Regardless of your country, illegal immigrants

[iwmggw]

Re: Ba da bing!

Yet AGAIN you prove me right, and illustrate my point for me! I love it! And the touch of sexism by calling me a "cunt" is real nice, especially since I'm a man.

No...Redwave, you are not a man..........you are many things......but you are not a man. Rhumb's assessment, I think, is much closer to the truth.

 

[Rex1960]

I like the way you think, Rex. It's refreshing to know that people are thinking not only about the immediate repurcussions of our actions, but also the future repurcussions. You seem to be saying that the borders between nations are/should be more blurry than they are, and that the laws regarding illegal immigration/alien residency should be changed. I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, but I'm just putting what I thought might be the answers to the questions you posed in your post.

I like the way you respond, Busty
first of all i like to discuss. a good way to discuss is to point out the basics, the common things and those arguments who are maybe wrong but who is the judge ?
One can't be the prosecutor, the judge, the defendant, the plaintif, the cop, the counselor all by himself.

Our western legal system was founded on greek and roman basics. In India, China and other parts of the world, societies developed other legal systems. Native Americans, Africans, Native Australians had their legal system. Which one was the best ??

The one that survived ? Maybe - i don't know.

"Our" thinking in boarders and walls is kinda natural for us. It's natural for me to protect my loved-ones from any aggression. I have a fence around my house.
It's natural to protect my nation. I have a boarder around my country.

And well ... i gotta fight if any - you know. Do i have the right to kill him? Different societies - different answers.

If they find other answers than mine, are they just chicken ?

Different history - different experiences ?

Rex

 

[BustyTheClown]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ishmael

The solution to the world's problems is not to take everyone into the US. It is for the other countries, or rather the citizens thereof, to determine that they too should be free and to change their country for the better.

Freedom cannot be exported. It has generally failed every time it's been attempted. The countries that have joined the free world have done so from internal desires, not external mandates. By providing an 'open door' sanctuary for these freedom loving people, you are actually depleting the population of the home country of the very people that might bring about the change that you so desire.

Ishmael

I didn't mean to paint the picture that the only place people can find freedom is here in the US, and I understand how it may have sounded like I was saying that. I didn't think it needed further explanation, though.

As for your solution, I think you're right. We should not simply take everyone under our wing and possibly allow the degeneration of their homelands to continue. But I don't think we shouldn't be able to offer them sanctuary of some sort. If life is bad enough where they are living that they are willing to risk entering this country illegally -- which could feasibly result in their deaths -- then it seems to me as though we might want to find out what the hell is going on instead of playing the tough love card and telling them, "Too bad, so sad, it's your problem, you go deal with it."

Let me make a comparison. I'm sure you won't like this one either, but it really is the best I can do when I don't know what the hell you want from any of us except for us to just roll over and agree with you. Say I am married with three kids and a house. We have rules in my house, and one is that people cannot stay over unless I know they are there and have my permission. That seems reasonable, as it prevents strange people from entering my house and endangering my family and our security. Now let's say a woman steals into my house late one night undetected. I am cleaning upstairs next day when I find her cowering in a closet. I find out that her husband has been beating her. There is no chance that he knows where she is, so her being in my home will not endanger my family at all. What should I do? By your judgement, I should send her back home, because if she was a strong woman, she would defend herself. Her problem, she should deal with it. I, on the other hand, might be inclined to take her in for a short time and help her recover, possibly helping her find a counselor or someone to whom she can talk and find ways to help herself. Then, when she is ready and the danger towards her is lessened, I should send her back.

Perhaps what we could do with illegal aliens is educate them as to how to exercise the power you say they have so that they are able to go back where they came from when the danger is less and actually make a difference. That way, their country may gradually improve, and we are not "burdened" with their presence permanently.

This is a simplistic view, but I'm trying to compromise here.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ishmael

I didn't mean to paint the picture that the only place people can find freedom is here in the US, and I understand how it may have sounded like I was saying that. I didn't think it needed further explanation, though.

As for your solution, I think you're right. We should not simply take everyone under our wing and possibly allow the degeneration of their homelands to continue. But I don't think we shouldn't be able to offer them sanctuary of some sort. If life is bad enough where they are living that they are willing to risk entering this country illegally -- which could feasibly result in their deaths -- then it seems to me as though we might want to find out what the hell is going on instead of playing the tough love card and telling them, "Too bad, so sad, it's your problem, you go deal with it."

