Ron Paul for president, any one?

[mudsling3]

If there is an open election, he got my vote. Anyone else for him?

Here is a quote from wiki

His most prominent moment came during the May 15 GOP Presidential debate when the following exchange occurred with fellow Republican hopeful Rudy Giuliani:

PAUL: They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.

GIULIANI: That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.

PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages, and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free, they come and attack us because we're over there

[Corwin]

He's still a politician!! What would happen if Nobody voted!! :)

[magerette]

Can't happen. The stooges will always vote. That's why I have to, even though they all turn my stomach. :puke: I do have to agree with you Corwin--it would be a great day if they gave an election and nobody came. :)

Liked this guy's common sense though. Got a website link?

[X_805]

Liked this guy's common sense though. Got a website link?

www.ronpaul2008.com

www.ronpaullibrary.org

The issues section of his website is not very fleshed-out, so if you really want to look at his stances in-depth, the second link is a must.

He is definitely my favorite candidate.

[Squeek]

I saw Ron Paul interviewed on television and, frankly, couldn't believe it. Can a politician really be that sincere? If he's not a phony, then he's at the very least someone I'd enjoy knowing. I might vote for him, yeah.

[zakhal]

Ron Paul in youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

[magerette]

Thanks for the links. It figures that he isn't actually a candidate. I have a theory that only idiots or meglomaniacs run for high office, so actually that says good things about the guy. ;)

EDIT: OOPS. Sorry--he apparently is a candidate--hopefully an exception to my personal theory as stated above.

[txa1265]

I just hope that he can actually hang around long enough to influence the debate and discourse of the overall election before it all gets to boiled down to insipid soundbytes.

[mudsling3]

He's still a politician!! What would happen if Nobody voted!! :)

You are not as aged as you claimed you are. But that give me an idea...how about add an extra box on the ballot for those who disapprove any of the names on it, which would have give a voice to those who keep their silence.

Ron Paul would be a success if he expands his message further on the grassloot level. Picking on IRS, the Fed...would take much more than 50% of the population.

[dteowner]

There's a "write-in" box on the ballot every time. Mickey Mouse regularly receives votes for President.

[mudsling3]

That's only kinda amusing but lack the tabulated punch of diffinitive NOs. Search around and found some interesting Congresional exchanges between Ron Paul and Ex- Fed chair Alan Greenspan. I really respect Ron Paul for not wandering off... :)
Here: http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan-gold.html

and Ron Paul vs. Ben Bernanke on Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTBrJNipytg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdailypaul%2Ecom%2F

One more link: http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008

[mytgroo]

Ron Paul is sincerely right libertarian which will not get you very far in the United States except as a ticket to philosophy lectures and economic clubs.

[mudsling3]

Can you be a bit more specific than mere philosophic/labeling? I thought his ideas are very practical on foreign policy and currency system(vs. fiet). If you are talking about ostacles, then I can immediately see two Goliaths stand in the way: First the all powerful invisible Federal Reserve; Second the all penetrating Military Defense Industry Complex. However, grassroot movement is about what is closer to the ground :) If people look up and see a few yards further, who knows what would happen.

[mytgroo]

How amusing, he tows the libertarian philosophy of opposing the income tax system, most government legislation, most government agencies including medicaid or medicare, any kind of intervention in gun ownership, or property rights. He also opposes the war on drugs and any government recognition of marriage. This is classic libertarian thinking that people should not interfere in personal liberties or have government agencies interfere in peoples personal lives. He is also classically isolationist for a tighter border and less intervention in foreign countries. This is probably a reaction against having a huge military-- another government body which libertarians quite often oppose. His support of free trade is probably along the extreme line, absolutely no interference in trade of any kind. There is not a whole lot to discuss in 1988 he ran on the libertarian ticket. Even his statement about Roe V. Wade is libertarian in context, the government has no jurisdiction over this ruling. He won't participate in the pension system because it is a government program-- opposition to social security-- another right libertarian viewpoint. He is a right libertarian disguising himself as a republican. It looks like he is a member of the republicans to keep his elected position. It is nice to see that there is someone with a fresh viewpoint that is in office. I rather like it in a lot of ways, but I think his views are too far from center and impractical for him to be president. He would probably make a good senator.

[Ammon777]

I might vote for Ron Paul if he is on the Republican ticket. If he is not, then I might vote for the democrat on the Democratic ticket. I have absolutely no respect left for right-wing extremist republicans. In my view, our president is an extremist that should vacate office by force. But unfortunately everybody else in America is brain-washed by the media. Sad.

[X_805]

I think his views are too far from center and impractical for him to be president.

I don't think freedom is all that impractical...

Neither is the United States Constitution if followed.

[Corwin]

How do you define 'freedom' and what do you really mean by the term?

[mudsling3]

mytgroo, thanks for clearifying the definition of libertarian. However, these terms are not unique to libertarians. I can see democrats and republicans share some of these values on an individual bases as well as on party platform. In other word, an individual is free to choose his own values. Party ideology is just a convienant way to split voters apart. Sounds like you think libertarian or constitutionalist have intrinsic values and their thinkings are inheritly at fault. It would be interesting for you to define what is center, or refer a candidate that embodys these medium ideals. But I am just surprised that Ron Paul could gether support from such a wide spectrum of people. How's doing less being impractical?

[mytgroo]

I think there are some very good points which libertarianisms have, I just don't agree with many of them. Complete free trade is not equitable in nature, there are strengths and weaknesses in any economy that are easily exploited by outsiders if they are given a chance. There is also an assumption that people want to be free for the most part which is often not true. Leaving a vacuum in the rules leaves openings for people who are authoritarian, Bushes and others to step in. Libertarians have a bias that assumes "freedom" is great", capitalists have a bias that says people are "naturally greedy", communists have a bias that says "people will help each other under all circumstances", these biases often lead to scary situations where the biases don't match with the real world-- pollution and resource depletion in the case of capitalism, authoritarianism in the case of communism, and destruction of basic infrastructure in the case of libertarianism. Libertarianism at its most extreme gets rid of everything except a small standing army and a few minor government functions. It is minarchist in nature. It also is selfish in nature, doing nothing to address the issues of drugs, poverty, racism, and other human ills, claiming selfishness is the ultimate virtue-- Ayn Rand is a central figure in the libertarian movement-- objectivism is rampant inside the libertarian movement. There is nothing wrong with increased freedom for individual liberties, but equating personal freedom with not having a post office is rather odd.

[Arpyjee]

After watching the debates, I've come to the conclusion that there are only 2 candidates that can cut out the corruption, dishonesty, destructiveness, greed, deception, secrecy and political correctness : lefty Kucinich and righty Paul.

But the media and the establishment will do ANYTHING to prevent the 2 renegades from dominating the scene, and will also do anything to ensure that the mainstream Neoliberals and mainstream Neoconservatives maintain their monopoly.

Let's just hope those on the left recognize their most courageous & honest candidate, and those on the right recognize theirs. Some new ideas, and new approaches would be greatly beneficial in 2007/2008, imo.

[magerette]

I think our system of government--nominally democracy, but actually such a mish-mash of different goals, foci, and motivations on the parts of it's elected participants that it defies any precise nomenclature--is on the brink of chaos. Our party system is so corrupt and cluttered with counterproductive, misleading elements that I often wonder who really feels represented properly by either party.

There is indeed a polarity between the extreme right and extreme left, but there is also a profound lack of unity and clarity at center. (Witness people referring to Hillary as a centrist instead of a socialist--or maybe socialism is what's at the center ATM.) All this leads to fragmentation of the voter base, disinterest and apathy and the feeling that significant change for the better is impossible.

I'm willing to listen to anyone with a real plan and a tangible, integral set of personal values. Because the level of disenchantment with politics and career politicians only grows greater as people access information and learn to think for themselves, what's going on now has got to change.

[Corwin]

It's no different in this country!! I'd like to get rid of them all and start over!! I have this wonderful concept: when a politician loses his seat, he/she's executed by members of their electorate!! :biggrin:

[mudsling3]

Magerette, I like your words. The two-party as well as the whole electorial system has out live its usufulness. It has to be derailed for something new to grow. I would like to see open election. The current process is here only to frustrate people like Ron Paul. Given a chance, I doubt he would wear that republican hat... not that every republican comes off the same cooky cutter. As you point out that center shift with time, like the concept of Zeigeist. The founders' ideas are way ahead of their time for putting individuals at the fort front. Those ideas were old yet so refreshing.

Quote from mytgroo
“I think there are some very good points which libertarianisms have, I just don't agree with many of them. Complete free trade is not equitable in nature, there are strengths and weaknesses in any economy that are easily exploited by outsiders if they are given a chance.”

I have limited Econ knowledge, I have to read further up on Paul’s idea on free trade under sovereignty of a nation. However, the current system under WTO, IMF is doing exactly what you are describing. The evidence is presented in the study of destruction of self-sufficency of caribean islands…and many more.

“There is also an assumption that people want to be free for the most part which is often not true. Leaving a vacuum in the rules leaves openings for people who are authoritarian, Bushes and others to step in.”

I hope you are kidding. I understand that some caged animal become so rely on human that they can’t survive in the wilderness…or are you questioning the decision on Emancipation Proclaimation when the slaves are running back to their masters upon setting free while completely lack means of supporting oneself. Have you ever seen a captured wild horse willingly carry a rider without first being broke-in? Here is the problem…nothing happens in a vaccuum. Fire only start while there is oxygen, combustables and sparks. Can see a complete self-sufficient adult when looking throught a completely dependent baby in his mother’s lap? There are authortarian as long as there are submissive people. “the Price of freedom is eternal vigilance”. I would put Bush and the sort under the term “charismatic” egotist. And ask me or any strong willed individual who would give a dime.



“Libertarians have a bias that assumes "freedom" is great", capitalists have a bias that says people are "naturally greedy", communists have a bias that says "people will help each other under all circumstances", these biases often lead to scary situations where the biases don't match with the real world-- pollution and resource depletion in the case of capitalism, authoritarianism in the case of communism, and destruction of basic infrastructure in the case of libertarianism. Libertarianism at its most extreme gets rid of everything except a small standing army and a few minor government functions. It is minarchist in nature. It also is selfish in nature, doing nothing to address the issues of drugs, poverty, racism, and other human ills, claiming selfishness is the ultimate virtue-- Ayn Rand is a central figure in the libertarian movement-- objectivism is rampant inside the libertarian movement. There is nothing wrong with increased freedom for individual liberties, but equating personal freedom with not having a post office is rather odd.”

