I'm all but a right wing supporter, but this Arizona's new law is fair.
The first time I heard that no officer has the right to investigate on the status of a suspected illegal immigrant, I was shocked (that's why I wrote about the mexican immigrant who changes its name/ID every month).
I feel the duty to always carry my passport and immigration documents with me outside the EU and show them to an officer if he asks me something about my trip and/or immigration status, and it's their right to ask me to show them all my documents.
It's interesting to see that illegal immigrants can claim their rights without being arrested, I didn't know it... that would solve a lot of problems in other countries, where they are treated as slaves because they can't claim any right. They are even afraid to go to the hospital (especially chinese ppl).
However if the employer can't underpay them, why should he choose some illegal aliens over legal immigrants/us citizens? What would be the advantage of assuming an illegal immigrant if you can't overwork him?
Oliver Stone's 'South of the Border' -- On Probation
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Not only cannot law enforcement officers (outside of Arizona) arrest or question someone about their illegal alien status, no other person in government can either, with the sole exception of a US Federal Immigration Officer (who are usually only at airports and the borders).
Up until the last few years, unemployment was very low in the US (about 4.5%), and it was hard to find people even at minimum wage, or sometimes above minimum wage, to do some jobs. If there were no illegal aliens to work some jobs, employers would have to pay higher wages, so there is some incentive for them to hire illegals. I personally am not against legal immigration and/or work permits to fill these jobs, but the illegal immigration creates a lot of problems.
When illegal aliens obtain work, they usually must supply a social security number (issued by the US Federal government) to their employer. Employers are not required (and rarely ever do) check their employee database to see how many people are using the same social security number. Even the IRS (who collects taxes in the US) is not allowed by law to do anything about illegal aliens who obviously share the same social security number and have tax withholding for that shared number.
Obviously, these workers are needed in some cases (at least before the recession), but there needs to be a path to legal immigration and/or a program for temporary work permits. The problems of implementing this are made more difficult by the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
This situation is not likely to change because many of the biggest and most powerful states have large Hispanic populations. Most of those legal voters are descendants of illegal aliens who were born in the US (and therefore are automatically citizens), or others who want to see more Hispanics in the US.
State Percent Hispanic Population
------ --------------------------------
California 35.9%
Texas 35.7%
Arizona 29.2%
Nevada 24.4%
Florida 20.1%
Colorado 19.7%
New York 16.3%
New Jersey 15.6%
Illinois 14.7%
As of July 1, 2007, Hispanics accounted for 15.1% of the national population in the US, or around 45.4 million people. By 2050 this is expected to exceed 24% nationally.
Up until the last few years, unemployment was very low in the US (about 4.5%), and it was hard to find people even at minimum wage, or sometimes above minimum wage, to do some jobs. If there were no illegal aliens to work some jobs, employers would have to pay higher wages, so there is some incentive for them to hire illegals. I personally am not against legal immigration and/or work permits to fill these jobs, but the illegal immigration creates a lot of problems.
When illegal aliens obtain work, they usually must supply a social security number (issued by the US Federal government) to their employer. Employers are not required (and rarely ever do) check their employee database to see how many people are using the same social security number. Even the IRS (who collects taxes in the US) is not allowed by law to do anything about illegal aliens who obviously share the same social security number and have tax withholding for that shared number.
Obviously, these workers are needed in some cases (at least before the recession), but there needs to be a path to legal immigration and/or a program for temporary work permits. The problems of implementing this are made more difficult by the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
This situation is not likely to change because many of the biggest and most powerful states have large Hispanic populations. Most of those legal voters are descendants of illegal aliens who were born in the US (and therefore are automatically citizens), or others who want to see more Hispanics in the US.
State Percent Hispanic Population
------ --------------------------------
California 35.9%
Texas 35.7%
Arizona 29.2%
Nevada 24.4%
Florida 20.1%
Colorado 19.7%
New York 16.3%
New Jersey 15.6%
Illinois 14.7%
As of July 1, 2007, Hispanics accounted for 15.1% of the national population in the US, or around 45.4 million people. By 2050 this is expected to exceed 24% nationally.
First, immigration from these countries is welcome by many including me, if it is done legally. Hispanics are an important and valuable part of the American population, and no one is suggesting that legal citizens return to where they (or their ancestors) came from. We are all immigrants. Illegal immigration is the problem and is bankrupting states like California and Texas.Vicotnik wrote:Why are these Hispanics not happy in their own countries? Is fixing that not the real solution to the problem, especially if the US has a hand in that game? Rather than enforcing "papers, please" laws and mandatory racial profiling? Or would that be to honest? No money in it I suppose. :)
I don't know where you get this idea about racial profiling? There is no mandatory checks or papers or anything like that, even in Arizona. What Arizona has done is to pass a law that such that if someone is investigated about some crime unrelated to immigration status, and it is likely they are illegal aliens (no drivers license, etc) then the police can contact immigration authorities to determine if they are in the US illegally. Previously (and currently in all other states) the police and other state and federal government authorities (and schools, hospitals, IRS, etc) are prohibited from contacting US Federal immigration authorities about such cases.
Not sure what you mean by "US has a hand in that game"? What do you want the US to do? The US has supported things like NAFTA so people can stay in Mexico and produce goods to be imported into the US, and US has supported (with financial assistance) the kinds of economic systems that produce economic prosperity for people. But in the end each country has to do it for themselves.
You say that a lot, that you welcome legal immigration. But is that so relevant to the immigrant if he/she must wait 20 years or more to get into the US legally?m0002a wrote:First, immigration from these countries is welcome by many including me, if it is done legally. Hispanics are an important and valuable part of the American population, and no one is suggesting that legal citizens return to where they (or their ancestors) came from. We are all immigrants. Illegal immigration is the problem and is bankrupting states like California and Texas.
To say that illegal immigration is "bankrupting states" can't really be taken seriously. The cost of illegal immigration is nothing compared to the cost of your current wars for example.
It's not mandatory really. But is that relevant? There are reports that actual citizens are asked (required really) to supply proof that they are. That is simply not acceptable. It's racial profiling and it has no place in a civilized "free" country.m0002a wrote:I don't know where you get this idea about racial profiling? There is no mandatory checks or papers or anything like that, even in Arizona.
