Schwarzenegger to Make Rare Appearance in nationally-televised Candidate Debate tonight

[Jazz]

I would agree with your last statement. However, 'illegals' are in this country illegally - that is the definition - by law, that makes them guilty of a crime, hence criminal. Doesn't mean at ALL they are bad people - no way do I accept that - it means they are in this country illegally. Being here, if you think they are all paying taxes, are driving completely insured, and are not being ****ed over by businesses treating them as indentured slaves, keep dreaming.

I welcome immigrants - legal ones, ones who will work ON THE BOOKS, pay their fair share of taxes, and will not get into accidents and be uninsured. The other ones, no, I don't accept that, deport them and require them to come in the legal way.

Is that too much to ask?

 

[D2bets]

And the government would argue that online wagering is illegal and thus we are criminals, though just as immigrants, we will not be prosecuted (I hope lol). The bottomline is that Cali allows them to stay, shows no interest in eliminating illegal immigration or in deporting illegal immigrants. If you let thim live here as though they are allowed to be here, then you oughtta allow them to enjoy the basic privileges and also have the basic rights that all Americans enjoy (well, unless Dubya and Co. get their way).

 

[Jazz]

And my point is that they should not be allowed to stay 'asis', because it means only that the gutless fuc-ks in CA are pandering for the Hispanic vote rather than use common sense.

Any wonder why people are leaving CA in droves?

 

[D2bets]

Is that the Republican policy? I don't think so. I didn't hear any of them say that illegals should be actively sought and deported and that we should tighten up to make sure no more get in. Why won't they say that? Because it would devastate the Cali economy which relies on these people to perform many of the necessary service jobs that Americans generally don't want to do.

So they allow it. Knowingly and freely. And then they de facto declare them second-class citizens denying them basic rights. That's wrong. Either deport them or grant them legal status, either formally or informally. I just can't ignore that it's repugnant to knowingly create a second-class citizenry and basically take advantage of them. It's wrong. I thought Republicans had morals?

 

[Jazz]

Ah - so your excuse is an economic one, one in which a lot of these illegals are being screwed over salary and opportunity-wise by employers who are exploiting them and their fear of being deported. Tell me Democrats are NOT all in favor of indentured servitude!!!

Nope, I don't give a damn which party supports what - I am telling you what I personally think is the right thing to do. First, decide what laws you intend to enforce - change the existing ones if need be, but at a federal, not a state level. Secondly, don't penalize the illegals here who you've already recognized 'de facto' as legal. These people are human beings, not cattle, not grist for the business underbelly in that state. Third, establish iron-clad enforcement of federal immigration rules and provide the funds to enforce them. Fourth, establish extremely punitive penalties for companies found to employ illegal immigrants after the other 3 have been implemented. This would have the immediate effect of discouraging border-jumping if the jumpers knew for a fact that getting a job would be almost impossible. The fact that it isn't now and is accepted is one damn good reason a lot of border-jumpers die in miserable conditions - they are encouraged by these policies already in effect. Did the politicians currying the Hispanic vote ever wonder about the deaths of so many innocents, and whether their policies helped cause them?

Legal immigration, I'm totally in favor of - why wouldn't I be? Illegal immigration - no way.

 

[D2bets]

Looks like a good plan to me. Exactly one that no politician will ever propose. But you say don't penalize those recognized 'de facto' as illegal. Shouldn't that include allowing them to have drivers licenses?

Anyway, that's my only issue here...they allow them to stay but then as you eloquently stated "treat them as cattle, as grist for the business underbelly". It's insidiuous.

Anyway, g'nite.

 

[FloydGondolli]

D2

Can you explain the comments in this article concerning Clark? Why would his former boss, General Shelton (another 4-Star with much higher decorations that Clark), say such things and directly question Clark's integrity and character? Wasn't Shelton appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs by Clinton? So I assume Shelton isn't some rabid conservative.

Gen. Shelton shocks Celebrity Forum, says he won't support Clark for president

By Joan Garvin / Town Crier Correspondent

Retired General H. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, shared his recollection of that day and his views of the war against terrorism with the Foothill College Celebrity Forum audience at Flint Center, Sept. 11 and 12.

His review of that historic event and his 38 years in the military kept the audience's rapt attention throughout. But it was his answer to a question from the audience at the end that shocked his listeners.

"What do you think of General Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate," was the question put to him by moderator Dick Henning, assuming that all military men stood in support of each other. General Shelton took a drink of water and Henning said, "I noticed you took a drink on that one!"

"That question makes me wish it were vodka," said Shelton. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

Shelton was on a 757 en route to Budapest for a conference when he learned that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. Knowing that New York had perfect weather and there were no computer problems, he determined that it was a terrorist attack and immediately turned the plane around.

Shelton's 38 years in the military included two years in Vietnam and service in the 173rd Airborne Brigade and Green Berets. In addition to having been an adviser to the president and a member of the National Security Council, he has been awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the Purple Heart and six Distinguished Service Medals. He has been decorated by 15 foreign governments and knighted by Queen Elizabeth.

His 6-foot-6-inch military bearing and commanding presence at the Celebrity Forum belied his recent personal battle. Only months after his retirement, following 400 parachute jumps from 30,000 feet, the former special ops soldier fell from a ladder outside his home, landed with his head caught in a chain-link fence and was partially paralyzed from the neck down.

The doctor told Shelton he would never walk or use his hands again. Shelton said he checked the doctor's name tag for "God"; he didn't see it. Eighty-four days later he walked out on his own, and he is now close to 100 percent recovered. The unfortunate experience taught him an invaluable lesson -- "the importance of faith, family and friends when the chips are down."

Three days after Shelton took office as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his commitment to the integrity of the military was tested. When U.S. planes in the Iraq no-fly zone were attacked, a member of Congress suggested that perhaps "we" could fly a U-2 spy plane so low over Iraq that it could easily get hit. Then we'd have a reason "to kick Saddam out of Iraq." After Shelton responded that he would order that "just as soon as you are qualified to fly (it)," he was not asked again to compromise his office.

"Sometimes people in a position of power lose perspective on right and wrong," Shelton said.

The events of 9/11 were not a surprise to Shelton. He had been concerned because the United States offers a vulnerable target-rich environment. Two areas continue to worry him. First, a cyber-attack on air control, water, 911, financial or other nationwide systems could "bring us to our knees." Second, the use of weapons of mass destruction, even small amounts of sarin gas, anthrax germs, bio-attacks, continues to be a dangerous threat. Their deployment had been planned for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, but al-Qaeda ordered the attack before they were in place.

In order to deal with the ongoing danger, the United States must "continue to go after terrorists," he said. "Bush has maintained the pressure and earned kudos in spite of the criticism."

Link to actual story:

http://www.losaltosonline.com/articles/2003/09/23/news/community/news01.prt