You could send via Fed-ex :) I doubt Ron Paul could accomplish all that in one day or a decade and he never promise a rose garden. However, it is critical which direction we are moving. The ever expanding foreign intanglement, or accelerated decreasing in currency value are putting this country way off center deep under water. I think these two are main concerns of Ron Paul for running for presidency…sort of the root of all evils. I have yet seen any candidate from either party or anyone to address them on a fundamental level as sound as Ron Paul. I am sured they would just put a band-aid here and there. There is short-sighted selfishness where your definition would come in mainly due to FEAR/the animal natural; there is also far-sighted selfishness for lack of a better term, such as parents making sacrifice for their sons and daughters, which surprisingly observable in higher primates. Maybe I like my animal natureS better.

Here is a video of Ron Paul on Healthcare
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/playerhealth08.cfm?id=3396#clip_1

[magerette]

mudsling3, thought you might be interested in the results of this poll. (http://www.freedomworks.org/strawpoll/)(I know absolutely nothing about the site, but it appears libertarian/conservative at first glance.)

[mudsling3]

Thanks :) I am not surprised, I read that Ron Paul do very well with the informed internet crowd. However, he seems to suffer major media blackouts. His name wasn't even printed in the ABC's headline about upcoming Republican presidential candidate debate on this sunday "This Week With George Stephanopoulos".

Meanwhile, I have been searching on the net about Ron Paul. Just like the man said,"...it is more about the message(individual liberty) than the messanger..."
I wish to change this thread title to "Ron Paul phenomenon" as I can see this message isn't bounded by this election or the US broader. And we got lots of international viewers. Here is more links to his writtings and speeches...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/
http://dailypaul.com/
http://europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://bavaria-for-ron-paul.blogspot.com/
http://ronpaulfr.blogspot.com/

And specially to Belgians among us :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LwSD_CvqIk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdailypaul%2Ecom%2Fnode%2F1085

[Prime Junta]

@magerette -- Hillary Clinton is in no reasonable sense of the word a socialist. Socialism is a system where the means of production are collectively owned. I have never heard any mainstream American politician advocating the nationalization of industry. By European standards, Hillary Clinton would be a right-winger.

[magerette]

That's a scary concept, Prime Junta. I am poorly informed in the political arena, but here Hillary is definitely not perceived as a conservative. The socialism is my own interpretation of her "It Takes A Village" to run your life for you approach:
Wikipedia:
In terms of public perception of her views, in a Gallup poll conducted during May 2005, 54% of respondents considered Senator Clinton a liberal, 30% considered her a moderate, and 9% considered her a conservative.[183]

In terms of the quoted definition of socialism, Ms Clinton falls short. In a working definition which encompasses the bones of Big Government, I think she might qualify. I agree that she probably would not propound the abolishment of individual wealth or property, or attempt to eliminate basic capitalistic principles. However, the tenets of Big Government vest the collective power of the state in all phases of individual life to it's own aggrandizement, and work to make the State the final authority and most powerful single entity. A rather broad definition of socialsim which probably reveals my political niavete, so forgive me for playing fast and loose with the term. :)

[Prime Junta]

Yah, well, I'm perhaps a bit too picky about precise use of language, especially when talking politics where opinions are often strong. It's all too easy to pick a term with strong negative connotations and slap it on someone you don't like, whether it's accurate or not. For example, the term you're looking for is "statism," not "socialism."

Then again, the definitions of terms in American political discourse have drifted a lot. "Liberal," "moderate," and "conservative" mean very different things from their original (and technical) definitions. They used to be pretty useful descriptors of political thinking; nowadays they're just group identifiers.

There's a fairly simple but reasonably descriptive way to put political currents on the map. First, draw two axes at right angles to each other. Write "liberal" and "statist" at the left and right ends of one axis, bottom and top ends of the other. Then label one axis "social" and the other "economic."

Someone at the extreme left of the "social" axis would be a "social liberal" -- s/he would believe that the state should stay out of people's private lives. For example, wanting to remove "In God We Trust" from coins on the grounds that religion is a purely private matter would be a social liberal position.

Someone at the other end would be a "social statist" -- they would believe that it is the state's/society's responsibility to see that people behave in the proper way. So, for example, supporting a law that requires women to wear the chador in public and one that requires all Internet-enabled devices to include content-filtering chips, would be "social statist" positions.

Same thing with the economic axis: the belief that the unregulated, unfettered market is the best mechanism for handling the economy and the state should stay completely out of it is an economic liberal one, while the belief that a planned, centrally run economy is juster, stabler, and more efficient would be an economic statist one.

And, of course, a "moderate" would simply be someone close to the center of the axis.

In American discourse, however, a "liberal" is someone who's perceived to be in the social liberal and economic statist corner of the coordinates, while a "conservative" is in the opposite corner... with hardly anyone in the liberal/liberal or statist/statist corners, even fairly near the center. (Libertarians, Greens, and Communists are too small to matter other than as entertainment.)

[dteowner]

I would say Hillary's desire to nationalize the US medical system would have to be considered socialism by any definition you choose.

[magerette]

I approve of being picky when it comes to the weighted language you describe. And it's very true, I used the word "socialist" as a term of opprobium rather than an impartial political labeling precisely because I do indeed have no stomach for Hillary.* I will henceforth try to remember to refer to her as a statist, though whether anyone not reading your explanation will grasp the point I don't know. ;)

You present a concise and clean categorization of the various political positions which shows clarity of mind, Prime Junta. I appreciate that, and the information. We all could use some guidelines trying to figure out the snarled mess that is government in the 21st century. Unfortunately, as you note, clarity of mind and clean definitions of terms are not often brought to the table when the political arguments are flying.

At this point in time, the medicine show of the media heavily influences the thought processes of most people, and it results in the polarization of positions that are fundamentally almost identical. I hope that my earlier assertion that the tremendous possibilty for self-education provided by today's technology is indeed realized and not derailed, and people take the time to try to discover for themselves facts instead of contextual propaganda.

(Libertarians, Greens, and Communists are too small to matter other than as entertainment.)

There are times when it's all entertainment to me, politicians and lawyers acting exaggerated parts of buffoonery like a twisted Monte Python Flying Circus, and other times when it is a glimpse into the abyss, a terrifying force of chaos bent on fostering only hate, greed and mayhem in the name of order.

No doubt the reality is somewhere in the middle. At least I hope so. :)



*She spells her name with 2 "L"s by the way--her assertion that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary and his conquest of Everest was later debunked when the fact was brought out that he didn't achieve this til 1953. She was born in '47, when not too many American housewives had heard of him. But it could still be something she was told in childhood. Who knows? So many things are hard to prove.

[Prime Junta]

I would say Hillary's desire to nationalize the US medical system would have to be considered socialism by any definition you choose.

Medical services are not means of production.

Second, if that's your definition of socialism, the United States is the only non-socialist first-world country, since all the others already have national health care systems. This would seem to dilute the meaning of the term enough to render it useless.

[Prime Junta]

I approve of being picky when it comes to the weighted language you describe. And it's very true, I used the word "socialist" as a term of opprobium rather than an impartial political labeling precisely because I do indeed have no stomach for Hillary.* I will henceforth try to remember to refer to her as a statist, though whether anyone not reading your explanation will grasp the point I don't know. ;)

I'm not a big fan of hers either, although I'd describe her as a "weasel" rather than "socialist." I've been following quite closely what she's been saying, and so far she's done a remarkable job of dodging the question whenever she'd need to actually commit to a position -- no matter if it's health care, infrastructure, or Iraq.

At this point in time, the medicine show of the media heavily influences the thought processes of most people, and it results in the polarization of positions that are fundamentally almost identical. I hope that my earlier assertion that the tremendous possibilty for self-education provided by today's technology is indeed realized and not derailed, and people take the time to try to discover for themselves facts instead of contextual propaganda.

Unfortunately, I think the Internet only makes things worse -- it's so easy to find groups of like-minded people that unless you make an effort you'll drift into an "echo chamber" where everybody gets the same information, and reinforces the same opinions. This can lead to some seriously delusional stuff.

That's why I'm a big believer in good "traditional" education. Things would be a lot better if high school had good, solid civics classes that taught the basics of political science (like that statism/liberalism thing I described). There are many stable political systems around these days, with different strengths, weaknesses, and trade-offs. If people had a realistic understanding of them, they could act as "informed consumers" when it comes to politics, instead of just voting for the tall guy with the best hair.

There are times when it's all entertainment to me, politicians and lawyers acting exaggerated parts of buffoonery like a twisted Monte Python Flying Circus, and other times when it is a glimpse into the abyss, a terrifying force of chaos bent on fostering only hate, greed and mayhem in the name of order.

No doubt the reality is somewhere in the middle. At least I hope so. :)

Oh, it's deadly serious, for everyone involved. Trouble is, states reward people who are good at getting themselves into office, not people who are good at governing. In some systems, the two are linked to a greater or lesser extent; in others, less so. The interesting thing about America is that it has both -- a pretty well linked system at the state and municipal level, and an almost completely decoupled system at the federal level. The emergence of a stable and semi-closed political elite, complete with dynasties à la Kennedy, Clinton, or Bush, is a pretty good tell-tale -- it's clear that these people are getting elected through connections rather than merit.

So, the system is rigged to prevent any outsider from getting in, and come election day the American voter is faced with choosing between syphilis and gonorrhea. Not an enviable situation, and one that's very hard to change.

[mudsling3]

Great! more people jumping in. Prime Junta, always enjoy your thoughtful posts. Regarding your cartician coordinate mapping of political landscape, I think it does nothing more than defining four broad quadrants-- social liberal, econ liberal, social statist, econ statist as you mention. It lacks any meaning as it applies to an individual. As you said,"a liberal is someone who's perceived to be in the social liberal and economic statist corner of the coordinates", which means this particular individual would occupy both the second and fourth quadrants, two points at the same time. In addition, you have to graduate all issues on the scale of social, econ, and all methodologies on the scale of liberal, statism.

Medical service is a broad definition covering from treating a common cold to having an emergency operation. I think Ron Paul makes a good distinction between medical coverage vs. medical insurance. The key issue here is to provide the best service in the most sustainable way.

