I bet the authors of these two quotes will be quickly identified, but the real question is... what is so wrong with what they say?
"America's immigration system is outdated, unsuited to the needs of our economy and to the values of our country. We should not be content with laws that punish hardworking people and deny businesses willing workers and invite chaos at our border. It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country, and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists. "
" We need an earned-legalization program for people who have been here for a long time, stayed out of trouble, got a job, paid their taxes, and their kids are American. We got to start moving them toward full citizenship, out of the shadows. "
I think the better question would be why can't these to perspectives find the common ground of compromise?
No, you forgot a step. The final answer was 207,643,594. (eligible to vote in the U.S.)
It is shocking to think with one fell swoop of the pen America can have it's whole government changed to prefer one group of people to live off of the other. It used to be our three branches of the government could operate as the safety valve. But more and more it is becoming a broken system that rules us.
You are right. That kind of manipulation used to at least require some smoke-filled backroom deal making. (referring to the power of the pen part)
But I think the "one group living at the expense of the other" isn't quite as black and white as too many want to believe it is.
To answer your question - amnesty.
I mean, think of it for a second, how do you "get a job and pay your taxes" if you are undocumented? Only one way I can think of and it certainly isn't legal. I just had to get that illogical statement out there, sorry.
Remember we did the amnesty gig before, with the promise the borders would be secured. It didn't happen. I think that makes the word "amnesty" an issue right now since obviously our borders are being overrun.
Second, the all or nothing. I know what the second statement says but think of what has actually been proposed. It is almost blanket amnesty, which simply invites further illegal entry.
It's a tough one for certain. There is a case for those who have been here for a long time and kept their noses clean but that then, becomes fuel for the fire so to speak.
Nothing will move forward with immigration until two things happen: this Administration stops with the "my way or nothing" attitude and constantly throwing names and insults at the other side and, a plan to police the border, even if temporarily, is put in place.
Interesting answer. However, regarding the closing question, I think it is the secure borders that is the obstacle to compromise.
I am all for immigration reform. And I believe it is a reality that for the illegal immigrants that have been in our country long enough to establish a life - amnesty is the only fair and workable solution. I do not believe a "kick them all out" solution is realistic - or humane.
I would like to see immigration reform that absolutely secures our borders, but that same security does not have to mean closed borders.
I chose those quotes because I agree with both of them. Except, in the first one, from Pres, Bush's 2005 inaugural speech, I think amnesty - with Kerry's solution, (the second quote), is a fact that must be faced.
And speaking of Kerry's quote, the absence of a plan to secure the borders is the stumbling block in his proposal.
I can agree with most of your points. I still think the real blockage to immigration reform is both sides all or nothing approach.
No amnesty at all from one side.
Amnesty for all from the other.
I understand your point about those already here who have been here for a long time but how often are we going to just excuse an illegal act? It isn't as if we have not granted amnesty before. Not to mention, does that not send a certain message? That if you break the law and can then further break the law for some years - you get to stay?
It just isn't a clear cut issue.
For illegals that entered the country as an adult (children are a separate problem, IMO):
1. An accelerated citizenship process. Must pass the citizenship tests within 2 years, including language tests. No exceptions, and if not done, deport.
2. Must have a clean police record at that time. A speeding ticket, fine, but much more than that means immediate deportation (after jail if applicable).
3. No welfare, giveaway programs, ever. Not in the first two years, not after. The illegal gives that up when they decide to flaunt the laws of the country. No food stamps, no housing allowance, no free medical, no anything. If you can't support yourself, we don't need you.
4. Medical care to be given as necessary in the first two years, with repayment beginning immediately. If they cannot repay on a time schedule, deportation.
Borders closed as much as possible, but employment to future illegals denied. If you hire someone without documentation, a fine of 1 years profit, second offense 2 years, third offense confiscation of the business and all assets. A much improved ID system required, coupled with database open to employers. Lower penalties available to large corporations with locations and HR scattered all over the country. Perhaps confiscate the local portion of the company? Necessary as 50 or 100 hiring offices WILL have some bad apples in there somewhere.
Bottom line is amnesty for all, but with a cost and time is of the issue. No more illegals allowed in, with large penalties for providing what they come for in the first place. A compromise, then - can you live with it?
I might quibble a few details but broadly an equitable solution.
Details are always up for grabs, of course. As long as "details" do not include future welfare payments or long delays in becoming a citizen.
