The Gaming Den

Kaelik wrote:

Ganbare Gincun wrote:You may not have come out and said that you support these laws, and you did tell Crissa that you thought that banning teachers with accents was wrong when you were cornered, but the fact that you can maintain that there is no racial intent behind what is going in Arizona implies that you are either sympathetic to their agenda or too intellectually bankrupt to realize what's really going on here.

So just to be clear, you were absolutely 100% wrong when you claimed that I support any of these laws, and you can't find any evidence of it occurring because it didn't.

Oh, you haven't come out and explicitly stated one way or the other that you support these laws. But you've spent quite a bit of time extolling how calling people out on racism is little more then "paranoia" and how we are "crazy" to be posting anything about these laws. Your implicit consent is quite clear.

Kaelik wrote:They are people who are attempting to solve a problem that they see. They are attempting to solve that problem in a very dumb way because they are dumb people. That problem is not the existence of other races, it is the racial tensions in the state, primarily caused by a bunch of old white people. But because changing old white people is difficult, and because they are not good at figuring out the root cause of problems, they have done stupid things instead.

I did read those links, which is how I know that none of them present evidence for, or even claim that they are evil racist fucktards.

Did you watch the piece that Rachel Maddow ran about these fuckers? It pretty much lays the whole situation out, piece by piece. And even if you didn't watch that video, it's pretty clear by looking at the laws that are being drafted in Arizona that the government is biased against Mexican-Americans and wants them to get the fuck out of dodge.

Kaelik wrote:Hey Ganbare, not to make too much of a refrain about this, but how about you motherfucking point to an example of me using sexist derogatory langauge

.

How about repeatedly calling Crissa a bitch? Or referring to a transgendered person as "he" despite the fact that you know god-damned well that that's not how Ceilingcat prefers to be addressed? But hey, I can't really blame you - it's easier to derail the thread by throwing insults at people instead of defending your weaksauce arguments.

For a place that prides itself on heated debate and free expression, people around here certainly get butthurt and whiny a lot.

I was going to call Kaelik on the pronouns thing a while back, but I then I got confused and wasn't sure *I* had Cieling's gender right. Glad it's been handled.

Guys, Kaelik's been imploding at an accelerating rate for a while now. It's pretty obvious only a mass-ignore will do any good here. I'll start.

Crissa wrote:Actually denigrating tenets of equality.

But then you brought up your own experience (not fact) to say feminism is done wrong, which is horribly, and demonstrably, incorrect. But that doesn't matter, only a sexist dick would bring it up.

No stupid. Feminism is not a tenet of equality. It is a female empowerment movement. But if I started a male empowerment movement, even stupid people like you would recognize that such an organization could be "doing it wrong."

Feminism is a movement. And it's a movement that focuses on gender relations, but it doesn't necessarily only support equality, and that's precisely the problem.

There are ongoing arguments amongst feminists about how other feminists are doing it wrong. They have a fucking Wikipedia article called "Feminist Sex Wars" which is about Feminists opposing other feminists.

The obvious parallel since I'm also apparently a racist, is Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr. To claim that Creating your own separate black only country is doing racial equality (or black power or whatever) wrong is not racist, because by that logic, Martin Luther King Jr was a racist.

You thinking that qualifications on what "Feminism" I support counts as sexism is literally the stupidest thing I have ever seen posted on the gaming den, and that includes Shadazar.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:how we are "crazy" to be posting anything about these laws. Your implicit consent is quite clear.

Once again. This is something I have never said, and you have repeatedly failed to be able to point to me saying. You are just lying here. This is just a lie.

Stop Lying.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:How about repeatedly calling Crissa a bitch? Or referring to a transgendered person as "he" despite the fact that you know god-damned well that that's not how Ceilingcat prefers to be addressed? But hey, I can't really blame you - it's easier to derail the thread by throwing insults at people instead of defending your weaksauce arguments.

1) "Repeatedly"? Maybe two or three times in this thread, and probably not more than once outside of this thread in the last month. Compared to the four hundred times I've called her stupid, and 30+ retardeds. Clearly I think she has a learning disorder, not that she's female. Why don't you harp on that for five minutes?