You really should read up on the critique of NAFTA. It's not such a great thing for the Mexican people (the actual population, the leadership and elite of Mexico likes it of course). It's bad enough that NAFTA exists in its current form, that it's done with wordings like that doesn't make it better.m0002a wrote:Not sure what you mean by "US has a hand in that game"? What do you want the US to do? The US has supported things like NAFTA so people can stay in Mexico and produce goods to be imported into the US, and US has supported (with financial assistance) the kinds of economic systems that produce economic prosperity for people. But in the end each country has to do it for themselves.
Also the war in Afghanistan is for the benefit of the Afghan people right?
State governments like California are going bankrupt. That has nothing to do with the federal government. It has to partly do with providing state services to the large number poor, many of whom are illegal immigrants or American citizens who are decendants of illegal immigrants. Obviously, stopping illegal immigration will not any immediate problems, but will help in the next 20 years.Vicotnik wrote:You say that a lot, that you welcome legal immigration. But is that so relevant to the immigrant if he/she must wait 20 years or more to get into the US legally?
To say that illegal immigration is "bankrupting states" can't really be taken seriously. The cost of illegal immigration is nothing compared to the cost of your current wars for example.
The cost of terrorism against the US was a lot higher than the cost of the wars against terrorism, both economically and in terms of freedom.
That is a lie. There have been no legitimate reports of people being asked such things because it is only possible in Arizona, and only then in connection with them being detained for some other reason besides their possible illegal immigration status. All of the complaints were purely theoretical, and disguising the fact that those against the Arizona laws want more illegal immigration for their own political purposes.Vicotnik wrote:It's not mandatory really. But is that relevant? There are reports that actual citizens are asked (required really) to supply proof that they are. That is simply not acceptable. It's racial profiling and it has no place in a civilized "free" country.
Those who claim NAFTA is not good for the Mexican people are comparing the wages of Mexicans to Americans, not to other Mexicans. I am sure you (like the NAFTA critics) are decidedly against globalization, but maybe you can tell us what the US to should do to help other countries provide economic opportunity in their own country so they will not illegally come to the US. I can understand how people in the US are against NAFTA, but Mexico and its people have benefited compared to what it was like before NAFTA.Vicotnik wrote:You really should read up on the critique of NAFTA. It's not such a great thing for the Mexican people (the actual population, the leadership and elite of Mexico likes it of course). It's bad enough that NAFTA exists in its current form, that it's done with wordings like that doesn't make it better.
Also the war in Afghanistan is for the benefit of the Afghan people right? ;)
Regarding Afghanistan, that depends on whether you a woman living under the control of the Taliban (who treat women like property) and harbor terrorists like Osama bin Laden.
The US should basically stop meddling and let other countries succeed (or fail) on their own. Like South America is trying to do right now.m0002a wrote:I am sure you (like the NAFTA critics) are decidedly against globalization, but maybe you can tell us what the US to should do to help other countries provide economic opportunity in their own country so they will not illegally come to the US.
Do you think it's a coincidence that the people in the "US friendly" countries are the poorest in the area?
If you actually bother to ask those poor oppressed women if they want a military intervention US style you will find that most of them side with me on this one. Social struggle is better than drone attacks.m0002a wrote:Regarding Afghanistan, that depends on whether you a woman living under the control of the Taliban (who treat women like property) and harbor terrorists like Osama bin Laden.
This is also the reason that you will never "win" in Afghanistan. You actually push "regular" Afghans into supporting the Taliban since they are the lesser evil.
More lies.Vicotnik wrote:The US should basically stop meddling and let other countries succeed (or fail) on their own. Like South America is trying to do right now.
Do you think it's a coincidence that the people in the "US friendly" countries are the poorest in the area?
Maybe you shouldn't be obsessed so with the USA and instead take care of genocide and war crimes by your own country:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... orld-yahoo
Was a Swedish Oil Company Complicit in Sudan's Civil War?
BP is not the only oil company in trouble these days. A report by an NGO that accuses Lundin Petroleum, a Swedish-owned company based in Geneva, of being complicit in war crimes committed in Sudan has led a public prosecutor in Sweden to open an investigation into whether any of Lundin's Swedish employees broke the law.
"The purpose of the inquiry is to investigate whether there are individuals with ties to Sweden who are suspected of involvement in crime," Swedish prosecutor Magnus Elving said in a statement released on June 21. The investigation, he said, was triggered by a report published on June 8 by a Netherlands-based NGO, the European Coalition on Oil in the Sudan (ECOS), that suggests that the Lundin consortium's decision to explore and eventually extract oil from a concession in southern Sudan known as Block 5A "set off a vicious war for control" in the area. Claiming that Lundin knew or should have known of the repercussions of its actions, the ECOS report also accuses the company of contributing material that would be used in the war and of working with security forces responsible for many crimes - from widespread displacement to mass rape - committed during the civil war. Lundin denies the allegations. (See pictures of recent violence in Western Sudan.)
"It's gratifying that something is being done in Sweden to finally look into these allegations," says ECOS spokesperson Kathelijne Schenkel. "There are big clues to what was going on in Sudan, and for the last 10 years we've been saying, Okay, the home government of these companies should be looking into what happened there." Thus far, Schenkel adds, neither of the home countries for Lundin's partners in Sudan - Malaysia, home of Petronas, or Austria, home of OMV - has opened investigations. (See a video of the Lord Resistance Army hunting children in Sudan.)
The 1983-2003 Sudanese Civil War, in which the ethnically Arab, Muslim government of Sudan battled with non-Arab animist populations in the south, was fanned in part by rival factions' efforts to control the country's rich oil fields. In the Block 5A area alone, an estimated 12,000 people were killed or died of starvation and 160,000 were forcibly displaced from an original population of 240,000. According to a 2003 Human Rights Watch report, none of that area's displacements occurred until 1998 - a year after Lundin started oil exploration there.
That coincidence is one of the things that ECOS would like to see investigated. "We're not saying that Lundin intended to cause these crimes," says Schenkel. "We're trying to show that there's no way they could not have known that [their exploration] was going to exacerbate the war."
