Legalizing Illegal immigrants

[scoutingagain]

Just to interject a piece on immigration and the Bush team's plan to clean up after Katrina. FYI, apparently after much wailing from both Republican and Democratic legislators the Bush administration has reinstated Davis-Bacon wages for those working on government contracts, however illegal immigrants will still be allowed to work. Just your strong conservative administration looking out for average Americans. Now Americans won't have to worry about finding jobs, they can continue stay on public assistance where-ever they ended up and the companies that hire the illegal immigrants can continue to role up profits. What a country! There's no need to worry about housing because the illegal immigrants are willing to role out a bed roll just about anywhere. Hey, more power to them.

I wonder if FEMA is running job fairs in Nicarugua? Heck I bet there are a lot of Iraqis out of work that would be willing to come work in the USA.

 

 

See below.

 

KATRINA'S AFTERMATH

Housing woes thwart New Orleans' rebound

Lack of shelter slows residents' return and fuels a labor shortage

By THOMAS KOROSEC

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

HURRICANE KATRINA

 

NEW ORLEANS - In early September, while Hurricane Katrina evacuees still were settling into shelters in Houston and elsewhere, 40-year-old Miguel Trejo moved into a rusty warehouse along the Intracoastal Waterway here and rolled his bedroll out on the concrete floor.

 

Lured by the $13-an-hour pay, the Honduran immigrant went to work drying out flood-soaked buildings, hauling debris and cleaning mold from hospitals and government offices.

 

"In the first weeks, I made $1,300 a week. Pretty good," Trejo said in Spanish.

 

Trejo now is being housed by the Baton Rouge, La.-based contractor that hired him. Bunk beds, showers and food service, in the form of a taco truck from Ohio, have since been added to the dusty camp. He and thousands of other workers many itinerant Spanish-speakers who are new faces in a city that was formerly 3 percent Hispanic tolerate the harsh conditions to work here.

 

 

SA

 

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

Unfortunately, the extreme ends of both spectrums, being the most vocal, are the ones who end up defining the debate many times, leaving the middle pretty much disinterested. The middle is looking for realistic solutions, not the nonsense that both extreme ends of the political spectrum throw around as their solutions. Politicians know, tho, that they have to play to their political base, and although I'm sure they know that the extreme elements in their ranks are offering unrealistic solutions, they aren't about to tell them to shut up. Instead, we end up with a lot of political posturing that accomplishes nothing.

 

 

[Rooster7]

What a country! - yes, I agree:

 

John Rocker mouths off about how he hates to come to New York City. He laments that when he walks down certain streets, one cannot discern what country theyre living in - because everyone is speaking a different language, except English. He is of course, portrayed by the left as not only being insensitive to immigrants, but as a barefaced bigot.

 

President Bush allows illegal aliens to obtain employment in the aftermath of Katrina. He is of course, portrayed by the left as not only being insensitive to unemployed Americans, but as a shameless supporter of big business. And we all know that big business is really code for evil, greedy, white, over-40 males who want to oppresswell, everybody else.

 

Those controlling the political left will always find an angle to exploit. There is no circumstance in which they will give pause it matters not if the incident is momentous or trivial, joyful or tragic, real or imaginedthey cannot resist. No need to listen to others or to yield to reason. They have their cause and it is paramount no matter what. To reacquire support for their agenda to make themselves politically significant, they care not who they defame or ruin. In fact, many times they seem content to prey on people and circumstances attempting to destroy those folks that do not agree with them politically, as opposed to any real end that they might achieve such as world peace. What a joke.

 

Excuse me. Was I scoffing?

 

[Rooster7]

What a country! - yes, I agree:

 

John Rocker mouths off about how he hates to come to New York City. He laments that when he walks down certain streets, one cannot discern what country theyre living in - because everyone is speaking a different language, except English. He is of course, portrayed by the left as not only being insensitive to immigrants, but as a barefaced bigot.

 

President Bush allows illegal aliens to obtain employment in the aftermath of Katrina. He is of course, portrayed by the left as not only being insensitive to unemployed Americans, but as a shameless supporter of big business. And we all know that big business is really code for evil, greedy, white, over-40 males who want to oppresswell, everybody else.

 

Those controlling the political left will always find an angle to exploit. There is no circumstance in which they will give pause it matters not if the incident is momentous or trivial, joyful or tragic, real or imaginedthey cannot resist. No need to listen to others or to yield to reason. They have their cause and it is paramount no matter what. To reacquire support for their agenda to make themselves politically significant, they care not who they defame or ruin. In fact, many times they seem content to prey on people and circumstances attempting to destroy those folks that do not agree with them politically, as opposed to any real end that they might achieve such as world peace. What a joke.

 

Excuse me. Was I scoffing?

 

[Hunt]

"Excuse me. Was I scoffing?"

