It is odd to me how these captains of industry will go out of their way to support immigrants and challenge America's policies openly.
I would like to get their views on record.
Since people like Zuckerberg, and Gates, wnd Cook and Bezos support undocumented immigrants, why doesn't someone in the news media ask them will their company hire undocumented immigrants?
If yes, they are in violation of our eVerify laws...
If no, they are hypocrites.
It is this kind of liberal thinking that has brought our country to such a poor state.
Every nation has a strict immigration policy. Find me one nation that supports open borders?
You can't, yet these same people support, undocumented immigrants, support sanctuary cities, are against building a fence and against voter ID laws...
What is the reason behind such contradictions?
Any one out there willing to answer this or explain it?
Confusion. Is this about refugees, immigrants or illegal aliens?
They are all related. Refugees, illegal immigrants and immigrants are all part of this mix. A country is defined by its borders, language and culture. Do you get that?
What is your definition of a country?
You want all people to be equal, why not get rid of all borders?
That is what globalization is about.
Do you want to share everything you have with people in Greece, Venezuela, Cuba just to name a few...
Immigration is good for America if it is done in an orderly fashion. I am a first generation immigrant. I have adopted this nation as my country. I have assimilated and support our country's Constitution.
Can you say the same for some illegals here, some recent refugees, some people that over stayed their Visas...?
Clear thinking people know what I am addressing here. You can take your high road and feel good about your compassion for the poor... You are not helping anyone but yourself. Liberalism have not solve any real problems and have created more confusion and dependency.
If you think that I support millions of foreign citizens invading our country at will you are sadly mistaken. There is a hub on my profile that suggests a solution to this, and it isn't to throw the borders open.
But while a handful of businesses openly support the presence of illegal aliens within our borders (there is no such thing as an "undocumented immigrant" or even an "illegal immigrant"), I suspect they are few and far between. Even those hiring such criminals are seldom willing to go public with that opinion as it could bring the INS down on them.
I like to read your proposal.
As far as I'm concerned, it may be simplistic, but it is like being pregnant. Either you are or you are not.
You either support a strict border or you don't. If you don't, it is in essence, open borders. Who decides what is acceptable? Without laws and a strict border control, we have no defined country.
If you doubt me, please check the immigration policy of Mexico. See how they treat others that crosses their borders.
Tell me, what do you envision as a wall? Another Great Wall of China, 10' thick and something a stick of dynamite won't put a hole through, with armed guards every few feet? Topped with razor wire or would you prefer poison? Will you mine the Mexico side of it to keep people from sneaking up to it?
What is your vision of a wall that will "close the border"?
Here is my idea of a wall, like the one Saudia Arabia built 600 miles on their border...
https://www.google.com/search?q=wall+sa … S2xJOsM%3A
How nice looking! But still pretty easy to put a hole in.
So we need 200 radar stations, 800 response vehicles, 30 surveillance vehicles and, as 30 minutes will put a small group through the wall, around 2,000 armed guards. As a start - I suspect that the difference in terrain and population will make the problem worse than it appears at Saudi Arabia.
Now what about tunnels? That appears to be a very common way to get in - go under the Rio Grande, under any wall we build and into the bush? Will you purchase a half mile of land for 2,000 miles from the ranches and oil fields so we can move the wall back away from the river?
Finally, should we wait and see how the Saudi wall works out for them before spending hundreds of billions to erect such a monstrosity? Although you say it is already built, I see that it was started late 2015 - I highly doubt that it is finished, although I also see that there have been deaths protecting it.
No need to wait. Walls have worked everywhere they were tried. Also, it is not only about wall. There will be aerial surveilance and ground support. Look, this is not rocket science. Why won't you want a wall? Let's secure our borders, stop the illegal entry, the drug smugglers and the human traffikers... One the border is secure, the rest of the undocumented here already will be given a fair hearing. We need an orderly immigration process so that assimilation can occur.
A wall is a huge, huge expense that is not necessary to curb illegals entering the country to stay. And no, they don't work...unless you think you can build one around the coast of California, Texas and Florida as well? People have been known to build boats to "immigrate" with, you know - we have only to look to Cuba to see that.
You know, I just visited Scotland, including Edinburgh Castle. Which was inside a walled city. And which was destroyed time and again by conquerors. The 400ft tall wall at Masada didn't work, either Walls don't work, not when the "opponent" wants in badly enough.