Lundin is also accused by ECOS of building roads and bridges that, while ostensibly constructed to access installations, enabled the Sudanese army to conduct attacks. And ECOS also raises questions about whether the company hired security forces it knew were implicated in the government's campaign against its citizens. "It appears again and again in the U.N. reports," says journalist Kirsten Lundell, who has written a book, Blood Oil, about Lundin's activities in Sudan and Ethiopia. "They relied for their own security on the army and local militia who had previously been involved in war crimes."
The risk of that kind of abuse prompted several governments and petroleum companies in 2000 to agree to a set of non-binding principles referred to as The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. "One of its key tenets," says Mauricio Lazala of the London-based Business and Human Rights Organization, "is that extractive companies should perform human-rights checks on its private security forces."
Unlike BP, Lundin is not a signatory of the Voluntary Principles. In a statement released to its shareholders on June 8, the company denied the accusations and upheld its commitment to peace in the area (The company referred questions from TIME to the statement). "We again categorically refute all the allegations and inferences of wrongdoing attributed to Lundin Petroleum in the report," wrote chairman of the board Ian Lundin. "We strongly feel that our activities contributed to peace and development in Sudan." See pictures of people protesting against BP.
The investigation is particularly sensitive because Sweden's Foreign Minister, Carl Bildt, served on the board of Lundin during the years in question, which has led opposition politicians to call for him to stand down, at least until the investigation is complete. "I think Bildt should take time out as long as this investigation is underway," says Thomas BrodstrÖm, a Swedish member of parliament for the opposition Social Democrat party and former justice minister. "We've never had someone so high up in government accused of this kind of criminal activity. It's an embarrassment for Sweden, which is always talking about defending human rights." (READ: "Sweden: Goodbye to All That")
Still, should the case go to trial, it may prove hard to prosecute successfully. An attempt to try the Canadian energy company Talisman in U.S. civil court in 2006 for human rights violations in Sudan was dismissed for lack of evidence. And as Kevin J. Heller, a Senior Lecturer at the University of Melbourne's Law School, who has written on Sudan, emphasizes, negligence - the contention that Lundin should have known better - is not a basis for prosecution in international criminal law. "The prosecution has to show that the company was aware of a substantive likelihood that their actions would result in a crime, or that they aided and abetted the commission of those crimes," he says.
For journalist Lundell, however, no amount of denials from Lundin, or legal loopholes, will convince her that the company behaved responsibly in Sudan. In the course of her research, she interviewed a woman in Block 5A who told of fleeing her home after her village was bombed by government forces and her husband killed. "The day after the bombing," Lundell recounts, "the woman saw oil workers coming down the road. As soon as the village was empty and peace returned, the oil workers were there." To Lundell, that suggests that Lundin was communicating with the military and may even have received the all clear from the people responsible for the bombing. Whether or not Swedish prosecutors will be able to prove such accusations, Lundin's operations in war-ravaged Sudan - like BP's off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico - highlight how far oil companies are willing to go in fragile environments to feed the world's reliance on fossil fuels.
Sigh..
I'm not interested in specific cases. Do you really think I agree with the policies of my own country? Sweden is the perfect turn cloak country. We don't take a real stand on anything, we just go with the flow. We're firmly with the US at the moment, but you are a fool if you depend on Sweden for any long time support. We were also with the Nazis, up until late winter '42 at least.
My interest is mainly a philosophical one and I like to follow the global politics a bit and then the focus will of course be on the global superpower. But if I were to take to the streets to actually protest something for real it would not be the US war in Afghanistan, nor would it be the oppressive regime in Iran. Those are things I can do little about. What I can do is talk, and spread the good teachings of personal heroes like Noam Chomsky.
You don't have to talk to me if you don't want to you know.
And about me lying.. How can my personal opinion be a lie? About US controlled nations being poor, look at Haiti for example. You don't have to agree with me but calling me a liar is a bit harsh don't you think?
I'm not interested in specific cases. Do you really think I agree with the policies of my own country? Sweden is the perfect turn cloak country. We don't take a real stand on anything, we just go with the flow. We're firmly with the US at the moment, but you are a fool if you depend on Sweden for any long time support. We were also with the Nazis, up until late winter '42 at least.
My interest is mainly a philosophical one and I like to follow the global politics a bit and then the focus will of course be on the global superpower. But if I were to take to the streets to actually protest something for real it would not be the US war in Afghanistan, nor would it be the oppressive regime in Iran. Those are things I can do little about. What I can do is talk, and spread the good teachings of personal heroes like Noam Chomsky.
You don't have to talk to me if you don't want to you know.
And about me lying.. How can my personal opinion be a lie? About US controlled nations being poor, look at Haiti for example. You don't have to agree with me but calling me a liar is a bit harsh don't you think?
You lied when you said people in the US are being racially profiled because of the new immigration law in Arizona. You lied when you said that the countries that are friendly with the US are the poorest in the Americas.Vicotnik wrote:Sigh..
I'm not interested in specific cases. Do you really think I agree with the policies of my own country? Sweden is the perfect turn cloak country. We don't take a real stand on anything, we just go with the flow. We're firmly with the US at the moment, but you are a fool if you depend on Sweden for any long time support. We were also with the Nazis, up until late winter '42 at least. :)
My interest is mainly a philosophical one and I like to follow the global politics a bit and then the focus will of course be on the global superpower. But if I were to take to the streets to actually protest something for real it would not be the US war in Afghanistan, nor would it be the oppressive regime in Iran. Those are things I can do little about. What I can do is talk, and spread the good teachings of personal heroes like Noam Chomsky.
You don't have to talk to me if you don't want to you know. :)
And about me lying.. How can my personal opinion be a lie? About US controlled nations being poor, look at Haiti for example. You don't have to agree with me but calling me a lier is a bit harsh don't you think?
Having heard Chomsky quite a few times (and once in person) it is not surprising that you identify with him. Not even the left-wing of the Democratic Party in the US would touch Chomsky with a 10-foot pole (that is how far left he is).
I might be misinformed in which case I would welcome any information that would set me on the right path.m0002a wrote:You lied when you said people in the US are being racially profiled because of the new immigration law in Arizona. You lied when you said that the countries that are friendly with the US are the poorest in the Americas.