Let me make a comparison. I'm sure you won't like this one either, but it really is the best I can do when I don't know what the hell you want from any of us except for us to just roll over and agree with you. Say I am married with three kids and a house. We have rules in my house, and one is that people cannot stay over unless I know they are there and have my permission. That seems reasonable, as it prevents strange people from entering my house and endangering my family and our security. Now let's say a woman steals into my house late one night undetected. I am cleaning upstairs next day when I find her cowering in a closet. I find out that her husband has been beating her. There is no chance that he knows where she is, so her being in my home will not endanger my family at all. What should I do? By your judgement, I should send her back home, because if she was a strong woman, she would defend herself. Her problem, she should deal with it. I, on the other hand, might be inclined to take her in for a short time and help her recover, possibly helping her find a counselor or someone to whom she can talk and find ways to help herself. Then, when she is ready and the danger towards her is lessened, I should send her back.

Perhaps what we could do with illegal aliens is educate them as to how to exercise the power you say they have so that they are able to go back where they came from when the danger is less and actually make a difference. That way, their country may gradually improve, and we are not "burdened" with their presence permanently.

This is a simplistic view, but I'm trying to compromise here.

I understand that you are trying to compromise. I am merely applying logic to a very real problem.

First of all, I don't think that 'sorta' sanctuary can be reconciled. It's rather like being 'sorta' pregnant. Or to use another example, it is providing 'safe' harbor for revolutionists. At the turn of the century, when Pancho Villa and his band were raiding into the US and then retreating back into Mexico, we entreated with the Mexican government to take control of the situation. They didn't. We invaded Mexico. A reasonable response to the problem. Do we really want to become "Panhco's sanctuary"?

The second point you make is already dealt with under our immigration policy. It's called political asylum. It is available to any that can prove that their very life is forfiet should they be forced to return to their own country. These people are generally refered to as refugees.

We do not offer "economic asylum". Using your example above, the woman is homeless and destitute. She is under no immediate threat of bodily harm. Does she have the right to invade your home and demand food and shelter and a job from you?

Ishmael

 

[Rex1960]

where to start ?

That fine day may come to pass Rex. But I suspect that it will take more time than you think.
Countries are a great deal more than geographic borders. They are cultures and languages too. They have histories and 'pride' of heritage. And they have laws and legal systems. These are all desireable traits. Part of the diversity that is so often touted on the boards.
I'm watching the EU with interest. I even applaud the experiment to an extent. But there are so many things yet to be resolved and it will be interesting to see how they are handled. And then there's the Balkan's. The cooperation of nation/states is an agreement between parties. All it takes is one disagreement to unravel the whole fabric.
As that applies to this thread, p_p_man has already pointed out that even the borders of the EU nations aren't really that soft.
Ishmael

Ishmael, i don't know where to start. Lemme try this:

1. That fine day will come sounds sarcastic. No need for it.
2. You don't know what I think about how much time it'll take - so please don't suspect. But yes - it will take time.
3. Yes - countries are a big deal. But see what happened earlier to your country as well as to mine. Smaller countries gathered to found bigger communities. Doesn't "United States" says it all.
4. We had this in Germany too since about 2000 years. All these small counties and kingdoms gathered together to a nation. Without the war between the roman-catholics and the protestants I'd probably live under my sovereign "Duke of Brunswick" or my "King of Hannover" And there are still "fights" between saxonians, bavarians and other parts of my country. Now some of us (not all) think, gathering in a European Community is just the next step.
5. In 1945 the Allied Status for Germany brought me like incidentially to a democratic republic. Thank God you won the war. I am thankful - no pride ? Am I a better person than my german brothers in the former GDR?
But don't get me wrong - I am proud to be a german - a proud member of NATO or EU - a proud member of the western hemisphere. Does it bring me any further ?
6. We had this "One nation - two countries" - thank god no war was needed to solve that problem. What about Korea ? What about the middle east ? - The Kurds (spellcheck ?) parted in almost 4 countries between Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq. Not to speek of the Israli/Arab conflict.
7. Yep - the Balkan is an ongoing problem not solved yet. Boarders b/w families and towns, countries and nations. Boarders not naturally but as a result of negotiations.
"Status quo" for ever ?
8. There has been war and will be "fights" between french and spanish, germans and british and others, but thank god i think it is now something like the good old football fight between two highschools. In other parts of the world this fighting is much more letal now and will be maybe for a longer time than we both live.

