OT: Driver's licenses for illegals - just to bizarre



Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Nov 7, 8:17 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Strange how things getting worse in the US in recent decades
>> correlates so well with Republican electoral success, and their
>> efforts to undo the New Deal and other progressive policies.
>>

> It is true that most of the major recessions have occurred during
> republican administrations over the last 70 years (except for periods
> during the Kennedy and Carter administrations) --


The latter was inherited from Ford, though. I don't remember the
Kennedy Administration as my earliest childhood memory is his assassination.

> but don't forget that the biggest recession of them all persisted
> through all of FDR's administration, and the New Deal did not stop
> it. The war stopped it. Of the surviving New Deal programs, only
> Social Security is all that progressive, and maybe the Fair Labor
> Standards Act. The FDIC is important, but not to low income people.
>
> Sure, the economy is in the tank, and Bush is bad -- but you really
> don't know about "things getting worse."


The economy is hardly "in the tank." It's not astonishingly good, but
we don't have mass unemployment, Hoovervilles and bread lines either.
We're not even in a recession yet let alone a depression. I'll grant
you that Bush is bad, though. It will take decades to undo that damage
he and his cronies have wrought on the political landscape- and a few
years to undo the damage that greedy idiots did in the mortgage and
housing industries.

> They were far worse in the 30s/40s, and notwithstanding the
> prosperity of parts of the 50s (Ike had some terrible recessions in
> there), it was a very nervous time with all the "duck and cover"
> stuff. There was incredible anguish in the '60s with the civil rights
> movement, leaders getting killed left and right. We had disco in the
> '70s -- a plague from God. There was huge inflation in the 80's with
> mortgage rates in the double digits, etc. The existence of a "golden
> age" is merely a matter of personal perception, and is often
> unrelated to the economy or hard economic indicators.


Or reality. The 50s America that the Republicans have been trying to
get us back to since 1980 never existed in the first place.
 
"still me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:26:53 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>That was the claim made back then, including prejudicial laws enacted to
>>prevent people of those groups from getting ahead and onto an equal
>>footing with everyone else. The new arguments are nothing new.

>
> But they arrived legally. There's a difference.


Interestingly often the people with most power didn't arrive legally. See
the English upper classes (1066 and all that - invasion isn't normally
regarded as legal, apart from by a few people re Iraq), and indeed the USian
and other new world ones - "Colonisation" is just a pretty word for it.

So I don't really feel your argument about "they arrived legally" has much
merit.

cheers,
clive
 
"still me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:26:53 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>That was the claim made back then, including prejudicial laws enacted to
>>prevent people of those groups from getting ahead and onto an equal
>>footing with everyone else. The new arguments are nothing new.

>
> But they arrived legally. There's a difference.


Interestingly often the people with most power didn't arrive legally. See
the English upper classes (1066 and all that - invasion isn't normally
regarded as legal, apart from by a few people re Iraq), and indeed the USian
and other new world ones - "Colonisation" is just a pretty word for it.

So I don't really feel your argument about "they arrived legally" has much
merit.

cheers,
clive
 
A Muzi wrote:
> still me wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 14:55:31 -0500, "Simon Cooper"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> You got a problem accepting my income tax contributions?

>>
>> Nope, send them to me. You can use Paypal to send them to my email
>> address.
>>
>>> You just think I shouldn't have any say in how it gets spent, in
>>> case I think your warmongering government should get distracted
>>> from it's modern day crusade?

>>
>> Not unless you are a legal citizen. Feel free to engage in our
>> tradition of complaining about everything; that's free. Voting is
>> reserved for those here legally.

>
> Yep, voting is both a right and a duty. The anguish, guilt and
> remorse as your chosen candidate steals and lies through the term
> until re-election is merely a bonus.


That's what's so cool about Americans- our boundless optimism!
 
A Muzi wrote:
> still me wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 14:55:31 -0500, "Simon Cooper"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> You got a problem accepting my income tax contributions?

>>
>> Nope, send them to me. You can use Paypal to send them to my email
>> address.
>>
>>> You just think I shouldn't have any say in how it gets spent, in
>>> case I think your warmongering government should get distracted
>>> from it's modern day crusade?

