[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2015-August-31, 11:25, said:

Of course the law also says that crossing the border without proper procedures is illegal. That's also clear.

Yes it is, and there was no such law when Wong Kim Ark's parents arrived, so the situations are similar but not identical.

The US has many laws that are very clear, but are not enforced. Some are eventually forgotten with disuse, but every so often one reads an amusing article listing anachronistic laws still on the books.

Other laws are crystal clear, like the speed limits on highways, but most drivers exceed those limits by an amount that the traffic police generally ignore. The drivers who go nuts with speed do get pulled over and fined. Those causing an accident while drunk can land in jail. But mostly, minor speeding infractions aren't serious enough to warrant action, although once in awhile a random driver does get pulled over and fined anyway.

And, of course, one sometimes sees drivers in the fast lane strictly obeying the speed limit. Since that is as fast as people are supposed to drive, why should they not? No doubt the idea of illegals in the US drives those anal folks crazy.

In areas where US employers have heavily recruited illegal Mexican laborers, the authorities have mostly turned a blind eye to the infractions, understanding the importance of the workers to the local economy and the impracticality of mass deportations. Against the illegality (and that is clear), they balance the fact that the workers and their families cause fewer problems than native-born citizens and contribute mightily to the community.

I don't think that the illegality should be swept under the rug, but generally speaking that particular illegality is on a par with traffic violations. A reasonable and practical approach would be to locate illegal workers, make them and their employers pay small fines, provide the workers and any illegal family members with permanent residency permits (not automatic citizenship) and require that their employers treat them as any other employee.

In the rare situation where an immigrant commits a serious offense, that would not apply of course, just as serious traffic offenses demand severe responses. In the case of a serious offence by an immigrant, that would include revoking (or not issuing) a residency permit.

[mike777]

 barmar, on 2015-August-31, 09:33, said:

It does seem like the 14th Amendment is overly simplistic. If a foreign family comes here for a 2-week vacation, and the mother gives birth to a child, should that child really be afforded citizenship? It seems like the condition of the parents being in the US when the child is born -- the reason they're here and the length of time -- should play some part.

But as it's written, that isn't really permitted. I believe "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", probably only excludes children of people with diplomatic immunity.

To answer your question, yes the child is a citizen and should be a citizen. This is a good thing.
For some reason people think this is a bad idea. For some reason Trump and others think we now pay for this child the next 80 years. They view human capital as something worth zero. For some reason they think of this child being a leach the next 80 years rather than having potential to help make the USA great and exceptional

[mike777]

 PassedOut, on 2015-August-31, 13:19, said:

Yes it is, and there was no such law when Wong Kim Ark's parents arrived, so the situations are similar but not identical.

The US has many laws that are very clear, but are not enforced. Some are eventually forgotten with disuse, but every so often one reads an amusing article listing anachronistic laws still on the books.

Other laws are crystal clear, like the speed limits on highways, but most drivers exceed those limits by an amount that the traffic police generally ignore. The drivers who go nuts with speed do get pulled over and fined. Those causing an accident while drunk can land in jail. But mostly, minor speeding infractions aren't serious enough to warrant action, although once in awhile a random driver does get pulled over and fined anyway.

And, of course, one sometimes sees drivers in the fast lane strictly obeying the speed limit. Since that is as fast as people are supposed to drive, why should they not? No doubt the idea of illegals in the US drives those anal folks crazy.

In areas where US employers have heavily recruited illegal Mexican laborers, the authorities have mostly turned a blind eye to the infractions, understanding the importance of the workers to the local economy and the impracticality of mass deportations. Against the illegality (and that is clear), they balance the fact that the workers and their families cause fewer problems than native-born citizens and contribute mightily to the community.

I don't think that the illegality should be swept under the rug, but generally speaking that particular illegality is on a par with traffic violations. A reasonable and practical approach would be to locate illegal workers, make them and their employers pay small fines, provide the workers and any illegal family members with permanent residency permits (not automatic citizenship) and require that their employers treat them as any other employee.

In the rare situation where an immigrant commits a serious offense, that would not apply of course, just as serious traffic offenses demand severe responses. In the case of a serious offence by an immigrant, that would include revoking (or not issuing) a residency permit.