As statism being applied in the us, it is nothing more than heavyly government subsidized mega private corporations... Federal reserve system, military industrial complex, petro industries...

[Prime Junta]

Oh, the statist/liberal coordinate system is very crude indeed. If you like, you can add any number of other axes. An "ecology" one would be nice, for example.

However, you misunderstood the quadrants; we have two axes (social and economic, s and e) with two ends each (statist and liberalist, S and L), so the four quadrants are (sL,eL), (sL,eS), (sS,eS), and (sS,eL).

See here for a test you can take to see where you fit: [ http://www.politicalcompass.org/ ]. FWIW, I ended up just south of Dalai Lama. :-)

(Note that the site uses slightly different terminology -- they call the ends of the social axis "authoritarian" for statist and "libertarian" for liberal, and the ends of the economic axis "left" for statist and "right" for liberal. So someone in the (sS,eL) quadrant would be an authoritarian rightist, whereas someone in the (sL,eS) quadrant would be a libertarian leftist. But the idea is the same.)

[JemyM]

Ron Paul is cool, but I wish he had done as much research on the history of abortion as he have done on the other questions.

[mudsling3]

JemyM, please feel free to present "yourstory" of abortion. Ron Paul put up this hypothsis in an article,
"If a woman in an automobile on her way to have an abortion is hit by another vehicle which causes the death of her fetus, does she have the moral right to sue and win a million dollar judgment in a "wrongful death" suit? This is not meant to be a legal question but one pertaining only to our understanding of life and morality. An acceptable answer to this question on both sides of the abortion argument must be found if we ever expect the sharp debate on this crucial issue to mellow."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul3.html

@Prime Junta, that's a better picture... I am somewhere southeast of the Delai, who surprisingly locates on the far left and being a organized religious leader...maybe I should put the keyword "exiled" in the front :) However, I keep my reservation about acurracy and utility of this compass am thinking the moderate majority is just being indifferent or uninformed.

[JemyM]

Im not playing mindgames with hypothesises.
There are too many agendas within the discussion that one hypothesis do not do justice to the question. History shows that leaving theese issues in the hands of experts leads to the best outcome in most situations, where as the absolutist examples of enforcing one truth in every situation have been both brutal, uncivilized and in many cases lethal. So there's probably my answer; leave it to the experts. That's the single rule I am willing to support always. Based on your scenario you would probably have to leave it to lawyers, witnesses, a jury and maybe also psychologists, doctors etc. There are no black/white right/wrong answers to the question, that's why we need to continue to place such questions in the hands of experts and not an always-right always-wrong law.

I find it weak of Ron to first speak about leaving business to experts and then being absolutist about regulating family planning.

We legalized abortions in the first place based on reasons which many now have forgotten. People are not machines and we are not always rational and we do not always use our heads. Having the responsibility for a baby is a life changing decision that there are plenty who are not willing to take and wont take regardless if you tell them it's right or wrong. Getting rid of unwanted children is nothing new. Older methods involved slaying the baby once it came out, abandoning it to die by itself, the practice of illegal unclean abortions or cleaning it out with sharp tools by yourself. Such activities is currently going on in the world today in countries who despite known history decided to ban abortions. The attempts to enforce theese laws are both brutal and barbaric.
Our social landscape have changed, but the instincts are natural and will continue to be natural for the rest of our days, wether we like them or not. Legalized abortions was found early on to be the cleanest and most civil way to solve a human problem that will never go away.

The primary two agendas to ban abortions completely are not about protecting life at all. It's about souls and the sin of sex. The belief that a fertilized egg is a soul and the belief that most forms of sex is a sin. The great majority of abortions made happens within the first weeks where one egg fertilized with sperm is removed and leaves about 400,000 more eggs behind for a better time. The later stage abortions at least here in sweden are limited by heavy regulations where almost every month after inpregnation counts.

The idea that having a baby is a good punishment for a mistake is incredibly naive. A person not responsible enough for their own bodies are not good parents. Making an unwanted citizien out of every egg into an uncertain future with parents not fit to be parents is not healthy for a modern society who is already facing a dire situation with issues like criminality, poverty and lack of education. Also, allowing an adult person with all her memories, friends, relatives and responsibilities to die to save her fetus is seriously screwed up priorities when it comes to protecting sentient life.

Forcing laws that have a potential to create more destructive elements based on a belief in souls and sin is something that should happen nowhere in the civilized world as it's both shortsighted and not based on the western world philosophy of a rational approach and careful research before acting, nor is it based on any liberal philosophy I know.

Having said that, with the strong Ultra Fundamentalist Christian organisations that currently infests the american culture as well as the government, the fall of civilization is soon upon USA anyway unless things start to go into another direction where people starts to make decisions based on social science and history instead of christianity. As history shows, a healthy mix between socialism, capitalism, liberalism and a trust in knowledge and expertise have created the best societies in the world where as absolutism have always lead to disaster.

[Prime Junta]

@Prime Junta, that's a better picture... I am somewhere southeast of the Delai, who surprisingly locates on the far left and being a organized religious leader...maybe I should put the keyword "exiled" in the front :) However, I keep my reservation about acurracy and utility of this compass am thinking the moderate majority is just being indifferent or uninformed.

Yup, one axis that IMO is sorely missing from the picture is "strength of convictions." You can be a moderate with very strong convictions (I am, I think), just like you can be, say, a force-of-habit fascist. (My late grandmother would probably qualify for that.)

[magerette]

JemyM wrote AGAIN:

Having said that, with the strong Ultra Fundamentalist Christian organisations that currently infests the american culture as well as the government, the fall of civilization is soon upon USA anyway unless things start to go into another direction where people starts to make decisions based on social science and history instead of christianity.....

Jemy you drive me crazy with this stuff. You take a small fringe group and make it the face of my nation...the ugliest possible face. Just because you are a card-carrying aetheist, I don't assume Sweden is entirely populated by a demonic horde of godless rationalists. Please use your fine brain to examine this tendency to stereotype and espouse a doctrine of hate as restrictive and condemnatory as anything that fundamentalist christians might believe.

That said, I am pretty much in agreement with your take on abortion. Too many people want to take responsibility for preventing "murder', but few of them are out there helping the children once they're born. I enjoyed watching Guilianni on the news last night trying to weasel out of his prior pro-abortion stance by using the classic argument that there should be a balance toward allowing abortion and encouraging carrying unwanted babies to full term for adoption--as if adoption is always into a perfect home with perfect parents(Madonna anyone?) There is an equal potential for just as many instances of abuse and neglect among foster parents as among natural parents, but this is never mentioned--let's not examine too closely what happens to unwanted children after they are born, let's just make sure they aren't "murdered". I have no patience with this crap. If you want to stop an abortion, then stop it before it happens with education, compassion and informed assistance to those who need it. If you can't provide these things, then don't preach about the moral wrong of someone else's life decisions.

[txa1265]

Jemy you drive me crazy with this stuff. You take a small fringe group and make it the face of my nation...the ugliest possible face. Just because you are a card-carrying aetheist, I don't assume Sweden is entirely populated by a demonic horde of godless rationalists. Please use your fine brain to examine this tendency to stereotype and espouse a doctrine of hate as restrictive and condemnatory as anything that fundamentalist christians might believe.

Unless he believes that all Germans are fascists, all Irish are militant terrorists, all people in the Middle East are crazed Islama-fascicts or the right-wingnuts who want to kill them, and on and on and on ...

[JemyM]

I am not so stupid that I believe that 300 million people are the same and think the same. I do know however that the high court consists of nine people of which five still believes that religion and state shall be separate and no statelaws can be introduced on religious dogmas. One of thoose five is 87 years old. If he is replaced with one who is positive to religious laws, then America as a country in which you are free to believe what you want is no more, reversing up to 60 years of progress.

Even the most promising of the democrat presidents are still deeply religious people and we only need one more person in the High Court and the rest is history.

I also know a bit or two about just how poisoned the white house is today by extremists. I know for example that the white house currently employees 200 juridical workers who come from Pat Robertsons law school. Not only have this law school the weakest results in the country, the founder is a religious extremist who have made radical comments on pretty much everything.

I do not have great faith in the future of a nation who sink this deep into extremism. The bill of rights is the only thing that protects the right to make an abortion today since rational thinking was lost in the discussion a long time ago.

[Dez]

The body belongs to mother and she is the one who makes a decision, not a goverment, not a church, not her neighbour and above else not some egocentric politician. Its all what I'm going to say about this issue. Its 2007 now and sometimes it feels we are still living a year 1507... Banning abortion has never caused any good. Usualy people begin travelling to countries where it can be done or hire an expert who does it secretly or the worst scenario try to do it without doctor.

I understand and respect if someone doesn't agree with me, but if you ban the abortion you basicly say that a woman shouldn't be allowed to control her own body.

Obviously the best solution for both sides is the education, teach youngsters about safe sex, e-pill, condoms etc.. So that this kind of situation could be avoided altogether. However if "an accident" happens, its her decision not ours. And that decision isn't ever an easy one, so why should anyone try to make it more difficult?

[Corwin]

Why does everyone bleat about the rights of the woman's body, what about the rights of the unborn baby? You do the crime, you do the time; in this case, nine months!!

[magerette]

Why does everyone bleat about the rights of the woman's body, what about the rights of the unborn baby? You do the crime, you do the time; in this case, nine months!!


I'm sorry, Corwin but I found this post deeply offensive. It's not my intent to be offensive in return, but I'm very disappointed to hear this kind of thing from you.

So sex is a crime when it results in conception, and the woman is punished by having to bear a child?

That's some pretty negative reasoning. What kind of "time" is the male doing?

I'm taking some deep breaths here. Okay, so what about all the "babies" that are miscarried or delivered too early? Isn't God taking away those babies "right to live?" That's okay though. That's His Will and Him moving in His mysterious ways and so forth. But a woman taking the responsibility not to have a child she is unable to care for, that those who are so vocal against abortion are certainly not going to support or raise, whom society turns it's back on, and who will grow up without a father, a stable home or a decent sense of self--that is a heinous crime???

I'm sorry, IMO the crime is that no one helped this person before she got pregnant, and that all interest in that child ceases after it's born. It's easy to say carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption--a process both grueling and unfair in itself--but that's a solution that only works in a best case scenario. Nobody wants to adopt a sick, ugly, or imperfect baby--and as I said in my earlier post,--pardon me, as I bleated --adoptive parents are not immune from being bad parents.