>>
>> Not unless you are a legal citizen. Feel free to engage in our
>> tradition of complaining about everything; that's free. Voting is
>> reserved for those here legally.

>
> Yep, voting is both a right and a duty. The anguish, guilt and
> remorse as your chosen candidate steals and lies through the term
> until re-election is merely a bonus.


That's what's so cool about Americans- our boundless optimism!
 
Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Nov 7, 8:17 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I don't understand why young citizens are not
>>>> willing to work for less than big dollars (putting aside the issue of
>>>> what is an adequate minimum wage).
>>> They are... but in many places they have to compete with college
>>> grads, and harder working and easier to control illegal immigrants...
>>> who probably are the employers top choice. Those used to be the kind
>>> of jobs that teenagers got, but now there is a large group of adults
>>> who work for near minimum wage... which is a lower wage than it was 20
>>> years ago.
>>>> This is a whole other issue, but it
>>>> is one that informs my opinion of migrant workers -- who work hard
>>>> from what I can see. I wish we could import that ethic.
>>> That is mostly the ethic of *fear* Jay... along with a fleeting
>>> appreciation for how things are much better than they were in the past
>>> and are likely to be even better in the future. US citizens don't have
>>> this, because things have obviously been getting worse here for a few
>>> decades.

>> Strange how things getting worse in the US in recent decades correlates
>> so well with Republican electoral success, and their efforts to undo the
>> New Deal and other progressive policies.
>>

> It is true that most of the major recessions have occurred during
> republican administrations over the last 70 years (except for periods
> during the Kennedy and Carter administrations) -- but don't forget
> that the biggest recession of them all persisted through all of FDR's
> administration, and the New Deal did not stop it. The war stopped it.
> Of the surviving New Deal programs, only Social Security is all that
> progressive, and maybe the Fair Labor Standards Act. The FDIC is
> important, but not to low income people.
>
> Sure, the economy is in the tank, and Bush is bad -- but you really
> don't know about "things getting worse." They were far worse in the
> 30s/40s, and notwithstanding the prosperity of parts of the 50s (Ike
> had some terrible recessions in there), it was a very nervous time
> with all the "duck and cover" stuff. There was incredible anguish in
> the '60s with the civil rights movement, leaders getting killed left
> and right. We had disco in the '70s -- a plague from God. There was
> huge inflation in the 80's with mortgage rates in the double digits,
> etc. The existence of a "golden age" is merely a matter of personal
> perception, and is often unrelated to the economy or hard economic
> indicators. -- Jay Beattie.
>

You are missing the point. Look at wealth and income distribution now
compared to 30 years ago. The share of the top 5%, and in particular,
the top 1% is much larger now in both categories.

Do you really believe that the very rich have somehow greatly increased
their contribution to the general welfare of society so much compared to
30 years ago?

Look at the minimum wage then and now, college tuition then and now,
housing prices then and now. The "American Dream" has been killed by
right-wing policies in the ongoing class war waged by the rich on
everyone else.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Nov 7, 8:17 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I don't understand why young citizens are not
>>>> willing to work for less than big dollars (putting aside the issue of
>>>> what is an adequate minimum wage).
>>> They are... but in many places they have to compete with college
>>> grads, and harder working and easier to control illegal immigrants...
>>> who probably are the employers top choice. Those used to be the kind
>>> of jobs that teenagers got, but now there is a large group of adults
>>> who work for near minimum wage... which is a lower wage than it was 20
>>> years ago.
>>>> This is a whole other issue, but it
>>>> is one that informs my opinion of migrant workers -- who work hard
>>>> from what I can see. I wish we could import that ethic.
>>> That is mostly the ethic of *fear* Jay... along with a fleeting
>>> appreciation for how things are much better than they were in the past
>>> and are likely to be even better in the future. US citizens don't have
>>> this, because things have obviously been getting worse here for a few
>>> decades.