There are reports that US citizens in Arizona, that looks like they might be illegal immigrants (brown skin) but aren't, have been stopped by police and required to prove that they are American citizens.
You might claim that those reports are all lies if you wish.
"The poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, Haiti has been plagued by political violence for most of its history."
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/ha.html
Not saying you should trust the CIA of course..
I'd say that says more about how far to the right the Democratic Party is. They are far to the right of the main right wing party in Sweden for example.m0002a wrote:Having heard Chomsky quite a few times (and once in person) it is not surprising that you identify with him. Not even the left-wing of the Democratic Party in the US would touch Chomsky with a 10-foot pole (that is how far left he is).
The critique against Chomsky is seldom that he's wrong (he seldom is) but rather that he's not polite enough. I really love his sarcastic humor.
Chomsky is far to the left of any main political party in Sweden too, but he is an anarchist you know. There are few main stream political parties that would touch that ideology with any pole. Nothing strange about that.It is possible to love ones country and at the same time disagree with its polices. Many Americans seems to have a problem with that, needlessly.
It would be illegal in Arizona (and any other state) for any law enforcement officer or other government agency to stop someone and ask them for immigration papers, unless they were being questioned or arrested for some other legitimate reasons (for which the law enforcement officer would have to prove reasonable cause). So I doubt seriously that it has happened, since anyone who did that could be fired and/or face charges. Maybe Noam and Amy got their facts wrong.Vicotnik wrote:I might be misinformed in which case I would welcome any information that would set me on the right path.
There are reports that US citizens in Arizona, that looks like they might be illegal immigrants (brown skin) but aren't, have been stopped by police and required to prove that they are American citizens.
You might claim that those reports are all lies if you wish.
"The poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, Haiti has been plagued by political violence for most of its history."
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/ha.html
Not saying you should trust the CIA of course..
The only exception would be if it was member of US Immigration Service (or whatever it is called now) which is part of the US Federal Government.
Your definition of interference is probably different than most, since you probably think that cutting off aid to dictators should be considered interference, so I don't doubt that you have a twisted view of the world. The US is pretty friendly with Canada, and they seem to be doing OK, so maybe you forgot to mention that one (and many others).
Few people in the US even bother to critique Chomsky anymore because he is always wrong. I know that makes him really mad, and has driven him almost insane from what I can tell. I guess that it is breadth of fresh air that you have admitted admiration for him, since Chomsky has been marginalized to the point of obscurity these days.Vicotnik wrote:I'd say that says more about how far to the right the Democratic Party is. They are far to the right of the main right wing party in Sweden for example.
The critique against Chomsky is seldom that he's wrong (he seldom is) but rather that he's not polite enough. I really love his sarcastic humor. :) Chomsky is far to the left of any main political party in Sweden too, but he is an anarchist you know. There are few main stream political parties that would touch that ideology with any pole. Nothing strange about that.
It is possible to love ones country and at the same time disagree with its polices. Many Americans seems to have a problem with that, needlessly.
Obviously one can disagree with the policies on one's country, and that includes the USA more so than any other country (despite your obvious disdain for Americans). I certainly don't agree with all the policies of Obama (nor all the policies of any other president, although some more than others). But unless I am mistaken, you are not a US citizen, so maybe you should mind your own business and worry about Sweden, and the neighboring EU countries.
After you figure out which Swedish citizens are involved in the Sudan war crimes and then punish them accordingly, then you can obtain the right of Swedish people to chose the names of their children as the see fit. Please don't bother me any more until you compete these two tasks.
To be honest I didn't know Chomsky, but in the last italian elections he supported this far left party http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinistra_Critica so he seems pretty... radical, I can believe if even the left wing of the US DP wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, they would loose the vote of many democratic supporters
Sinistra Critica is a communist party. Politically Chomsky would place himself far to the left of them I think. About him supporting them in the elections he is usually interested in the effect of ones actions, rather than trying to figure out what's the politically correct way to act. So without the context, saying that he supported a communist political party is really not saying a lot.flapane wrote:To be honest I didn't know Chomsky, but in the last italian elections he supported this far left party http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinistra_Critica so he seems pretty... radical, I can believe if even the left wing of the US DP wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, they would loose the vote of many democratic supporters
Chomsky has also defended people who denies the Holocaust. "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it" and all that jazz.
I don't know anything about the voting system in Italy but if an American would ask Chomsky about advice on how to vote the answer would be different depending on where that person lives, since it's the consequences that matter. A vote for the Green Party would for example in effect be a vote for the Republicans in some cases.
Well Canada is on board, and has a somewhat public friendly government (somewhat less so these days though). I'm talking about poor countries with corrupt regimes, like Colombia for example.m0002a wrote:Your definition of interference is probably different than most, since you probably think that cutting off aid to dictators should be considered interference, so I don't doubt that you have a twisted view of the world. The US is pretty friendly with Canada, and they seem to be doing OK, so maybe you forgot to mention that one (and many others).
Well, yeah, using "aid" to push through US policies is interference in a way. Not cutting of aid but rather using that to add leverage is questionable. US aid is sometimes not aid at all for that matter. Is military aid really aid aid for example? No need to get into this, we might as well agree to disagree.
You should ask yourself why you are giving aid to dictators at all.
If you think Chomsky is mad about being ignored by the main stream US media you are mistaken. Like I said, it would be strange otherwise. He is more popular than ever among the public though, the man is booked years in advance.m0002a wrote:Few people in the US even bother to critique Chomsky anymore because he is always wrong. I know that makes him really mad, and has driven him almost insane from what I can tell. I guess that it is breadth of fresh air that you have admitted admiration for him, since Chomsky has been marginalized to the point of obscurity these days.
Again with the inability to see the people of a country and that counties policy as two different things. I don't disdain Americans, or any other people for that matter. I do disdain imperialist policies though.m0002a wrote:Obviously one can disagree with the policies on one's country, and that includes the USA more so than any other country (despite your obvious disdain for Americans). I certainly don't agree with all the policies of Obama (nor all the policies of any other president, although some more than others). But unless I am mistaken, you are not a US citizen, so maybe you should mind your own business and worry about Sweden, and the neighboring EU countries.
Alas the US policies concerns us all, no matter what country on earth one happens to live in.