The attitude that a child is a punishment for sin results in guilt, child abuse, and misery that is perpetuated when that child--the one everyone cared so much for before it was born and absolutely nothing for afterwards-- grows up and does it all over again. To me, the most important 'right' a child has is to have a stable, loving home.

Abortion is a terrible life choice to face and I doubt anyone who makes it is doing it without deep remorse and guilt. It's very shallow to make such a flippant, callous assessment of it.

[Prime Junta]

Why does everyone bleat about the rights of the woman's body, what about the rights of the unborn baby? You do the crime, you do the time; in this case, nine months!!

Because the embryo does not have any rights. It's a non-sentient collection of cells. It's human, just like your fingernail clippings are human, but it is not *a* human.

Moreover, if you feel that sex is a crime and having a baby is the punishment, I feel bad for you -- and especially bad for your children, if you have any.

[mudsling3]

Yup, one axis that IMO is sorely missing from the picture is "strength of convictions." You can be a moderate with very strong convictions (I am, I think), just like you can be, say, a force-of-habit fascist. (My late grandmother would probably qualify for that.)

I thought about constructing a 3d model as soon as I read your first post. Axis of Convictions(z-axis) is a good idea ...like assigning numeric value to an answer-- Disagree strongly=(-2); Disagree=(-1); Indifferent=0; Agree=1; Agree strongly=2. Taking the sum of all answers' absolute value would give you your Conviction intensity. And in the fourth dimension, color intensity can be used to map out the demography of people took that survey.

@JemyM, I can assure you that Ron Paul is no moral police even through he has strong personal convictions. Do you know he is for legalizing use of drugs, prostitution? In addition, he declaired that the Federal ruling on abortion was unconstitutional and would relagate that responsibility to individual state. He is a a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He would be qulified as one of your experts. Personally, I don't have a black and white understanding of the division between life and a mere collection of cells. I can see you have reservation about late-term abortion and appreciate your more broader perspective on this issue. I want to say that the overall impact of having even an very early-term abortion is much, much stronger than throwing out a piece of unwanted furniture or clipping your toenail.

[JemyM]

Why does everyone bleat about the rights of the woman's body, what about the rights of the unborn baby? You do the crime, you do the time; in this case, nine months!!

The rights of the unborn...
The 400.000 eggs every woman are born with or the constant refilling nutsack of souls every man have between his legs, or just when they are mixed together?
Should we rise gravestones to miscarriages or spontaneous abortions as well?

The whole idea of "rights of the unborn" is as ridicilous as any weird myth ever spawned from religion as it's born on an idea, not out of observation.

In it's purest form it tells us that an adult woman have less value than an unwanted egg since the unwanted egg have not sinned while the woman sinned back in Garden of Eden and surely sinned when she got pregnant.
The patriarchs of abrahamic religions have always taken great pleasure in seeing women suffer and they have always downgraded her value to a second rate citizien, that's all there is to it.

Without the supernatural worldview you can only see if there should be another citizien or not and you wager the positives against the negatives in every situation in which the ability for the parents to take care of the child is evaluated. If any rights should ever be given to an "unborn", it's the right to be wanted and loved, not to be created based on ancient ideas of souls and sin.

[Corwin]

I believe (and so does the Bible) that LIFE begins at conception!! Sex is Not a crime, having unprotected sex that results in an unwanted pregnancy is!! I'm not including rape here. Abortion to me is MURDER, plain and simple. If you find that offensive, tough. I find abortion offensive!!!! Sure, there are some valid reasons for an abortion, especially when the mother's life is at risk, but currently far too many people are using it for birth control and that sickens me. Life, ALL life is precious. A foetus is ALIVE; it's a tiny, yet unborn person and I believe it has a RIGHT to LIVE. This is NOT just a religious conviction, but a personal one as well. Both my wife and my daughter agree with me on this, so it's not just a 'male' thing either.

[Prime Junta]

I believe (and so does the Bible) that LIFE begins at conception!

So, spermatozoa and egg cells are not alive until they merge? Interesting view.

Sex is Not a crime, having unprotected sex that results in an unwanted pregnancy is!! I'm not including rape here. Abortion to me is MURDER, plain and simple. If you find that offensive, tough. I find abortion offensive!!!!

Why do you think people don't generally hold funerals for spontaneously terminated pregnancies?

I've replaced "abortion" with "murder" below, since you just stated that abortion is murder. Do you still agree with what you wrote?

Sure, there are some valid reasons for murder, especially when the mother's life is at risk, but currently far too many people are using it for birth control and that sickens me.

Personally, I don't believe there are valid reasons for murder. The definition of murder is killing someone without justification, and with premeditation or unusual cruelty. In other words, it is unjustifiable by definition.

Life, ALL life is precious.

I take it you're vegan? After all, a pig or a cow is far more aware, conscious, and capable of feeling pain than a fetus, let alone an embryo.

A foetus is ALIVE; it's a tiny, yet unborn person and I believe it has a RIGHT to LIVE.

A fetus is certainly alive, but it is most definitely not a person. It is a non-sentient collection of cells with certain interesting properties, but it is not an independent entity you can assign rights to.

This is NOT just a religious conviction, but a personal one as well. Both my wife and my daughter agree with me on this, so it's not just a 'male' thing either.

So it's just a coincidence that it happens to agree with your religion?

[Prime Junta]

@Corwin -- I came across this little essay on the Bible and abortion. Your thoughts?

The Bible forbids abortion (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleforbids.htm)

[JemyM]

I believe (and so does the Bible) that LIFE begins at conception!! Sex is Not a crime, having unprotected sex that results in an unwanted pregnancy is!! I'm not including rape here. Abortion to me is MURDER, plain and simple. If you find that offensive, tough. I find abortion offensive!!!! Sure, there are some valid reasons for an abortion, especially when the mother's life is at risk, but currently far too many people are using it for birth control and that sickens me. Life, ALL life is precious. A foetus is ALIVE; it's a tiny, yet unborn person and I believe it has a RIGHT to LIVE. This is NOT just a religious conviction, but a personal one as well. Both my wife and my daughter agree with me on this, so it's not just a 'male' thing either.

Belief is not a replacement for observation. The rumour that it's used for birth control is simply spread because there are thoose who do not like that women have sex. The truth is that abortion is no fun at all, and thoose stupid enough to do it twice are not fit to be parents at all. It's not a trip to las palmas, it's actually quite dangerous and might damage the function of the system so it's nothing you do for "fun".

And no, the biblelovers do not care about the majority of the deaths going on in this world today. They are always blind and deaf to whats really going on around them. They blame criminality on sin, they blame the tsunami on sin, they preach why we should go to war and kill some more, they always teach who's the lesser citizen and who are not. As usual this topic is about religious authority vs observation, not about life or ethics.

This discussion have everything to do with sex and sex alone, and it's a political agenda within christianity that is not drawn from the bible itself but is driven by the organisation. It's based on a shortsighted worldview and lack of understanding of human history and her biology and unlike popular beliefs it's neither "right-wing" nor "conservative".

Finally, a woman who have agreed to christian submission have agreed to pretty much everything to favor her husbound/father/brother.

[Corwin]

Jemy, sorry, but what you wrote is a load of CRAP!! You really don't have any idea about what MOST Christians really think or believe. I have never believed or taught any of the rubbish you are spouting as Christian dogma!!

PJ, I'll take a look at that article and get back to you.

[Prime Junta]

@Corwin -- you're entirely welcome to your views on abortion. If you think it's wrong to have one, then don't have one. If you feel that you need to tell other people that they shouldn't have one, you're welcome to do that too.

However, if you attempt to coerce someone into not having one, for example by having abortion made illegal, then I will oppose you.

[zakhal]

Im not even american or republican. My only cause is for honesty. In finland one popular party just won lots of votes and after that threw away all the real promises they had made.

Its funny how candidates can say one thing and win electection with that. Later they dont have to care about what they promised.

If I was a republican when Bush won the elections in the first place I would have made a backup plan:

Get a person who always votes against Bush's politics. That way you have a perfect winner in the next elections if (and thats if) Bush looses in his polictics. If he wins you win. If he looses you still have a perfect winner candidate in the next elections.

Dont underestimate what people do for money.

[X_805]

Dont underestimate what people do for money.

Ron Paul has been voting the way he does for over 20 years I believe.

As for abortion. I personally (and not based on religious reasons) believe that life begins at conception, so you have three people involved in the whole process: the mother, the father, and the newly created life. I'm not sure whose life is more important. Abortion is one of those "ehh" issues for me. Right now it should most likely be left to the states.

[mudsling3]

I can only think that Ron Paul is too good to be true... just kidding
Here is a clever youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU8jw7fzikQ&mode=related&search=

A good summary of where Ron Paul stands on major issues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8

[Moriendor]

Didn't know where else to put this and didn't want to open a new thread but since you seem to be discussing American politics here it seems to be quite fitting. Found the link to this one on Blue's News. It's called Smile... Or Else (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20298840/site/newsweek/page/0/) . Is August 16 like April 1 over the pond? Because this sure does sound like a completely made up comedy story :) . Here's a snip...It was bound to happen. Now even a frown or grimace can get you into trouble with The Man.
“Specially trained security personnel (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18923.html)” will be watching passengers for “micro-expressions” that will reveal treacherous agendas and insidious intentions at airports around the country. These agents, who may literally hold your fate in their hands have been given a lofty, Orwellian name: "Behavior Detection Officers."

Ya crazy yanks... :biggrin:

[magerette]

Good Godfrey Daniels! o_O

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, Fear of Flying :whip:

[Squeek]

This sounds like a way of trying to circumvent laws against profiling, a difficult issue. My 79-year-old father claims it's easy to recognize a terrorist. "They look like this," he'll say, pointing to a photograph of a group of known terrorists.

Here in California there's a confessed pedophile that’s been in the news a lot lately. He admits that he’s attracted to children and seeks them out, but he's never actually touched one. He just likes the idea of fondling them, and that's not illegal. He is easily the most despised man in the entire state.

But today some people express their support for the kind of terrorist acts where children are indiscriminately maimed or killed. I don’t get it. Isn’t that even worse? I don't care how it’s explained or defended, it's not OK to molest children, and it's certainly not OK to maim them or kill them.