I'd rather put laws into place to put teeth in employment laws and (shudder) require a national data base of citizenry. Bad, but not as bad as what you're suggesting and on the plus side more effective while being cheaper to boot.
(I notice you didn't address the tunnel problem - any suggestions there besides buying tens of thousands of acres and making a "no-man's land" strip between the wall and the river, then keeping it clear of vegetation?)
Agree, there is better ways.
How are they going to stop more non white babies being born in America than whites. What's next sperm stabilization.?
The wall is only part of the solution. There will be other means to detect intrution such as tunnels. It won't be 100% but it will be 99%. There is nothing that say we can't implement other measures as well. We can go after the businesses that hire illegals. It won't be as expensive as you might think. The savings in terms of other federal $$$ can offset the actual cost. We have drones that can fly 24/7 with sensors and noght vision... technology is more than enough to do the job. All it takes is the will to do it. From your posting, it is clear that some Americans don't have that will.
Is drones the answer?
I already feel creeped out to imagine God sitting at my bedside during masterbating.
"We can go after the businesses that hire illegals."
And there is your primary answer. Tell me, do you believe that illegals will still flood the country when there is no way to feed themselves? Or will the flood slow to a trickle?
Are we talking about illegal immigration or about world hunger? They are two different things. I am just as compassionate. I believe in helping people in need. I donate generously to private charities that help the world's poor.We can't save the whole world as much as we wish to.
Do you remember the Titanic disaster? In that event, there were not enough life boats for all the passengers. The people know in order to save some, others were sacrificed mostly men. They knew if all try to get on board, no one will survive...
It is the same with illegal immigrants. We can support some legal immigrants and help others with donations. We can't open our borders for all to come.
You didn't answer my question?
What is the third position for this issue, a closed border, and open border and ???
It reminds me of Bill Clinton suggesting to rebuild Detroit to employee 10,000 refugees. Cheap labor. Not to employee the American people who live in the poorest city in the USA, who want jobs and living wages.
Its nothing but a political move that was bragged about.
Hillary: Illegal Immigrants Could Elect Clinton
* http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ … ton-213216
"Thanks to the unique math undergirding the Electoral College, the mere presence of 11-12 million illegal immigrants and other noncitizens here legally may enable them to swing the election from Republicans to Democrats."
Yes, also check out this video of Bill Clinton speech in 1995 on illegal immigration -
How soon they forget...?
Jesus, himself, could say that the right wing community is all wet on this issue and somehow Trump and his initiatives still get your support. How many people does it take to tell a man he is drunk before this man finally sits down?
I am a Christian and catholic. I know what Jesus was talking about. The greatest Commandment of all? Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Please don't confuse this with open borders.
Here is the key question for you credence2?
What would happen to our country, if we let all who wants to come here from all over the world? use your head, not your heart.
Conservatives are always inflexible failing to recognize that the universe consists of varied shades or grey rather than just black or white. Why do you oversimplify the issue? So, if don't agree with the ham handed Trump approach to delicate issues then I have to be in favor of open boarders without restraint.
Is this your take on this discussion, Jacklee? There is plenty of opposition to the Trump's' bull in the China Shop' approach. Many conservative voices within the GOP establishment are speaking against Trump policy in this regard, are they, too, not using their heads?
Credence2, I am open to debate. Please enlighten me on this topic. What is the 3rd option between open borders and closed borders? I can see many shades of grey on a slew of issues. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. The problem arises when you and others refuse to admit the obvious.
This problem has been brewing in our nation for a long time. We have tried all kinds of proposals including Amnesty under President Reagan in the 1980s... It didn't work then and it won't work now without first closing the borders.
Ok, Jacklee, let's talk. Why don't you tell me more about this 'Globalism' thing rightwingers and conservatives constantly beat us over the head with?
The way I see it, we are all globalists out of necessity as we inhabit only one planet and the ability to seriously talk about inhabiting another is not in the cards for the forseeable future.
There is enough megatonnage in the arsenal of thenuclear powers to virtually take the crust off from this planet and render it incapable of supporting life.
There is no room for bullies with the attitude that one nation can intimidate others. It is either mutually assured destruction or the Vietnam style of war thru attrition, and where has that placed us?