No comment, man.m0002a wrote:After you figure out which Swedish citizens are involved in the Sudan war crimes and then punish them accordingly, then you can obtain the right of Swedish people to chose the names of their children as the see fit. Please don't bother me any more until you compete these two tasks.
Nice talking to you. I will try to stay out of your threads in the future. -
NeilBlanchard
- Moderator
- Posts: 7681
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
- Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
- Contact:
Let's just call a spade a spade. Like Chomsky, you are a libertarian socialist (as opposed to libertarian capitalist) and you hate capitalism like a rabid dog. You see capitalism as imperialist by definition. Please do not bore me with your denials, because as I mentioned before, I have heard Chomsky many times before.Vicotnik wrote:Again with the inability to see the people of a country and that counties policy as two different things. I don't disdain Americans, or any other people for that matter. I do disdain imperialist policies though.
I understand the difference between a person and their country. I just think you should work on the problems in your own country and region before your start trying to change other countries (this should fit into your anti-globalization philosophy very nicely). You should also refrain from making claims about US immigration policy that you know nothing about and are none of your business.
Hate is a strong word, but sure, I dislike global capitalism in its current form. The question is if what we have now can be called true capitalism at all. From Wikipedia: "There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor how the term should be used as an analytical category"m0002a wrote:Let's just call a spade a spade. Like Chomsky, you are a libertarian socialist (as opposed to libertarian capitalist) and you hate capitalism like a rabid dog. You see capitalism as imperialist by definition. Please do not bore me with your denials, because as I mentioned before, I have heard Chomsky many times before.
I'm certainly not against all forms of capitalism.
Even if it's none of my business I think I as well as anyone have a right to an opinion and should be free to discuss the issue. Then it's up to you if you will engage in a discussion or ignore me.m0002a wrote:I understand the difference between a person and their country. I just think you should work on the problems in your own country and region before your start trying to change other countries (this should fit into your anti-globalization philosophy very nicely). You should also refrain from making claims about US immigration policy that you know nothing about and are none of your business.
I started this thread because I was curios about how the "liberation" of South America was perceived by North Americans. I got my answer, from you. The issue seems to be ignored. As it seems to be in the Swedish media as well I might add.
Then the discussion flowed out all over the place and it's interesting to discuss these kinds of things so why not. Now we seem to have hit the wall however. Discussion is how I learn stuff. If I through Chomsky and Goodman have got the wrong idea, how am I supposed to learn about that if I'm not allowed to take part in any discussion on the matter?
I'm not trying to change anything. And as I said, if I were to try it would be something I could do something about, like the actions of my own country.
edit: If you want to bring up the role of Sweden in all this then by all means do that. But I fail to see what not being allowed to name my children to any crazy name I want have anything to do with this issue. You seem to think it's a important topic and you started a thread about that. Good for you. I'm more interested in the fact that Sweden is the second largest arms dealer in the world (counted per capita). That is a problem and something I would try to change if I knew how. I will definitely protest that but the problem is that I'm kind of alone in my political stance - if I had activist friends it would be easier. Perhaps I could persuade some friends to protest my countries stand on drug policy, I have a few friends who think like me on that issue at least.
Lundin Petroleum is closer to the mark, but again not something that I'm very interested in. They are like most other large oil companies I suppose and I'm not sure what I can do to change that. If I were a stock holder I would feel different I'm sure.
And there in lies the problem with this discussion, or at least your side of it. As many are likely to admit (and to the chagrin of many more) the US is the single most dominant nation on the planet. It has the most money, the strongest military, the most nuclear weapons, blah, blah blah.m0002a wrote:I understand the difference between a person and their country. I just think you should work on the problems in your own country and region before your start trying to change other countries (this should fit into your anti-globalization philosophy very nicely). You should also refrain from making claims about US immigration policy that you know nothing about and are none of your business.
It is not unfair to expect people from other nations to be concerned with how America (as a political entity) and Americans (as individuals who authorize the political entity) feel about global politics. In fact it is in their best interest to understand fully how we feel and behave because it is highly likely that many interactions on a global scale (the current global "war on terror") start with a single, seemingly innocuous outcome of a US election (year 2000 US Presidential election results in Miami Dade county, in so much as we know how Bush responded to 9-11, but we don't know that Al Gore would have responded similarly).
What happens in America affects the rest of the world. Like it or not, it's a global economy and global political spectrum. South America is just as valid a point of concern as is SE Asia, SW Asia and Sub Saharan Africa.
As an aside...
You put together a remarkably well constructed paragraph there with lots of big, multi-syllable words appropriately used; with the exception of "breadth." I think you meant a "breath of fresh air"... Oh, and the fact that Chomsky rarely deals with facts so proving him to be right or wrong is pretty difficult.m0002a wrote:Few people in the US even bother to critique Chomsky anymore because he is always wrong. I know that makes him really mad, and has driven him almost insane from what I can tell. I guess that it is breadth of fresh air that you have admitted admiration for him, since Chomsky has been marginalized to the point of obscurity these days.
We were primarily talking about US immigration policy, which is an internal matter for the US and is not any business of people outside the US, especially those who have much stricter policies (which is every nation on the planet from what I can tell). This is nothing more than US bashing, pure and simple. Any notions as to how this adversely affects the rest of the world is demagoguery.psyopper wrote:And there in lies the problem with this discussion, or at least your side of it. As many are likely to admit (and to the chagrin of many more) the US is the single most dominant nation on the planet. It has the most money, the strongest military, the most nuclear weapons, blah, blah blah.
It is not unfair to expect people from other nations to be concerned with how America (as a political entity) and Americans (as individuals who authorize the political entity) feel about global politics. In fact it is in their best interest to understand fully how we feel and behave because it is highly likely that many interactions on a global scale (the current global "war on terror") start with a single, seemingly innocuous outcome of a US election (year 2000 US Presidential election results in Miami Dade county, in so much as we know how Bush responded to 9-11, but we don't know that Al Gore would have responded similarly).
What happens in America affects the rest of the world. Like it or not, it's a global economy and global political spectrum. South America is just as valid a point of concern as is SE Asia, SW Asia and Sub Saharan Africa.
