Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Coupla Interesting News Items

I do not think foreign citizens should be allowed into this country unless they provide some economic benefit for us that some American business has asked for or unless they relieve us of work we, as Americans, do not wish to do and should not have to do given our status in the world. Why allow them to come if they do not benefit us in some way?

As far as your wife is concerned, I assume she is here legally and came under the set of rules we have now. If that is the case, then these are the rules that apply to her,even though i disagree with them. I just think they should be changed so that in the future they benefit America, not benefit the foreigners.

Oh come on George, saying that these people are being held for immigration violations and, if that if that were truly not the case, it should be fairly easy to establish is not the same as saying the accused must prove their innocence. Please do not twist my arguments up into something they are not. If resident aliens were being snatched up off the street with all their documents in order and for no other reason but their ethnicity, believe me, we would be hearing about it. Thus far, we have not. That was my point. Not that people were being convicted of crimes because of their inability to prove their innocence which is what you twisted it into. You can put up that straw man any time and I will gladly pitch in with you to knock it down.

So far some extraordinary measures have been taken by our government in response to some very exraordinary circumstances. While I would say that we are both concerned about where this all could lead, you seem to, both, be prepared to assume the worst of our government and doubt the extraodinary nature of the circumstances. I remain cautious but will keep my powder dry until I have reason to believe that what I have seen so far is not warranted by the extreme dangerousness of the alternative. That alternative would be to allow those whom we may have reason to suspect may be involved in future acts of terrorism to pass freely amongst us. It's a lousy deal for them I admit and for us if things get out of control.

I really don't trust government any more than you do but, unlike you it would seem, I am not prepared to hit the panic button just yet. When the next terrorist attack comes (notice I said "when") and, possibly, even greater loss of life occurs, your concerns about isolating people we may suspect of wanting to commit such acts will garner little sympathy. Indeed, there is reason to believe that a second wave of attacks was averted precisely because we took a lot of these folks out of action.

So Jim, What you are saying is that even though my wife and I were married in China while I was living there, you believe that I should not have been allowed to bring her to America unless she could provide some "economic benefit". That is an unusual point of view and I am grateful that it is unusual.

But when will they end?

That is an excellent question and one that I find troubling. These sorts of "temporary" measures have a habit of becoming permanent. However, that is not always the case. We are not, for instance, interning an entire ethnic population as we did with the Japanese-Americans in World War II and we can be reasonably assured that something like that would not easily happen again. I am hopeful that the measures we take now to prevent terrorism will be relaxed when we are no longer under the threat of terrorism. It may be the triumph of hope over experience but so would the hope that suspected terrorists will not cause great devastation if allowed to roam at will.

But you see, this is exactly the point. There is no end point identified. The only other time we have had such things as Ashroft and Bush2 are imposing was when we have had a declared war. A declared war has an ending.

What we have heard from Bush2 is that this is a new type of war, it is going to last a long time, it has no defined end. There will be no point when this Administration, or any Administration will say "The war is now over, we can lift these restrictions."

Most of the provisions in the Patriot's Act last October where nothing more than re-hashed ideas that Cangress had previously denied; but in the emotionalism of the moment, Bush trotted them out and got them passed under the guise that not doing so was unpatriotic. And with a public in panic, a panic added to by the rhetoric of Bush2 himself, the Congress was not about to say no.

The new directives Ashcroft announced last week were also not new; simply ideas to broaden the FBI's powers to spy on US citizens that the FBI has requested for a long time and no previous Attorney General would give them because they are so intrusive. But Ashcroft, under the guise of "reform" and continuing to play on the ongoing fears of the American people (fears displayed often even on this Board), unilaterally approved them.

And yet, there is no end point -- it is a new kind of war, it will last a long time, we won't know when it ends.

And so....we are made less as Americans by men like Ashcroft and Bush2.

American freedom will not be taken from us by some conquering invader. We will voluntarily give them up, piece by piece, because of some "higher" goal.

And we will have done that again if we allow the Ashcroft "reform" of the FBI to stand. But if the Congress decides to fight on our behalf, do you think the Bush2 Administration will hesitate to infer they are unpatioric and not supportive of the security of our country? Bush2, Cheney, Rice and others have effectively used this argument several times since 9/11. They will use it again to get what THEY want -- increasing control over aspects of the American society they fear, do not understand and have personal opposition to -- not what is in the best interest of American Democracy.

As Momma used to tell me, "Son, there may be a time when the only work you can find is being a ditch digger. Well, boy, you dig a good ditch and give the boss a full days work, and demand a full days pay". There are no jobs too menial for anybody, as long as the work is honest.

If there are jobs available in the workplace, I have no problem with legal immigration. I just want everyone to understand a few simple rules fom "the get-go". That A)the only way you will be allowed to work here is if you are a legal alien, and B)this offer does not imply any sort of permanent residency.

The reason most illegals are in the U.S. is strictly economic. If you don't want ilegals in the country, the solution is very simple - take away the incentive for the employer to hire illegals. Have the INS inspect the business, and if illegals are found there, issue a warning. Conduct a surprise re-inpection, and if illegals are found there again, fine the business an exorbitant fee, let us say 100k/illegal.