Personally, if I had a magic wand I could wave and instantly send all of them back where they came from, I would do it and hang the businesses which suddenly have no workers in the middle of the shift. But I don't, I can't, and far too many people feel the citizens of the US owe the rest of the world a living. This (which I wrote into a hub some time ago) was a compromise I though most might accept. I don't like it, but could accept it as a compromise - something democracy is built on and which we all need to recognize.
But if you make somebody a citizen surely you must accord them all the benefits of citizenship?
Thought so. No, as far as I'm concerned they gave up those benefits permanently when they decided the laws of the country didn't mean squat to them.
And how will you denote these second class citizen?
A tattoo on the forehead or perhaps a yellow star on their clothing.
Will they have to sit at the back of the bus, stand if a first class wants their seat?
Will you have separate schools for their children?
Separate drinking fountains?
No, if you give people citizenship it has to be on equal terms, or do you really advocate the collection of taxes with no chance of benefiting from those taxes?
In my experience it's called a working Visa. A.k.a just like the rest of us non-naturalized, non-voting, legal immigrants. No segregation required. You just get to stay and work without becoming a citizen.
But in that case you are not a citizen are you?
Wilderness was talking about giving people citizenship with restricted rights.
I was just saying that there is a working functional equivalent to that category. if it is about outcome, not semantics.
I would note that skipping illegals right to citizenship means I would do better sneaking in rather than entering legally and getting permanent residency without citizenship only after a decade and about $5000 in fees and citizenship (maybe) about ten years and a few thousand dollars later.
I fully think illegals working and obeying the law should have a path to citizenship. A path, not a teleport.
We call it a Social Security Number. All citizens have one; those participating in the amnesty program will be issued SS numbers that can then be checked for welfare programs.
But who said anything about all the rest of that garbage list? Certainly not I, just that they give up rights to free money for life by taking amnesty instead of going home and using the approved route to citizenship.
If you break the welfare laws, commit a felony or are committed of welfare fraud, you are denied any government assistance for a period of time and sometimes forever. I don't see the problem with doing the same for those who entered the country illegally (already a felony).
I s'pose your magic wand would put me somewhere in Europe and a Native American woman would be sitting in my place wondering if you know how awful you sound... 'course I doubt you'd be here either.
As was I, but our ancestors weren't. We took this land, claimed it for our own and then told others they couldn't come in. But I'm not debating whether this was right or wrong... Im saying if your magic wand is sending ppl back to their land of origin, we white folks would be the first to disappear.
If Wilderness had his way you would have no rights, but then neither would he.
No, our ancestors were born in Africa, along with everyone else's.
But wait - you mean more recent, don't you? But the people our immediate (400 year) ancestors beat up to take the land were not the original people either. Those came out of Asia some 10,000 years ago, across the land bridge into Alaska, and were killed or otherwise driven off the land by others long, long ago. Just as the Neanderthals were killed or driven out of Europe by our ancestors a little further back than the 400 years.
In other words, not a single person on this planet does not have an ancestor somewhere or somewhen that killed to take over the living space of another group.
An equal number of Americans seem to think poor illegals owe them a source of ludicrously cheap produce and hotel rooms.
Ive heard of stories where ppl will use an illegal alien for a job. Get a day or even a few weeks of work out of them, then turn them in to be deported. America the beautiful.
Need I ask? They do that before or after paying them?
America the beautiful? Really?
Only America has scoundrels? This type of behavior is only done by American businesses? It is America's characterization because our population is made up of people?
Did I say only America is guilty of mistreating ppl? I happen to love my country very much. My remark was meant to be sarcastic, as in "America at its best."
If a marine cheated on his wife, my first thought would be "semper fi" (always faithful). Because all marines cheat on their wives? Obviously not. B/c something that is fine and upstanding and known to be so, hit rock bottom. Do you get where I'm going with this? I'd hate to go on.
I would hate for you to go on too. Not sure if my shoulders are broad enough.
I guess I missed the sarcasm of your comment. (but given the context of the words preceding it - perhaps my mistake is forgivable?). My apologies.
I didn't see her suggest that only America has scoundrels. We are, however, the keepers of our own house, aren't we?
Actually, no. We have failed dismally to both our own people and those that violate the law by entering illegally and staying here with our tacit approval.
Absolutely they do, and absolutely it is disgraceful and evil.