Conservatives fail to realize that the days of military dominance of one nation over others is passé. Cooperation between us all is the only thing that will allow us all to live another day. So, the treadworn ideas of gunboat diplomacy and 'speak softly but carry a big stick' is just as anachronistic as Teddy Roosevelt, model Ts and whalebone corsets.
These were quaint mementos of an earlier bygone age, one that conservatives insist can be resurrected as one would do with a mummified corpse. Such thinking is irresponsible in the nuclear age. Progressives recognize that there is no military real hegemony possible in this day and age. Someone needs to tell Donald Trump this.
I have as much trouble with HOW Trump goes about doing things as the things that he does.
No option between open and closed borders, more black and white? The idea of conditions and circumstances are used to temper the on vs off switch attitude to matters conservative seem to share. Please tell me how I can clarify things further?
Credence2, I will be happy to explain globalism to you. It is called the new world order. There are elites and people with money and power who for example meets at Davos and they gather year after year to plan the future of the human race. In their world view, there is no room for religion, or nationalism or capitalism... They believe we are all in the same boat and they are the smart ones calling the shots and we the people are pawns and to be used and abused and pit one group against another so that we are constantly distracted by what they are doing behind the scene. They are the bankers and they are the ones setting monitary policy and controling futures of commodities like oil and energy...
I am totally against their world view. I believe in one nation, under God who has been blessed to take care or our own and the free world. A strong national defense is key to this strategy. We are the only super power at the moment. President Reagan's peace thru strength, and trust but verify are lessons to be learned. The world is a dangerous place. We have North Korea, Iran and ISIS... who does not live by UN rules. What would you have us do? We cannot appease these groups that want to destroy our way of life.
You might not take my word for it but listen to others that have power and influence. Read up on George Soros and his open society institute... Listen to John Kerry when he give speeches... Read up on the UN and the climate change debates and the IPCC and their ultimate objective. They are not looking out for you and me. I put Barack Obama in the same crowd. It explains many of his actions or inactions when it comes to foreign policy.
The open borders policy with immigration is part of their long term goals.I am agaist that and the global economy. I do blame both parties, democrats and republicans for putting our country in this position. We are too reliant on foreign countries for manufacture goods. The false short term gain of corporations in search of profits have forsaken our base, the people and workers who have lost their jobs....due to outsourcing and factories moved overseas in search of cheap labor. To me, it is not always about the price of labor. Just because they can make it cheaper overseas does not mean we should automatically move our factories there. I worked for IBM for 28 years. I also studied history. Did you know during WWII, IBM plants were converted to make munitions in support of the war effort? What will happen in the next war? We don't hardly make anything anymore... Even IBM, today, hav sold most of their hardware business and have adopted services and consulting as main line of business. Very short sighted in my opinion.
I hope this gives you a brief overview of globalism. peace.
Which One God, Religion, should we all be under.? Or would this cause 90% of the wars all over again.
The one "who has been blessed to take care or our own and the free world".
Of course, " A strong national defense is key to this strategy."
Thanks for your explanation, why don't you think that rightwinger philosophy do not fit in this globally exploitative model that you speak about?
Do you think Trump and Conservative philosophy are head and shoulders in resistance to this trend relative to the left? I don't see it.
I will look into some of your assertions and have more to say, soon.
I always knew the Democrip and Rebloodicans are the NWO.
Credence, it should be obvious but I will state it for you. We Conservatives believe in our Constitution and it should be above all else, not the world court or the UN or Davos...
Second, we believe in American Exceptionalism. Checkout my hub on this topic.
Third, we believe in the concept of a nation with defined borders, language and culture. That is what make a country unique.
Golobalism is just the opposite, as practiced by President Barack Obama. His apology tour and winning the Nobel Peace prize and his many "lead from behind" policy on foreign policy is prime example. Most importantly, he believes "climate change" is the most threat to our nation and out world. I don't. I believe our 20 trillion debt created by Obama is the greatest threat to the US and to the world economy.
It sounds like a political-divisive move on Starbuck's part to me. They can get away with paying lower wages to refugees. However, bistros success depends on people speaking English in America and workers being able to understand and follow orders. Starbucks is an international corporation and no-doubt to me that the owners are greedy globalists that prefer cheap labor. Or, they could just be all talk, but I think its to set a political tone in states. - Just my thoughts.
Ever wonder why Conservative are called Right, and Liberals and called Left?
Ecclesiastes 10:2 - Amplified Bible
"A wise man’s heart turns him toward the right [which is the way of blessing], but a fool’s heart turns him toward the left [which is the way of condemnation]."