 

I don't know if you were scoffing, but I think you were proving my point about how people at both ends of the political spectrum portray those at the other end as evil, devious people with ulterior motives. It is this attitude that makes people in the middle skeptical of what either extreme has to say. Can't you see that what you say about "the left" is the exact mirror image of what extremists on the left say about "the right?" From where I sit, there is NO DIFFERENCE in the level of shamelessness, nasty invective, and willingness to do and say anything to score political points between the extreme right and the extreme left. Well, I guess there are some differences--I would give the left the advantage in self-righteousness, and the right the advantage in nasty invective.

[Rooster7]

You can put "no difference" in CAPS all day long; it's not going to make me deaf, dumb, and blind to the politics of the day. I can see plainly how the left attempts to take advantage and manipulate every circumstance...every news story, to defame people on the political right. Facts are not important, only icing on the cake. And on the rare occasion that blind pig finds an acorn (i.e. the facts line up with the assertion), they feign as if its common place. No, the left is happy beating the drums of innuendo, and sounding the cymbals of baseless accusation. Its been their bread and butter for 30 years. Ever since Nixon shot himself in the foot with Watergate, theyve made it their platform for re-election. No need to provide solutions, just make the other guy look like hes Mr. Hyde. Its a repetitious and dull sound, which more and more folks are growing tired of hearing.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Miki101]

Trevorum writes:

 

As a side note, it is interesting is that originally (back in the days of Seton, et al), BSA was seen as a radical social movement, far on the political left.

 

Trev,

 

Now how did you come to that conclusion? I'm pretty confident that BSA was financially/philosophically backed by virtually every mainstream/wealthy person of any social status at its very beginnings. Rockefeller, Roosevelt, Carnegie...etc. Furthermore, Baden-Powell was attacked by the far left Socialists both in England and in the US during his 1912 tour. That would suggest to me that BSA was not on the philsophical left at all.

 

In fact in BSA, there were, perhaps, only two lefties of prominence in leadership, and those persons were Seton and BSA vice-President David Starr Jordan of Stanford University. The premier talking point of those lefties (not necessarily the far left) was pacifism entering World War I. As you recall, Seton was brutally chastised within BSA for being a pacifist and eventually forced to resign (for this and perhaps other stated reasons). Jordan, however, sort of faded away from BSA after the first 10 years,

 

I would say that if lefty = pacifism, then you would have a slightly better case. But I would hardly call BSA being "far on the political left" because of its huge mainstream following at the time. In fact, I would say that very few contributors to BSA could be characterized as "far political left" because they would not have supported BSA at all and been the most vocal at calling BSA "a military organization" rather than an alleged character-builder.

 

David C. Scott

[BrentAllen]

I actually live in a pretty nice area, just north of Atlanta. Average home is probably north of $300K, most moms stay home, the public schools are like private schools. Does that make us crime free? No. If there is a crime free neighborhood in the country, someone please let me know where it is.

I live in Dekalb County - see the 911 response times below. Am I going to wait on them to save me? Again - listen to your local news and see how many times to police show up to stop a crime, and how many times they show up after.

Yes, kids do find guns that aren't properly stored. I'd bet anyone a BSA Field Book that 90% of those cases where kids find a gun in the house and are playing with it - the gun owner is not a member of the "evil" NRA. You might not like the politics of the NRA, but they preach gun safety. They are probably the largest advocates of gun safety in the country.

And I'm sure you talked to a local cop who said all that. Chief Pennington of the Atlanta Police said his officers would be dying in the streets if the Assault Weapons Ban wasn't extended. Guess what - it wasn't, and there haven't been any police shot or "outgunned" as Pennington would put it. In case you didn't know, most cops, especially captains, are basically anti-gun - meaning they don't really want citizens armed. I shoot with cops, from Gwinnett County, who are just the opposite.

I've owned firearms for over 20 years. I've had a carry permit for nearly 10 years. In all those years, I've never pointed a firearm at anyone in anger, and never had the need to. I hope I live to be 100, and never have to use a firearm in self-defense. If I ever do, I will follow the Boy Scout motto - I will Be Prepared.

Packsaddle - do you carry a first aid kit when you go hiking or camping? Are you paranoid you are going to get hurt? No? Gee, why are you not paranoid, but I am? BTW, the Second Amendment says nothing about hunting or target shooting. I don't know where you got your diploma or your degree in math, but you should ask for your money back. After Bush's second term, Republicans will have held the White House for 28 of the last 44 years. Republicans didn't gain control of the House of Representatives until 1994, and didn't gain control of the Senate until 2002. So, exactly how did Republicans control things for 32 of the past 44 years?? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

Here are the police response times for all 911 calls:

 

OVERALL 911 RESPONSE TIMES

Cobb County

18.4 minutes

 

Fulton County

18.6 minutes

 

City of Atlanta

21.9 minutes

 

DeKalb County

23.6 minutes

 

 

 

[Hunt]

The following has been slightly edited:

 

You can put "no difference" in CAPS all day long; it's not going to make me deaf, dumb, and blind to the politics of the day. I can see plainly how the right attempts to take advantage and manipulate every circumstance...every news story, to defame people on the political left. Facts are not important, only icing on the cake. And on the rare occasion that blind pig finds an acorn (i.e. the facts line up with the assertion), they feign as if its common place. No, the right is happy beating the drums of innuendo, and sounding the cymbals of baseless accusation. Its been their bread and butter since the days of Joe McCarthy. Ever since Reagan saw how well it worked against Carter, theyve made it their platform for re-election. No need to provide solutions, just make the other guy look like hes Mr. Hyde. Its a repetitious and dull sound, which more and more folks are growing tired of hearing.

