to "secure" the border if we enforced three things:

#1 No social "service" or social safety net could be used by anyone not legal. This means welfare, food stamps, "emergency room health care" *unless in life threatening situations*, schooling, etc.
#2 Inform employers that if they are caught with an illegal for an employee, they are subject to a $1,000,0000,0000 fine and 5 years imprisonment - per worker. *This applies only if due diligence was not done*
#3 All governmental interaction with the people will be done in English. This not only makes it more difficult for the illegals to fight the changes (and they shouldn't be allowed to - its not their country!), but also requires any person, regardless of race or ethnic background, to assimilate into the majority of society. Language is one of the biggest barriers to this.

Do this - and the illegals have no ability to stay - nor any drive to come here. They can't stay because they will have no safety net and will lose their jobs. Give em 30 days to get the heck out.

Anyone want to bet what the unemployment rate would be if we did this? Or how much lower the burden on social systems would be?

tater

05-02-10, 09:33 AM

Haplo,

concerning the ER, if you show up, you are treated, PERIOD. There are no exceptions to this, nor should there be. ER triage has no way to determine immigration status, and doctors would not let someone die for lack os a piece of paper regardless. Even if we had a national ID card, you might easily forget it in an emergency, so they'd not require it.

They're just not set up for this, and it's fraught with potential problems. The way to keep illegals out of the ER is to keep them out of the country. Hospitals are simply not set up to in effect detain people who are illegal. Even if you required illegals to pay cash on the spot right after treatment or face deportment, you'd ned people there to arrest them—and anyone can simply walk out of the hospital at will anyway.

Won't work.

CaptainHaplo

05-02-10, 09:44 AM

tater

05-02-10, 10:02 AM

That's a great thought, and I'd agree, except that it's impossible.

A nurse at triage is NOT a doctor. Triage would then have to turn everyone away who was non-emergent, regardless of status. A nurse asking a couple "why are you here?" questions is not enough to determine what is really wrong—if it was, they'd not need the ER docs. Without a proper work up, people will suffer. Some will die. Really.

There are simply countless stories of people coming in for X (non-emergent) and finding out they have something really bad.

As much as I like the idea, it's not plausible.

GoldenRivet

05-02-10, 10:02 AM

Tater - when it comes to health care - I think that hospitals should have the RIGHT to refuse treatment in any non-lifethreatening/non-emergency case. For example - you walk into the ER for an earache, or a cold. It happens too often. The emergency room is for emergency medical care. Too many - and not just illegals - use it as their 24/7 doctor's office.

While i would normally agree with you Captain, (and i do agree that the ER visitation stuff is abused to some extent)

lets look at some things... if 100 people go to the ER for a cold, and are turned away because it is not an emergency or life threatening illness or injury - ONE of those people had sniffles and cough as a symptom of Leukemia.

Uh oh.

or what about the migraines, Headaches not an emergency? Tell that to the lady with a grape sized Brain tumor.

Or the lady who has severer back pain one week after a car accident, Hamming it up for meds? or just wants an excuse to sue the driver of the truck that hit her?

I know that situation personally... illegal immigrant, drunk, in a pickup rear ended a friend of mine's sister.

she was fine for about a week then had serious back pain.

the ER thought she was after meds or trying to form a case for litigation against someone.

it was a Blood clot of some sort and she is now paralized from the middle of her back down to her toes.

krashkart

05-02-10, 10:10 AM

Maybe I am just old - I remember when hospitals had a non-emergency health care entrance.

You are clearly becoming senile, Hap. Modern hospitals have no entrances, all potential patients are required to use telekinesis to create their own entrance. If they do not possess telekinetic powers, they are SOL and must surrender themselves to a termination squad. :haha:

CaptainHaplo

05-02-10, 10:16 AM

I see where you guys are coming from - and I have no problem with maybe having a doctor sitting in the triage area to help determine the need for Emergency care.

GR, your example shows that no system is perfect. But let me ask you - given how the ER system is abused, isn't it likely that without that abuse, the ER staff that failed to properly treat your sister would likely have taken a much less cynical view of her situation - perhaps ending with a better outcome for her? Its unknown - and no way to ever really know at all. Just that without the abuse, ER's around the country could do more of what they are there for - deal with the serious medical issues without the stress of the crap. I will keep her in my prayers, as such an outcome is truly a tragedy.