" . . . and challenge America's policies openly"
And why shouldn't they challenge "America's policies openly"? Do you mean they should do it secretly instead? It's not North Korea. People (including "captains of industry") are free to express their views.
"why doesn't someone in the news media ask them will their company hire undocumented immigrants?
If yes, they are in violation of our eVerify laws...
If no, they are hypocrites."
Hiring undocumented immigrants is against the law. Are you suggesting that CEOs should break the law? Why would you promote illegal activity? How about this: some CEOs support the plight of undocumented immigrants, but also choose to operate within the limits of the law. Genius I know! No wonder these people are so successful!
"It is this kind of liberal thinking that has brought our country to such a poor state."
It is the acceptance of migrants from around the world that literally helped to build the country, as you well know.
"Every nation has a strict immigration policy. Find me one nation that supports open borders?"
I didn't know these CEOs are advocating completely open borders. Which CEOs, and when did they say that?
"What is the reason behind such contradictions?"
Are these actually contradictions though? Or just strawmen that you have set up to knock down?
I don't know where to begin.
The policies and laws of our country is for everyone.
If you don't like it, there is only one way to change it. Elected people who agrees with you and pass legislation or rescind current laws.
There is no selective enforcement of laws.
That has been our problem under Obama. He pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce. Unless, I am not reading the Constitution correctly, where in it does it say we can pick and choose...
Yes, we are a nation of immigrants and we let in over 1 million people a year legally.
That is the proper way and not just sneak in our borders or over stay our Visas.
I was not trying to get these CEO to break our laws, just pointing out their hypocrisy...
Is that too hard for you to comprehend.
Most of these CEO's are globalists. Look up the definition and tell me I am wrong.
A globalist does not believe our country has a right to sovereignty. Do you?
I have plenty of compassion for these illegal immigrants. In fact, I contend my way is better because we won't end up with 2 classes of people in our country, a legal class and an undocumented class who could be exploited by criminals and drug traffickers.
I could go on, but I guess it is wasted on the uninformed PC liberal thinkers...
Instead of complaining about "liberal thinkers", try explaining yourself properly. If there is some specific statement or action you are criticizing these CEOs for, then be specific and say exactly what it is. Just saying they are "hypocrites" because they won't hire undocumented immigrants is meaningless. Quote the statement from any of these CEOs that you have an issue with.
If you're just complaining because they don't share the same view as you, well that's called living in a free society, so suck it up.
And why don't you just provide a link to the definition of globalism you are using, then people can see where you're coming from.
It might aid your engagement with people who don't share your views, if you spent more time explaining your point in a coherent way. If you prefer to spend time in an echo chamber, only engaging with those who agree with you, fine, knock yourself out. If not, be specific.
Don W, I see you are fairly new to this discussion. If you know me, I have been here on HubPages for over 2 years. I have published numerous hubs on my political views. I can't explain everything here in a few words but I have published and commented in forums that are related... This particular act by Howard Schultz is a very political move. I am calling his out on it. You may not agree with my politics but you can't deny his move was politically motivated. I believe he is looking to remove him self from the Starbucks board to become available to run for President in the next election cycle. He is free to do so however, he should not use Starbucks to advance his own agenda. Starbucks is a corporation that serve all people. Half of their consumers vote for this president. Where should they go?
It's still unclear to me exactly what your issue with Schultz is in relation to refugees. He said:
"There are more than 65 million citizens of the world recognized as refugees by the United Nations, and we are developing plans to hire 10,000 of them over five years in the 75 countries around the world where Starbucks does business"
Please explain how you get from that, to the idea that if Schultz doesn't hire undocumented immigrants he is a hypocrite. Am I missing something? What's the connection between refugees (who are documented immigrants) and undocumented immigrants? Do you think refugees should not be allowed to work?
No, here is the connection which you missed. He issued this specific memo right after Trump did his Travel deal...
My problem with Shultz is his politics, which has no place in a corporation that sells coffee.
I only brought up the undocumented workers because he is also a supporter of open borders and against Trump on stopping illegal workers crossing our borders.
He is a hypocrite for wanting to help refugees, in the name of compassion but have little compassion for Americans who are out of work due to his open border policies...
If you don't see a connection, I can't help you.