>> Strange how things getting worse in the US in recent decades correlates
>> so well with Republican electoral success, and their efforts to undo the
>> New Deal and other progressive policies.
>>

> It is true that most of the major recessions have occurred during
> republican administrations over the last 70 years (except for periods
> during the Kennedy and Carter administrations) -- but don't forget
> that the biggest recession of them all persisted through all of FDR's
> administration, and the New Deal did not stop it. The war stopped it.
> Of the surviving New Deal programs, only Social Security is all that
> progressive, and maybe the Fair Labor Standards Act. The FDIC is
> important, but not to low income people.
>
> Sure, the economy is in the tank, and Bush is bad -- but you really
> don't know about "things getting worse." They were far worse in the
> 30s/40s, and notwithstanding the prosperity of parts of the 50s (Ike
> had some terrible recessions in there), it was a very nervous time
> with all the "duck and cover" stuff. There was incredible anguish in
> the '60s with the civil rights movement, leaders getting killed left
> and right. We had disco in the '70s -- a plague from God. There was
> huge inflation in the 80's with mortgage rates in the double digits,
> etc. The existence of a "golden age" is merely a matter of personal
> perception, and is often unrelated to the economy or hard economic
> indicators. -- Jay Beattie.
>

You are missing the point. Look at wealth and income distribution now
compared to 30 years ago. The share of the top 5%, and in particular,
the top 1% is much larger now in both categories.

Do you really believe that the very rich have somehow greatly increased
their contribution to the general welfare of society so much compared to
30 years ago?

Look at the minimum wage then and now, college tuition then and now,
housing prices then and now. The "American Dream" has been killed by
right-wing policies in the ongoing class war waged by the rich on
everyone else.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Illegal immigration is a problem because a nation has a right to
>>>>> control who enters its borders, and illegal immigrants circumvent
>>>>> that....

>
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Nations that restrict movement of people are a violation of a
>>>> fundamental human right.

>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> Are you arguing that no nation has a right to control who enters its
>>> territory? That would be pretty out there. How about say, an
>>> invading army? Does a nation have a right to restrict their
>>> movements? Or, say, drug smugglers? Maybe the occasional terrorist?

>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Having nations is a failure of human society. Forgive my idealism.

>
> A few years in an anarchist's nirvana such as Somalia or Waziristan
> might cure you of that.


Not at all what I was referring too, as should have been obvious.

The problems in those areas are due to a mixture of tribalism,
fundamentalist religion and foreign/colonial/imperial interference, all
of which would not exist in a progressive society.

> [attempt on-topic]
> Some useful things like bicycles and the internet depend on a highly
> advanced society for their very existence. If M**e V**n ditched all
> humans and human culture there's be no CF, steel, bicycles, roads or
> much of anything else useful. Literally a wasteland.


A highly advanced society would eliminate such primitive ideas such as
nations that are rooted in old fashioned tribalism - pitting one group
against the other for no good reason.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Illegal immigration is a problem because a nation has a right to
>>>>> control who enters its borders, and illegal immigrants circumvent
>>>>> that....

>
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Nations that restrict movement of people are a violation of a
>>>> fundamental human right.

>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> Are you arguing that no nation has a right to control who enters its
>>> territory? That would be pretty out there. How about say, an
>>> invading army? Does a nation have a right to restrict their
>>> movements? Or, say, drug smugglers? Maybe the occasional terrorist?

>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Having nations is a failure of human society. Forgive my idealism.

>
> A few years in an anarchist's nirvana such as Somalia or Waziristan
> might cure you of that.


Not at all what I was referring too, as should have been obvious.

The problems in those areas are due to a mixture of tribalism,
fundamentalist religion and foreign/colonial/imperial interference, all
of which would not exist in a progressive society.

> [attempt on-topic]
> Some useful things like bicycles and the internet depend on a highly
> advanced society for their very existence. If M**e V**n ditched all
> humans and human culture there's be no CF, steel, bicycles, roads or
> much of anything else useful. Literally a wasteland.


A highly advanced society would eliminate such primitive ideas such as
nations that are rooted in old fashioned tribalism - pitting one group
against the other for no good reason.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Nov 8, 8:59 am, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Illegal immigration is a problem because a nation has a right to
>>>>>> control who enters its borders, and illegal immigrants circumvent
>>>>>> that....
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Nations that restrict movement of people are a violation of a
>>>>> fundamental human right.
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> Are you arguing that no nation has a right to control who enters its
>>>> territory? That would be pretty out there. How about say, an
>>>> invading army? Does a nation have a right to restrict their
>>>> movements? Or, say, drug smugglers? Maybe the occasional terrorist?