As for symptoms of lukemia - let me refer to the following site:
http://www.omnimedicalsearch.com/conditions-diseases/acute-lymphocytic-leukemia.html
Early symptoms include those that could be mistaken for a cold or flu. Early being the key word here..... If your displaying cold or flu symptoms, and have to leave the emergency room to go to the urgent care or your doctor the following day, that isn't going to cause any real problem. If the doc or care center fails to diagnose you properly - thats not the fault of the er.

If the vast majority of people knew that the ER was for EMERGENCY usage, and honored that (either through their own actions or the ability of the ER to turn non-emergency cases away) - then the overload that ER's face would be removed - allowing them to deal with those emergency cases much more effectively.

Edit - Krashkart - so that was what was in the new health care law huh? Termination squads! Can't say I am suprised!!!!

tater

05-02-10, 10:22 AM

Haplo, that won't work. A doc sitting there is not the same. He'd then be liable—and he'd not want to be liable without doing a real workup.

I could ask my wife and I KNOW she'd LOL t the suggestion.

krashkart

05-02-10, 11:01 AM

Edit - Krashkart - so that was what was in the new health care law huh? Termination squads! Can't say I am suprised!!!!

And nazi dentists. :har: :DL

CaptainHaplo

05-02-10, 02:42 PM

Tater - like I said, no system is perfect. My original point however stands, whether or not you include medical access or not. I fully admit that my knowledge of medicine is limited - but then again - if it wasn't so easy to sue a doctor because he misdiagnosed your hangnail, maybe alot of the CYA stuff that emergency rooms have to do wouldn't be there - and they could concentrate on providing medical care that people in an emergency room need...

Why call it an emergency room when its used for non-emergency things? What ever happened to non-emergency outpatient care....

The medical thing really has limited utility on topic - since the changes I would like to see in that field apply to everyone - regardless of legal status. With family members in the medical field, I feel for those in the ER, having to wipe little johnny's runny nose, when more serious needs are waiting.

Aramike

05-02-10, 02:58 PM

Why not simply refuse treatment once a non-emergency diagnosis has been made?

"Sir, you have a cold. Now get out."

tater

05-02-10, 04:16 PM

Tribesman

05-02-10, 04:21 PM

Why call it an emergency room when its used for non-emergency things? What ever happened to non-emergency outpatient care....

Errrrrrr. wow thats a hard one.
Why do people with non emergency things go to emergency things where they are covered even though it aint an emergency.
Haplo , you are supossed to be arguing in favour of the current balls up, not against it.....or vice versa

tater

05-02-10, 04:32 PM

ER (usually called the "ED" these days, though that makes us laugh since ED is also a medical term, lol) use is complex.

One, lay people don't KNOW if it's emergent or not. They go to the ER to find out.

Two, expectations of how fast people should get ANYTHING now are higher than they used to be. We order products online, and expect them delivered tomorrow, lol. Fast food, fast everything. People get sick, decide to see a doc, then go to the ER because a few hours there i faster than waiting til they get seen with an appointment tomorrow. This even when most problems are self-limited and get better by themselves in a week or so.

Some are also gaming the system.

Tribesman

05-02-10, 05:14 PM

One, lay people don't KNOW if it's emergent or not. They go to the ER to find out.

There you go tater:yeah:, Caps Lock strikes again.
People go to ER because they don't have a general practitioner or because they don't want to pay to have a practitioner send them to ER.

Have we not been through that before, that issue of different levels of care and the costs and effectiveness between them.

Platapus

05-02-10, 06:06 PM

Like I said, I agree in principle. Stabilize people, THEN deport them. Make the ER setup such that illegals know it is covered by immigration authorities (feds, who by federal law can ask for paper just to have you prove ID with no suspicion or probable cause). They'll then think twice before going to the ER.

I actually like this idea. If it is truly an emergency, they get the medical care they need, but also have to accept the consequences.

On a related note, I would also like for hospitals to stop dropping noncollectable charges. If someone goes to the ER and can't pay, they still owe the hospital the money. They just need to work out a payment plan or try to go through some state or federal program. But the bottom line is that they can't just walk away from their debts.