2) The bold part, is fucking hilarious. You can't even come up with your own examples so you have to steal them from other posters.

Fuck you: Here's a timeline:

1) Ceiling Cat exists.
2) I start posting on this forum.
3) I call Ceiling Cat a he.
4) I find out that Ceiling Cat is transgender.
5) I continue to call Ceiling Cat he.
6) Ceiling Cat yells at me for hurtfully using male pronouns.
7) Ganbare calls me a sexist for hurtfully using male pronouns.
8) Heat Death of the Universe.

9a) Ceiling Cat asks me to use the pronoun "she." or:
9b) Ceiling Cat states a preference for the pronoun "she."

I mean fuck:

I was going to call Kaelik on the pronouns thing a while back, but I then I got confused and wasn't sure *I* had Cieling's gender right.

But yet, Kaelik is an omniscient mind reading god who could only possibly use the pronoun he had been using for the past four years to describe Ceiling Cat as part of an elaborate insult.

Was Kaelik one of the embarrassed posters on the infamous rape thread?

If he was I suspect that if only that hadn't been brushed away under the invisibility carpet in order to save face for certain posters we wouldn't be having this argument again now about whether or not some of them were racist and/or sexist.

Yet another reason why covering that one up is the one big thing the local powers that be have ever done that I actually take some offense at.

Kobajagrande wrote:For a place that prides itself on heated debate and free expression, people around here certainly get butthurt and whiny a lot.

Whining about whining? That's a new one.

But seriously. No one supports completely free speech or expression anywhere; that's insanity. If we did support this policy, Iron Mongler wouldn't be banned and I could post links to D&D torrents. Not even /b/ supports the idea of people making bomb threats or posting pictures of people torturing cats on their boards.

There's obviously a sliding scale of free speech and TGD prides itself for having the marker further to the left than many places; at the same time, we pride ourselves on having the marker to the right of, say, /tg/. Whether it's at an optimum point is up for debate, but the fact of the matter is that there IS a point where you can maximum 'open debate' vs. 'security' and all you're doing is constructing a strawman.

That said, I personally like the line to be drawn at the point somewhere before we start calling people fake women and house N-words. Call that 'butthurt' if you like (a word I'm trying to stop using since Count Arioch asked me me) but the fact of the matter is I hate language like that because it gets the discussion derailed and off-topic like it is right now.

Koumei wrote:I think I might have completely missed that one. And I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing.

I think it predates me, or at least predates me reading in MPSIMS. Since I didn't pick that up until years after I started in Humble Opinion.

I've never heard of it before this point, but it sounds like the kind of shitting on obvious lying retards that I enjoy. Plus it's more fun when the retards are universally recognized as evil, instead of people making passive aggressive calls to ignore me because I'm in the kind of death spiral where people keep lying about how I say things, and then not backing it up, and then hypothesizing about how the reason there is no evidence is because I must have been a sexist in the great missing thread.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:

mean_liar wrote:The US passes the Organic Act, which basically says that the natives would get some limited autonomy. Of course, the natives wouldn't have any elected legislative officials until 1907, so the Organic Act was more a signpost of the slow transition than any real acquiescence of autonomy greater than what was originally contemplated back in McKinley's 1899, pre-hostility Benevolent Assimilation policy.

Are you fucking serious? You know what the result of that "pre-hostility Benevolent Assimilation policy" was? Overthrow the First Phillipine Republic and take over the place.

Yes, under the auspices of providing protection for them. Honestly, I believe that your interpretation of the Philippine internal political situation and external military situation at the turn of the century is lacking. The US argument was that yes, they're savages, and yes, they're surrounded by regional powers.

The intent was STILL to turn governance over to them. Later. Which is a dick move, but when that's their plan pre-revolution and then they follow through on that plan in an exaggeratedly slow method (due to threats from competing regional imperial powers, namely Japan), it's not an argument that the revolution did ANYTHING.

It's an argument that the US went in with aspirations and kept to those aspirations, perhaps even slowing down their progress. It is not an argument that the revolution was at all successful in setting the stage for a later turnover.