Which is why the proposed plan stops that, at least as far as possible. There will BE no more "illegal aliens", as far as we can stop the process. Of course, there will always be some, but without promise of pay for work, it will be very few.
I think it is a good compromise for both sides.
It allows for a path to citizenship while addressing the issue of draining social services. It has a plan for stemming the tide as well.
It isn't that I am 100% behind all of your points - but I see them as a collective being quite an equitable solution.
Now type up the list in a nice email and send it to every single Congressman.
I could go with most of your points, if they were determined to be cost effective. It would do little good if the solution costs more than the current problem, especially since the cost of illegal aliens using social services seems to be a huge issue with those who want to deport with no amnesty.
There's a problem there, as no one has ever really tried to find the cost of illegal aliens. The cost to some businesses (and the politicians they support) is just too high to look for reasons to stop the influx.
The pay little to no taxes, of course, outside of sales taxes (where it exists). But they DO use welfare programs, fraudulently for the most part but some are legal. They DO take jobs Americans would grab at. They DO use our schools, courtrooms, jails, etc. They DO run up the cost of auto insurance, by driving without insurance. They DO run up the cost of housing, and they DO often run down neighborhoods, turning them into slums. They DO increase the cost, both financial and social, of maintaining our borders, particularly the southern one. They DO run up the cost of hospitals, and shut down some of them as they become overwhelmed by non-paying "customers". They DO put Americans out of work and onto unemployment.
So there are lots of indirect costs, almost impossible to make accurate guesses at. And the benefits to society are minimal; nasty jobs get done at low wages which saves us all some money and makes some business owners rich.
Sure is a lot of claims, and it looks like some might be a bit more emotion than fact driven. Hmm...
To the "taxes" point, wouldn't the only taxes they don't pay be federal and state income taxes?
To the welfare use point...
..."On top of that, most social welfare programs bar illegal immigrants from receiving benefits and require proof of immigration status. That includes food stamps, as well as cash welfare assistance, Medicaid, and even the new health care law.
It's true that some children of illegal immigrants qualify for benefits if they were born in the United States and are citizens. (Critics derisively call them "anchor babies.") But there aren't nearly enough of those types of children -- an estimated 4 million -- to account for 43 percent of food stamp recipients.."
Source:Politifacts - Fact checking Immigration
Here's another one that deals with the welfare and the jobs point... From Sen. Marco Rubio (R Fla.)
"FACT: Opponents of immigration reform try to have it both ways: on the one hand, they argue illegal immigrants who receive legal status will take jobs from Americans, but then argue that practically all illegal immigrants are unskilled, virtually unemployable, and will need welfare to live. Neither assertion is true. ..."
source: MYTH vs. FACT: Federal Benefits For Illegal Immigrants
Do you have more information about the fraudulent welfare use that would outweigh the above claims?
And to this point;"They DO take jobs Americans would grab at. " Really? How does that square with Rubio's statement above?
Is it your perspective that Americans would rush to fill the types of jobs typically attributed to illegal immigrants, (picking crops, manual landscaping labor, etc. etc.)? Because in my part of the nation, those jobs have been very hard to fill without immigrants, (I will leave their real status for others to determine). Around here it isn't as much agricultural jobs as it is chicken processing plant jobs.
*there is a caveat to that - the plants can get black hires - but white folks generally disdain the line positions as too demeaning. Which could affirm the contention that illegal immigrants could hurt the job prospects of black minimum wage job seekers. So I guess this one could be a Hmm...
"They DO use our schools, courtrooms, jails, etc. " Yep, Ya got that one.
"...They DO run up the cost of auto insurance, by driving without insurance. " Well, since there are also plenty of uninsured American citizen drivers - causing the same effect to rates, wouldn't you have to demonstrate there were significantly more uninsured illegal immigrant accident claims than uninsured citizen accident claims to make this a valid point? Of course you would be right with the "even one is too many" rational, but I think you would need a better foundation than that to allow this point to stand.
"They DO run up the cost of housing, and they DO often run down neighborhoods, turning them into slums."
This one seems so silly, to me, that I think you owe it a little more explanation to apologize to it for making it look so silly. Of course, since I didn't do any "research" on this point, but just relied on my perceptions - it's possible I could be the silly one. The door is open...
To the "border and hospital cost and repercussions," I can see some validity there.
But to end your comment with this...
"They DO put Americans out of work and onto unemployment.
" - Come on wilderness, after all the above, how about tossing a few factual crumbs for us to digest.