9. and finally: yes there has to be a law, there has to be a line that shows, where to go and where not. And yes there has to be a punishment for those who break the rules. There has to be a police (or armed forces), there has to be a Supreme Court and there has to be a Government.
But hey - there has to be an Advocat to defend those who can't do it by themselves.
Even in Paradise Adam and Eve learned braking the rules can kick you out. God had the Power to make the rules, to judge and to kick all by himself. We don't.

You choosed to play "advocatus diaboli" in this threat.
Who am I to blame it on you. But please dont blame it on me.

Rex

 

[Ishmael]

Re: where to start ?

Ishmael, i don't know where to start. Lemme try this:

1. That fine day will come sounds sarcastic. No need for it.

You read it that way. It wasn't written that way.

2. You don't know what I think about how much time it'll take - so please don't suspect. But yes - it will take

You did provide a time reference. "Just try to figure out, what our grand-grand children will learn in school some day:" Depending on whether the grand-grand was a typo or not, that reckons to 3 or 4 generations. I merely indicated that I'm not that optomistic.

3. Yes - countries are a big deal. But see what happened earlier to your country as well as to mine. Smaller countries gathered to found bigger communities. Doesn't "United States" says it all.
4. We had this in Germany too since about 2000 years. All these small counties and kingdoms gathered together to a nation. Without the war between the roman-catholics and the protestants I'd probably live under my sovereign "Duke of Brunswick" or my "King of Hannover" And there are still "fights" between saxonians, bavarians and other parts of my country. Now some of us (not all) think, gathering in a European Community is just the next step.
5. In 1945 the Allied Status for Germany brought me like incidentially to a democratic republic. Thank God you won the war. I am thankful - no pride ? Am I a better person than my german brothers in the former GDR?
But don't get me wrong - I am proud to be a german - a proud member of NATO or EU - a proud member of the western hemisphere. Does it bring me any further ?
6. We had this "One nation - two countries" - thank god no war was needed to solve that problem. What about Korea ? What about the middle east ? - The Kurds (spellcheck ?) parted in almost 4 countries between Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq. Not to speek of the Israli/Arab conflict.
7. Yep - the Balkan is an ongoing problem not solved yet. Boarders b/w families and towns, countries and nations. Boarders not naturally but as a result of negotiations.
"Status quo" for ever ?
8. There has been war and will be "fights" between french and spanish, germans and british and others, but thank god i think it is now something like the good old football fight between two highschools. In other parts of the world this fighting is much more letal now and will be maybe for a longer time than we both live.

This was a side issue that I addressed as a courtesy. I really have no intention of persuing this further in this thread.

9. and finally: yes there has to be a law, there has to be a line that shows, where to go and where not. And yes there has to be a punishment for those who break the rules. There has to be a police (or armed forces), there has to be a Supreme Court and there has to be a Government.
But hey - there has to be an Advocat to defend those who can't do it by themselves.
Even in Paradise Adam and Eve learned braking the rules can kick you out. God had the Power to make the rules, to judge and to kick all by himself. We don't.

You choosed to play "advocatus diaboli" in this threat.
Who am I to blame it on you. But please dont blame it on me.

Rex

Then we are in agreement that we are a society of laws. That these laws should be enforced and have penalties associated with them. And that should the law not serve the best interest of the country and it's society, that the proper method of dealing with this is to change, or eliminate, the offending law. Can we also agree that to ignore the law is to run the risk of having all laws that the individual finds inconvenient ignored too?

Ishmael

 

[AmishPope]

As easy as the internet and smart cards. Log on, check in. Ain't technology wonderful?

Issue the cards at the border, pick them up on exit. Require the recipient(s) to log in at proscribed intervals. (It is a 'free' country, for citizens.) Of course, you'll come back with some minutiae about the plan, which I will incorporate in a business plan.

Now, I've answered your questions. Far beyond endurance. Make a statement or fuck off. You've contributed NOTHING.

Ishmael

You haven’t answered the question you’ve only raised new ones. So who pays for these smart cards, who pays for the computers the tourists use to log on to the net? What happens if people don’t log in when they are supposed to? For a guy who complains about “paying for illegals” you seem to have lots of money to throw around. Under the plan you’ve proposed you’ve just raised everyone’s taxes through the roof, most importantly your own. Do you honestly think that people from other countries will want to come here legally if they get treated like criminals even though they have done nothing wrong.? Some areas of this country are completely dependent on tourism for their economy. (there’s this little state called Florida where tourism is king). And because these states have such incredible tourists (both foreign & domestic) spending their money there, they don’t need to have a state income tax. So if you’d rather have your taxes go up because people aren’t coming here to spend money any more that’s fine. Me? Personally? I’d rather have my taxes lower cause every time a foreign tourist rents a car $3.50 goes to pay for roads.Oh by the way when the Americans who are dependent on tourism for their livelihood get laid off I wonder who will have to cough up more dough for the unemployment pot.