Where do you get that from?

mean_liar wrote:On it's face, forty-five years of peaceful wrangling is a good signpost that no one was worried about shooting each other.

Did you forget about the 10 year insurgency that carried on even after the war was formally concluded? Yeah, I thought so.

Quit being a dick. I'm actually trying to discuss something with you and you're pretending like you have a Master's in Philippine History or something. My knowledge - and yours, from what I can tell - is limited to Wikipedia's assertion and Googling that most historians don't consider those revolutionary movements all that relevant, mostly because they're predominantly the same Muslims that continue to revolt pretty much as long as they've been ruled by anyone and fail to achieve autonomy.

Your conclusion that the revolution did anything to the Philippine independence movement at all remains unsubstantiated. Again, it's simple existence isn't meaningful.

The major surrender didn't even have major terms that the natives shoehorned in as conditions. I was a capitulation, with the first major surrendering general saying: "The lesson which the war holds out and the significance of which I realized only recently, leads me to the firm conviction that the complete termination of hostilities and a lasting peace are not only desirable but also absolutely essential for the well-being of the Philippines."

So far you've got a lot of links showing that there was a resistance, but nothing really showing how that resistance did anything to change American plans for the nation:


Pre-revolution - US declares intent to move in, take over and slowly turn it back over after a civil government is formed that can withstand local regional powers.

Revolution - killin', followed by unconditional surrender. Native law enforcement is tasked with cleaning up the remaining insurgents.

Post-revolution - US forms government, eventually gives Philippines an elected legislature that demands independence, and 39 years after that the independence is granted, exactly in accordance with their original stated aims prior to the revolution.


You really haven't shown how the revolution changes that narrative.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:

Zinegata wrote:. In fact, all you're doing is to encourage illegal immigration. "Just get in and we have a job ready for you!"

Let me try this one more time, maybe you will read what I said this time.

There is one AND EXACTLY ONE reason why illegals get jobs here: because illegals work cheap and don't snitch their bosses out when forced to work in inhumane conditions.

If you take the ability of employers to do that, you take the one reason to hire illegals.

Why would you hire someone who doesn't speak English, in many cases are illiterate in Spanish as well, who doesn't know the customs, who usually doesn't have the education and skills of a native born person if you couldn't pay them slave wages and work them to death?

You wouldn't. There wouldn't be "jobs waiting for illegals",there wouldn't be jobs for them at all.

Take away the reason employers have for hiring illegals, and no one hires them. Then they need a more compelling reason to come here other than work. Also, you put the burden onto employers in making sure they follow all laws and all of a sudden you have every employer in the country working for you without ever doing anything.

Take away the demand for illegal labor, and there won't be as many illegal immigrants.

It really is that simple.

Count, that's why you have the green card program.

Green card holders aren't subject to the same kind of US labor laws, because they're not citizens. It offers them some basic protections, but it also prevents the worst abuses. It's not entirely fair, but a green card holder isn't a citizen and therefore not also subject to all the responsibilities of being a citizen - i.e. paying income tax.

The key is to balance the green card system so that it remains attractive to employers as an alternative, while keeping the card holders happy because they're no longer so exploited.

And the good thing with a green card? You can now track what aliens in the US can do. And you can screen them before they go in.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:We didn't move any goalposts - you did. You decided to use your own racial background as an example of how a particular Asian-American minority has such "wonderful relations" with the United States, and then Frank and I posted links and proved that the foundation for both the freedom of the Philippines and the security of Filipino-Americans is one that is drenched in blood and built on the bodies of dead Filipino soldiers.

Yes. You moved the goalpost from Asian-Americans to native Filipinos. Thank you for confirming it with your own words even though you deny it, you lying shit.

Also, the italicized part? No proven causality how the fucking Hukbalahap - a guerilla organization shooting up the Japanese - made things better for Filipino-Americans.

Because again, you're a lying shit and an idiot.

Also, mean_liar is correct. Your attempts to correlate a failed 3 year war to Philippine independence 40 years after is retarded, and is probably rooted in your own desire to see Americans lose in Iraq.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:Did you forget about the 10 year insurgency that carried on even after the war was formally concluded? Yeah, I thought so.