Too late to hit them all in detail, but:
Taxes. No income, either federal or state. No FICA. Not sure about all the taxes involved in buying a car - might vary by state. Basically, no tax but sales, which is a minor amount compared to all the rest.
Welfare - how about free school lunches? Reduced electric bills? Section 8 housing? The list of "freebies" is nearly endless in this country, and illegals participate in many of them quite legally. In addition, despite all the claims to the contrary, food stamps and other programs are used (visit the office one day and watch who comes in, in a location with many illegals).
By todays standards, most illegals ARE unskilled, but there are lots of jobs that Americans can and will take that illegal aliens fill. Framing houses, for example, or sheetrock work. Painting or stucco work. Cleaning up new houses. Even some landscaping. GA, I've seen with my own eyes a company that was picketed by the union for hiring framers at too low a wage; when the INS showed up the company lost every employee but one within seconds. The union got the job framing a college building at that point... Illegals are most definitely NOT unemployable - that's why they're here after all - they just don't have the training for the better jobs.
"Rush" to fill agri jobs? Not likely, not at the illegal wages being paid. But make it possible once more for teens to take those temporary jobs and pay a decent wage and they will be filled. Don't know about chicken processing buy my own son worked for a while in a slaughter house, killing cows. Left as soon as possible, but it was a job for a few months.
How do illegals legally own and register a car? They certainly drive one, but how is it insured without being legally owned?
The town 10 miles from me has a reputation now of being mostly illegal. Whether it is actually "mostly" is debatable, but it IS a hotbed of crime and is falling into slum status. It didn't use to be that way, until the illegals moved in enmass - now property values are next to nothing and the area is a junkyard. It's what happens when poverty takes over an area, whether it's illegal aliens, inner city neighborhoods or any other reason for poverty to gather in one locale.
Unemployment; that company mentioned above had about 25 workers on that one job site (don't know how many on other sites, or if they all left, too). Which could, and would, have been filled with Americans if the illegals weren't readily available. Which put Americans onto unemployment; that was the height of the recession. So yes, illegal workers put Americans out of work and onto unemployment.
Ok, so here is the deal...
I still feel a couple of those points are debatable. Anecdotal validations usually are...
But... it appears I was really so far off-base on the welfare/foodstamps etc. issue, (hopefully you saw that my response to SassySue was intended for you also), that my confidence in my opinion is shaken, and I think it best that I go back to school for a bit before attempting another such mash-up here.
Mea Culpa. (but keep it handy, I will return to try to reclaim it.)
ps. as one last gasp for air, I have tp point out that if an illigal immigrant gets a paycheck - they do pay FICA! er... I think)"
It's true that some children of illegal immigrants qualify for benefits if they were born in the United States and are citizens. (Critics derisively call them "anchor babies.") But there aren't nearly enough of those types of children -- an estimated 4 million -- to account for 43 percent of food stamp recipients.."
Well in LA County alone, a projected $650 million went out to illegal immigrants for those anchor babies. And that is only one county, in one state. So I'd say that a case can be made for a fairly high percentage of food stamps.
source: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/09/ … co=cfd-1.0
I will be responding on this point to Wilderness later, but since you made essentially the same response...
It looks like I had a little, (or maybe a lot of), tunnel vision when looking at the welfare/food stamps, etc. to illegal immigrants issue. While I still think it is factually true that illegal immigrants can not legally get these benefits, excepting those with "anchor babies," that exception seems to be a much more important factor than I considered.
Following your link, and other readings, it looks like that is a very pertinent qualifier that I should have looked into before approaching the "reply" button.
Although I still think I was "technically" right about the law - it appears I was really wrong about the real world.
I hope you will accept these words that I bet every married man knows the value of;
"You're right, I'm wrong, I'm sorry."
I was wrong once too.
I had to actually go to that report from the source I originally found the information because that source was decidedly biased. I wanted to be certain the information came from a reliable source. That is what makes it difficult sometimes to know what is actually the truth.
To the point of illegals not qualifying for benefits, you'd in fact also be incorrect. The IRS instituted a policy in 1996 that effectively treated illegal immigrants as citizens by issuing tax identification numbers to illegal immigrants who could not legally obtain work within the US. In so doing, they allowed them to qualify for benefits intended for US citizens only.
Yes, the law says otherwise, but the IRS regulation essentially negates the law.