The larger subject of this thread has to do with the so-called "liberation" of South America by Chavez, et al (at least Vicotnik thinks Chavez is liberating them). Fortunately for the US, Venezuela is not close to the US like Mexico, Haiti, and Cuba, or the Chavez "liberation" would instigate another huge wave of illegal immigrants into the US.
One more thing. Whatever happened in the 2000 election didn't just happen in Miami-Dade county. Gore filed a lawsuit to have only certain highly Democratic precincts in that county recounted (and some selected precincts in other counties), to the exclusion of other precincts and other counties. (Ironically to the subject of this thread, the largely Hispanic precincts on the west side of the county were not included in Gore's request for recount, because they tend to vote Republican in Miami-Dade).
The Florida Supreme court (made up of 7 Democrats) voted 4-3 in favor of Gore. On appeal, the US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 against Gore, saying that if one precinct or county is recounted, they must all be recounted. The court then ruled 5-4 that there was not enough time to do a recount under the safe harbor provisions of the election rules (which would prevent a challenge of the Florida votes in Congress). Anyway, even if a recount had been ordered, the Florida State Legislature would have voted in the Bush electors in order to comply with the safe harbor regulations as to the deadlines of when they are chosen, as is their right in the US Constitution:
"Today, Electors are chosen by popular election, but the Constitution does not mandate a popular election. The 14th Amendment does mention the choosing of Electors, but is relevant only when Electors are elected by popular vote. There is similar mention in the 24th Amendment. In other words, Electors could be appointed by a state's legislature, or the legislature could empower the governor to choose electors. In some cases, state law allows for such appointments if the popular vote cannot be used to determine a winner, such as if election results are contested up to federally-mandated deadlines."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html
I will blame that one on my spell checker (ieSpell)psyopper wrote:You put together a remarkably well constructed paragraph there with lots of big, multi-syllable words appropriately used; with the exception of "breadth." I think you meant a "breath of fresh air"... Oh, and the fact that Chomsky rarely deals with facts so proving him to be right or wrong is pretty difficult.
.You're missing the point but are oh so close.
First - this thread wasn't about immigration law, it was about a movie about Hugo Chavez, likely directed and produced with a slanted viewpoint.
Second - Immigration law in the US is highly pertinent to the people of South America if they are going to be seeking refuge from what currently appears to be a monomaniacal dictator.
Third - The election example was not to start a flame war about that election. It was to describe how a very small number of people in an otherwise politically removed city (compared to say, Boston, New York, LA) had a HUGE effect on GLOBAL politics. 400 or 4000, win or loose, what happened in Miami Dade in 2000 was hugely significant to what happened to the rest of the PLANET for the following 10 years.
First - this thread wasn't about immigration law, it was about a movie about Hugo Chavez, likely directed and produced with a slanted viewpoint.
Second - Immigration law in the US is highly pertinent to the people of South America if they are going to be seeking refuge from what currently appears to be a monomaniacal dictator.
Third - The election example was not to start a flame war about that election. It was to describe how a very small number of people in an otherwise politically removed city (compared to say, Boston, New York, LA) had a HUGE effect on GLOBAL politics. 400 or 4000, win or loose, what happened in Miami Dade in 2000 was hugely significant to what happened to the rest of the PLANET for the following 10 years.
I didn't start the discussion about immigration. It was just one more cheap shot from the same kind of thinking that claims the US is an imperialist country and that Chavez is liberating South America (according to Vicotnik, Chomsky, Goodman, et al).psyopper wrote:You're missing the point but are oh so close.
First - this thread wasn't about immigration law, it was about a movie about Hugo Chavez, likely directed and produced with a slanted viewpoint.
While I might agree (and said so regarding Venezuela above) Vicotnik seemed more concerned about how Hispanics are treated in the US if illegal immigration was enforced (racial profiling). I don't think Vicotnik would agree with us about people wanting to immigrate to the US because Chavez is now in control.psyopper wrote:Second - Immigration law in the US is highly pertinent to the people of South America if they are going to be seeking refuge from what currently appears to be a monomaniacal dictator.
But even if people in South America have a legitimate personal concern about US immigration policies soley becasue they want to come to the US, they have no right to claim that those policies violate any US citizen or US legal resident's civil rights, as was suggested by Vicotnik. As to why Vicotnik (a Swede) is so concerned, you will have ask him.
Not sure how to respond to that. Are you suggesting we don't have the Electoral College? I don't know the exact number, but there are probably at about 170.000 voting precincts in the US according to this site (http://road.hmdc.harvard.edu/docs/node9.shtml). That means if there was a direct election of the president, and the difference was 340,000 votes, that would only be a difference of only 2 votes per precinct. That would spawn endless recounts and law suits, probable voting fraud, and the election results would be significantly delayed, possibly leading to a constitutional crisis (not to mention a stock market crash while everyone waiting to find out who was president).psyopper wrote:Third - The election example was not to start a flame war about that election. It was to describe how a very small number of people in an otherwise politically removed city (compared to say, Boston, New York, LA) had a HUGE effect on GLOBAL politics. 400 or 4000, win or loose, what happened in Miami Dade in 2000 was hugely significant to what happened to the rest of the PLANET for the following 10 years.
If instead, you mentioned the very close election as what could have happened if 1500 people or so had voted differently in Florida (a very small number), one can speculate about all kinds of other things that could have changed history. For example, what if Osama bin Laden had been killed during the two attacks against him by Clinton, or if Clinton had tried again and succeeded in killing him later. The attacks were authorized to occur on the day Clinton gave his deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case (and some people think there was a connection between the two as he was trying to divert attention from his legal problems). The 9/11 attacks were hatched by Laden right after the botched assassination attempt against him by Clinton (check the time-lines yourself if you don't believe me).
What would have happened if Monica Lewinsky had her dress cleaned, or Clinton missed her dress, etc, etc. Maybe he would have never authorized that the US try to assassinate bin Laden, and maybe 9/11 never would have happened. History could have been far different because of a number of seemingly minor coincidences, far more bizarre than the FL election.
Now that is a lie. Please don't do that. I have never claimed that Chavez is liberating South America, nor has Chomsky, Goodman or anyone else that I'm aware of.m0002a wrote:I didn't start the discussion about immigration. It was just one more cheap shot from the same kind of thinking that claims the US is an imperialist country and that Chavez is liberating South America (according to Vicotnik, Chomsky, Goodman, et al).
