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

Two items i found interesting in the past couple of days -- neither of them on the front pages.

1. Another judge, this one in New Jersey, has told the Justice Department they cannot hold secret trials for INS violations for those 1200+ who were illegally detained after 9/11. (BTW, anyone know where they are and why they cannot be contacted after all these months? Seems many of their families are saying they still have not heard from them nor know where they are). Seems like Il Duce Bush2 and Attorney Generalissimo Ashcroft are having trouble trashing the Constitution like they want to. Thank God for the ACLU, the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. Of course, Il Duce's adminsitration has said they will appeal to the Supreme Court where they have had some minor luck in the past getting things to go their way.

I wonder if we can also get that statue uncovered!

2. The New Afgan government -- the one that needs the United States military as a local police force, the one that still has not stabilized, much less united its own country, the one that is interim and is just supposed to set up a transition to a permanent government (You know, the government installed by Il Duce and defacto President Cheney, both from the oil industry) -- has announced they want to have a natural gas pipeline built by -- of all companies -- Unocal! Hmmm...isn't this interesting?! Isn't this the company that the uS Representative to Afganistan used to work for? Why yes it is! Unocal is, of course, now saying maybe they are no longer interested -- not a bad way to start negotiations.

It looks like we are getting a better picture of why our troops are in Afganistan and why their attention was diverted to the police beat rather than finding Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts, destroying them and then coming home.

A new kind of war. Gotta love it!

George,

I don't think the Justice Department would detain 1200 people just for the heck of it, do you? Going on that assumption, I wouldn't believe the family members who say they haven't heard from their loved ones.

I believe the idea behind secret trials is for national security. Not just because they 'want to get' these select 1200 people.

I don't think we know 1/100th of what is going on in Afghanistan. I'm sure US forces/intelligence is still looking for Osama. Just my gut feel.

I think we have to chose our battles carefully.
While I admire the ACLU for some of the causes they take up, I'm disgusted by others. When suicide bombers walk into shopping malls during Christmas, we just may have the ACLU to thank.

Just in case you are curious as to why the detainees *just happen* to be of Arab decent, take the little quiz below.

To ensure that we Americans never offend anyone -- particularly fanatics intent on killing us -- airport screeners are not allowed to profile people. They will, however, continue to perform random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the President's security detail, and 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips.

Let's pause a moment and take the following test:

In 1972, 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the Munich Olympics by:
(a) Grandma Moses;
(b) The night cleaning crew at Rockefeller Center;
(c) Invaders from Mars; or
(d) Arab Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
(a) Norwegians from the Lichen Herbarium of the University of Oslo;
(b) Elvis;
(c) A tour bus full of 80-year-old women; or
(d) Arab Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
(a) A pizza delivery boy;
(b) Crazed feminists complaining that having to throw a grenade beyond its own burst radius in basic training was an unfair and sexist job requirement;
(c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day; or
(d) Arab Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
(a) Luca Brazzi, for not being given a part in "Godfather 2";
(b) The Tooth Fairy;
(c) Butch and Sundance, who had a few sticks of dynamite left over from their train mission; or,
(d) Arab Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by:
(a) The entire cast of "Cats";
(b) Martha Stewart;
(c) Cheese-crazed tourists from Wisconsin; or
(d) Arab Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania a were bombed by:
(a) Mr. Rogers;
(b) Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems;
(c) The World Wrestling Federation to promote its next villain: "Mustafa the Merciless"; or
(d) Arab Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

On 9/11/01 four airliners were hijacked and destroyed by:
(a) Bugs Bunny, Will E. Coyote, Daffy Duck, and Elmer Fudd.
(b) The US Supreme Court,
(c) Barney; or
(d) Arab Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the ACLU is completely right, and that we should never use racial profiling -- even though it would easily save thousands of American lives.

Derick

Gee, I would have thought they would have all been executed by now. At least if your picture of Bush and Ashcroft is to be believable.

Awfully exploitive of women don't you think.