"In this report, TIGTA revealed that in 2011 the IRS had sent $46,378,040 in tax refunds to what theoretically were 23,994 unauthorized aliens using ITINs and all sharing a single Atlanta, Ga., mailing address. Similarly, the IRS sent $10,395,874 in refunds to what theoretically were 2,507 unauthorized aliens using ITINs and all sharing a single address in Oxnard, California."
source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ig-irs- … legals-42b
There is a lot of information there, including how the IRS issues these tax identification numbers even when it is obvious they are fraudulent.
So perhaps - we can begin there. Cite the regulation as illegal, stop issuing them and force the IRS to report such names and addresses to immigration, as the law states.
Again, it all comes down to not enforcing current laws.
You could not be more right about it not being a clear cut issue.
And to your problems with amnesty, I too do not like the idea of amnesty for lawbreakers. But if solutions don't deal with real world realities - can they really be solutions? Do you think there is some viable way to deport 12(+/-) million people? Do you think those folks could even be identified in a reasonable time? I can see it now, a 10-year hide and seek effort. And that is beside the fact that the ones I am thinking of have progressed past their "original sin" to become productive members of our society.
Ughh... I really don't want to come across as blanket pro-amnesty, but sometimes you just have to face the fact that "it is what it is."
As a side note, some of the amnesty/path-to-citizenship proposals have included relatively severe, (by lower to middle class standards), monetary and timeline penalties for the original act. So they don't really amount to a "free pass."
Which brings me back to my original, (and most conservatives), point - secure borders must be the lynchpin of any successful compromise between the warring factions of immigration reform.
....To answer your question - amnesty.
To give them amnesty is a slap in the face of justice. What is it that we are saying then? It is easier to just let them all stay even if they broke the law? Their children will have learned what from amnesty? Do even illegal acts long enough and eventually it becomes okay?
....I mean, think of it for a second, how do you "get a job and pay your taxes" if you are undocumented? Only one way I can think of and it certainly isn't legal. I just had to get that illogical statement out there, sorry.
The simple answer is if they are illegal they should not be given the opportunity to work. Punish those that hire them severely with a possible stay in jail and the illegal immigrants will leave.
....Remember we did the amnesty gig before, with the promise the borders would be secured. It didn't happen. I think that makes the word "amnesty" an issue right now since obviously our borders are being overrun.
We did it half a$$ed is what went wrong. The cheaters are both the employer and the illegal immigrant. Punish them both!
....Second, the all or nothing. I know what the second statement says but think of what has actually been proposed. It is almost blanket amnesty, which simply invites further illegal entry.
Not if the two parties (the employer & illegal immigrant) are held accountable. Make it a pain in the neck for the employer to game the system and he will not hire them.
....It's a tough one for certain. There is a case for those who have been here for a long time and kept their noses clean but that then, becomes fuel for the fire so to speak.
The case is that by coming here illegally in the first place their noses were dirty. Just because you continue on with your illegal act clandestinely does not cleanse you of the illegal act.
....Nothing will move forward with immigration until two things happen: this Administration stops with the "my way or nothing" attitude and constantly throwing names and insults at the other side and, a plan to police the border, even if temporarily, is put in place.
I agree with this as it will take both sides to make a decision and legislation to stop the influx of these poor people. Yes I say poor people in both their net worth and desperation to make a way for themselves and their families. And I also say poor because of the menial wages they are paid to work illegally and the conditions that are in many cases unhealthy that exploits their plight.
I do not know yet who uttered those two quotes. Obama?
Sneaking into my country illegally is wrong and should be punished. What is wrong with that? Doing illegal things should carry a consequence. Doing it for financial gain should carry more consequence. Amnesty? Stop arresting and putting people in jail for drug crimes --- Amnesty for all others already in jail. It is ludicrous to forgive illegal conduct on a wholesale basis unless the underlying law is judged to be wrongful. Our immigration laws are not wrongful.
Who uttered those two quotes?
George W Bush and John Kerry. Ironic, what?
The first quote was Pres. George W. Bush at his 2005 inaugural address. The second was Candidate John Kerry.
Yes, in an ideal world situation, your perspective might be a choice, but in our real current situation do you really think it is possible to round-up and deport 12+ million illegal immigrants? And if that isn't possible - would you except no compromise and let your ideals force the current situation to continue?
My point is, what is legally correct and what is realistically possible - regarding this issue - are irreconcilable opposites. Your choice is to maintain the status quo - and bemoan it, or accept a compromise and realize a partial solution.