And I'm sure psyopper has read the thread already. No need to provide him with your version of events. If you have issues with me, talk to me. Send me a pm if it's something you'd like to discuss.
You posted the following in a previous post above:Vicotnik wrote:Now that is a lie. Please don't do that. I have never claimed that Chavez is liberating South America, nor has Chomsky, Goodman or anyone else that I'm aware of.
And I'm sure psyopper has read the thread already. No need to provide him with your version of events. If you have issues with me, talk to me. Send me a pm if it's something you'd like to discuss.
The title of this thread you started has to do with a film by Oliver Stone, who spent a lot of time hugging and kissing Chavez in his documentary (I viewed the film clip you posted), so I assumed that if South America was being (or has been) liberated, you thought Chavez played a role in that. If you say that is not so, I will take your word for it.Vicotnik wrote:I started this thread because I was curios about how the "liberation" of South America was perceived by North Americans.
I will let Stone, Chomsky, and Goodman speak for themselves.
Look, I have not yet seen the documentary. I know very little about Chavez. I know that he has the support of the public (or had not long ago anyway). I know a little about South America. I know that many countries in that region are now moving on their own, without US support/intervention for the first time ever. I know about the Bolivian water war and I'm firmly with the public on that one. So Evo Morales seems like a very nice guy. Chavez is a military man, seems to be something of a media whore. Between him and Morales I would pick Morales. But as long as Chavez has the true support of the people of Venezuela, he's ok in my book. Unless he starts a war or something.
What's liberating South America is a wave of democracy and independence, or so I hope. Sure seems that way, but if you are of another opinion that is something I would love to discuss.
You seem to think that Chavez is my big hero and that is simply not true. I don't even think he is the leading figure in all this.
You need to relax a bit I think.
What's liberating South America is a wave of democracy and independence, or so I hope. Sure seems that way, but if you are of another opinion that is something I would love to discuss.
You seem to think that Chavez is my big hero and that is simply not true. I don't even think he is the leading figure in all this.
You need to relax a bit I think.
I suggest should view the entire Frontline documentary about Chavez that I posted in a link in this thread. Frontline is a documentary film maker that is highly respected by the moderately left wing in the US.
Oliver Stone is a entertainment film maker whose films bear no resemblance to the truth (ala JFK).
Obviously, we disagree about whether Chavez and his allies are promoting democracy, and also about "so-called" intervention by the US. I guess that when Chavez intervenes in other countries by giving them his oil riches (at least he did when oil was $150 a barrel) you don't consider that to be intervention?
Your claim about Chavez having the support of his people is misguided IMO. He may have had the support of a slight majority at one time (with very strong opposition), but he has not permitted fair elections once he got into power (his government declared most of the opposition party candidates as unfit for being on the election ballot), and Chavez only has strong support among the poor, or those who live in fear of his regime.
You are either a socialist who accepts whatever Chavez says and does, or you are very naive (or both).
Oliver Stone is a entertainment film maker whose films bear no resemblance to the truth (ala JFK).
Obviously, we disagree about whether Chavez and his allies are promoting democracy, and also about "so-called" intervention by the US. I guess that when Chavez intervenes in other countries by giving them his oil riches (at least he did when oil was $150 a barrel) you don't consider that to be intervention?
Your claim about Chavez having the support of his people is misguided IMO. He may have had the support of a slight majority at one time (with very strong opposition), but he has not permitted fair elections once he got into power (his government declared most of the opposition party candidates as unfit for being on the election ballot), and Chavez only has strong support among the poor, or those who live in fear of his regime.
You are either a socialist who accepts whatever Chavez says and does, or you are very naive (or both).
Frontline is highly respected, I agree to that.m0002a wrote:I suggest should view the entire Frontline documentary about Chavez that I posted in a link in this thread. Frontline is a documentary film maker that is highly respected by the moderately left wing in the US.
Intervention is what US does in Colombia still and what they no longer are doing in Bolivia. It's also my view that what IMF and the World Bank is doing is questionable.m0002a wrote:Obviously, we disagree about whether Chavez and his allies are promoting democracy, and also about "so-called" intervention by the US. I guess that when Chavez intervenes in other countries by giving them his oil riches (at least he did when oil was $150 a barrel) you don't consider that to be intervention?
Naive in that case, since I cannot accept what I don't know anything about. I have little insight into what Chavez says and does. Aren't the poor a majority in Venezuela btw?m0002a wrote:Your claim about Chavez having the support of his people is misguided IMO. He may have had the support of a slight majority at one time (with very strong opposition), but he has not permitted fair elections once he got into power (his government declared most of the opposition party candidates as unfit for being on the election ballot), and Chavez only has strong support among the poor, or those who live in fear of his regime.
You are either a socialist who accepts whatever Chavez says and does, or you are very naive (or both).
the general consensus in the US is that most of the world is irrelevant.Vicotnik wrote:I like some of his movies, but I agree with you that JFK is not that great. He seems to have bought the whole "JFK was going to save the world"-myth.m0002a wrote:Oliver Stone is a paranoid schizophrenic. You may recall his film JFK, in which he claimed that LBJ had Kennedy assassinated, so South of the Border is going to be fairly predictable. I don't think anyone will care much (other than Amy Goodman), just as very few in the US care much about Chavez (except when he acts like a 13 year-old and throwing temper tantrums and hurling insults at people).
However, South of the Border is a documentary while JFK is almost pure fiction. I think digging in the JFK shooting is a waste of time, but the independence movement of South America is very interesting. It will be very interesting to see how the US reacts. Can Colombia break free? Sadly, I think not.
Is this the general consensus in the US, that Chavez is irrelevant?
beyond that, south america has been under our declared sphere of influence for the past...150 years. from about 1870 to...1980 or so, we really didnt give a damn about their national sovereignty. and we'd go and assassinate people we dont like. and install puppet governors trained, by us, in effectively ruling a populace. (see: school of the americas)
my point, despite my rambling, is that chavez exists because we arent annoyed enough to kill him. and officially the CIA does not assassinate world leaders anymore.