I guess you are right. The fact that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 and that they were based in Afghanistan is too much of a coincidence to be responsible for our military action there. It had to be that oil pipeline.

You crack me up George. :p

www.nytimes.com/2002/05/31/opinion/31KRIS.html

An opinion piece by Nick Kristof ( a self-proclaimed liberal) about racial profiling and civil liberties. Whan an avowed liberal writes a piece like this for that bastion of conservatism, The New York Times, it becomes alarmingly apparent George's viewpoint is so far on the fringe, he is in danger of falling off of the table.

You want to see racial profiling and tight security? If one more major terrorist incident happens within the borders of the United States, or if the India/Pakistan situation goes nuclear, then George, you may really get to see what constitutes "tight" security and abridgement of civil liberties!

Derick

First, yes, I do believe that the Justice Department would detain 1200 people without just cause. They have done so in the past and I expect will do so in the future.

And I will tell the couple of families I know who have not heard from their family members since they were picked up in early Oct that you have assured me they are wrong about not hearing from these men.

Second, the Justice Department has always had the right to conduct all or some portions of trials in secret when national security is an issue -- but the burden has always been on the government to show why secreecy is needed. They can continue to do this.

However, to allow an entire class of criminal trials to be held in secret goes against every tenet of open government we have in this country. What has kept this country's courts having some semblance of fairness has been the fact trials are held in public.

There has been no justification, as far as both the Illinois Court is concerned and the New Jersey Court is concerned for a blanket secrecy of these trials. Let the Justice Department argue its case for secrecy before a Judge, whose consitutional duty it is to both ensure the trial is fair and protect the Constitution and our system of government. Do not require the defendants, who are innocent until proven guilty, have to argue against it.

And third, How can you be so sure that we are still looking for Osama all that hard? Why would you think that when the very leaders who are running this thing have stopped talking about it?

Our lack of information is part of the problem. The Government has undertaken a massive campaign, placing our young men and women in harms way, spending billions of our dollars, rearranging decades of foreign relationships, making commitments for us that will last for years, if not decades, and the only news we are able to get is what the military and the executive branch of the federal government feeds us -- both of whom would suffer badly if they look bad in what is happening.

This is NOT how a democracy works and is NOT the way I want my country to work. I have lived through the lies and deceits of the Viet Nam War, the lies and deceits of the Nicxon Administration, the lies and deceits of the Iran/Contra scandal, the lies and deceits of Operation Desert Storm, the lies and deceits of the Clinton sex scandals. I am not prepared to believe what I am being told by those who are running things without independent sources of information, of which there are virtually none about the supposed War on Terrorism.

One of the strengths that has made this coutnry great is its checks and balances -- and one of the most important ones is an informed public. The simply fact that you do not think we know even 1/100th of what is going on should be enough to raise your skepticism VERY high.

My problem with the government detaining people is NOT that they are Arab, but that they are being detained for an indefinite period of time, in unknown places, without bail and without being charged.

The only time this country has allowed the suspension of habeas corpus has been in a time of declared war. Habeas corpus is SO important to a free society, i think its suspension should ONLY be limited to such times -- not everytime the President wants to undertake some sort of military action.

Let Bush2 go to the Congress, have the guts to request a declared war, let the people's representatives and the people through their own means of communicating their ideas, debate whether we wish to declare a war and give Bush2 all of these powers -- then if we decide we do, we can declare a war and he can suspend habeas corpous.

But without such an open and public debate and declaration, the government should NOT have the right to round up anyone and hold them in secret, without charges, without bail and seek to try and sentence them in secret.

As far as the article is concerned, I had read it and agreed with it. In fact, I think it is ludicrous for us NOT to be doing profiling of potential terrorist subjects under the circumstances. Young men of Arab descent may not like it, but it is the only logical thing to do and allows us to focus our limited resouces for maximum effectiveness.