I am not willing to let righteous principles, (not demeaning yours), cause me to cut of my nose to spite my face.
Much of life is difficult. The problem becomes bigger when because there is a problem good men shirk truth.
No one can say that it is easier to document and legalize these illegals than to deport them. So we just throw our hands up and say you illegal folk win?
When it becomes more expedient to deny the law than to enforce it, we have failed. We would save more money ignoring murders than by ignoring illegal aliens. The IRS questions and impedes me and takes my money but not that of an illegal alien.
Billions of dollars to process. That is accepted.
Without a method to prevent hiring of illegals (and for the most part that can be done) we will never stop or even significantly slow the flow anyway. And if such a method is instituted, along with a crackdown on welfare, illegals will have to find another source to sustain themselves. So in that way they could be "deported".
But we will never do it; too many citizens (with votes) feel we need to feed the world and a great many others think it is necessary to maintain a semi-slave portion of our people for cheap labor. Plus, of course, the politicians and the businesses using them for profit and power.
We don't really have the option of 'no more illegals are let in'. You can discourage it to various extents at relatively high cost. But the US borders and coastlines are too huge to seal.
Yes, but they could be made a lot less porous. At least to the point of making illegal entry hard - instead of the easy access now found.
I wonder if the cost to secure and maintain the security of our borders to the extent suggested by some people here would be offset by the savings in costs incurred by illegal immigrants? Also, some of those same people who want ironclad borders already grouse about the taxes they currently pay. Where do they propose to get the money to fund and maintain this magnificent barrier (physical or otherwise) around the entire continent?
Exactly my thoughts...we have half the country whining over tax bills while our highways and bridges deteriorate. I think we just need to build a toll booth system and pass out social security cards upon entry.
I think the point that "ironclad" borders are not a realistic expectation has been made - although I am sure many will disagree. Secure does not have to mean ironclad. As for costs, I think the benefits of a secure border are about more than costs. I also think the costs for a "secure" border could be less than expected - with proper management of the "securing." $3.9 million (est. avg.) per mile sounds like too much to me.
I also think comparing the cost of illegal immigrants vs. securing the border is an apples and oranges comparison.
I would strong suspect that illegal immigrants in general have a more favorable cot/benefit profile than citizens. Their situation requires that they make a living and avoid being picked up by police.
At which point there will continue to be illegals as the arrive every day, but they will not pay tax and will not be treated for communicable diseases.
I do not see that as an improvement.
They do not get all the benefits a citizen does. Just a subset that are seen as being to the benefit of the nation.
Did you read the link? They get substantial benefits, including food stamps. They aren't paying taxes anyway - they're getting from the Federal government.
The regulation itself is actually against the law passed in 1996 that states they must turn over any information on illegal immigrants. The IRS does not do so with this information.
No, they should not get these numbers and should not receive benefits accorded a US citizen that US citizens are paying for.
Well it seems that a comment that I made to Wilderness was taken as a personal attack, earning me a suspension.
I really thought that if Wilderness thought that I was attacking him that he would challenge me to my face and not run to teacher.
This will probably earn me another ban, the mood I'm in I might just make it permanent.
Wilderness always says he does not hit the rept button... if that's so, someone else must have done it. Deep breaths my friend...
What? What? I've been out for the past 6 hours or so, and can't imagine John Holden attacking me anyway. What have I missed?
Well I was suspended for making a personal attack against you, thinking about that it does seem far fetched as you've rarely failed to give as good as you get.
I consider our badinage as no more than good humoured exchange and I have never intended anything that I have posted as a personal attack. It seems that there are others on here who feel that you are unable to decide when I have overstepped the mark and they need to jump to your defence.
I find this quite odd and disturbing as I've not seen one thing you've posted that could be construed as a personal attack in any rational judgement.
The posting that got me suspended was
"If Wilderness had his way you would have no rights, but then neither would he"
Even after a nights sleep I cannot see how that can be construed as a personal attack on anybody!
?? I'm with you - I can't possibly see that as a personal attack on anyone at all.
One of times I was banned it was for something that I though to be completely innocuous - just shrug it off and continue on. People DO make mistakes, after all, and moderators are people too.
You've got it, John - good natured badinage. I've enjoyed our give and take and have never taken anything you said as an attack. On top of that, the only times I've ever flagged a forum post was for spamming - not for attacking either myself or someone else. When I feel someone is attacking beyond what I can put up with, I just go away and refuse to respond - it's happened more than once, but I've never flagged for it.