First the hospital needs to have the authority to set up legally binding payment plans. If that does not work for all these non-collectible charges, then they should be sent to collection agencies. Even if the hospitals only get 50% of the money from the collection agencies, it helps keep the debt down and also sends a clear signal that health care, while available for everyone, is not free.

These debts need to be kept on the books for a long time. If the patient later get's a job, they still have a responsibility to pay their bills. :yep:

We have to stop the cycle of some people running up ER bills and then not paying with no other consequences. I don't care if it takes a patient 10 years to pay their hospital bill -- it has to be paid.

In the United States, all people should have emergency health care available... :yep:

But it is not free :nope:
And going to the ER will require you to demonstrate your citizenship/alien status. :yep:

AVGWarhawk

05-02-10, 07:18 PM

Freiwillige

05-02-10, 08:47 PM

English proficiency is required to become U.S. citizen. You have to be a U.S. citizen to vote. So why do all the voting booths have English and Spanish on the ballots?

I was very against everything becoming multilingual in Arizona in the early nineties. Now everything everywhere is posted in English and Spanish and its about as common to hear Spanish as Well as English spoken everywhere you go. The problem I have is not with the Spanish spoken but the fact that so many cannot speak any English!

Tribesman

05-03-10, 03:38 AM

It is unfortunate Tribesman that you do not realize that the ER is used for any aliment under the sun for those that do not carry insurance. The ER has become the practitioner.
So when I said the ER is used by some instead of a GP I didn't say the ER is used by some instead of a GP.
Thanks for clearing that up.

ask for a copy of the title :doh:

Im guessing you have not purchased a used car from a private owner before?

you dont just walk up to a random shady dude and say "Nice car, here is cash, ill take the keys, Kthxbi!"

Thats interesting GR.
Asking for and getting a copy of the title doesn't prove anything, I'm guessing you havn't thought that through when you have purchased a car from a private owner(or even a dealership).
If you want to offload a stolen car you set it up as a ringer with all the needed paperwork to make it look legitimate.

AVGWarhawk

05-03-10, 09:30 AM

So when I said the ER is used by some instead of a GP I didn't say the ER is used by some instead of a GP.
Thanks for clearing that up.

This statement of yours makes absolutely no sense at all. The facts remain that the uninsured will visit the ER because the chances of being turned away are zero.

tater

05-03-10, 10:41 AM

There you go tater:yeah:, Caps Lock strikes again.
People go to ER because they don't have a general practitioner or because they don't want to pay to have a practitioner send them to ER.

Have we not been through that before, that issue of different levels of care and the costs and effectiveness between them.

Wrong. They do not go to the ER or Urgent Care because they have no GP. Some do, this is true, but ER use is not just the uninsured.

After hours, for example. You have a sick kid, and you're perhaps worried about flu, or the kid's been puking, and you're worried they might be dehydrated. You go to the peds ER, urgent care, whatever. It has nothing at all to do with insurance or having a GP.

Pay to have a practitioner send them to the ED? At a loss here, things must be very different where you are. If you went to a GP, they'd refer you to a specialist (avoiding the ER, even if they sent you directly to the hospital to be admitted). A GP would not turf you to the ER unless you coded in the office, lol. That's not how it works.

Nowadays, there are usually 2 levels with most systems in the US. "Urgent Care," which is sort of an ER light. It's really designed as a sort of triage to deal with the people we're talking about here who may or may not be badly ill. The ER, while more ideally the level 1-2 trauma center, also takes whomever walks through the door. So they get urgent care traffic, too.

Even the ER docs are sometimes not down with what is, and is not emergent. My wife gets many a call at 2am from some damn ER doc who seems to be unaware that my wife only considers it an emergency if the patient will promptly: die, lose an organ, or has unmanageable pain. Of course it'd feel like an emergency to the PATIENT. Ie: you get hematuria (bloody pee). Most of us would promptly head to the ER I bet. Wife gets the call, and if it's not loads of frank blood, she's usually not concerned enough to go in.

Like I said, ER use is complex.

AVGWarhawk is right regarding them not being turned away, however. Show up at the ER, and you get treated, period. Illegals know this. In some states this is a significant issue. But ERs are overused in general, IMO.