And if you can’t answer someone’s question or refute their ideas without becoming irate and cursing at them maybe you should leave the board. ‘Cause when you do start the cursing and someone’s valid points it makes you look very immature. (it also makes you look frustrated, I wonder what could make that happen?)

 

[bored1]

So, illegals are now tourists? I quess they cross the border to visit Disney World and rent cars. Oh yea,Mohammad Atta rented a car!:

 

[Ishmael]

You haven’t answered the question you’ve only raised new ones. So who pays for these smart cards, who pays for the computers the tourists use to log on to the net? What happens if people don’t log in when they are supposed to? For a guy who complains about “paying for illegals” you seem to have lots of money to throw around. Under the plan you’ve proposed you’ve just raised everyone’s taxes through the roof, most importantly your own. Do you honestly think that people from other countries will want to come here legally if they get treated like criminals even though they have done nothing wrong.? Some areas of this country are completely dependent on tourism for their economy. (there’s this little state called Florida where tourism is king). And because these states have such incredible tourists (both foreign & domestic) spending their money there, they don’t need to have a state income tax. So if you’d rather have your taxes go up because people aren’t coming here to spend money any more that’s fine. Me? Personally? I’d rather have my taxes lower cause every time a foreign tourist rents a car $3.50 goes to pay for roads.Oh by the way when the Americans who are dependent on tourism for their livelihood get laid off I wonder who will have to cough up more dough for the unemployment pot.

And if you can’t answer someone’s question or refute their ideas without becoming irate and cursing at them maybe you should leave the board. ‘Cause when you do start the cursing and someone’s valid points it makes you look very immature. (it also makes you look frustrated, I wonder what could make that happen?)

Tell me when you get around to making a valid point.

As far as the 'solution'. The cost associated with technical solution is less than the manual 'paper' system now in place, and far faster. The infrastructure is already in place. The tourists will still come.

And NONE of this has a thing to do with illegal aliens.

Ishmael

 

[AmishPope]

Tell me when you get around to making a valid point.

As far as the 'solution'. The cost associated with technical solution is less than the manual 'paper' system now in place, and far faster. The infrastructure is already in place. The tourists will still come.

And NONE of this has a thing to do with illegal aliens.

Ishmael

This reminds me of the post you made where when the guy loses a debate he walks away. I’m almost disappointed. That was too easy.

 

[Tantanah]

You know I came into this country as am immigrant....legally. It was a long process, lots of paperwork, waiting, standing in line etc. The INS called me a "legal alien". During the whole process of first becoming a "conditional permanent resident" then a "permanent resident" the INS made it clear that I was not entitled to any government assistance, and that if I committed any crime I would be deported and that if I didn't file all the paperwork at the right times too I would be violating my status. Not to mention the extensive background check prior to getting my green card, the interview the fingerprinting etc. It was not an easy process. Coming into this country illegally is taking the easy way out. If someone wants to be here they should do it the right way or be returned to their home country. Be willing to abide by the laws from the start, no matter how hard it might be. For every job I've had I've had to prove my legal status, even to get my social security card, or apply for anything like school, I've had to prove my legal status. No one who's here or in any country illegally should be entitled to anything.

 

[AmishPope]

You know I came into this country as am immigrant....legally. It was a long process, lots of paperwork, waiting, standing in line etc. The INS called me a "legal alien". During the whole process of first becoming a "conditional permanent resident" then a "permanent resident" the INS made it clear that I was not entitled to any government assistance, and that if I committed any crime I would be deported and that if I didn't file all the paperwork at the right times too I would be violating my status. Not to mention the extensive background check prior to getting my green card, the interview the fingerprinting etc. It was not an easy process. Coming into this country illegally is taking the easy way out. If someone wants to be here they should do it the right way or be returned to their home country. Be willing to abide by the laws from the start, no matter how hard it might be. For every job I've had I've had to prove my legal status, even to get my social security card, or apply for anything like school, I've had to prove my legal status. No one who's here or in any country illegally should be entitled to anything.