If we know there is a white male serial rapist on the loose, why would we stop elderly nuns to ask them if they have raped anyone or treat them as if they are possible suspects?

The very fact that the Bush2 Administration has been unwilling to take some political heat on this matter is one of the reason I do not think they are all that serious. If they were, they would take the criticism for profiling so they could use their limited resouces to hone in on the real problem.

As it is, I think they have taken the easy political way out by not profiling, which I think they would only do if they did not believe the threat to be that great. Even I believe that Bush2 would take a political risk if he felt the country was indeed threatened.

Why should Bush be all that serious about terrorists if this whole thing is all about an oil pipeline in Afghanistan? Oh, but I guess that is your point. That we are actually in no danger. This is all a smokescreen to cover up political cronyism. I am so relieved to know that terrorism is really not an issue.

Since when did Habeas Corpus extend to people illegally in our country. I should think that a release outside our borders would be in order.

Oh, and somebody please fill George061875 in on our military's plans and movements in Afghanistan so that he can post it here for all the world to see.

As long as there is secrecy in all of this, how are we to know they are here illegally? You see, my friend, we have know way of knowing who these people are or why the government decided to arrest and detain them. Is this not the whole point of habeas corpus? To not allow the government to do this sort of thing?

Methinks you have just stated that you believe they are guilty until the prove their innocence simply because the government chose them to be arrested and detained -- all in secrecy. Is this really what you think, JBryan? That they have to prove their innocence, not the government prove their guilt?

And what's to keep the government from doing the same to you, if you fit the profile of the next group they want to go after. And if you do not think this can happen in America, ask any black who grew up in the South before the civil rights movement -- and often even still today.

It has happened before. It can happen again -- if we allow it.

This is nothing personal against you George, but I have lost all respect for your opinions, and feel no desire to even address your many "opinions" any more. You have exposed yourself not as someone with an open mind, nor someone who has thought anything through, but merely as a run of the mill democrat demagogue.

That's a shame. You're capable of so much more.

George,

Would you not be willing to stipulate that all 1200 or whatever number of these detainees are not naturalized citizens and can you name one other country where your rights as a resident alien, illegal or otherwise, would be so scrupulously observed? No one has borders as porous as the good old US of A and no other country is so laissez faire about people strolling across those borders illegal or otherwise. We have a lot of years of neglect to undo and you are seeing only part of it now. If we operated like just about any other country we would round up every alien of middle eastern decscent and deport their <ahem> selves. But we are better than that. We round up those who we cannot be sure about and endure the slings and arrows from those such as yourself worried that they are being detained instead of being, and stay with me here bud, what they would dread even more and what you or I could expect in any other country and, that is, DEPORTED.

No, I would not stipulate to this. I have no way of knowing who they are, other than what the Government claims them to be. This is all done in secret. How can I stipulate to something where there is no idependent verification to show the government to be telling the truth? How can you?

As far as any other country -- that is not my concern. My concern is the US. Just as I would not accept that the US should do less to preserve people's rights because other countries do less, neither would I argue that we should not do more than all other countries.

We ARE the United States. We ARE the beacon of freedom. As Abraham Lincoln said we ARE the last best hope for mankind. Why would we meaure ourselves against what other countries do? Why should we not just measure ourselves against what we know we can do and should do -- against who we believe ourselves to be -- the best we know we can be?

And as far as the 1200 are concerned, how do any of us know their rights as citizen, legal residents or illegal residents are being scrupulously protetced. We know nothing about them, other than they are all being detained. We do not know where, we do not know why, we do not know how they are being treated.

If the government eliminated the secrecy, allowed the press in, stopped fighting public trials -- then we could judge. But right now, I cannot and neither can you, JBryan. All you can do is to assume the government is telling you the truth. You may be willing to accept their word as gospel. But I do not.

Are you not both arguing the same thing?