So, sorry, but it it sounds like you've irritated someone, although I can't imagine how. I've been nastier than you most of the time, but haven't been banned for quite some time now.
Or maybe I'm just better looking - that would actually make more sense!
It would seem that by responding to the report button without any consideration of context or on line relationship between posters or even any consideration of whether a post is actually an attack or not Hubpages have effectively given over control of the forums to the trolls!
I find it especially disturbing when they take action on reports by third parties who can not in any way be affected by the post, my post was aimed at you and Sed-me, not an attack on either of you, and I don't see that either of you would have cause to report it, what reasoning did HP apply to consider that it was a personal attack on anybody else?
And I'm better looking than you-so there. Oops, that'll probably earn me another suspension.
Oh, John. I presume you will now have 7 years bad luck, having broken your mirror and all. I'm doubly sorry for you now.
See my other post; sometimes people make mistakes, and this looks like one to me. The ways of HP are inscrutable sometimes.
If they were to say "Oops sorry, mistake" then I would laugh and move on. As it is they won't even tell me how it is considered an attack or apologised.
Others have complained about the same thing - at least you found out what the problem was even if you don't understand or agree with it. (I assume HP told you it was that phrase?)
To give then their due, they did actually post me a link to the offending post! I think that's a first for me.
Yes, they verified my guess the second time I was banned, as well. Doesn't help much when you don't understand what was wrong, though, does it? Again, to be fair, I suspect they just don't have the manpower to really investigate each thread, reading it all, and then fight off the hubbers banned "for no reason". Because for sure 99% will claim it was for no reason, and the remaining 1% (where it really WAS no reason) will end up paying the price.
I submit the idea that the border, amnesty, the illegals themselves, none of them are the problem.
The problem is that a 200 year old nation, the world's leading democracy, cannot figure out a solution to this or any other of its big problems.
The immigration deadlock is just a symptom of a larger historical issue - America can't govern itself effectively anymore.
Time for citizens to talk compromise. Time for us to elect a congress that talks compromise. For what good is democracy without compromise?
How about a grassroots call to action? No more red and blue rock throwing.
We can't just ship 'em all back to Central America. Neither can we ignore the rule of law.
Can't 300 million intelligent people come up with a smart solution?
The is a lot of truth to what you say, but a lot of innocent naivete too. For instance, do you really think all 300 million of us are intelligent? Just joking, I understand your point
Maybe someone at this Saturday's Kumbayah campfire will have some constructive ideas.
Rahman, you are believing all the negatives a little too much. We have problems alright but we have a ton of solutions. It is the pundits and talking heads and political money raising machines that want you to think that America is just a tottering horrible disaster. I just obey they law and work semi-hard and have a great life. I can coast actually and be just fine.
From homelessness to immigration to foreign affairs to our schools ---- well let me put it this way, I am not seeking to immigrate anywhere soon though I have lived on three other continents for reasonable times.
I understand you live in Asia and like it there, that does not mean that the USA is one horrible mess. It is not.
by Kathryn L Hill 10 months ago
http://fortune.com/2016/04/17/immigration-open-borders/ How about it?Tearing down the wall, would be a better solution?
by Juan Rivera 6 years ago
Are you against or in favor of an immigration reform?
by SealBeach 6 years ago
Suddenly, the idea hopelessly is setting-in on the American people. Americans are becoming more and more passive when it comes to constructive oversight over our political leaders. How can taxpayers now cope with a constant reminder of a $17 trillion deficit , war on demand by the political elite...
by MikeNV 8 years ago
$10 Billion per month to spend in Afghanistan per month "fighting terrorists". How many people know the cost of a Gallon of fuel to the military in Afghanistan is $13 per Gallon?30,000 AMERICAN TROOPS on the South Korea/North Korea Border.And the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REFUSES to...
by Springboard 9 years ago
What do you think about the Krauthammer immigration reform proposal?Charles Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist, proposed that we send troops to help patrol the borders, continue building the fence, increase manpower and step up efforts and resources to current border patrol agency. When we receive...
by Ronnie wrenchBiscuit 5 years ago
I have seen a lot of posts made of late against the so-called illegal immigrants from south of the border. I have also heard a lot of smack about how we should be helping our "wonderful veterans" instead. Really?Hear Ye! Hear Ye! I am one of those wonderful veterans. (1974-1981) I am a...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|