>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Having nations is a failure of human society. Forgive my idealism.

>> A few years in an anarchist's nirvana such as Somalia or Waziristan
>> might cure you of that.
>>
>> [attempt on-topic]
>> Some useful things like bicycles and the internet depend on a highly
>> advanced society for their very existence. If M**e V**n ditched all
>> humans and human culture there's be no CF, steel, bicycles, roads or
>> much of anything else useful. Literally a wasteland.

>
> Why is it that humans get these idiodic philosophical constructs that
> entirely ignore reality? Nations are a failure of human society? And
> we know that because there is a big book somewhere that has the source
> code for human society, and if we look at that we can tell exactly
> what we should be doing? We oscillate back and forth with philosophies
> -- society is good, society is bad, etc., etc. The French come up with
> existentialism, and we all pout for the next 50 years. Hey, yesterday
> I was perfectly happy, but today I am a f****** godless cockroach.
> Waaaaah. Oh, that's right, I have a pie in the oven. Mmmmmmm. Pie.
>
> You have to go with what works. Anarchy does not work. Tribal
> societies work poorly (at least in the modern world). Nations work
> the best generally speaking, although there are some bad nations. I
> am not aware of any rule that says nations need to let people in --
> Bhutan doesn't, and they are way, way happy there -- although that
> probably has more to do with the local plant life. I don't think
> there is any fundamental right to live anywhere I want, but then
> again, I haven't cross-checked that in the "Fundamental Rights of Man"
> book. -- Jay Beattie.
>

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

Try to think outside of a narrowly constructed box, and imagine what the
true possibilities for a better society would be.

Of course, in a better society, there would not be much need for
lawyers, eh?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Nov 8, 8:59 am, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Illegal immigration is a problem because a nation has a right to
>>>>>> control who enters its borders, and illegal immigrants circumvent
>>>>>> that....
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Nations that restrict movement of people are a violation of a
>>>>> fundamental human right.
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> Are you arguing that no nation has a right to control who enters its
>>>> territory? That would be pretty out there. How about say, an
>>>> invading army? Does a nation have a right to restrict their
>>>> movements? Or, say, drug smugglers? Maybe the occasional terrorist?

>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Having nations is a failure of human society. Forgive my idealism.

>> A few years in an anarchist's nirvana such as Somalia or Waziristan
>> might cure you of that.
>>
>> [attempt on-topic]
>> Some useful things like bicycles and the internet depend on a highly
>> advanced society for their very existence. If M**e V**n ditched all
>> humans and human culture there's be no CF, steel, bicycles, roads or
>> much of anything else useful. Literally a wasteland.

>
> Why is it that humans get these idiodic philosophical constructs that
> entirely ignore reality? Nations are a failure of human society? And
> we know that because there is a big book somewhere that has the source
> code for human society, and if we look at that we can tell exactly
> what we should be doing? We oscillate back and forth with philosophies
> -- society is good, society is bad, etc., etc. The French come up with
> existentialism, and we all pout for the next 50 years. Hey, yesterday
> I was perfectly happy, but today I am a f****** godless cockroach.
> Waaaaah. Oh, that's right, I have a pie in the oven. Mmmmmmm. Pie.
>
> You have to go with what works. Anarchy does not work. Tribal
> societies work poorly (at least in the modern world). Nations work
> the best generally speaking, although there are some bad nations. I
> am not aware of any rule that says nations need to let people in --
> Bhutan doesn't, and they are way, way happy there -- although that
> probably has more to do with the local plant life. I don't think
> there is any fundamental right to live anywhere I want, but then
> again, I haven't cross-checked that in the "Fundamental Rights of Man"
> book. -- Jay Beattie.
>

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

Try to think outside of a narrowly constructed box, and imagine what the
true possibilities for a better society would be.