That these 1200 people need to be investigated - quickly - and deported if warranted? That deporting undesirables is a pretty straightforward deal and that there is no reason for secrecy to say nothing of a lengthy stay at taxpayer expense? Can anyone make a case for keeping them locked up - in secret - and holding trials - in secret - and paying to house and feed them to boot? To say nothing of holding people without figuring out who among them may be US citizens (and you can bet there are some...)?

I think not.

If any other country was to lock up even a couple of our citizens, without trial, without due process, without bail and without communication to the outside world, we would send in the bombers forthwith. Civilized nations do not do this sort of thing. We would fly in full of rightous indignation, and justifications such as "interest of national security (their national security) would fall on deaf ears. I present the Iran hostage crisis as just one example.

We have the system to do the right thing. Why aren't we doing it?

This I can agree with. I have no trouble whatsoever with people who have entered here illegally, or even if here by permission of our government and break the law, being deported.

But not in secrecy. Not in violation of our values as a poeple. Not in contrast to our belief of how our government should act.

No, do it openly, so all can see.

Does anyone have the key to Derick's test above? I want to know how I did.

Okay, I'll agree with George that these illegal aliens need deporting, if they are innocent of any crimes.

And while we are at it, let's round up the rest of the illegal aliens and send them home, also. All of them. Mexican, Central America, Arab, Euopean or Alpha Centauri. You name the country(or planet) of national origin, and if they are in this country illegally - you're outta here!

As long as they are illegal aliens, I would not give them welfare, Medicaid, public education, access to the criminal justice system(except for criminal proceedings), or any other benefit given to a legal alien.

Illegal immigration has become a problem around the world. The Danish parliment yesterday voted to tighten their immgration policies. Britian voted last week to deny citizenship to children born in the country of aliens, legal or illegal. I think we should do the same.

This is not to say I would hinder legal immigration. Let us just assess who and why we let in this country. Tourism, work, education and medical care are all valid reasons. But when that green card or visa runs out, if the person cannot show just cause why they should remain here - bye,bye.

As an aside, let me tell you about a dirty little secret. Have you ever noticed how many physicians are of foreign birth? Did you think that the reason they are here is because they are the best and brightest? Nah! They are qualified to go to medical school, rest assured on that point, but the reason the med schools love them is because they pay cash, up front. Their families donate funds to the university. The standard mantra is that we are training them for their home country and they will be leaving after their graduation and residency program. And yes, that is a worthy goal. We should set aside a small number of positions for training foreign doctors.

But these are not dummies you are dealing with. They marry American citizens, or they pull every political string accessible to them. They don't want to go home! And they don't.

Why the consternation over foreign born doctors? A couple of reasons. It is the art of medicine a physician practices, not the science. Good medicine still contains a large intangible element. Foreign born physicians, with few exceptions, do not communicate as well as their native born counterparts. They miss subtle hints in patient interviews or they don't understand sometimes what family members are telling them. Just because you were a good student in internal medicine, does not mean you can deliver the goods in the real world.

Secondly, medical schools have a very limited number of slots available. For every alien that acquires a position on the roster, some citizen is denied a chance.Your son may have a good GPA, good MCAT scores, be wonderful with children, and show tremendous commitment to becoming a pediatrician, but when stacked against an Indian or Arab student with a similar attributes and a pocket full of money for the school, take three guesses (and the first two don't count), who will be treading the school halls in the fall.

I guess the two arguments I am trying to merge is that 1) No illegal aliens should be alowed to remain in the country, and 2)Legal aliens should abide by the terms put forth when they come into the country. No more tricks in order to circumvent their return home. If you want to stay in this country, apply to do so legally, become a citizen, and enjoy all the rights, privledges and taxes we all enjoy.