Interesting. What country are you from?

 

[Ishmael]

This reminds me of the post you made where when the guy loses a debate he walks away. I’m almost disappointed. That was too easy.

Questions are NOT points. Make a point.

(*waving hand* "Oh can I go to the bathtroom?"
Good point Mr Ishmael, let me address that.")

If you are unable to envision how a technical tracking system might work, think about it. You may even be able to come up with a solution. But suffice it to say, there are millions of dollars on the line here. While you are asking questions, the government is "actively" soliciting proposal's to implement such a system. I in no way feel compelled to disclose to you, or any one else, the core components of my proposal to the INS. Got it?

 

[Ishmael]

You know I came into this country as am immigrant....legally. It was a long process, lots of paperwork, waiting, standing in line etc. The INS called me a "legal alien". During the whole process of first becoming a "conditional permanent resident" then a "permanent resident" the INS made it clear that I was not entitled to any government assistance, and that if I committed any crime I would be deported and that if I didn't file all the paperwork at the right times too I would be violating my status. Not to mention the extensive background check prior to getting my green card, the interview the fingerprinting etc. It was not an easy process. Coming into this country illegally is taking the easy way out. If someone wants to be here they should do it the right way or be returned to their home country. Be willing to abide by the laws from the start, no matter how hard it might be. For every job I've had I've had to prove my legal status, even to get my social security card, or apply for anything like school, I've had to prove my legal status. No one who's here or in any country illegally should be entitled to anything.

Thank you dear. I know that the process is not easy, but now that you've gone through it. How terribly inconvenienced are you in your day to day life?

Ishmael

 

[AmishPope]

Questions are NOT points. Make a point.

(*waving hand* "Oh can I go to the bathtroom?"
Good point Mr Ishmael, let me address that.")

If you are unable to envision how a technical tracking system might work, think about it. You may even be able to come up with a solution. But suffice it to say, there are millions of dollars on the line here. While you are asking questions, the government is "actively" soliciting proposal's to implement such a system. I in no way feel compelled to disclose to you, or any one else, the core components of my proposal to the INS. Got it?

Once again I'll ask the question that ish has been avoiding for the past couple of days. How do you pay for it? Where is this monopoly money coming from? And the point I'm proving is that you're going to pay more trying to police people who have done nothing wrong than if you just let them cross the border and become citizens. Hasn't The Simpsons taught us anything?

And I'm really sure that tourists and going to go on a "vacation" when they have to insert some punch card into a computer every 15 minutes.

 

[Rex1960]

Focusing

You read it that way. It wasn't written that way.

ok - thanks for clearification

You did provide a time reference. "Just try to figure out, what our grand-grand children will learn in school some day:" Depending on whether the grand-grand was a typo or not, that reckons to 3 or 4 generations. I merely indicated that I'm not that optomistic.

no typo - call it "fiction" no matter how many generations it'll take

This was a side issue that I addressed as a courtesy. I really have no intention of persuing this further in this thread.

well - trying to focus on an issue is ok - leaving main issues out is not.
My point is: boarders are made by certain circumstances - as well as laws - boarders can be changed - as well as laws - bilaterally or multilaterally - by a society on it's own decision or maybe by the winner of a war.
The "Boston Tea Party" was definately an illegal act in that british colony law that time, but was it wrong ? Trying to kill Hitler was definately an illegal act under german law that time. Was it wrong ?
Leaving the GDR without permission was an illegal act under its national law - GDR-boarder patrol was legally allowed to kill those who tried. Crossing the boarder from Mexico to the US without permission is an illegal act under US-law (I have no idea about those mexican laws).
Tell me what is legal and what is illegal ?
If US Congress changes the law in a direction you don't support, do they act illegal ?

Then we are in agreement that we are a society of laws. That these laws should be enforced and have penalties associated with them. And that should the law not serve the best interest of the country and it's society, that the proper method of dealing with this is to change, or eliminate, the offending law. Can we also agree that to ignore the law is to run the risk of having all laws that the individual finds inconvenient ignored too?

Yes - we are a society with laws - we need laws as well as law-enforcement and penalties.

Yes - ignoring the rules causes trouble for those who are ignorant

Yes - the law should serve the best interests....

but here's the point...
just change these little words country/nation into mankind !

There are human rights beyond any nationalism, any racism any religion, these are the boarders and walls in our heads.

Yes - we need to protect our home, our loved-ones, our community, our society not just in a humanitarian but also in an economic sense. But if this community/society is the whole planet ?