AVGWarhawk

05-03-10, 12:42 PM

But ERs are overused in general, IMO.

Absolutely 100% emphatically agree!!!!!

As noted above, the ER is the place to go for any old aliment in todays world. Such a shame when there is intermediate care providers that are open all night. I have three within 5 miles of me. I had a bladder infection (blood in urine)...I was not ER bound....I went to the intermediate that prescribed Cipro. That was it. Later went to my GP for direction on finding the cause of said infection...went to urologist. No one sent me over to the ER. I have had three lung collaspes (spontaneous pneumo-thorax). All ER type medical issues. I went to the ER all three times. Chest tubes, yadda yadda yadda. The point is, the ER will not turn anyone away. The smaller intermediate medical buildings will not turn you away but they will want payment when the consult is completed. They will want your copay at the very least....if you carry insurance. If you have any outstanding bills they will want payment. In the ER....nope, catch up with you later. The hospital knows full well payment is not forthcoming but non-the-less treatment was administered. Many unisured know this is status quo and will go to the ER for just about anything. Such a shame when resources are stressed when a real emergency arrives at the ambulance doors.

tater

05-03-10, 12:56 PM

Exactly, and again, that is because it is impossible for triage to deal with. You cannot be sure it's not a real emergency for "illness" issues without a proper workup. Doing said workup in triage is no different than doing it back in a room, it takes the same time regardless. So having a doc do triage saves exactly nothing. Once he does a workup, he's done whatever code is billed.

Clearly some stuff is obvious—trauma, etc—but we're talking about distinguishing a cold, from the flu, from Hantavirus here. The fact that 99% are a cold, 0.999% are flu, and 0.001% are hantavius doesn't help, cause turning them all away based on having a cold ends up with some deaths.

Fr8monkey

05-03-10, 06:41 PM

edit

Platapus

05-03-10, 07:09 PM

English proficiency is required to become U.S. citizen. You have to be a U.S. citizen to vote. So why do all the voting booths have English and Spanish on the ballots?

Because in the voting booth, it is important for the voter to fully understand what they are voting for. The voting booth is not the time for an impromptu English test.

Snestorm

05-04-10, 11:39 AM

The voting booth is not the time for an impromptu English test.

Yes.
The english test should have been passed already.

CaptainHaplo

05-04-10, 04:38 PM

The reason its in multiple languages is because there has always been a drive by the left to allow non-citizens to vote. Thus, no english proficiency required.

Tribesman

05-04-10, 06:02 PM

The reason its in multiple languages is because there has always been a drive by the left to allow non-citizens to vote.

The reason it is in multiple languages is because America has always had multiple languages.
Thus, no english proficiency required.
US citizens are not required to be proficient in English, or any other language for that matter.
An American can be free to speak nothing but some old Polynesian language.
But hey don't let little things like facts stop you making rubbish up.

Platapus

05-04-10, 06:23 PM

US citizens are not required to be proficient in English, or any other language for that matter.
An American can be free to speak nothing but some old Polynesian language.
But hey don't let little things like facts stop you making rubbish up.

That is true for natural born citizens, but not naturalized citizens.

http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title08/8-1.0.1.3.65.html

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=dd7ffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=dd7ffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60a RCRD

And yes, naturalized citizens are held to a higher standard than natural born citizens. One wonders how many high school graduates could pass the naturalization tests. :)

Platapus

05-04-10, 06:26 PM

The reason its in multiple languages is because there has always been a drive by the left to allow non-citizens to vote. Thus, no english proficiency required.

For the first 140 or so years our country was in existence, non-us citizens were allowed to vote. Up until the 1920's most states allowed non-citizens to vote, so I doubt this is a "left" agenda.

www.age-of-migration.com/na/casestudies/12.4.pdf

CaptainHaplo

05-04-10, 08:47 PM

Platypus - the move to only allow citizens to vote was made as the country moved "right". Also - currently - the push to have illegals vote (though its done quietly) has been from the left, because the left caters to the hispanic community a lot more than the right.

Like it or not, that is simply fact.

Platapus

05-04-10, 08:57 PM

Like it or not, that is simply fact.

Well it is not a matter of whether I like it or not, but a matter of whether you have citations to support your assertions.