Also, these refugees are the creation of policies that he supported under Obama and Clinton. It was their failed foreign policy that created ISIS which lead to these millions of refugees fleeing their homeland. Who is talking about that?
If refugees were created by the US then we most certainly have an ethical imperative to help them, up to and including bring them into the US.
I don't agree with the statement that we are responsible, though, so for me that imperative does not exist. Only humanitarian reasons.
I said nothing about not helping these refugees. My belief is that we and the UN should setup shelters camps near their country to help these refugees temporarily. I think most refugees would actually prefer that. Once the situation is resolved with Syria and ISIS, they can return to their homes. That is the better solution.
"My belief is that we and the UN should setup shelters camps near their country to help these refugees temporarily."
Which country would you use to set these shelters up in, who shall protect them and who will cover the cost of caring for 65 million people without any means of self support?
I would also add that the problem of radical Islam will not be solved until the people there solve it. Until they take it into their own hands to destroy any vestiges of such behavior in themselves, their families and their neighbors. They neither can nor will do that if they are in shelter camps or living in another country.
I don't know where you are getting your facts from...there are no 65 million refugees...
Do you want what Germany is dealing with with their 1 million refugees?
A safe zone can be set up in any pf the bordering countries to Syria...
The UN peace keeping force is what they were designed to do...
Why do they exist anyway?
Yes, we caused the refugee crisis, yes, we have a responsibility to take care of them, but we don't have to invite them here in the USA, especially when ISIS claim they want to embed terrorists in the refugees...what part of what I stated don't you get?
Ok, so if I'm reading you correctly, your issues are as follows:
1. a US citizen is expressing a political view that you disagree with.
2. a US citizen, who is also the CEO of a company that sells coffee, is expressing a political view that you disagree with.
3. a CEO is implementing a perfectly legal hiring practice, that you disagree with.
4. No one is talking about Obama's foreign policy, how the current Middle East conflicts came about, or the origins of ISIS.
Let me address those in turn:
1. This Tweet from JK Rowling says it better than I can : "In - Free - Countries - Anyone - Can - Talk - About - Politics . . ."(1)
2. See above.
3. Have Starbucks had a policy of actively refusing to employ "Americans who are out of work", which I'm not aware of?
4. Would you like me to provide you a list of links to books, articles, programmes, discussions etc. related to Obama's foreign policy, how recent conflicts in the Middle East arose, or the origin of ISIS (warning: it will be a long list).
(1) https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/8 … 4777934849
I did't say he has no right to do what he does did I?
I just point ou his hypocrisy.
He does have to respond th his shareholders.
His action as a ceo is limited by his resoonsibility to his company.
His personal feelings aside, he is not free to speak as the ceo of starbucks.
As any shareholder will tell you, you should not bring politics into your business...
You are sticking your finger at half your customers.
Again he has the right to do it. He has the right to bankrupt his company for any of a number of liberal causes...
Do you think that it is a good idea to bankrupt your company fawning after the ideas of reactionaries?
Who are you referring to? Be specific...
No it's not. Both stockholders and employees suffer as a result of your actions.
Which is why Shultz should keep his political opinions out of the operations of the business he heads. As you say, fawning after the ideals of political reactionaries has no place in business operations.
I think you'll find he is very much free to speak, as CEO of Starbucks or otherwise. Just as his shareholders are free to express their approval or disapproval of his comments. Just as customers are free to drink more Starbucks coffee in support, or boycott Starbucks coffee in protest. Just as you are free to express your opinion that he is a hypocrite. Just as I am free to express my opinion that he isn't.
I'm glad you seem to get that. I thought you were suggesting he literally shouldn't be allowed to express his opinion.
If you think this will bankrupt Starbucks though, then you've underestimated the strength of us liberal's penchant for overpriced coffee and bland decor.
St. Arbucks is the patron saint of liberals the world over.
EDIT: You didn't answer: have Starbucks had a policy of actively refusing to employ "Americans who are out of work"?
No one ever suggested that common sense was a huge after affect to $ 10 Latte' ! Starbucks and their political stance reminds me of the plague of Fake News that the mainstream media has recently undertaken .
Point ,......Mainstream media , If your , viewership , readership and circulation numbers are in the tank already - Why would you , as this same mainstream media , embark an opposition party platform of "fake news "? That will surely help the numbers !
For one , Starbucks is overpriced , under-flavored and just as watered down as the CEO's common sense.