 

See how easy it is?

[Hunt]

"I don't know where you got your diploma or your degree in math, but you should ask for your money back."

 

Hey, Brent, you just lost your argument. Just when I thought you were actually trying to make a reasoned argument for your point of view, you resort to the name-calling. Too bad.

[Rooster7]

Its easy to take the words of someone else and attempt to make them your own. You can cut and paste my words and substitute some of your own, to turn the tables so to speak, but this ability, does not make your words credible.

 

Reagan ran on a valid platform. He was strong on defense, supported supply side economics, and offered many other planks to his platform. He ran on the issues. He brought many things to the table that Carter did not offer. Reagans strong leadership juxtaposed to Carters ineptness may have made it appear as it conservatives were name-calling, but in reality it was simply a study in contrast.

 

While Carter may be a nice guy, his inability to lead this country was obvious to most, including our enemies. Thats not naming calling its truth. Furthermore, as true as it was, Reagan never had to call attention to it it was out in the open for everyone and anyone to see. You may recall, Reagan won by a landslide.

 

[Hunt]

"Its easy to take the words of someone else and attempt to make them your own. You can cut and paste my words and substitute some of your own, to turn the tables so to speak, but this ability, does not make your words credible."

 

That was kind of my point. The kind of invective you included in that post doesn't have credibility. It's just an attack on the "enemy." It's not a reasoned argument about policy. It's just a claim that the other side is mean and nasty and twists the truth. Well, both extremes are mean and nasty and twist the truth. You think those on the extreme right "listen to others or yield to reason?" C'mon.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Rooster, when you say that the left takes advantage of every political situation to try and get the advantage, are you implying that the right doesn't do the same thing?

 

Wasn't it candidate Bush who's supporters spread misinformation about John McCain during the 2000 compaign in one of the southern states in an effort to stop his growing campaign, and after they won the primary in that state, just kinda said "oops"? If not for that, we could very well have a McCain presidency right now.

 

I don't think anyone will say that Carter was a great president, but I would defy anyone to name a president in the past 40 years who was a better individual of character in the presidency. He was, and is, a very good man. He lost the presidency because he frankly didn't play the election game as well as Reagan, who had mastered the media and its use. Whether Reagan's presidency was a success is for history to determine. He did make American feel good about itself again after years of Watergate "mourning".

[Kahuna]

Revisionist history is abounding here, regarding Reagan and Carter. Reagan's victory had nothing to do with baseless accusations against Carter. Carter was a terrible president and Reagan offered a vision of the future that people liked. It was a vision that he largely led the country into during his presidency.

 

Reasonable people can differ about Carters' character. Personally, I don't think a man who so consistently injects himself into international affairs where he has no business and makes gratuitously nasty remarks about his successors in office can be considered a nice man. Carter has done a wonderful job with Habitat for Humanity and a couple of other causes of that sort, which, IMHO, is exactly where he should focus his activities.

[Rooster7]

Hunt,

 

Well, both extremes are mean and nasty and twist the truth. You think those on the extreme right "listen to others or yield to reason?"

 

For the most part -

 

Those empowered on the right, denounce and isolate the likes of David Dukes (rare as they may be). Those empowered on the left, celebrate and embrace Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, and scores of others like them (no matter how often they creep out of the woodwork to exploit some sad event).

 

Prairie_Scouter

 

Rooster, when you say that the left takes advantage of every political situation to try and get the advantage, are you implying that the right doesn't do the same thing?

 

Im saying that while you can recount the occasional episode stemming from the fringes of the right (i.e. candidate Bush whos supporters), its a way of life for those empowered on the left (there is a constant blather of misinformation streaming from the likes of Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, John Kerry, etc.).

 

Whether Reagan's presidency was a success is for history to determine. He did make America feel good about itself again after years of Watergate "mourning".

 

Were you around when Reagan came to power? America wasnt in mourning because of Watergate. They were mourning from an ineffective presidency that permitted a third world county like Iran to hold the entire nation hostage. Just to make things more cheery, Carter oversaw double digit inflation, opened our borders to tens of thousands of Cuban felons, and boycotted the Olympics. If Watergate was still a sore point in 1979, then Carter managed to inflict our country with an array of other injuries to quite effectively mask that pain.

 

Kahuna

 

Personally, I don't think a man who so consistently injects himself into international affairs where he has no business and makes gratuitously nasty remarks about his successors in office can be considered a nice man. Carter has done a wonderful job with Habitat for Humanity and a couple of other causes of that sort, which, IMHO, is exactly where he should focus his activities.

 

Amen.