This basically USE TO BE a non problem....they spent money here, they paid taxes and they did not get any social services. In other words everyone made a profit. They did receive charity so at some level there was help.

The problem came into being when many want/demand all the rights of being a citizen by jumping the queue. Guilt is a powerful tool.

[kenberg]

 PassedOut, on 2015-August-31, 13:19, said:

And, of course, one sometimes sees drivers in the fast lane strictly obeying the speed limit. Since that is as fast as people are supposed to drive, why should they not? No doubt the idea of illegals in the US drives those anal folks crazy.

It's a little different here in Maryland than in the UP. I was going closer to 75 than to70 in the 55 zone. I was brashly in the fast lane where I clearly didn't belong as cars would come up to a few feet behind me and dart around the first chance they got. So I moved over. It is said that people here take posted speed limits as suggestions, but obviously not as suggestion they should take seriously.

I was in the UP, it was last summer I think. From what I could saw of the traffic, the speed limit signs actually mean something there. I found this very challenging to get used to, but Becky would "help" from time to time. I only got one ticket, and that wasn't for speeding

It's true that if the police suddenly took speed limits to mean what they say it would probably bring the region's business to a standstill. There is some analogy with enforcement of immigration laws but I would not really want to couple them strongly.

[kenberg]

I regard the general problem that Winston brings up (and I realize I am about to phrase it in broader terms than he staed) as very important: Where are we headed with our democratic process?

The first election I paid much attention to was in 1952, back when Joe McCarthy was riding high. So predictions of impending doom of our democratic ways are old hat to me. Still, it is worrisome. Apparently some new poll has Trunmp in first place, Carson in second, everyone else in the single digits. I found Carson to be the most likable of the guys on the stage. I don't share his religious beliefs but I have long ago given up expecting that. He seemed comfortable with himself, an attractive trait in anyone. But president Carson? No. Not president Carson, not president Berg. Actually the fact that I can't imagine him as president is another thing I like about him. But not a thing to like about a candidate.

So we seem to be thinking that the less someone has been involved in politics the better. This is a mistake.

[mike777]

Unfortunately Trump polling 20-30% of likely GOP Primary voters says more about those willing to actually come out and vote in the primaries than the entire Republican Party. Many who do not bother to vote in primaries.


Still it is early and Summer, perhaps once Fall comes and the leaves start to turn.

[barmar]

Yeah, polls at this point in the campaign are mostly meaningless. Anyone remember who was polling high in the summer of 2011?

[kenberg]

Indeed, early polling results are historically weird to bizarre. Which I guess is comforting in its way.


In the 1952 election that I mentioned I was an avid supporter of Pogo the 'Possum. I go Pogo. But I was 13.

[mike777]

 kenberg, on 2015-September-01, 12:41, said:

Indeed, early polling results are historically weird to bizarre. Which I guess is comforting in its way.


In the 1952 election that I mentioned I was an avid supporter of Pogo the 'Possum. I go Pogo. But I was 13.

As I recall Pogo was very hard right wing and very anti-red communist

"Probably the most famous Pogo quotation is "We have met the enemy and he is us." Perhaps more than any other words written by Kelly, it perfectly sums up his attitude towards the foibles of mankind and the nature of the human condition"

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2015-August-31, 17:17, said:

It's a little different here in Maryland than in the UP. I was going closer to 75 than to70 in the 55 zone. I was brashly in the fast lane where I clearly didn't belong as cars would come up to a few feet behind me and dart around the first chance they got. So I moved over. It is said that people here take posted speed limits as suggestions, but obviously not as suggestion they should take seriously.

I was in the UP, it was last summer I think. From what I could saw of the traffic, the speed limit signs actually mean something there. I found this very challenging to get used to, but Becky would "help" from time to time. I only got one ticket, and that wasn't for speeding

It's true that if the police suddenly took speed limits to mean what they say it would probably bring the region's business to a standstill. There is some analogy with enforcement of immigration laws but I would not really want to couple them strongly.