Myself, I don’t blame the authorities for doing whatever they can to try to stop this stuff. But it sure isn’t easy. This whole terrorism thing is crazy, and it just keeps getting crazier and crazier.

[mudsling3]

You want insanity

"$455,009 to ship three machine screws costing $1.31 each to Marines in Habbaniyah, Iraq, and $293,451 to ship an 89-cent split washer to Patrick Air Force Base in Cape Canaveral, Florida, Pentagon records show. "
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ardg6DwCCMFI&refer=home

IMO, the most effective anti-terrorist tactic -- know thy neighors
how the swiss would do it
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bradley1.html#

[The Hulk]

Ron Paul has some interesting ideas and while I don't agree with all of them, I find myself agreeing with many of them especially him cosponsoring H. Con. Res 40 in the house of representatives. If you're not familiar with that legislation, its written with the concern that the SPP may lead to a North American Union which is being implemented in a stealthy and quiet way. From looking at all the evidence on the SPP/NAU subject, I think its a valid concern. Also, there are not many other presidential candidates who've gone on record saying they are opposed to the idea of an NAU. The only others I know of are Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo.
I also like that Ron Paul opposes NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, WTO membership(and opposes CODEX), etc.
I have to say though, Ron Paul is not a traditional libertarian. From what I have read, libertarians do not believe in limiting immigration. This is definitely not a view that Ron Paul agrees with based on looking at his official website and reading articles he's written lately. In fact I don't know anyone who agrees with that position of unlimited immigration that traditional libertarians subscribe to. Every poll I've seen on the subject has said that U.S. citizens are not in favor of increasing immigration(which is currently over a million legal immigrants per year, higher than any other country allows) and they want illegal immigration stopped. I can imagine if the U.S. suddenly allowed unlimited immigration, there would be a flood from Mexico and Central America(we already have thousands of illegal immigrants per day entering the U.S., about 80 percent of which are hispanic in origin). So if we allow unlimited immigration, the U.S. will soon be a country where hispanics are the majority and spanish becomes the official language of the U.S. Even without unlimited immigration, if the current situation continues with so much illegal immigration from hispanic countries, it will only be a few decades before hispanics become the majority in the U.S. and spanish becomes the official language. I've got nothing against hispanics or spanish, but I feel immigrants should come legally and learn english(english should also be made the official language of the U.S., it should have been done long ago) and illegal immigrants should not be allowed to stay and be made to leave by making sure employers cannot illegally employ illegal immigrants and make sure welfare is reserved for those in the country legally. If we can do that, most illegal immigrants will leave the U.S. on their own without even needing to be deported.
I guess the bottom line is, I am glad Ron Paul is not a tradition libertarian.

[Prime Junta]

@Hulk -- while I don't dispute your concerns re unlimited immigration (I wouldn't/don't support it either), that's not a plausible scenario. Immigration happens when there's an imbalance -- one country has something the inhabitants of another country want. Eventually enough move over to fully exploit that resource. Then no more come.

In your case, "something" is jobs and pay rate. As long as you have open jobs that pay better than Mexico, Mexicans will want to come do those jobs. Once you run out of those jobs (either you have enough Mexicans to fill all the available slots, or you do something about companies that employ illegal immigrants), they will stop. Either way, this will happen long, long before Latin America is out of Latins and Spanish is the official language of the USA.

[mudsling3]

Hulk, welcome to the discusion. Very good points. I think Ron Paul's idea of collective right vs. individual right can well be applied to identity. However, collective indentity doesn't exclude individual traits. The media labling Ron Paul as a Libertarian is nothing but a cheap trick of strawman. Can they say Constitutionalist?Rest assured, the whole world will start speaking English long before all Americans learn to count from uno to diez :biggrin::rolleyes::smug:

[Ubereil]

Ron Paul has some interesting ideas and while I don't agree with all of them, I find myself agreeing with many of them especially him cosponsoring H. Con. Res 40 in the house of representatives. If you're not familiar with that legislation, its written with the concern that the SPP may lead to a North American Union which is being implemented in a stealthy and quiet way. From looking at all the evidence on the SPP/NAU subject, I think its a valid concern. Also, there are not many other presidential candidates who've gone on record saying they are opposed to the idea of an NAU. The only others I know of are Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo.
I also like that Ron Paul opposes NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, WTO membership(and opposes CODEX), etc.


Acronyms from hell!:help:

Übereil

[magerette]

Immigration is another huge can of worms--it's amazing the topics Mr. Paul is attracting in this thread. ;) Much as I hate to jump in where I've already made an ass of myself once, I have to agree that as it is shaping up now it has all the hallmarks of a huge problem.


@Hulk -- while I don't dispute your concerns re unlimited immigration (I wouldn't/don't support it either), that's not a plausible scenario. Immigration happens when there's an imbalance -- one country has something the inhabitants of another country want. Eventually enough move over to fully exploit that resource. Then no more come.

Though that's a simplification, I agree in principle. What I disagree with is this:

In your case, "something" is jobs and pay rate. As long as you have open jobs that pay better than Mexico, Mexicans will want to come do those jobs. Once you run out of those jobs (either you have enough Mexicans to fill all the available slots, or you do something about companies that employ illegal immigrants), they will stop...

This is how it used to be about twenty years ago. Having been to Mexico and seen the abysmal conditions so many live in, I don't fault anyone for trying to get out and make a better life. Most of the Mexican-Americans living in the U.S. today have worked hard at difficult jobs and made a contribution to our country on par with any previous set of immigrants. These people have worked for their citizenship.

Not to stereotype, obviously some do still come with the intent to work, but many of the illegal immigrants crossing the border today come solely for social programs, free medical care, and/or the opportunity to pursue their criminal professions in a more affluent setting. Many have no intention of working, learning English or giving back. The loose border that worked for so long is outdated, and a population that supports itself through the smuggling of drugs, human beings and other profitable contraband is taking advantage of it.

Big business lobbies see only the money that comes from exploiting these people, but the aging health and social program infrastructure here is totally unequal to the demands of this many new arrivals.

For those who do get jobs and become citizens(and start participating in the funding of all these programs) I have nothing but support, but mass legalization of a new welfare state is a road to ruin.

[The Hulk]

PrimeJunta,

As magerette said above, illegal aliens come for more than just jobs(though so many of them coming lowers wages for the middle and lower class U.S. citizens who compete with them for jobs, such as in the construction industry and factory jobs). They come for free medical care at hospitals, they come to have their babies delivered for free which automatically become U.S. citizens(the original intent of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was not to have children of illegal aliens become automatic citizens, and this was stated by one of the co-authors of that amendment on the senate floor, so I believe we should return to the original intent like Ron Paul wants to and stop giving automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens that are born here) and eligible for certain welfare benefits and make the illegal parents harder to deport. All the while, middle class and poor U.S. citizens without health insurance don't get free medical care and must pay exorbitant costs to have their babies delivered, or if they need medical attention. They often engage in identity theft that really messes up citizens lives(they do it to get jobs and protect them from getting deported, and they can also get welfare benefits too), ruining their credit, having creditors harass them, IRS harassment, etc. which could take years to fix. If you've never been harassed by the IRS and bill collectors due to no fault of your own, its incredibly stressful and can ruin marriages and cause divorces.
And that is just a fraction of the problems. Another big problem is that groups such as the National Council of La Raza(translated to english La Raza means The Race, imagine if an organization of white people called themselves The Race, the uproar that would occur?)that is gaining more and more power, pressuring governors, city councils, police chiefs, mayors, senators and congressman and presidents to be soft on illegal immigration or else they will call for hispanics to vote against them in elections, arguing for amnesty for illegal aliens, etc. And then hispanic groups like La Raza, MALDEF, LULAC along with the help of the ACLU are going up against states and cities all over the U.S. that are trying to keep illegal aliens out, and these groups(with millions of dollars of funding from some big corporations, one of the biggest is Ford Motor Company) are trying to strike down these laws in court so that illegal aliens will have free reign and American citizens are upset and really tired of that sort of thing going on.
On top of all that, you have hispanic activists and politicians saying stuff like this that also causes a lot of concern and outrage among U.S. citizens...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/hispanic.asp
And even considering all that, that is not a full list of the problems caused by the out of control illegal immigration we are dealing with now.
So, I am definitely behind Ron Paul's plan to solve our immigration problems. Its high time we had a president who seriously wants to do something about it, because we have not had one for decades. I support the legal immigrants, who follow our laws and wait in line to come here, but I do not support the ones who cheat and jump to the front of the line to come here illegally.

[Prime Junta]

@magerette, @Hulk -- the myth of the "social security refugee" is a pretty common one, but it doesn't hold up when you look closely at it. Few countries have social security that's generous enough that you can actually live off it and stay above the poverty line, and US social security is among the least generous of all industrialized countries. IOW, I'm sure health care benefits are a factor in attracting Latinos to the US, but they have to live somehow too. If they can't get jobs, they won't come.

The problem of people immigrating with criminal intent would be much easier to solve too, if existing labor laws were enforced. With that many fewer people coming over, it would be that much easier to control who does come over and who doesn't.

So, if you're worried about demographics -- the US turning into a Latin American country -- there aren't enough criminal immigrants to matter in that respect, and the rest of them need jobs, even if they get better health care north of the border.

The basic fact remains, though, that illegal labor has become a structural part of the American economy and society. If you kicked them all out at once, you would have a serious upheaval in both, possibly up to and including civil unrest on a pretty big scale. Is that a price worth paying? That's your call. I would attempt to look for other, slower and less spectacular but perhaps less costly ways of first managing and then solving the problem.

[txa1265]

@magerette, @Hulk -- the myth of the "social security refugee" is a pretty common one, but it doesn't hold up when you look closely at it. Few countries have social security that's generous enough that you can actually live off it and stay above the poverty line, and US social security is among the least generous of all industrialized countries. IOW, I'm sure health care benefits are a factor in attracting Latinos to the US, but they have to live somehow too. If they can't get jobs, they won't come.

Couple of things:
- If you can only earn $10 a week in your town, but can get $100 a week by going 10 miles across a border and also get guaranteed health care, child education and welfare, does it matter if you could get a better deal 1000 miles away across an ocean or two?
- Along the same lines - if you can get the deal I mention above, stay in subsidized housing that allows you not to work and getting food stamps ensures your kids are fed and the laws make sure they are educated ... where exactly is the incentive to work.
- The issue that many folks here have is this:
> If you live in Laredo, Mexico (a split town on the border) and do a border run you get all of the aforementioned benefits.
> If you live in Laredo, Texas you do not.
> The system has been disproportionately tipped in favor of law-breakers over the law-abiding citizens. This has happened as welfare reform has attempted to force people to work while at the same time both parties have attempted to expand their base support from Latinos by being soft on anything related to that community.