As someone who lives in the USA I seem to get the felling that I am being forced by Fayd to join a club (general consensus) that I don't really wish to be included in.Fayd wrote:the general consensus in the US is that most of the world is irrelevant.
beyond that, south america has been under our declared sphere of influence for the past...150 years. from about 1870 to...1980 or so, we really didnt give a damn about their national sovereignty. and we'd go and assassinate people we dont like. and install puppet governors trained, by us, in effectively ruling a populace. (see: school of the americas)
my point, despite my rambling, is that chavez exists because we arent annoyed enough to kill him. and officially the CIA does not assassinate world leaders anymore.
I believe it would be more accurate to say that only in Fayd's mind, Americans believe the rest of the world is irrelevant, But Fayd has offered no evidence to support such a theory.
An alternate theory is that people in US tend to mind their own business when possible. That applies not just to others in different countries, but it applies to other Americans also. Many of us (except perhaps for the left wing) seem to be perfectly comfortable that we live in a republic and different states have different laws, and may have different judgments as to what is moral or not moral, and that these differences are integrated into society and in the laws of not only the different states, but sometimes also in different cities and counties of the same state.
Thus, in California it may be legal to buy marijuana for some medicinal reasons (only very flimsy medical justifications required), have gay marriage, etc, while in other states these are strictly forbidden. The fundamental structure of the republic and the US Constitution allows this, and makes this diversity possible.
In the same manner, people in the US are willing to accept that Venezuela has elected a socialist leader instead of a leader that favors capitalism. We obviously have a preference that they think like us, but we have the same preferences about people who live in the People's Republic of Berkley, or in the PRC (as demonstrated when we have no qualms about susstaining the PRC econcomy when we buy just about anything).
Some people or companies who do business (or want to do business) in Venezuela may deeply be concerned about Chavez, but the vast majority of Americans don't think it is that big of deal. Obviously, this upsets Fayd, and he transforms something that is obviously tolerance into something sinister or arrogant such as claiming that Americans think that everyone else is irrelevant. Exactly how Fayd is able to make these transformation from tolerance into irrelevance is not clear, since all we get is typical anti-American "rambling" instead of rational discourse.
Perhaps the reason for this obvious inconstancy in Fayd's logic (or lack of it) is that Chavez and his revolutionaries (like Fayd) are very upset that Americans don't take him seriously, and also he needs to invent an external threat to his country to justify the revoking of democracy and other freedoms in Venezuela to move the revolution forward (or to stay in power and draw a big paycheck). Whatever one thinks about the revolution (good or bad), the eroding of democracy and freedom in Venezuela under Chavez is clear from the Frontline documentary posted above.
Regarding the so-called intervention by the US in South America: Why is it that Chavez is allowed to intervene in Cuba, Bolivia , et al, with substantial financial assistance (even when his own people are very poor) that is not called intervention, but when the US provides assistance to other nations it is called intervention?
Why was the USSR allowed to intervene in Cuba and other Latin American countries, and then when the US responds it is called intervention? This is a rather glaring inconsistency. What Fayd describes as intervention is more often than not simply a counter-balance to someone else's prior intervention, and sometimes to just guarantee the survival of the USA (as in the Cuban missile crisis of 1962).
Fayd also seem to focus on what the US did during the period of 1870 to about 1980 rather that what the US has done lately. By standards of other powerful nations (Japan, USSR, Germany, France, China, Turkey, England, Spain, etc, etc) during the same time period, the US has a rather benevolent history in this area in comparison, although no one would claim the US has been perfect.
-
judge56988
- Friend of SPCR
- Posts: 455
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
- Location: England
Whether or not Fayd is right about how Americans feel about the rest of the world, I am of the opinion that the majority of people in the UK and perhaps Europe share his view.m0002a wrote: I believe it would be more accurate to say that only in Fayd's mind, Americans believe the rest of the world is irrelevant, But Fayd has offered no evidence to support such a theory.
Be it stereotyping by the media or peoples personal experience, many Europeans see the average American as an insular person with virtually no knowledge of the outside world, little desire to travel beyond America and having zero interest in world affairs other than issues that directly effect the price of gasoline and hamburgers.
When Americas interests are threatened they are seen to behave as the world's bully with scant regard for world opinion.
If the US had real principals with respect to democracy and liberty they would not trade with China - sadly the greed for cheap goods is too great.
Similarly, the US has never had any qualms about supporting some of the worlds nastiest regimes if it suited their purposes.
But what is their own business and what is not? The US have a military presence almost everywhere on the globe, with military bases all over the place. Compared to the other countries on the planet that's hardly minding their own business.m0002a wrote:An alternate theory is that people in US tend to mind their own business when possible. That applies not just to others in different countries, but it applies to other Americans also.
I'm of the opinion that you need to justify banning cannabis rather than justifying its legality.m0002a wrote:Thus, in California it may be legal to buy marijuana for some medicinal reasons (only very flimsy medical justifications required)
Intervention in itself is not inherently good or bad. If Chavez is giving away money to help (with no hooks involved) that can hardly be a bad thing can it? I'm not familiar with the details on this so please don't take this as naive praise for Chavez.m0002a wrote:Regarding the so-called intervention by the US in South America: Why is it that Chavez is allowed to intervene in Cuba, Bolivia , et al, with substantial financial assistance (even when his own people are very poor) that is not called intervention, but when the US provides assistance to other nations it is called intervention?
What the World Bank is doing is not financial assistance out of good altruistic intentions, it's more like imperialism with a nice wrapping.
No inconsistency. I don't defend any imperialistic intervention, by the US, USSR, Sweden or anyone else. You do however defend the imperialistic interventions of your country but not others. That is the inconsistency.m0002a wrote:Why was the USSR allowed to intervene in Cuba and other Latin American countries, and then when the US responds it is called intervention? This is a rather glaring inconsistency.
We can talk about Haiti in '04 and Honduras in '09 if you want.m0002a wrote:Fayd also seem to focus on what the US did during the period of 1870 to about 1980 rather that what the US has done lately.
And history matters. Do you for example think the situation in Iran today would exist if Britain and the US hadn't removed Mosaddeq and installed the Shah in '53? That sort of things cannot happen in the open anymore, since the US public wouldn't allow it. So things are getting better.