This is a temporary hijack, but I couldn't help but think of your post when I read this: Google’s Driverless Cars Run Into Problem: Cars With Drivers

Quote

Last month, as one of Google’s self-driving cars approached a crosswalk, it did what it was supposed to do when it slowed to allow a pedestrian to cross, prompting its “safety driver” to apply the brakes. The pedestrian was fine, but not so much Google’s car, which was hit from behind by a human-driven sedan.

Google’s fleet of autonomous test cars is programmed to follow the letter of the law. But it can be tough to get around if you are a stickler for the rules. One Google car, in a test in 2009, couldn’t get through a four-way stop because its sensors kept waiting for other (human) drivers to stop completely and let it go. The human drivers kept inching forward, looking for the advantage — paralyzing Google’s robot.

It is not just a Google issue. Researchers in the fledgling field of autonomous vehicles say that one of the biggest challenges facing automated cars is blending them into a world in which humans don’t behave by the book.

[kenberg]

So far, the problem is seen as the robots not being able to adapt to the ways of humans.Give this a bit and the roles may be reversed.

I came fairly close the other day to having almost exactly the same problem as the Google car. I was stopped at a light, to my right was a lane for right turners. But for some reason the lane extends beyond, maybe fifty yards after the intersection. OK, sometimes people have no intention of turning right but don't realize the situation. They find themselves in tis disappearing lane. I'm easy. I let them in. But this time some guy was coming from way back at a high speed. How far back I don't know, but suddenly there was a car passing me on the right in this disappearing lane at maybe 40 or 45 as I am gaining speed up to maybe 30. Then the lane is gone and he is crossing into my lane, about to be where the front of my car will be in a moment. I am not talking of rudeness, I am talking of insanity. I applied the breaks firmly and, not by much, avoided the collision. Becky expressed appreciation but I wanted to express my own appreciation to the guy in back of me. He was pretty close and managed to not rear end me. I am guessing that he saw this guy whizzing past on his right and even if he did not know exactly what was about to happen he was already on his breaks before I was. I of course would also like to have thanked the motorist coming in on my right for the wonderful compliment to me alertness and ability.

No robots involved.

Continuing the hijack, I am a fan of John Sandford "Prey" stories, usually set in Minnesota. The most recent, Gathering Prey, spills over into the UP. I won't go so far as to recommend it, people like Sandford or they don't, but I got a kick out of it.

[kenberg]

 mike777, on 2015-September-01, 15:25, said:

As I recall Pogo was very hard right wing and very anti-red communist

"Probably the most famous Pogo quotation is "We have met the enemy and he is us." Perhaps more than any other words written by Kelly, it perfectly sums up his attitude towards the foibles of mankind and the nature of the human condition"

One of my favorites: "If I could only write I would write a nasty letter to the mayor if he could only read". Pogo was not actually a deep thinker.

[mike777]

 kenberg, on 2015-September-01, 17:49, said:

One of my favorites: "If I could only write I would write a nasty letter to the mayor if he could only read". Pogo was not actually a deep thinker.

[gwnn]

PolitiFact on Donald Trump's statements:

True           0 ( 0%)
Mostly True    0 ( 0%)
Half True      5 (18%)
Mostly False   4 (14%)
False         15 (54%)
Pants on Fire  4 (14%)

http://www.politifac...op-frontrunner/

[kenberg]

 gwnn, on 2015-September-02, 07:50, said:

PolitiFact on Donald Trump's statements:

True       	0 ( 0%)
Mostly True    0 ( 0%)
Half True      5 (18%)
Mostly False   4 (14%)
False     	15 (54%)
Pants on Fire  4 (14%)

http://www.politifac...op-frontrunner/

I read The Manchurian Candidate long ago and see it from time to time on TCM. A senator (modeled after Joe McCarthy) is running for president and keeps speaking of there being X number of communists in the state department. X is truly a variable, changing daily. The explanation is that this keeps the issue on the front page. So the number has no relationship to reality, so what? Every time he comes up with a new number he gets attention and people are thinking there are communists in the state department, who cares about the exact number, and this candidate is the guy prepared to deal with it.