[Prime Junta]

@txa -- good example, but not what I or Hulk were talking about. It only applies to a strip along the border narrow enough to commute across; hardly a recipe for Latinizing the US.

[Squeek]

You simply have your facts wrong, Prime Junta. There's terrible poverty in Mexico, and definitely not just along the border. It's common knowledge here. I can understand how you might imagine it differently, but Mexico's right on our border (and many Mexicans live here).

Pregnant parents come here expressly for the purpose of giving birth so their baby will be a US citizen. It's against the law for trauma centers to turn them away. Once they're parents of a citizen, they feel a sense of legitimacy, and many are quite assertive about it. Look here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293757,00.html).

You're right about jobs, though. That's what draws the other group here. Most of them are young men who intend to send money back home to their families. It's admirable. They set out to be heroes. Unfortunately, it almost never works out that way. They know very little about life in the US, and they all tend to make the same mistakes.

In Santa Ana, for instance, you’ll find sixteen guys sharing a two-bedroom apartment that probably rents for about $1,600 per month. All together they’ll pay about $8,000. They take whatever work they can get, nearly all at minimum wage. On Fridays they get paid. It’s gone by the end of the night. They buy alcohol and marijuana, and many hire prostitutes. There's just nothing left to send back home.

I’ve been taxed in every income bracket, and I can tell you that the rest of us feel the effects. Five years ago I spent 11 nights in a hospital. The bill, just for the room, was about $60,000. Why? Some people pay nothing at all, and the rest of us make up for it.

I’m fortunate to live in a very beautiful place. There are lovely parks here, many right on the beach. If you want to get a park bench, you need to get up very, very early; because all of them are always quickly taken. Guess who takes them.

This is a difficult problem that requires an effective solution. Unfortunately, Americans can’t all get on the same page. The wild card in all of this is that these illegal immigrants represent a potentially-huge voting block, and that’s very attractive to the political left.

[txa1265]

Look here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293757,00.html).
Uh-oh ... quoting FOX 'news' ... not exactly a credibility booster for any 'fair and balanced' argument :D

The wild card in all of this is that these illegal immigrants represent a potentially-huge voting block, and that’s very attractive to the political left.
The LEFT?!?! Didn't you notice Dubya with his hands taped to his ankles during the whole immigration 'reform' debate?!?! It was truly bipartisan pandering ...

[Squeek]

Uh-oh ... quoting FOX 'news' ... not exactly a credibility booster for any 'fair and balanced' argument :D

The LEFT?!?! Didn't you notice Dubya with his hands taped to his ankles during the whole immigration 'reform' debate?!?! It was truly bipartisan pandering ...It's a different Foxnews, actually (and it's a report, not an argument). But here's (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/19/immigration.activist.ap/index.html) a link to CNN, covering the same story.

While the political right would love to attract those voters, everyone can plainly see that, as a group, they're leaning strongly to the left at the moment. For instance, their nationwide rally for immigrant rights is held on May 1st.

[magerette]

Squeek your point about poverty is extremely relevant. When I traveled through Monterey on a bus(not a high dollar tourist excursion) little kids came through the cantina and ate the chicken bones I left on my plate. Bones, not chicken. I saw young Mexican men in the capital drinking shoe polish and Native American women lined up along the streets to beg for miles. It's a sobering sight, and as I said in my earlier post, I don't fault anyone for wanting a better life than this.

Obviously we have one in the U.S. and so obviously they come.

Yes, Prime J, it would be ideal if current labor laws and immigration laws already on the books were enforced as they once were(twenty years ago--thanks Bill Clinton, Bush, et. al.) but I'd like to see someone, just one politician or journalist, talk about the human rights issue in Mexico. Mexico has oil and gas resources, obviously plenty of labor...so why isn't the solution of the poverty of the average Mexican citizen addressed by their own government? This would take the pressure off our borders and improve life for them. No one ever seems to purpose this solution. :(

[txa1265]

I'd like to see someone, just one politician or journalist, talk about the human rights issue in Mexico.
I think that gets to the heart of it - yet if you suggest that you are accused of being a racist and trying to hide it behind pseudo-humanitarian terms.

[Prime Junta]

I'd like to see someone, just one politician or journalist, talk about the human rights issue in Mexico. Mexico has oil and gas resources, obviously plenty of labor...so why isn't the solution of the poverty of the average Mexican citizen addressed by their own government? This would take the pressure off our borders and improve life for them. No one ever seems to purpose this solution. :(

I don't know how it is in the States, but Mexico's human rights situation gets a fair bit of press on this side of the pond. To list a few topics off the top of my head, the Zapatistas and Chiapas, the mysterious murdered women close to your border, and the criminal scams run by the police.

As to your other suggestion, there's a bit of an irony there, although you may not realize it. There are a few leaders in South America today who have managed to take concrete steps against poverty, with varying amounts of success. Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. I take it you'd like one like them in charge of Mexico too, hmm?

[Prime Junta]

@squeek and others -- I've no doubt people do that sort of thing. However, the numbers are nowhere big enough to affect demographics.

The fact that you have a lousy and expensive health care system doesn't have a whole lot to do with illegal immigration either.

[magerette]

I don't know how it is in the States, but Mexico's human rights situation gets a fair bit of press on this side of the pond. To list a few topics off the top of my head, the Zapatistas and Chiapas, the mysterious murdered women close to your border, and the criminal scams run by the police.

I've seen none of those stories on the national news, or indeed much of anything about any foreign country. Our news system is apparently as inefficient as our health care. ;) The stories are indeed out there, but the money behind the media isn't interested.

As to your other suggestion, there's a bit of an irony there, although you may not realize it. There are a few leaders in South America today who have managed to take concrete steps against poverty, with varying amounts of success. Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. I take it you'd like one like them in charge of Mexico too, hmm?

I don't give a rodent's nether parts for who runs Mexico or what political ideology they use if they can improve the lives of their people and bring them into the modern world. I wouldn't necessarily refer to those two individuals as champions of human rights, however. Perhaps I'm just under-informed?(quite possible considering the above media situation)

Edit: Just looked the two gentlemen up on wikipedia. Chavez in particular appears to be an effective leader and doing some good for his people. Morales looks a bit tainted by the coca connection, but he appears to be pretty sharp about allocating his country's resources. The fact that these men are profoundly anti-U.S. doesn't diminish their achievements to me, and if they can improve the quality of life for thousands of people, that's more important than that they contribute more income to the bloated oil companies or tow the line in the "War on Drugs." Too bad Mexico's more recent leaders are more collaborators than revolutionaries.

[Corwin]

Down here, we hear almost none of this. I agree with Magerette though, there is NO need for abject poverty in this day and age. Corrupt gov'ts and greedy mega corporations are often to blame. The media is also not doing its job, since from personal experience, the American media generally thinks everything relevant happens only in America!!

[magerette]

Guilty as charged. The U.S. media is extremely insular and totally focused on what I can only describe as "gossip in high places" and buzzword issues that are totally hollow.
I subscribe to a little newsletter from South Africa and in addition to their own headlines, they cover more countries in a day than MSNBC in a month(though not in great depth, unfortunately). I do sometimes visit the BBC website, but they are understandably pretty focused on the UK and Europe. It's very hard to get a picture of what's happening in the world without investing hours in surfing from site to site.

Off Topic completely, but does anyone know of a good unbiased site for world news?

[Corwin]

I wish I did, but every country naturally focuses on its own news first. We get good world coverage down here, but Aussie news predominates.

[mudsling3]

News or muse? I am just glad that I and many others follow this election so closely... and thanks god for youtube. here are some "news" from abc, fox

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMIm8qsJupY
mostly just noise, but make sure watch the last few seconds

here a few reporting on various version of "facts"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6pj5rASKDw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYD658fr2U4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXE45ncH1a8&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXzYsLPJNBc&mode=related&search=

[Prime Junta]

@magerette -- Bravo. Thing is, neither of these two gents are very popular among the US political class. They can't be, for a number of reasons: they're as close to Communists as you get these days, and they're virulently anti-Yanqui in foreign politics. But that's pretty much the choice you have right now -- either that or more corrupt tin-pot dictators that leave their countries awful cesspools of crime and poverty, but keep the oil where you can see it and toe the line in foreign politics. Your choice.

If you want unbiased world news, you're out of luck. They're all biased. My solution is to get my news from a variety of sources and try to figure out where the biases are. I follow American media to keep my finger on the pulse of the political discussion there; the BBC world news service (make sure you get the world site, not the UK site -- they have two) is pretty good for global news, with the emphasis on former British colonies of course, and French media follow Africa and the Middle East fairly closely.

[The Hulk]

PJ,

I don't think we should cause the illegals to leave all at once. But we should enforce the laws so that they leave gradually. Perhaps within a year. That would give businesses plenty of time to hire legal workers after their illegal workers were fired. There are also lots of people on welfare because they can't find work, and we could get alot of people off welfare that way if most of the illegals left the country.
You talk of civil unrest. If this flood of illegal immigration continues, and these hispanic organizations keep working to prevent states and cities from keeping illega aliens out, U.S. citizens will feel like engaging in civil unrest at some point. Things can't continue on this way forever without U.S. citizens getting angry enough to do something about it. Especially when we try to elect people to office who will solve this problem, and then all they do is ignore the people who elected them and just make token efforts to try to placate the voters. Bush is a prime example of that.
I think Ron Paul would do much better on this issue than any other president we have had in decades.

[Prime Junta]

@magerette, @squeek, @txa and others: I have a feeling we've gotten into an unnecessary argument here. I probably don't disagree with you much about illegal immigration in the US (although of course it's none of my business, being an internal American matter, but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion).

What I'm objecting to here is a muddying of issues -- illegals as the scapegoat for the problems in your healthcare system, the myth of the welfare queen, the idea that they would keep coming even if there were no jobs for them; that sort of thing. Specifically:

(1) Illegal immigration to the US from Mexico is economic in nature. While certainly some come over for criminal reasons, and others to have their babes Stateside, *demographically* these are not significant factors in the immigration. The people "turning US into Latin America" come there for the jobs. Without the jobs, the social security wouldn't be enough to attract them except in small numbers and special cases, such as the Laredo/Laredo example.