Again, it's mostly from the Muslim quarter - who are still in a state of insurgency because Mindanao is practically a tropical Afghanistan.

And they were also beaten - to the point that parts of Mindanao didn't want to join the Philippine Republic in 1946 and stay with America ("You bastards in Manila never defeated us! We submitted ONLY to the Americans), which is why they then began a sixty year-long revolt against the independent Philippine government. Which is still ongoing today.

There's also Macario Sakay and his couple dozen men. But really, by then it wasn't an insurgency. It was just a few angry holdouts taking random potshots. They were simply beaten at this point. When Sakay tried to declare a "Tagalog Republic", the response was so lacking he eventually lost heart, surrendered, and was hanged (rather treacherously, according to our history book).

Again, not all revolutions end with a happy George Washington ending. He fucking spoiled you people.

Kobajagrande wrote:For a place that prides itself on heated debate and free expression, people around here certainly get butthurt and whiny a lot.

There are certain lines you don't cross. One of those is identity based slurs. We don't cotton to that sort of thing - insult based upon merit or ideas presented, not upon bias and kin.

Basically, think of it as equal opportunity insulting. If it wouldn't apply to anyone who said such a thing, then it isn't allowed.

-Crissa

Also, guys, just to be clear.

Kaelik has not stated he supports the Arizona law.

I did.

Because illegal immigrants have been getting away with it for so long and it's about time the rest of the world gets its fair shot at America again .

And because the people "championing" illegal immigrants always play the fucking race card.

Like how just about the entire left-wing crazy side of the Den decided to attack Kaelik for being racist... even though he never even said he supports the Arizona law.

See, the reason why you're doing it? Because if you say I'm a racist, you look fucking silly. Because if you do that you're gonna accuse a yellow-skinned guy of racism. And that doesn't work. The Race Card works only against white boys .

So all the Kaelik racist bashing is really just your outlet because you can't hit me with it.

mean_liar wrote:Post-revolution - US forms government, eventually gives Philippines an elected legislature that demands independence, and 39 years after that the independence is granted, exactly in accordance with their original stated aims prior to the revolution.

Post-revolution involved the American-backed government falling more than once - not to the communists, who always have horribly lost - but still falling.

US puppets don't have a very good record. Hawaii, for instance, was also taken and turned into a state after letting everyone but the natives vote on the topic. The list goes on and on like that. We had no intention of letting the Philippines go, it took losing them in a World War to loosen our grip.

Zinegata wrote:Green card holders aren't subject to the same kind of US labor laws, because they're not citizens.

WTF? Everyone employed in the US is subject to the same labor law. Everyone in the US is subject to US law, whether here legally, illegally, born into it, or whatnot - only diplomats are treated different on US soil.

I doubt you'll link to anything disproving this, and I'm not even sure how I could link to something saying 'US laws apply to everyone in the US'. That's so nineteenth century Supreme Court law as to be arcane to me.

-Crissa

PS, support racists, toe the line. Act like racists - such as using their frame of reference - you are gonna be called a racist.

Crissa wrote:We had no intention of letting the Philippines go, it took losing them in a World War to loosen our grip.

Crissa, again, you're an idiot. The law that would grant Philippine independence was passed in 1934, seven years before the fucking Pacific War.

WTF? Everyone employed in the US is subject to the same labor law. Everyone in the US is subject to US law, whether here legally, illegally, born into it, or whatnot - only diplomats are treated different on US soil.

Crissa, obviously, I'm talking about a new system outside of pre-existing US laws. Because otherwise you're stuck between illegal immigrants being exploited (bad for the illegals), or giving them all legal jobs (bad for the rest of the world, and will make illegals unattractive).

Stop pretending to be literate. Knowing to read the words is useless if you can't comprehend them.

PS, support racists, toe the line. Act like racists - such as using their frame of reference - you are gonna be called a racist.

Again, here's the thing. You're like a typical left-wing crazy who plays the race card so much it's lost all meaning.

You do not fucking represent your entire gender or race.

So stop acting it's an affront to your entire gender or race when we call you an idiot. Because you ARE a fucking idiot. Who didn't even fucking read Tydings-McDuffie before opening her lying mouth about how "America let go of the Philippines because of World War 2!"

