Our BetterMost Community > Chez Tremblay
Stay Home.
delalluvia:
--- Quote from: JennyC on May 04, 2006, 10:37:10 pm ---Del, your story on the mail order bride is certainly interesting.
--- End quote ---
Any wonder that I don't watch Reality TV? Why? When I have all the drama I need at home?
I haven't even told you about my aunt. She had an illiegal immigrant boyfriend. They were living together, going to get married. He needed a truck to help him with his part-time construction job. Since she had credit and he didn't she bought it for him. Hey, they were going to get married, right?
Well, before they got married, they took the truck down to Mexico to visit his family. Once they got to his family's home, he promptly took her visa/pass and locked her in a back bedroom.
You see, he ALREADY had a wife and family.
My aunt was imprisoned in his family home for several days before she could convince the housekeeper to let her go. She walked into town and got hold of the U.S. embassy and got back to the U.S. Without her new truck. Luckily for my aunt, she's fluent in English and Spanish. This is the same aunt with the crackhead daughter.
--- Quote ---But there are bad apples everywhere; Timothy McVay is 100% US citizen and a home-grown terrorist. We can not use this to hold against the majority hard working, law biding people.
--- End quote ---
Well, we wouldn't because he wasn't a minority. Had he been, things might have been different. I remember the days after the blast, President Cllinton very wisely entreating Americans not to jump to any conclusions about who had done it.
--- Quote ---I do agree that a relatively larger portion of the illegal immigrants (when compared with general population) are uneducated, working under unfairly low wage, therefore tend to rely more on welfare. Maybe the entire county has not feel the impact yet, but I certainly heard that cities that are closer to the border have seen the impact on their education and healthcare system.
--- End quote ---
Yep. This is what I've seen over the years.
littledarlin:
--- Quote from: JennyC on May 04, 2006, 11:03:12 pm ---Ok, before I have to log off, let me just put another one for Andrew. The water is definitely muddier now when we have several issues being discussed here. :P
Dear Andrew, I did not mean to pick on what you said here. You said it in an earlier post. I do want to add my two cents on the bolded part.
I do wonder why can’t the UAE company operates US port when the same port used to be operated by a UK company? Currently there are other US ports operated by foreign owned companies (I heard UK, Singapore, China are among those). It’s perfectly fine that after 9/11 US may want to adjust policy on who can operate its ports to protect national interest. But to pick on this particular deal because it’s an UAE company for whatever underlying assumption, while not make a fuss on other ports that currently operated by other foreign owned company, that is double standard to me. Last time I checked, UAE is still not among the “Axle of evil” :). Can’t tell you how many times I am frustrated with the double standard US applied to both domestic (gay rights included) and international affairs. And none of the political parties is immune from applying double standard.
Democrat used this to attack what traditionally considered republican’s stronghold on national security (which I still don’t get), I am sorry to say that it’s a cheap shot to me. It’s ok to question why a deal that impact national security because it’s regarding US port was not reviewed or approved by certain committee before it went into full action, but it’s not right to pick on this because it’s an UAE company.
Again Andrew, I did not mean to take your word out of context. It’s an interesting topic and I want to know what other Tremblayans’ thoughts are. :)
--- End quote ---
by all means pick on my posts! lol i don't mind. i like discussion.
and you are right! it is a double standard to let the UK do it, but not the UAE. but there are two factors here.
first most people weren't aware that the UK was monitoring our ports BEFORE this deal happened. i mean, i'm sure the outrage stemmed from people who look at the entire middle east as one country and associate every person in the middle east with osama bin laden and sadaam hussein. but now that it's made national headlines and people know that our ports are guarded by foreign companies, they want domestic guards.
secondly, the uae is a major human rights violator with laws that are sexist, racist and all around discriminatory. they also have serious issues with human trafficking, especially children as sex slaves. it's changing though, things have got better, but the timing just doesn't seem right.
in my opinion, it doesn't matter who is guarding the ports as long as they're qualified. there's just as much of a chance of an american being a spy as there is someone from the uk or the uae. but coming from the bush administration, it reeks of dirty money.
so yes, one of the many problems with the administration is them constantly contradicting themselves with their actions. they want to liberate the people of iraq and afghanistan, but take away our rights here. they want to find osama bin laden, so they invade iraq. they want to improve foreign affairs, so they threaten every major world power on the basis that they need to treat their citizens better? (see: china; iran)
it's CRAZY crazy crazy.
littledarlin:
--- Quote from: delalluvia on May 04, 2006, 10:51:52 pm ---The more we have of sex education and contraceptives, the less we would have a need for abortion, so after a while, abortion CAN be strictly regulated because so few women would need it.
The more we cut back on Immigration and make things difficult for illegal aliens, the less crime would be committed by them. Yes, only the bad apples commit crimes, but since they're not supposed to be here in the first place, their crimes could have easily been prevented by not allowing any of them in the country at all.
--- End quote ---
yes. but, until conditions in other countries can improve, how can we turn people away? it's already extremely difficult to come here legally, even illegally. it makes sense, it sounds good, but i just can't help but think of the people who are desperate for a way out. the people who risk their lives, their childrens' lives, just for a chance to survive here. i mean if 100 people can escape poverty and starvation and death and oppressive governments, i think it's worth it if 1 of those 100 people end up committing some other crime (as long as it's not violent). i just think of all the women who were tortured and killed in juarez, no investigations, nothing for so long. people that would risk going through that to get here are NOT trying to take the easy way out. they're at their last resort.
delalluvia:
Hiya little
--- Quote from: littledarlin on May 04, 2006, 11:34:13 pm ---yes. but, until conditions in other countries can improve, how can we turn people away?
--- End quote ---
How are those countries going to improve if their citizens don't have to stay and face up to their unsatisfactory governments?
--- Quote ---it's already extremely difficult to come here legally, even illegally. it makes sense, it sounds good, but i just can't help but think of the people who are desperate for a way out. the people who risk their lives, their childrens' lives, just for a chance to survive here. i mean if 100 people can escape poverty and starvation and death and oppressive governments, i think it's worth it if 1 of those 100 people end up committing some other crime (as long as it's not violent).
--- End quote ---
How could you decide that though? How can you tell the family of that one person who was brutally murdered - "We're really sorry about that, but hey 100 other people did well, so it's OK if your loved one was tortured to death leaving their children father/motherless"?
You'd be a braver person than me.
It's kinda like that statement made by one of our Founding Fathers "I'd rather see 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man jailed' or something like that. But remember that was the 1700's. Back before a single man flying an airplane could kill 5000 people. Sometimes that one person can do a lot of damage. That one person is a terrorist, that one person is a serial killer, that one person is a psycho who shoots up a school.
They come here and they may do themselves proud or they might ram a car full of children then run off rather than face up to their crime and deported.
--- Quote ---i just think of all the women who were tortured and killed in juarez, no investigations, nothing for so long. people that would risk going through that to get here are NOT trying to take the easy way out. they're at their last resort.
--- End quote ---
How about the women tortured and killed in Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan? The people imprisoned in China? The children who disappeared in Chile/Columbia? The 10s of thousands dying every day in Africa?
Are we going to be an open door for EVERY persecuted person? There would be no room left to stand.
rtprod:
You know Del, there's now way to even read these posts without getting so angry I can't deal with it.
I can't comment on this issue anymore -- seems like you're unwilling to give an inch here.
Geeze, is there any validity to the other side of the "argument" at all?
Over and out.
rt
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version