The flip side of this coin, however, is to revamp the INS so that legal status can be processed and granted swiftly, depending on labor needs.

In the cases of legal aliens who have been in the country for many years, I think it should be strongly encouraged, if not mandatory, to acquire citizenship status, and we should create a mechanism to insure this.

In instances like J.Bryan's, where a citizen is married to a legal alien, then of course you cannot deport a spouse. I do believe, however, that the current system of granting immigration preference to the family of the legal alien should be reviewed, revised, and perhaps abolished. And as I have previously stated, think that the non-citizen spouse should be strongly encouraged to become a citizen of this country.

Just a few thoughts on immigration, which as always, anyone is invited to disagree with.

Jolly

If we handle things they way I think they should be handled -- only allowed in because a busienss has specifcially asked for them or to do work we don't want to do -- we do not need to worry about citizenship. As long as the business needs them, they can stay. But no change of jobs. If they are not a decent or valuable employee and get laid off from the job they have or don't like it, they go home and start over again.

As far as deporting spouses, of course we do not deport American citizens. But we should deport the spouse that is not the citizen. The American citizen can then decide if being married to a foreigner is worthwhile enough to leave with them or divorce and find an American spouse.

There are simply too many cunning foreigners sneaking in by marrying American citizens -- or getting here on a student visa or something like that and then finding an unsuspecting American to marry.

If foreinners realize that they do not get a free ride just by marrying an American, they will stop this foolishness And if Americans realize that brining a foreigner here creates additional complications, they will think twice.

Well I can think of ONE person I'd to DEPORT!

Do you have some data to back that up? I can't imagine this can be as large a problem as all of the undocumented foreigners streaming across the southern border. At least when you get married you become somewhat documented.

You have now managed to cross over from merely offensive to downright insulting. I have nothing further to discuss with you. I suppose next we will be hearing about lebensraum.

playerpiano9,

I thought some insensitive things were said to me on this forum, but what you said to JBryan takes the cake.

Have you ever noticed how many American citizens would prefer to sit on the front porch all day long and collect welfare and food stamps rather than go to work? If it were up to me, I'd deport these American citizens long before I'd deport most illegal (or legal), aliens.

Derick

B. Alden,

I WAS kidding. Or at least engaging in some gentle ribbing.

player9

I think you need to do a little research into the benefits of immigration to the growth, development and success of this country since its inception. I think also you need to check with all of the different research studies which show that in almost every way, immigrants add more to this economy than they take out.

Your "solution" makes no sense whatsoever. And I certainly hope your comment was not directly aimed at JBryan's wife.

JBryan, I apologize if I offended you. I did not mean to. This was not aimed at you and your wife. I was discussing the broad outlines of a public policy towards immigration, not your specific situation. Discussions of broad policies needed to protect this country often sound cold and heartless when applied to specific situations. Apparently this is how you took my comments. They were not meant to speak to your specific situation. I am sorry.

I believe there are large numbers of immigrants who take advantage of our immigration laws, from Mexican women who cross the border by the 1000's each year when they go into labor to have their children born as American citizens, to students who overstay their student visa's to men and women who marry an American citizen to either get into or remain in the United States.

I believe we should focus all immigration on what is economically beneficial to America and not spend a lot of time on personal circumstances. It is trying to assuage each person's situation that gets us into trouble. Adding certain negative consequences to behaviors which exploit our immigration laws will help resolve the problem.

Again, I apologize if you feel I was taking aim at you and your wife. I was not.

I think we have enough people here now. I don't think we need any more, but we should upgrade our present inventory.

On 9/11 I was in the Czech Republic, and the outpouring there of sympathy and support for America was amazing. In the couple of months after 9/11, I was in Poland, Rumania, Croatia, and China. This support for America was very prevalent there also. I saw shrines in each of these countries dedicated to the 9/11 disasters. I saw citizens of these countries bringing flowers to these shrines, praying, and crying, for the United States. There were soldiers in the military of these countries, even China, that volunteered to go to Afghanistan to support the U.S. operation.

While in the United States I read articles, like the one by Susan Sontag, that said the terrorist were brave men that died for a just cause and that our military are cowards because we fight from safety with long range weapons. There were even a couple posters on this forum that supported Susan Sontag's opinion. For those of you that have never heard of Susan Sontag, she was one of our personalities that went to Hanoi in the sixties to support North Vietnam against the U.S.. I saw on TV protests about the U.S. taking military action against the terrorist. I have listened to individuals that criticized our government, military, justice system, and religion, and have done so by their own admission for 35 years.

I would be glad to have the average Czech, Pole, Croat, Rumanian, or Chinese, for my neighbor. I think that we should keep our doors selectively open and allow these people the opportunity to come here. But for every one we allow in we should export one of our anti-American citizens. The problem is I don't know of any country that would accept them.

lb

Jim,

I took offense to your remarks because it was not clear to me that you were not including my wife in your generalization of foreign spouses of US citizens. You say that was not your intention and I will take your word for that. Apology accepted. Consider the matter forgotten.