And you are perfectly free to express those views.
Just as Schultz is free to help refugees, within the limits of the law, as he sees fit.
Isn't freedom a wonderful thing!
Freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
But, and this may shock you, perhaps Schultz believes some things are more important than the share price of his company. Radical, right? Or perhaps the fact that he has earned half a billion dollars over 9 years, means profit is not currently his primary motive. I know, it's completely insane! The world has gone mad I tell you.
If that's the case, the Board has every right to remove him.
They not only have the right (presumably they had that before he said a word), they have a reason. Using a publicly traded company as a private, personal political billboard is not acceptable no matter who you are or what your job title is. Not even if some of the owners (stockholders) agree with your actions!
Yep, and he has every right to go off and set up a charity where he can express he views about refugees as much as he wants. Or set up a rival coffee company. Or retire and enjoy his money. Or become a buddhist monk. Or none of the above. Or all of the above.
Again, all part of living in a free society. So what's there to complain about?
Have you missed the whole thread of this discussion.
Yes, he can do whatever he choose with his own money and his own time. Not on the dime of Starbucks.
What part of that don't you get?
No, you don't seem to get it. Let me repeat it: In a free society anyone can talk about politics, including CEOs. It's that simple. If you are a customer or shareholder or both and don't like how Schultz is running the company, then complain to the board or stop buying your coffee there or both. But don't act as if Shultz doesn't have the right to express his political views, and can't run a company according to a set of values. He does, and he can.
You are correct: he has the legal right (unless his contract specifies otherwise) to use Starbucks as his personal political billboard. The key word being "legal"; he has no ethical right at all to use someone else's property that way, whether he has been hired to run the company or not.
Unless you think this is a business strategy to sell more coffee? Personally, I would find that highly doubtful.
Excellent, I can followthat explanation quite well.
They hire American workers at minimum wages just like all other fast foods chains. Another hypocrisy where they say they support minimum wage hikes but pay their employees same low wages...
They make lots of money, how come they don't voluntarily pay more, like Costco, which is just another great company?
What I am saying is they don't need to show they are more compasionate to others by this single act. There are many ways to show compassion, and perhaps it should start at home...
I'm not surprised Starbucks is supporting refugees. They have had serious issues with low wages and not paying for all the work done by employees. I'm sure they'll probably seek out refugees who don't speak fluent English so they can abuse them without the fear of reprisal from lawsuits and such.
Thanks to everyone for weighing in.
I thought I would get an answer quick but I guess I will have to provide my answer.
The reason Howard is doing this is because of another exhibition by a liberal democrat of TDS.
Trump Derangement Syndrome. He thought this action will show up Trump for the heartless bigot he is, but it only shows his own shortcomings of putting other refugees above the safety of Americans.
As a stock holder, I am not pleased. He has cost me to loose my retirement funds...It is as simple as that sometimes.
Seattle is very diverse & notorious for its rich, business philanthropists - Starbucks has always been a generous company. They dang well should be, their coffee costs enough, ha! I worked at a place once, where a homeless youth charity desperately needed new mattresses. Mrs. Starbucks heard about it and made a big donation - and told us to put them down as an anonymous donor. Most rich eleetists & leeberals (certainly not all) DON'T have stone cold hearts. That's kind of why the term 'elitist' came about, isn't it? These silly RICH tech & startup people who wanted a national healthcare plan because it was CHEAPER than having people who are not covered continue to go to the emergency room during emergencies and/or need uber-expensive end-of-life medical attention that we were all paying for, anyway (no Obamacare needed).
You completely missed the point with this question. They are not promoting open borders; and neither is anyone else who hates Trump's immigration crap - but turning people away who are fleeing their own national crisis' is not something the majority in this country wants to do. An open border would be the extreme opposite equivelent of Trump's agenda. What most of us are looking for is something in the middle that makes sense. Trump's crap only aggitates, offends & insults the people he is trying to keep out - them and their friends & families who are ALREADY HERE and getting madder by the second.
It will be interesting to see how this build-up of tensions ends. Hopefully peacefully, but I doubt it.
I am open to discuss this. What is this in-between policy regarding immigration that you are describing?
I have never got a clear explanation for it.
In my simple mind -
You either have a strict border policy or else you have an open borders policy.
To use the analog, you can have a locked door or an open door. Anything else just makes little sense.
Please explain this in-between policy and how will it be implemented. Please think this through...