Rex

 

[lobito]

*reminds myself NEVER to vote for any of the closed minded people in this thread*

Illegal or not, they deserve a chance for a better life, if that's what they think they will get.

 

[heterotic]

Hasn't The Simpsons taught us anything?

This and your philosophy midterm quip are vying for funniest thing I've read today.

 

[AmishPope]

This and your philosophy midterm quip are vying for funniest thing I've read today.

thanx man

 

[Ishmael]

Once again I'll ask the question that ish has been avoiding for the past couple of days. How do you pay for it? Where is this monopoly money coming from? And the point I'm proving is that you're going to pay more trying to police people who have done nothing wrong than if you just let them cross the border and become citizens. Hasn't The Simpsons taught us anything?

And I'm really sure that tourists and going to go on a "vacation" when they have to insert some punch card into a computer every 15 minutes.

You answer the serious with the asinine and ridiculous. Give me one reason, just one, to take you seriously at all?

Ishmael

 

[AmishPope]

You answer the serious with the asinine and ridiculous. Give me one reason, just one, to take you seriously at all?

Ishmael

YOU WERE BEING SERIOUS?????? Oh dude I'm sorry.........I mean I'm really, really sorry.

 

[AmishPope]

You answer the serious with the asinine and ridiculous. Give me one reason, just one, to take you seriously at all?

Ishmael

Why should you take me seriously? Well for one it seems you have a lot to hide. Instead of answering some of my questions you've avoided them.

I;ve asked how to pay for it. You call me silly. I ask where will the tourists go you call me silly. Or if I'm lucky you curse at me.

Just because someone isn't here legally dosen't mean they have nothing to offer to society. You seem to believe that everything illegal is automatically wrong. (In some states oral sex is illegal)

 

[Rex1960]

I'm out

This and your philosophy midterm quip are vying for funniest thing I've read today.

I don't know anything about those Simpsons - duh - could use a funny thing though. Heading for the "muffdivers" instead.

Just by the way:
It was illegal to read or to make cartoons in Afghanistan under taliban government.

Rex

 

[BustyTheClown]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ishmael

First of all, I don't think that 'sorta' sanctuary can be reconciled. It's rather like being 'sorta' pregnant. Or to use another example, it is providing 'safe' harbor for revolutionists. At the turn of the century, when Pancho Villa and his band were raiding into the US and then retreating back into Mexico, we entreated with the Mexican government to take control of the situation. They didn't. We invaded Mexico. A reasonable response to the problem. Do we really want to become "Panhco's sanctuary"?
We do not offer "economic asylum". Using your example above, the woman is homeless and destitute. She is under no immediate threat of bodily harm. Does she have the right to invade your home and demand food and shelter and a job from you?

Ishmael

Read what I said. I didn't say anything about "sorta," I said "sanctuary of sorts," meaning a kind of sanctuary as opposed to a little bit of sanctuary. Nice try, though. What the hell does Pancho's sanctuary have to do with anything? If you want to bring the actual lands of Mexico into this, the areas that are now most of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and some parts of Southern California WERE Mexico before "settlers" decided to rob the Mexicans of their land, as well. So don't pretend like that was our land to defend in the first place.

Also, what job would I be providing for the woman who comes into my home? Besides, she didn't demand anything, you inferred that to twist my words to your own purpose. What you should focus on is that she is there, not what she may or may not ask for/demand from me. Ultimately, her desires would not be my concern because she is an "invader" in my home. The decision is up to me. Why don't you answer my conclusions about whether or not to keep her in my house instead of making material up to criticize me about?

Also, Rex and Amish are making some excellent points. Rex, I totally agree that our duties towards each other as humans should transcend many political and geographical boundaries. Not all, but many. And Amish, I, too, would like to know where the money for this monitoring system would come from. But, alas, according to Ishmael, we just don't deserve to hear details about it.

Well, Ishmael, we tried to tell you to go while you still had some sort of shred of dignity, but with every dismissal and curse word, with every twist of someone else's words and miscontstruing of people's points, you dig yourself into a deeper state of illogic and patheticness. It's your own fault now, if it was ever ours.

 

[BustyTheClown]

Oh! Rex, I also want to commend you on your very relevant point that people constantly celebrate the illegal actions of others. I don't know if we should celebrate illegal immigration, lol, but I certainly think we could tolerate it to a higher level.

Oh, and I think you meant "D'oh!" and not "duh."