(2) Illegal immigration is a major problem on several levels. It erodes respect for the law, it's not fair to legal immigrants, it drags down the wage level which increases poverty and puts both Americans and legal residents out of work, it increases the crime level by creating a group of "invisibles" that's poor, very hard to police, and has built-in connections across the border, and so on.

(3) Illegal immigration is embedded into the US economic/social system. Trying to solve it overnight at a single stroke (basically by frog-marching them to the border and then building a wall across it) would be risky and extremely costly, and would not really work in the long run. Why?

* You have an enormously long, very sparsely inhabited land border. It is not practical to seal it effectively. (Comparison: Finland and the Soviet Union had a similar, long wilderness land border, and it was probably the best policed in the world -- but it did not stop people from coming over when they wanted to.) So even if you did manage to expel them, they'd just come trickling right back.

* Because you don't have a national identity card nor a national electronic database of legal citizens and residents, it's not obvious even to identify whether someone is in the country legally or not. Every potential illegal has to be investigated. Lots of legals and citizens will end up being investigated as well. This would take up a huge amount of police resources (that are already stretched), not to mention being an enormous legal problem. There is something in your Constitution about illegal searches and seizures, and "looking Hispanic" does not constitute probable cause.

(4) Therefore, you have to first manage the problem, only then solve it. This will take time. This must take the form of increasing the cost of illegal immigration and decreasing its benefits. Some things that would work (all of which you may not like, for a number of other reasons):

* Introduce that compulsory national identity card and centralized database of citizens and legal residents. Include biometrics, and make it hard to fake. Introduce it gradually, making as sure as possible that nobody gets one who shouldn't. When done, require employers to check it before hiring anyone.

* Increase the cost of providing false documentation. If the employer knew they were facing very stiff fines or even jail time by providing a fake social security card to an illegal they were employing, they would be less inclined to do so.

* Reward illegals who snitch on their employers (see above) or other illegals by putting them in the front of the queue for regularizing their status in the country (as long as they haven't done any crimes).

[curiously undead]

http://www.democracynow.org/ is a great source for world news. while many of the topics could clearly be seen as having a "left" slant. the reporting itself (which i believe is the most crucial in not leading our minds in a solitary direction) by amy goodman and juan gonzalez is the most unbiased i've ever heard. they cover lots of world topics although i haven't listened to it much lately can't access streaming music at work and i'm rarely in my car at lunch when kdvs runs it. they cover lots of stuff on mexico as i'm all to aware of what prime junta is referring to. i've heard some amazing stuff on it the last couple of years i've been listing to it.

[The Hulk]

PJ,

Who's saying illegals should all be frogmarched out of the country? You keep making it seem like we need to physically force them all out of the country all at once. I've been trying to explain that that isn't necessary. If we do things the right way, we can cause most illegals to gradually leave on their own without them being deported(physically forced out).
You say the border can't be practically enforced. I will agree to the fact that you can't stop 100% of illegal immigration, but you can cut it back by 90 something percent which is good enough in my opinion. I believe it can be cut down that much based on reading statements from veteran border guards. One border guard who's worked there for decades said that in his opinion, if we more than triple the number of border guards we have now, while removing the magnets that draw illegals here(cutting off jobs using the E-Verify system with the flaws in it being fixed first to exclude illegals from employment and cutting off welfare to them as well as returning the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment back to its original intent), and we implement the exit portion of the U.S. Visit program thats supposed to track visa overstayers and add enough Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE)agents to enforce it, and we build the 854 mile double layer border fence(Ron Paul voted in favor of it) that already passed the senate last year with bi-partisan support, increase coast guard patrols to stop illegals going around boarder guards and fencing and coming by boats, and we make the 287(g) program(which allows police across the country to take on some immigration enforcement responsibilities) mandatory for all cities in the U.S. and we can cut the unacceptable flood of illegals down to an acceptable trickle. So if we do that and illegals leave on their own, 99% of them will not be able to sneak back in illegally, and those who do manage to sneak in will have a much more difficult time evading capture by authorities.
You say the lure of welfare benefits is not enough to draw them here. Do you know all the benefits that illegals can get? Counting foodstamps, and welfare checks, and other welfare benefits, and special cheap housing, an illegal immigrant family can get by here much better than most poor families in Mexico can. I myself have lived on social security disability with foodstamps, and you can get by on it and not live in abject poverty and won't go hungry. If you have children, you get more money and benefits. If you are frugal, you can get by ok.
All they need is to steal a legal resident or citizens identity and they qualify for all that and more. And from what I hear, in some states you don't even need to steal someone's identity, because the people who are in charge of giving out those welfare benefits often do not ask for info to prove they are in the country legally, they just ask for proof that they have residence in the state.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/74587/illegal_immigration_the_hidden_issue.html
Despite immigration reform laws, federal law and laws in some states prevent social service employees from asking for proof of a welfare applicant's citizenship status. As a result, 21% of illegal aliens receive some form of state welfare or federal aid.
http://www.identitytheft-victims-support-group-of-north-america.org/
Here is one more article on the very serious issue of identity theft in this country which is mostly caused by illegal aliens.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814673/
And yes, we do have a national electronic database to verify if someone is here legally or not, its called E-Verify. It is not a perfect system and needs some improvements, but I believe Bush is purposely not perfecting the system and not fixing the flaws that remain in it, and we'll need to wait until we can get a president in office who actually wants to solve the problem of illegal immigration, because Bush sure isn't serious about solving the problem. We also have a national I.D. card coming too called REAL I.D. that passed the senate unanimously in 2005 and will go into effect in 2009. Some states may opt-out of it, but most have not at this point because if they do opt-out, the citizens of those states will not be able to fly out of state or enter federal buildings without carrying a passport.

[txa1265]

If you want unbiased world news, you're out of luck. They're all biased. My solution is to get my news from a variety of sources and try to figure out where the biases are.
Completely agree - and make sure they are regionally diverse, and also vary print / TV / 'net news as well.

[Prime Junta]

Who's saying illegals should all be frogmarched out of the country? You keep making it seem like we need to physically force them all out of the country all at once. I've been trying to explain that that isn't necessary.

You did mention something about giving them a year to get out. That ain't gonna work without some very serious enforcement.

That said, as I said earlier, I think our disagreement on the topic is largely illusionary. Most of the stuff you list would probably work, and if I was American, I would probably support it.

If anywhere, we possibly disagree slightly about the balance of methods to be used -- I have a feeling you put more weight on the "police aspect" of the operation (i.e., sealing borders, checking papers and so on) while I feel the "disincentive aspect" (i.e., reducing the number of reasons why they should come there to start with) is more important.

The reason is that if drastic measures were taken in either way, the economy (and society) would suffer a significant and potentially very costly disruption. If you want to avoid this disruption, you need more than a year for them to adjust. As I've stated before, illegal immigration has become a structural part of the US economy and society, and modifying structures like this takes time -- unless you want to resort to drastic measures (read: concentration camps and mass deportations).

IMO a realistic timetable for addressing the problem would be something like this:

Phase 1: Reduce the number of new illegal immigrants arriving by 20% a year, until the number is as close to zero as is reasonably enforceable.

Phase 2: Reduce the number of existing illegal immigrants in the country by 10% a year, until the number is as close to zero as is reasonably enforceable.

In about 20 years or so, the problem should be down to manageable levels. Assuming, of course, that you managed to stick to a consistent policy.

However, I'm quite certain that if you tried to "quick fix" the problem, over a scale of, say, five years or less, it would get very messy indeed. It would involve significantly expanding police powers and government intrusion, significant economic upheavals, and significant social upheavals -- we're talking Watts-style riots here, not peaceful protests. Again, some people feel that this is a price worth paying. As I don't live in America, I don't really care, one way or the other, but if I did, I would strongly oppose this type of policy.

What I objected to in this discussion was the way some people here muddied the issue -- e.g. blaming illegals for the sorry state of your health care system or claiming that "welfare refugees" (i.e., people immigrating for other purposes than work) are a demographically significant factor in Latinizing the US. That just ain't so, despite the fact that such stuff is certainly going on too.

[magerette]

Prime Junta wrote:

What I objected to in this discussion was the way some people here muddied the issue -- e.g. blaming illegals for the sorry state of your health care system or claiming that "welfare refugees" (i.e., people immigrating for other purposes than work) are a demographically significant factor in Latinizing the US. That just ain't so, despite the fact that such stuff is certainly going on too.

I understand your objections. As I said, the whole issue is a can of worms. The right wingers are up in arms, the left wingers are up in arms and the illegals are caught in the middle. There is always the problem of a racist overtone creeping in when those who pay for the welfare system show their resentment at it's abuse. No doubt some people are motivated by hate, and their prime tools are the stereotypes you mention. That doesn't really change the facts, though.

It is indeed questionable how demographically significant this wave of Hispanic immigration is, but it's much much larger than any in the past. There are almost as many Hispanics in my town now as there are fat people. ;) I don't blame them for the state of our health care, I just say our health care can't handle it--fact. Our school systems can't handle it. Our ever-declining work force and tax base can't handle it. It's a case of killing the goose to get the golden eggs.

You may be already aware of this, but I think it's an underestimated factor: Starting this year, 8,000 baby boomers A DAY will be retiring over the next twenty years and start drawing out of the system instead of putting money into it. They represent a huge pool of higher income (hence more highly taxed) workers who will no longer be there. The illegal population isn't in any position to replace them atm, as the jobs they are presently filling are down at the bottom of the pyramid. Those jobs are important, also, and I agree that they have traditionally been filled by an immigrant base to our country's benefit. Unfortunately, many service industry positions are marginal; i.e., when the financial crunch hits, you can always decide to mow your own lawn, cook your own hamburgers, clean your own house, construction slows down, etc. And for the jobs that remain, the competition will be increased. That throws more people into either the welfare or criminal state.

The money that's fed our social programs--and to a large extent underwritten all the pork and scams of the military industrial complex--is going to be steadily dwindling. In many ways, this is a good thing, as IMO a lot of our problems in government come from the fountain of dollars politicians now bathe in.