I have thought of that book/movie from time to time as I watch Donald. He says outrageous things. It gets him on the front page. So his numbers are wrong about how many people are out of work, ot how many illegal immigrants there are, or how much taxes we pay, or whatever. There he is on the front page. he's the guy.


Regrettably, this seems to work. I am hoping it has a time stamp on it, these things usually do. Kim Kardashian has come and (I think) gone without me really ever finding out who she is/was. Maybe Donald can follow her into oblivion.

[Winstonm]

It's rather sad and a bit disquieting to read through the daily news reports of what the Republican candidates have said overnight. Don't these people understand that a President must represent all the people and not just a handful of looney tunes?

What would happen if one of these nut cases actually won the office?

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2015-September-03, 18:04, said:

It's rather sad and a bit disquieting to read through the daily news reports of what the Republican candidates have said overnight. Don't these people understand that a President must represent all the people and not just a handful of looney tunes?

What would happen if one of these nut cases actually won the office?

Ya but the first rule is to get elected...worry about your point later.

For instance in NC we just elected a far right wing rep as us senator. Now he votes much more moderate than what he ran on. He gets pillared in the letter section of newspaper.

[PassedOut]

 mike777, on 2015-September-03, 20:05, said:

Ya but the first rule is to get elected...worry about your point later.

For instance in NC we just elected a far right wing rep as us senator. Now he votes much more moderate than what he ran on. He gets pillared in the letter section of newspaper.

Sounds uncomfortable.

[phil_20686]

I really truly do not understand how immigration has become a problem in the US and Europe. In both cases, you have large, extremely rich zones surrounded by a handful of troubled countries with populations a fraction of their size.

Take the US, it has two land boarders, and the one with canada doesnt really matter to this debate.

So you have mexico, population 120m, next to the US, population 350m. The US has about 5 million babies a year, and net population growth of 3m a year. If you just opened the boarder to mexicans, how many do you think would come? 10% of the population over a few years? Even if you got 5m a year for three or four years, it would quickly stabilise, as mexicans might come to the US to work, but then they would probably want to go back to mexico and start their own businesses. In order to imagine that this would some vast problem, you have to think that mexico would be almost entirely depopulated. If you got something similar to the experience of the EU enlargement, most people would barely notice. The US has flexible and dynamic labour markets and vast reserves of capital. It creates 200-300 thousand new jobs every month. You really think that some disaster would happen if the US economy had to absorb 20m new workers over a decade? Obviously not, as as that's only a fraction of the US's natural population growth.

Somehow everyone has got the idea that mass immigration would be some terrible problem. In reality it would be a non event.

We have the same thing in Europe right now. In the UK politicians discussing the Syria refugee crises quote migration numbers, primarily made up of EU citizens exercising their right to work here. They aren't even the net figures, which are close to flat for the UK since a huge number of Uk citizens go as Ex pats to the south of France or to work in various EU cities. As if well off EU citizens moving to london are remotely comparable to Syrian refugees. The EU could absorb the entire population of Syria (25m pre war) and most people would never meet one. As for absorbing the 2-5m people displaced by a bloody civil war, that is a rounding error in the population of the European Union.

Turkey, a much poorer nation aspiring to EU membership has absorbed 2 million Syrian refugees. But a rich population block of Five Hundred Million People, can't absorb the 1.5 million that have made it to the EU without a political crisis. Its a farce.

This xenophobic narrative that has taken hold in mainstream European politics is almost completely nonsense. We should be giving every Syrian and Libyan refugee an EU visa no questions asked, and spreading them out around the EU so they do not place a localised burden on a particular city or job market. If we did that, people would see that this is a complete non event. Like the tabloids prediction of a flood of eastern European migrants to the UK was a total non-event.

[Zelandakh]

 Winstonm, on 2015-September-03, 18:04, said:

It's rather sad and a bit disquieting to read through the daily news reports of what the Republican candidates have said overnight. Don't these people understand that a President must represent all the people and not just a handful of looney tunes?

What would happen if one of these nut cases actually won the office?

What candidates say in their internal party selection and what they say to the country as a whole come the election campaign often have only a passing resemblance to each other. You say what you need to to get elected. There are a million ways to justify U-turns later on if it seems tactically advantageous to do so.