Of course, in a better society, there would not be much need for
lawyers, eh?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
On Nov 8, 5:00 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> The economy is hardly "in the tank." It's not astonishingly good, but
> we don't have mass unemployment, Hoovervilles and bread lines either.


They've mearly found a new way to mask it. The middle class is quickly
sinking into the servant class. We all have jobs because the servant
class did not previously exist... and the alternative is living on the
streets.
 
On Nov 8, 5:00 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> The economy is hardly "in the tank." It's not astonishingly good, but
> we don't have mass unemployment, Hoovervilles and bread lines either.


They've mearly found a new way to mask it. The middle class is quickly
sinking into the servant class. We all have jobs because the servant
class did not previously exist... and the alternative is living on the
streets.
 
On Nov 8, 7:29 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> A highly advanced society would eliminate such primitive ideas such as
> nations that are rooted in old fashioned tribalism - pitting one group
> against the other for no good reason.


Idealism is ok, but the concept of nations is a big improvement over
local clans and gangs. If we had no "government" then we would have
gang and mafia style government... given the present state of
humanity.

My optimism regarding our future was shattered following 911. I
couldn't believe what was happening. There was basically *no* public
condemnation of the action in Afganistan. The US has basically taken
over and screwed up 2 countries that were previously at least
stable... with the blessing of well over half of the US population.
 
On Nov 8, 7:29 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> A highly advanced society would eliminate such primitive ideas such as
> nations that are rooted in old fashioned tribalism - pitting one group
> against the other for no good reason.


Idealism is ok, but the concept of nations is a big improvement over
local clans and gangs. If we had no "government" then we would have
gang and mafia style government... given the present state of
humanity.

My optimism regarding our future was shattered following 911. I
couldn't believe what was happening. There was basically *no* public
condemnation of the action in Afganistan. The US has basically taken
over and screwed up 2 countries that were previously at least
stable... with the blessing of well over half of the US population.
 
Ron Ruff wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:29 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> A highly advanced society would eliminate such primitive ideas such as
>> nations that are rooted in old fashioned tribalism - pitting one group
>> against the other for no good reason.

>
> Idealism is ok, but the concept of nations is a big improvement over
> local clans and gangs. If we had no "government" then we would have
> gang and mafia style government... given the present state of
> humanity....


The problem with nations are that they are too much like clans and gangs.

I was not advocating anarchy, but a unified (but not uniform) human
society. However, certain people failed to comprehend and replied in a
knee-jerk fashion, including gratuitous insults. One wonders if they
have too much of their identity invested in a particular nation?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
Ron Ruff wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:29 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> A highly advanced society would eliminate such primitive ideas such as
>> nations that are rooted in old fashioned tribalism - pitting one group
>> against the other for no good reason.

>
> Idealism is ok, but the concept of nations is a big improvement over
> local clans and gangs. If we had no "government" then we would have
> gang and mafia style government... given the present state of
> humanity....


The problem with nations are that they are too much like clans and gangs.

I was not advocating anarchy, but a unified (but not uniform) human
society. However, certain people failed to comprehend and replied in a
knee-jerk fashion, including gratuitous insults. One wonders if they
have too much of their identity invested in a particular nation?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

> I cut the quoted material short by a paragraph:
>
> "But no one checks if the person registering to vote is indeed a citizen.


So when I read local newspaper headlines about prosecutions for false
voter registrations, those are just stories made up as part of the Vast
Left Wing Conspiracy?

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

> I cut the quoted material short by a paragraph:
>
> "But no one checks if the person registering to vote is indeed a citizen.


So when I read local newspaper headlines about prosecutions for false
voter registrations, those are just stories made up as part of the Vast
Left Wing Conspiracy?

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
 
Back to the original topic for a moment,
http://www.nilc.org/immspbs/DLs/state_dl_rqrmts_120504.pdf
has a good summary of state driver's license requirements. You'll note
that pretty much every state will license non-citizens, and severa do
not have a legal residence requirement.

Nothing new with that, of course. In fact, if you read through the
comments, you'll find a number of states with no legal or regulatory
requirement for legal residence that have in recent years attempted to
enforce legal residence requirement anyway.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
 

Similar threads