Starbucks has coffee planation in Africa and hire Africans 50 cents a 8 hour day to pick coffee beans. What a change of heart.
Yes, this globalization is full of contradictions...
We want the world to be on equal footing yet, we export or factories and jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor and avoid regulations...
I wish these captains of industry will be honest with the American people. What is it they want?
Do they want all of us to loose out jobs so that they can make a huge profit? then what? whose going to pay for the $5 latte?
I wonder when this bull will start taking pcp and cocaine and crushes through a window. If he lands in water, we can enjoy how BS floats.
Watch the movie...Titanic. That was when chivalry was alive and well before the gender neutrality and equality of sexes...
I saw the film 'Titanic', aren't you glad that we don't live in 1912 anymore?
Actually, with regard to the sexes, I prefer the old way. I think men should give preference to women and children when it comes to survival. Same with women in combat, I prefer they stay in the support positions in the military and let the fighting be done by me. That is just me old fashion.
No wonder you are conservative, there are many of today's women that would take issue with that. But to be honest with you I could understand the idea of 'women and children first' and I,being a gentlemen, can easily take this attitude without having to be sexist. Remember women could not universally vote in the US in 1912. Being old fashioned does not allow you to feel comfortable in that circumstance, or does it?
I was only referring to that one issue. Obviously, we have come a long way in other areas of equality...I just prefer the old way not because I am sexist. I am of the believe, God created men and women to complement each other. They each have unique roles in raising their children. The feminism ideals are to break down those traditional roles. I agree with some but not others. I have a daughter and 2 sons. They are different in their own ways.
"I was only referring to that one issue. Obviously, we have come a long way in other areas of equality...I just prefer the old way not because I am sexist. I am of the believe, God created men and women to complement each other. They each have unique roles in raising their children. The feminism ideals are to break down those traditional roles. I agree with some but not others. I have a daughter and 2 sons. They are different in their own ways"
Jacklee, your beliefs are fine, and oddly enough I agree with some of them. But those ideas are personal, not to be lorded over others. This is a secular government and my point of view in regards to this cannot be seen as a rule. The secular way is best when no ones individual opinion regarding these matters can be allowed to hold sway over all the rest of us that see things differently.
"Chivalry was Alive"!...and men were dying to prove it. lol
Is that really funny? That was what I grew up with. I like the fact men open doors for women, out of courtesy. I like the distinction of the sexes as they were intended. I am optimistic that sooner or later, people will come to their senses. There are physical differrences between the sexes and emotional as well. They complement each other. Equality is a good thing but can be taken to the extreme. I don't want women in active combat. That is not a good fit, in general. Call me old fashion, I am proud of that. I am also a traditionalist. Some traditions are sacred. I don't buy into this new gender neutral stance. You can't change human nature just like you can't force a boy to play with dolls and a girl to play with guns...
I Completely agree with everything you said!...except the part where women get in the lifeboats and men drown because,for some reason,it's considered cool...or the right thing to do....even if you're a better swimmer than me...which you probably are...because women are better at everything...as my ex keeps telling me...I'm done...
Men can have their guns and God has to be a man. Because nothing or nobody can screw up the planet better than a man.
Man hasn't done a thing compared to what cyano bacteria did. Now that was a change, and something puny man will never equal.
That is lame cyno bacteria, we have some control over organisms. Be more creative.
What control we have over man in the last half century destroying 90% of the big fish, 75% of the world trees, Antarctic meltdown, and most of the wildlife dead. Finally, Trump killing children and not giving a sh_t about the rest.
Lame? Lame!?! That single type of organism changed the entire atmosphere of the earth, introducing an extremely "virulent" chemical into it in quantities that man can only dream of. It also made possible life as we know it, giving rise to the biosphere we recognize. The "best" man has been able to do is to re-introduce a tiny percentage of the Carbon that bacteria took out of the air back into it.
It's so much easier to destroy than to build, don't you think? Even if we recognize the massive exaggerations on the destruction you claim, it's still easier to destroy than build. When man has created an entire planet's biosphere, wiping out everything that was there before, then we can claim to be screwing up as badly as that lowly bacteria did.
Being a bio organism first, anyone should be able to understand the flow and workings of nature and flow. Man dose increase their health and life span. Man is more dangerous because he allows himself to be lead by fear and a synthetic world, Man lacks a great deal of understanding of he flow of nature with work and love, From mid 1800s man has increase their lifespan, today it is going in reverse.