Tribesman

05-05-10, 02:04 AM

Like it or not, that is simply fact.
That "fact" echos a conspiracy theory steamwake has been pushing lately

Well it is not a matter of whether I like it or not, but a matter of whether you have citations to support your assertions.
Given the ease with which Haplos last assertion about votes and the drive for illegals to votewas shot down, do you expect this assertion to stand up?

tater

05-05-10, 10:22 AM

The democrats consistently enact laws in the US to do things like give driver's licenses to illegal aliens. The democrats also consistently oppose laws to require ID checks for voters. This is self-evident to anyone who pays attention to US politics. It's explicit in party platform documents.

The goal for the latter is clearly to enable voter fraud, it can have no other purpose. The former means that even with ID checks (should they lose that battle in a legislature), the illegals have valid IDs.

The democrats also consistently push of federal "immigration reform" that involves amnesty for extant illegals, along with a "path to citizenship" for said illegals. In this case it's not nefarious, it's just an obvious ploy to buy votes—"we're the guys who made you legal—vote for us!" In addition it plays into the real voter demographics that show hispanic (the primary illegal population) voters to tend more democratic than republican (think it's like 60-40).

Contrary to the way you portray opponents of the government not enforcing immigration law, most republicans I know are for tight control of who comes in—mostly for national security reasons—and increased LEGAL immigration and guest worker programs. Unlike the dems, they don't want amnesty because they think it's wrong to reward illegal behavior. I'm in this camp. Make the illegals leave, then come back in legally under a system that allows many more in legally. No amnesty because that gives people that broke the law and "cut the line" to benefit. There is no way anyone already in the US illegally should be a citizen faster than someone playing by the rules.

Meaning that if an amnesty was passed to take effect tomorrow, IMHO it's entirely unfair for someone illegal in the US tomorrow to get their citizenship faster than someone who applies LEGALLY tomorrow. That's entirely unfair to the guy playing by the rules.

Might be interesting to make a novel amnesty whereby they get t be citizens in every way except the vote. Illegals taking advantage of amnesty should NEVER be allowed to vote. That's a reasonable punishment for cheating. They are welcome to instead leave, and come in legally if they wish to vote.

AVGWarhawk

05-05-10, 11:14 AM

The democrats also consistently oppose laws to require ID checks for voters. This is self-evident to anyone who pays attention to US politics. It's explicit in party platform documents.

I can confirm. Last go around I waltzed in and voted. No one ask me for anything other than if I was breathing.

The goal for the latter is clearly to enable voter fraud, it can have no other purpose. The former means that even with ID checks (should they lose that battle in a legislature), the illegals have valid IDs.

Yes sir. I could have gone to several schools holding the elections booths and voted multiple times.

The democrats also consistently push of federal "immigration reform" that involves amnesty for extant illegals, along with a "path to citizenship" for said illegals. In this case it's not nefarious, it's just an obvious ploy to buy votes—"we're the guys who made you legal—vote for us!" In addition it plays into the real voter demographics that show hispanic (the primary illegal population) voters to tend more democratic than republican (think it's like 60-40).

No argument there. Democrats love 'undocumented' people...after all, illegal sounds so crass....

tater

05-05-10, 11:40 AM

Not all republicans are in favor of keeping illegals out, either. It's not monolithic.

Some hope to buy hispanic votes, for example ("see, I was instrumental in making you legal, vote for me!" (McCain, for example)).

Others have constituents that gain from the workers—some agriculture, for example (CA, notably).

So you can see strange bedfellows. Che-shirt wearing, "La Raza" folks (if german-americans called themselves THE race, just imagine...) commies who vote democrat forming an alliance with suit-wearing republicans who have as the major employer in their district a chicken farm/plant that employs hundreds of illegals to put process the meat.

Overall, however, it's the left that pushes for non-enforcement—the powerful on the left, that is. The voters themselves are in favor of border control because a worker might be a democrat, but he knows he is ultimately competing with illegal workers, as well as having to live with crime, crowded schools for his kids (and teachers having to teach in 2 languages), delays in ERs, etc. That's why there is a disconnect between the public and democrat politicians. The pols are looking at their power base looking forward, the voters just want security in their jobs, neighborhoods, etc.