Seriously, I've come to expect silliness such as "America gained independence from France during WW2" from you because of your continous raping of historical facts.

PhoneLobster wrote:And while I think he probably WAS "around" (just), since Kaelik apparently wasn't the third guy (and I can't go check and probably couldn't find it if it even was still there) that is the end of off topic ye'olde story time.

Yeah. Typical. Blaming other people for stuff they never did.

PhoneLobster wrote:Was Kaelik one of the embarrassed posters on the infamous rape thread?

Oh look at the direct, definitive and certain blame dripping from that question.

How "typical" of me. What with Zinegata and his extensive experience of either me (What? I acknowledged the existence of his raving insanity in like in ONE part of ONE thread!) or alternately my type (yeah, sure this guy doesn't have severe prejudice issues).

Anyway, apparently Up is Down because he quoted something stating Up was Up. Again. I'm amazed you guys are even attempting talking to him.

Zinegata wrote:Crissa, obviously, I'm talking about a new system outside of pre-existing US laws. Because otherwise you're stuck between illegal immigrants being exploited (bad for the illegals), or giving them all legal jobs (bad for the rest of the world, and will make illegals unattractive).

Oh, okay then. At least that is a position.

And in the abstract, is what the current suggestions for remedy in Congress are. There's a guest-worker program from the centrist Republicans (which will go precisely nowhere, since McCain was the author of that one and he's abandoned it for the 'no reform' canard. Then there's the mid-lefty position where being here/working here illegally isn't directly a reason for deportation, merely a fine - like speeding or littering - and as long as the fines are paid and no laws are broken, they don't get deported.

I think that won't make people happy, but it's a much better way to deal with the brokenness of how easily it is to be declared illegal - you can be an 'illegal' for the INS losing your paperwork for which you have the receipt, and students literally have to be illegal during quarters off or vacation. (Because their VISAs say they can't work or remain here while not attending a class, but it's stupid to expect them to fly home with every teacher furlough or for winter/spring/summer break, at which they're not allowed to be enrolled for next quarter - or even allowed to enroll because schools don't have their offices or class lists open yet.)

If we make it more onerous for a business to have hired someone illegally, instead of putting the burden upon the worker - it will make hiring illegals less appealing! Count's points are very valid - businesses have been caught advertising in Mexico City for jobs in the US they aren't allowed to hire foreign workers for, and gotten little if any fines.

-Crissa

Zinegata wrote:

Crissa wrote:We had no intention of letting the Philippines go, it took losing them in a World War to loosen our grip.

Crissa, again, you're an idiot. The law that would grant Philippine independence was passed in 1934, seven years before the fucking Pacific War.

...And in 1902, and 1946, and it wasn't until 1965 they had a government that was completely without US puppet parties. Even so, we took in the Marcos family in the 80's because they were our puppet. WTF, man.

You were the one saying Asians didn't protest, and got rights, so why should Hispanics. That's racist. It's not making racism not have any fucking meaning, it is fucking racist to compare groups of people in that manner. It's still racist whether or not you were completely wrong. Which, btw, you were, since it's been linked to several time of Asians of various types protesting for their rights.

PhoneLobster wrote:You see my signature? That ultimately is because of the rape thread.

My recollection of that thread only extends to your sig, and my recollection at that is hazy. The only thing I really remember about it is that you were arguing (not discussing or speaking) in your unique personal style, which generally involves some kind of misunderstanding on your part.


...


Just so I don't miss any opportunity to stir shit up, I think that illegal immigration is bad for America and I do think it's a slap in the face of every legal immigrant that has to jump through hoops.

My wife had to immigrate to America as a Canadian and it was a massive pain in the ass; I cannot imagine what it must be like for those that don't have such easily-accessible bureaucracies, printers (for printing forms) or extant American spouses. In my opinion any naturalization plan for illegals would be a complete sell-out to the Hispanic vote and an insult to every immigrant that laid out the serious amount of time, effort and money required to become an American resident.