Steve Miller said:

Political correctness rearing its ugly head again? I don't know and I agree that we should deal with these people with dispatch. I, too, am troubled by the idea of secret trials where the rules of evidence have somehow taken a vacation. I think there is another consideration that may come into play here and that is the shear numbers of these people make it difficult to quickly make the determination as to whether or not they are involved in any terrorist cells. If they are, there is a need to at least attempt to extract as much intelligence from them as possible. Clearly, deportation of these people quickly (a move that I am certain most of them would fight vigorously, BTW) would run counter to that aim. There are a lot of different mutually exclusive considerations to be weighed here. I certainly am not disinterested to what happens to our civil liberties or those of non-citizens in the balance. After all, let us not forget that one of the points often made by us who tend toward the conservative is that the Constitution "grants" rights to no one. They are assumed to be inherent from birth or, as the founders of this country stated, granted by the creator. That should apply to citizens and non-citizens alike.

Jolly

I think you are being short sighted here. Rather than deport them, we should legalize their status, see them as a resource and then use them for what we need them for. No, they should not be allowed to become citizens, naturalized or not, no matter who they marry.

The fact is we Americans do not like to do a lot of the jobs that need doing. They are boring, dirty and, for the most part, beneath the citizens of a great nation. So why should we do them? If there are people in the rest of the world who want to come here and do this work, then we should facilitate their coming here and allow them to handle the menial jobs they are capable of doing that we prefer not to have to handle.

I agree with you about the doctors. What we are allowing with doctors, engineers and all the other professionals takes away the rights of Americans to decent jobs. Our immigration policies should allow only a few of these in, only as many as business needs, and then bar the rest. And whether they marry an American or not, once they are no longer needed by the company that brings them here, they and their American spouses should be sent back. They can apply again to another company, but they stay in their own places until a company wants them.

As for the rest, the majority that come here, give them work permits specifically for the jobs we want them to do. (We can start with the illegals already here). And if that job, say housekeeping, cleaning hotels, washing cars, busisng tables or whatever, goes away, then we can either facilitate finding them another job in these areas within 30 days or send them back. They can return if and when we need them again.

George,

One of the reason these people have been held in isolation or incommunicado is that there is a concern that if they are part of a terrorist cell then they can conduct their work through others even though incarcerated. It's a bad deal for them but, as much as I don't like saying this, we need to do some things to better provide for security even if certain people are not treated as we would normally like. I do believe there is a real and present danger to our society from terrorism by certain legal or illegal aliens. My concern would be that these extraordinary measures do not become standard practice once the present crisis has ened. However, if these people were released on bail or allowed to communicate with others and another even, possibly, greater act of terrorism took place as aresult, I have no trouble imagining that you might be among those calling for the heads of those who allowed such a thing to take place.

I asked if you could stipulate that all of these detainees were not naturalized citizens and you said you could not because we cannot talk to them. However, if there are any citizens being held, their families and friends know who they are and we have not heard that from any of them. Every one of these people are, ostensibly, being held on immigration violations. No one, so far, has established anything to the contrary and, unless a person has been living here in utter isolation, that should be fairly easy if it were so.

Jim,

Tell me something. You are not suggesting that my wife, who is Chinese and a resident (legal) alien must be allowed here only if she can acquire some sort of work permit to do housework or whatever. Please tell me that is not what you are saying.

JBryan

So you are arguing that the accused must prove their innocence -- the government has arrested them and there is no evidence they are not what the government says they are -- even when they are being held in secret, for months with no charges formally filed, no arraignment being done, no contact with the outside world.

And you feel they should have to do this because "these people have been held in isolation or incommunicado is that there is a concern that if they are part of a terrorist cell then they can conduct their work through others even though incarcerated."

And, of course, you know this, i assume, because the very government which is doing this to them is the one that tells you this -- without providing anything other than their "good word" to assure us they are teling the truth.

I am sure that when governments have used this approach in the past to intimidate and to harrass people, (its excessive use by almost all governments being the very reason why we have habeas corpus) they also claimed to be doing what was right and legal, and expected the citizens to accept it because, after all, what government would ever lie about such things?

Kind of like saying one knows the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But when will they end?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jolly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

playerpiano9,

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

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

Derick

B. Alden,

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

player9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lb

Jim,

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