Unfortunately, the tax burden that young workers today are going to be carrying will be staggering without adding a large instantly legalized population at the lowest income levels of society who really depend on many of these stretched out services. It's a recipe for disaster.

Of course, our government has a whole cookbook of those. :)

Your gradual solution ( over twenty years) is a thoughtful and feasible approach in many ways. I just wonder if we have that much time to deal with it.

Also, thanks everybody for the news site tips.

[Prime Junta]

@magerette -- yup, the skewing of the demographic pyramid is something that all "rich" countries have to deal with. Damnedest thing about women is that once they learn to read, they want to stop having a mess o' babies. Couple this with the "baby boom" and you do have a demographic problem.

There are two solutions to this problem, and I have a strong suspicion that we're actually going to see a combination of both.

One: income redistribution. The thing is that worker productivity is growing faster than the burden imposed by the demographic pyramid. That means that income redistribution can defuse that "time bomb" while still permitting an increase in the standard of living for everybody. Figure out a way to channel some of the wealth that now goes to corporate CEO's and stock market speculators to pension funds, and everybody's happy (other than the CEO's and the speculators, of course). You wouldn't even have to increase the tax burden on the people engaged in production. The only problem is that the CEO's and speculators have your political system by the short-n-curlies, which means that it's not going to be easy to actually make this happen.

Two: you guessed it, immigration. Replenish the labor force from abroad.

[magerette]

I'd like to see us change the model for our immigration policy to something a bit less amorphously open. Correct me if I err(and I know someone will ;) ) but don't many other countries ask for a college degree, proven work skills, some indication that the person will contribute more than just a pair of willing hands? I really think the assumption that immigrants are only needed to take the crap jobs that"americans won't do" is one of the big problems with what we have now. There are many people born in this country who could do the jobs being done by illegals--but they expect to be paid more. Incentive again.

And I agree, the redirecting of corporate profit is crucial. I'm trying to remember who said "When the last generation that was alive during the stock market crash/depression goes, all hell is going to break loose." or words to that effect, meaning the regulations and laws that went on the books at that time of crisis dealt pretty severely with profiteering and monopolies and so forth. The SEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC) was formed and really had a mission beyond issuing platitudinous statements.

Anyway, it's a cycle, and I think the young people today are as up to dealing with it all as anybody once they finally wake up to what's going on. You can already see the demand for change, and for a reinvigorated leadership.

[Prime Junta]

I'd like to see us change the model for our immigration policy to something a bit less amorphously open. Correct me if I err(and I know someone will ;) ) but don't many other countries ask for a college degree, proven work skills, some indication that the person will contribute more than just a pair of willing hands? I really think the assumption that immigrants are only needed to take the crap jobs that"americans won't do" is one of the big problems with what we have now. There are many people born in this country who could do the jobs being done by illegals--but they expect to be paid more. Incentive again.

Yup, Canada for one. They have a completely transparent and very highly sophisticated system for ranking applicants. Surprise surprise, they're also regarded as the model country for smoothly making immigrants part of their society. That's one side of the equation.

The other side is that Canada (and other countries with a similar approach to immigration) also have much stricter labor laws, more comprehensive welfare systems, and higher minimum wages. IOW, they don't really *have* jobs that "nobody wants to do" because even the low-paid service-sector jobs are *reasonably* well-paid, at least compared to economies where the labor market is less regulated. Needless to say, this type of approach isn't without its drawbacks either.

And I agree, the redirecting of corporate profit is crucial. I'm trying to remember who said "When the last generation that was alive during the stock market crash/depression goes, all hell is going to break loose." or words to that effect, meaning the regulations and laws that went on the books at that time of crisis dealt pretty severely with profiteering and monopolies and so forth. The SEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC) was formed and really had a mission beyond issuing platitudinous statements.

Anyway, it's a cycle, and I think the young people today are as up to dealing with it all as anybody once they finally wake up to what's going on. You can already see the demand for change, and for a reinvigorated leadership.

Let's hope so. Historically, the USA has had a truly remarkable flair for re-inventing itself as circumstances change. It would be awesome if that happened again.

[Corwin]

Here we try to make being an illegal immigrant unattractive by incarcerating them all in detention centres before sending them back where they came from. Being a 'large' island helps; they can't just 'walk' in and we catch most of the illegal boats. :)

[The Hulk]

PJ,

Yes, serious enforcement would be needed to make illegals leave the country, but serious enforcement does not equal serious forced deportations. You can have serious enforcement against employers who illegally employ illegals and serious enforcement to make sure that illegals cannot get welfare. Concentration camps and mass deportations of millions of illegals are not necessary or desirable.
If illegals can't get a job illegally and can't get welfare, why would they stay here? A minority of them might try to stay with family who wouldn't mind fully supporting them(though there aren't many families that are going to support an adult who will never get a job and never have an income as long as they are there), and illegals who profited from criminal activity(drug dealing or other illegal activity)could afford to stay in the country, but most illegals would leave the country to find jobs elsewhere(perhaps some would head to canada to look for jobs, others would try to go back to their old employers they left behind in their home countries).
That reminds me, the illegals who've done more serious illegal things besides crossing the border illegally such as burgulary, rape, murder, etc., I'd fully support physically deporting the hundreds of thousands of them out of the country to set an example, and doing that would send a message to many illegals into leaving the country on their own. As evidence, after 9/11, the U.S. deported a large number of pakistani's, and many other pakistani's left the country on their own afterward, without being forced or coerced to leave.
The 20 year plan you mentioned has a very slim chance of working. Why? Because it is so difficult to get a president in office who has a sincere desire to fully enforce laws against illegal immigration. You have to remember, we have not had a president for decades(and don't have one now) who had a sincere desire to fully enforce laws against illegal immigration. So when we do finally get one in office, we must act quickly and finish up within his or her 4 year term, because its very possible the next president will disagree with the plan and scrap it. If this 20 year plan is implemented by a president who has the sincere desire to do this, then that president leaves office and a president comes to power who is weak on illegal immigration, he/she could reverse that plan and things would get worse instead of getting better. So it must be done withing the duration of a single term presidency, or else its too risky that a following president would overturn it.
I do not believe that there would be massive riots if the plan I spoke of was implemented. I do think there would be some level of resistance and violence by some illegals, but I don't think it would be as bad as what you suggest.
You make it sound as if illegals make up a large portion of the U.S. workforce. They actually make up a very small portion, between 5 and 10%. The way you make it sound, its a much higher percentage. Last year, there were large demonstrations by illegal aliens and their supporters who were demanding amnesty and to prevent a tough immigration reform bill from passing the senate. Even without the demonstrations, the senate would likely have not passed it because the senate had too many senators who are weak on illegal immigration.
Anyway, these marchers had a bold plan, they sent the word out to all illegals, that they would take off work for one day on May 1st to bring the U.S. economy to its knees as punishment for daring to enforce laws against illegal immigration, and to show how essential they were. Well, many did take off work that day and the economy did not take a significant hit, in fact some of those illegals were quickly fired and replaced with legal workers in a short period of time.

[Prime Junta]

PJ,Yes, serious enforcement would be needed to make illegals leave the country, but serious enforcement does not equal serious forced deportations. You can have serious enforcement against employers who illegally employ illegals and serious enforcement to make sure that illegals cannot get welfare. Concentration camps and mass deportations of millions of illegals are not necessary or desirable.

Can you explain to me, in a bit of detail, exactly how you would get all/most of them to leave in one year? That is, exactly what steps would you take against employers, for example? 'Cuz I maintain that you can't do it without causing major upheavals and losses in civil liberties.

Second, an ethical question. Suppose an illegal was about to give birth and goes to an emergency room. Would it be ethical to turn her away, knowing that she would then give birth on the street, which would very likely result in death or permanent injury to both the baby and the mother?

If illegals can't get a job illegally and can't get welfare, why would they stay here? A minority of them might try to stay with family who wouldn't mind fully supporting them(though there aren't many families that are going to support an adult who will never get a job and never have an income as long as they are there), and illegals who profited from criminal activity(drug dealing or other illegal activity)could afford to stay in the country, but most illegals would leave the country to find jobs elsewhere(perhaps some would head to canada to look for jobs, others would try to go back to their old employers they left behind in their home countries).

My thoughts exactly.

That reminds me, the illegals who've done more serious illegal things besides crossing the border illegally such as burgulary, rape, murder, etc., I'd fully support physically deporting the hundreds of thousands of them out of the country to set an example, and doing that would send a message to many illegals into leaving the country on their own.

Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can tell.

The 20 year plan you mentioned has a very slim chance of working. Why? Because it is so difficult to get a president in office who has a sincere desire to fully enforce laws against illegal immigration.

Yup, that's unfortunate but true. However, if the chance of solving the problem during a single presidency is even smaller, the 20-year program is a better bet.

Look, @Hulk -- some problems are *hard*. They don't have any simple, quick solutions, and trying to go for one anyway is likely to do much more damage than not doing anything about the problem. Look at Iraq, for example: sure, Saddam was an evil bastard who richly deserved to hang, but the Middle East and the world are far worse off after the attempt to solve the Saddam problem quickly rather than just wait it out.

As someone who predicted pretty exactly how Iraq was going to turn out the day after the invasion started, I'll venture another prediction: attempting to quick fix the illegal immigration problem would result in problems that are just as big, only this time they'll be on your back yard, not halfway across the world. If you can't find any other solution, then there is no solution to be found -- and that's the reality you'll have to live with.

[The Hulk]

PJ,

As I said before, if illegals cannot get jobs and cannot get welfare, that will naturally cause most of them to leave the country fairly quickly, because they will no longer be able to afford to live here. Also keep in mind all the other enforcement measures I mentioned in previous posts, I do not wish to repeat the large list each time. If the E-verify system is made mandatory(after the system is updated and improved to better able to weed out those illegals who are using stolen identities) for all employers to use over a period of time(not instantly requiring all illegals to be fired at once, but doing it gradually with in a single term presidency), and there is sufficient enforcement officers in place to prosecute employers who disobey the law and do not replace their illegal workers with legal workers, it can work. Go after the biggest business offenders and work your way down. When other businesses see other business owners facing significant fines for knowingly defying the law or going to jail for repeated blatant offenses or perhaps losing their business licenses(depending on the case), other businesses will be scared straight and will fall into line.
There have been recent raids on big meatpacking plants in the midwest, who were illegally using illegal workers. When the illegal wor