I also think the Arizona law is piece of crap. It involves greater governmental expenditures, but that's a minor concern to the problem of the police state it encourages. Legal Hispanics shouldn't be asked, "papers please".

Crissa wrote:...And in 1902, and 1946, and it wasn't until 1965 they had a government that was completely without US puppet parties. Even so, we took in the Marcos family in the 80's because they were our puppet. WTF, man.

Crissa, again, you're a fucking idiot. 1965 was the year that Marcos came into power. The family that you took in in 1980. And it was also widely seen as a US-supported "puppet" regime.

Fact is the Philippine government has always been heavily in bed with the US. But you still got your fucking dates on the official transitions of power wrong.

You were the one saying Asians didn't protest, and got rights, so why should Hispanics. That's racist. It's not making racism not have any fucking meaning, it is fucking racist to compare groups of people in that manner. It's still racist whether or not you were completely wrong. Which, btw, you were, since it's been linked to several time of Asians of various types protesting for their rights.

First of all, those links were from the fucking 1930s. Well before the civil rights movement which were totally cool and mostly levelled the playing field for everyone in the 1960s. I've already stated this several times. But again, you do not fucking read.

Secondly, again, play the race card all you want, but it's just bullshit from you. I'm stating facts. Asian-Americans also suffer from racism. But you don't fucking see them on the streets anymore protesting for rights. Do you know why? Because they are not in a state of poverty.

Racism is not the fucking problem for Hispanics and Blacks. It is poverty. Asian-Americans are proof of that. They succeeded in America despite racist shit like "The Yellow Peril" afflicting the minds of many idiots. Filipino-Americans are successful in spite of being mistaken for fucking Mexicans.

It's not racist. It's stating facts.

The only reason you're mad is because it takes away one of the most cherished playbooks by left-wing crazies who support illegal immigration (mostly to keep the Hispanic vote and not due to altruism). And that's the race card. Rather than push for Hispanics or Blacks to suffer less poverty (i.e. by pushing more education programs), you people just keep fucking complaining about "racism".

The reason why Asian-Americans are successful is because of education. Compared to the rest of the country Asian-Americans hold more college degrees. Do you see Hispanics and African-American leaders marching for more access to education instead of an "end to racism"? Not really.

Asian-Americans also speak English even though Chinese and Japanese doesn't even share the same fucking alphabet as English. This helps them integrate with the bigger country at large. Spanish by contrast is based off Latin, like English, but Hispanic leaders keep complaining about "racism" and how Spanish is not taught at schools. Asian-Americans have an answer to them: It's up to the fucking parents to teach you the "old country" values. Not the schools.

Finally, and most damagingly, illegal immigration leads to poverty. Yes, it's better than living in Mexico, but the shit wages still leads to poverty. So to perpetuate illegal immigration is to increase poverty within the US, and lends the perception that Hispanics will work for peanuts.

It is only very recently that I've seen African-Americans start saying "Hey, we should start policing our own communities" and realize that getting out of poverty requires more than whining about racism. Maybe some Hispanics too, but I haven't seen much of it. However, it's not helped by the fact that idiots like you (and many of the "leaders" of these communities) that just keep blindly playing the race card.

It's hugely easy to blame others. It's not as easy to get an actual fucking degree and get a good job after college.

And there is nothing racist about saying Asian-Americans succeeded because of education. Because the implication is that Hispanics and African Americans can also get out of poverty if their leaders start whining about race and start talking more about "Stop joining fucking gangs and finish High School!"

ml: The immigration reform would change the process for people coming from other countries to be basically on equal footing; a Canadian can just come here as often as they want, but other countries don't get that right.

If you're coming from a latin american country you literally have to apply, wait up to ten years, and then apply again. If you come on a visa or violate it or get denied or deported, you have to wait ten years up to never before applying again.

It's stupid.

-Crissa

Zinegata, no one is saying that 'Asian Americans succeeded because of education' is racist. You're intentionally missing the point, and the quoted text.

Apparently you're a fucking ignorant moron, rather than just using racist frames. But the two often go hand in hand.

PS Missing from one of these posts was an apology to Zinegata about the Philippine Republic; he's right about Marcos, though being a US puppet doesn't mean that the US sat in on writing up their constitution in 1965... But it also goes to show how much of their independence was a sham.