A synthetic world? How can any creature or organism, evolved by natural forces in a natural world, be considered "synthetic" or make anything "synthetic"? You DO realize that man and everything man does is absolutely natural? That he does not draw on some supernatural force or world? That he is composed of completely "natural" atoms and elements - that there is not a single thing "unnatural" about you or your body?
Yes, man lacks understanding. As does every other organism or creature, plant or animal. Your point?
Out of 30 million species on earth, Man is more and most dangerous species than all earthling combined. Trump represents the most dangerous synthetic man. Causing more natural environment opposition than anyone I have ever known, Trump has most rapidly increase declares of banning and wars with countries I have ever seen. That is unnatural, unconstitutional, un-American against domestic and international law. Cant imagine a more lawless man for a man that claims American is based on laws and order.
WOW!!...did I spark this heavy exchange of verbal gun fire?...just because I don't support men drowning for no good reason?
There is something in the water up in Canada that seems to affect some Canadians...Your disdain for the human race is clear. Why so anti-America? Where is your sharp criticism of ISIS and Putin and China...? You think you are so righteous up in your ivory tower? What do you think is keeping you and your families safe all these years? America is bot perfect and never claims to be. But at the end of the day, we are an exceptional nation that is the one hope left for mankind. Look around the world today, who in your mind is looking put for freedom and liberty and democracy?
The Canadian overall water is one of the best. With over population, greed and pollution mankind will get worst, I love mankind and nature, it's why I really work hard with other individuals and grass root groups for real natural solutions, not synthetic selfish ones. I love my family so much that some agree to move to Bolivia with me. They too see the writing on the wall and know the best position is to avoid wars and economy collapses all together.
ISIS is a false flag that America/Israel created for their NWO agenda. I'm not anti or against anything just have a strong intuitive foresight. At lease China and Russia are going in to the right direction with BRICS. But NATO and Zionist are destoyers. Some Zionist will be sharing a spot in South America with me.
My tiny eco castles without the hassle will be replaceing the onesided Trump Tower after the wars. The top two Largest employed Corporatism is the Justice system and military Complex have taken away your freedom and security. You have no democracy now it been slowly swallowed up by bankers and Corporatism since 1913. When US collapses they will take Canada. Being a clairvoyant can be a bitch.
Your views seem odd blaming Israel for all the problems of the world ignoring ISIS which is cutting people's heads off and destroying thousand year old temples and cultures...
You are also delusional thinking America under Trump is the problem. In fact, it was the last 8 years of Obama that has created this bubble both financial and geo-political that Trump is trying to fix.
With regard to fleeing to Bolivia, good luck with that.
You do know the elites are building bunkers in New Zealand. I'm surprised you are not joining them there.
I for one, is not worried about climate change and the devastation of the environment. It was created by the Environmentalist trying to control our world and destroying Capitalism. They have admitted it in public. Go google it...
Starbuck's stocks are tanking because consumers are boycotting. Some are calling it a freefall. Citizens care about jobs.
Power the the people! I like those kind of quiet protests.
In some cities Caribou Coffee has long lines of people waiting to get their coffee and Starbucks across the street is empty. I was just thinking that I have never had a coffee from either place. I just don't know what I might be missing. I love coffee!
by Austinstar15 months ago
Explain how Trump's Wall will be different from the Berlin Wall or the Wall in Israel. How will it "keep us safe"?
by JarrodHaze9 years ago
The prime issue here is the taxation of illegal immigrants, and that they actually ARE taxed... and how some of them are actually paying more in taxes than if they were legal...
by ahorseback5 months ago
Why else support illegals who are merely working the bottom of the food chain of employment ?
by Jack Lee3 weeks ago
Do you agree or disagree?The American people support the wall yet Congress, especially Democrats are against it.The democrats on the other hand has threaten to shut down the government if funding for Planned Parenthood...
by Jack Lee2 months ago
It is up to the Senate to make it law. Who is against this common sense law and why? I am not interested in politics. This is a common sense law that protects Americans.Who is against it? What is the justification for...
by Eric Dierker3 years ago
I cannot find a group that supports illegal immigration. Yet we cannot stop it. Now that is pathetic. So we must conclude that without saying it, some - many in America support it and do what they can to stop control of...
Copyright © 2017 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.