Crissa wrote:Zinegata, no one is saying that 'Asian Americans succeeded because of education' is racist.

Oh, so why are you calling me racist then? Because my entire point is that Asian Americans succeeded because of education

You call me a moron because you never fucking read what I actually wrote. You just call me racist based on knee jerk reactions.

PS Missing from one of these posts was an apology to Zinegata about the Philippine Republic; he's right about Marcos, though being a US puppet doesn't mean that the US sat in on writing up their constitution in 1965... But it also goes to show how much of their independence was a sham.

Congratulations! Your position is that the Philippines never truly became independent.

Now go wail on Ganbare and Frank who keeps insisting the Philippine-American War gained the Philippines independence. Since your position is that our independence is a sham, then Ganbare and Frank are total idiots in your book.

You know, regarding the illegal immigration issue, I find that I just can't get any sort of universal righteous anger worked up towards the illegal immigtants. Yes, it is illegal to come into this country without proper authorization. However, if the motivation behind doing so is to make a better life for oneself and one's family (as opposed to other motivaions like terrorism or participating in organized crime) then I have a hard time perceiving that lawbreaking as wrong.

Yes, there are millions of immigrants that follow the rules and stand in line and go through all the bureaucratic bullshit to get here, and to that I say good for them. However, people need incentives to follow the rules. The people going through the legal process aren't coming here to pick strawberries for pennies. They are invested enough in the system to play the game as written.

On the other hand, if you're so far down the economic ladder that an illegal trip to the U.S. seems like a credible option, chances are you're never going to be approved for legal immigration (I don't know what the quota for illiterate cabbage-pickers is, and I don't care, so don't bother asking). If this person doesn't perceive the downsides of being caught as worse than the downsides of staying put, but perceives the potential rewards as much greater than staying, then I don't really see any reason for these people to not try to get here.

Getting more draconian with enforcement just doesn't seem like the right solution to me. As an analogy, it's like having a portion of your downtown where lots of people jaywalk all the time. Of course, there are people that use the sidewalk and follow the signals. They may even be the majority. However, you've got your $40 fine or whatever for if the police bust you, but the jaywalking is so prevalent that the police literally cannot write tickets fast enough. Maybe you have people that write off the fine as the cost of saving themselves a walk up and down the block, or you have people that ignore it because they don't have the money to pay it anyway. In my mind, the solution IS NOT to raise the fine to $500 or put people in jail for 30 days. The better solution is to figure out a way to make jaywalking in that section of the city safe and legal.

Long story short, the U.S. is a pretty awesome place to live and I can understand why people would want to come here. If you want to come to the U.S. to live and work, I'm inclined to support a streamlined process to facilitate that. Just because people have put up with frustrating, pointless bullshit in the past is no reason to not eliminate that frustrating, pointless bullshit for people in the future. I have little sympathy for someone's argument if it boils down to supporting hardship on others because they themselves overcame said hardship. Here's a gold star and glass of shut-the-fuck-up, you mean-spirited nutsack.

violence in the media wrote:Getting more draconian with enforcement just doesn't seem like the right solution to me. As an analogy, it's like having a portion of your downtown where lots of people jaywalk all the time. Of course, there are people that use the sidewalk and follow the signals. They may even be the majority. However, you've got your $40 fine or whatever for if the police bust you, but the jaywalking is so prevalent that the police literally cannot write tickets fast enough. Maybe you have people that write off the fine as the cost of saving themselves a walk up and down the block, or you have people that ignore it because they don't have the money to pay it anyway. In my mind, the solution IS NOT to raise the fine to $500 or put people in jail for 30 days. The better solution is to figure out a way to make jaywalking in that section of the city safe and legal.

LA recently ramped up their enforcement of such things as jaywalking, loitering and similar crimes, with jail time being assessed. Basically it's a "screw you homeless" enforcement scheme which is entirely legal and also mean-spirited. The solution is some collection of elusive social measures which are invariably underfunded and oversold, but in the meantime getting rid of the symptoms remains comparatively cheap.