Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Securing the Border

12346

Comments

  • #152
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    but statistics show that the larger and wealthier the area - the more educated the population

    Wealthier, I might agree with. Larger... well.. a quick look at Queens, Compton or even Detroit indicates that large cities can have areas of worse education that those country bumpkins. Particularly since a curriculum is State-mandated, both for cities and rural areas. I'd be curious to see the details on the specifics, can you send a link?

    NTM


  • #153
    MCMLXXXIII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 412 ✭✭MCMLXXXIII


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Wealthier, I might agree with. Larger... well.. a quick look at Queens, Compton or even Detroit indicates that large cities can have areas of worse education that those country bumpkins. Particularly since a curriculum is State-mandated, both for cities and rural areas. I'd be curious to see the details on the specifics, can you send a link?

    NTM

    Since I live in (near) Detroit, since you've mentioned it and since most people hate even the thought of (without ever traveling to/living in) Detroit, we will talk about it.

    This is an article that rates every school's grade - based on students' average performance. I live in Rochester Community School district (a fairly wealthy suburb) that gets mostly As (one B). Detroit is obviously a different story. As I claimed that not everyone in a rural area is uneducated, I also claim that everyone in an urban environment is not necessarily smart. However, education does play a larger role in someone's life when they see their parents use that education at work every day, as opposed to someone on a farm or working a factory job, etc. Metro Detroit has 4.5 million people - Detroit counts for 900,000 of them. You will see a lot of Cs - so there are some smart people there, but there are obviouslly a lot of people that aren't so swift in the city as well.

    *I couldn't find a side-by-side comparison for the different school districs around the area, but if you look through you will see many high-performing districts (besides the city and perhaps some other low-end urban/first ring school districts).


  • #154
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I was looking around our area on Greatschools.org, San Jose is rated a 6/10. Third-safest city in the US, home of Silicon Valley, largest city in Northern California. I like this city a lot. Rates as highly as Mendocino County, which is way up the California Coast, and the freeway doesn't go there.
    San Francisco also gets a 6/10, but North Humboldt, famous for... well, pretty much nothing except growing marijuana and being a retirement area for richer people scores 9/10.
    Now, if you want to narrow down to smaller areas, you have places like Suburban Menlo Park, which is pretty much the most expensive place in the US to live, and they rate 10/10, vs Imperial County which is nothing but desert, dirt cheap, and rates 2/10. But then, Scotts Valley, in the also not-too-cheap areas around Santa Cruz is anything but urban or suburban, and rates 9/10 whilst decidedly urban but equally decidedly un-rich Oakland is a 4/10.

    I really think money has more to do with it than urban density. Though then, there's probably a slight correlation there too, as throwing money at an urban school district probably will have greater effect on numbers of children (and, if you want to be cynical, numbers of voters) than throwing money at Shasta Unified which I'll wager most Californians haven't been within a five-hour-drive of.

    NTM


  • #155
    MCMLXXXIII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 412 ✭✭MCMLXXXIII


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    ...I really think money has more to do with it than urban density...
    I see exactly where you are coming from, but it is usually the jobs in large cities that pay more than jobs in small towns.

    Here, being an engineer at Ford Motor Company pays a lot better than even owning your own business/retail store just an hour outside of the dense population.


  • #156
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,767 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Lady goes Gaga over Arizona border bill. While other recording artists have asked her to boycott Arizona, she appeared at her Monster Ball proclaiming from the stage:

    "I will not cancel my show," Gaga told her Phoenix fans. "I will yell, and I will scream louder, and I will hold you, and we will hold each other, and we will peaceably protest this state. Do not be afraid, because if it wasn't for all of you immigrants, this country wouldn't have sh*t."

    Source: http://www.billboard.com/news/lady-gaga-protests-arizona-immigration-law-1004107202.story?tag=hpfeed#/news/lady-gaga-protests-arizona-immigration-law-1004107202.story?tag=hpfeed


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    That woman is a loon anyway :p


  • #158
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,767 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Overheal wrote: »
    That woman is a loon anyway :p
    I'm sure she laughs all the way to the bank! ;)


  • #159
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Blue_Lagoon wrote: »
    Lady goes Gaga over Arizona border bill. While other recording artists have asked her to boycott Arizona, she appeared at her Monster Ball proclaiming from the stage:

    "I will not cancel my show," Gaga told her Phoenix fans. "I will yell, and I will scream louder, and I will hold you, and we will hold each other, and we will peaceably protest this state. Do not be afraid, because if it wasn't for all of you immigrants, this country wouldn't have sh*t."

    Source: http://www.billboard.com/news/lady-gaga-protests-arizona-immigration-law-1004107202.story?tag=hpfeed#/news/lady-gaga-protests-arizona-immigration-law-1004107202.story?tag=hpfeed

    Lady Gaga is now getting political? Wow, the people of Arizona better start worrying. I guess it’s hard to argue with someone who feels: "I do f**k, but I'm certainly not promiscuous. I have this weird thing that if I sleep with someone they're going to take my creativity from me through my vagina." :pac:


  • #160
    MCMLXXXIII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 412 ✭✭MCMLXXXIII


    Blue_Lagoon wrote: »
    Lady goes Gaga over Arizona border bill...
    Overheal wrote: »
    That woman is a loon anyway :p
    Blue_Lagoon wrote: »
    I'm sure she laughs all the way to the bank! ;)
    I like Lady Gaga's music, and I think she's a loon. But I like her political attitude much more than many others.

    When someone (something) like Aeroméxico cancels all flights to Arizona, the state loses money through tourism, spending, etc. - it has a direct impact. But when a performer cancels a show it just hurts the people of Arizona. The state won't actually lose anything, and the people of Arizona didn't even vote for this legislation. They become mini-victims of their own state congress.

    Over the past few years, political division has led to a "my way or the highway" attitude among many along with "if you don't like it than you can just leave." While that tough-guy approach is effective for short-term scare tatics, it's unsustaiable without eventual revolt. The reason people left Europe in the first place was to A) make money, and B) have freedom of choice, whether it be religion, speech, etc. So now there is a socioety where people can change something if they don't like it. (Much of the arguement is what and how to change, but at least it can change) I think we can all be glad that we live in democratic societies (mostly around the world), and we can't blame Lady Gaga or anyone like her for doing what democracy and freedom was meant to be - voicing your political oppinion while making money. The US has huge audiences for Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Maddow...why not Gaga?


  • #161
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    When you mentioned “huge" audiences and Rachael Maddow in the same sentence, I laughed. But upon reflection I was just wondering, did you actually mean to say “stooge?” ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    MCMLXXXIII wrote: »
    I see exactly where you are coming from, but it is usually the jobs in large cities that pay more than jobs in small towns.

    Here, being an engineer at Ford Motor Company pays a lot better than even owning your own business/retail store just an hour outside of the dense population.

    This is true, but the cost of living drops dramatically as well. You drive an hour South of Silicon Valley and you're in the grazing fields of Los Banos. Pay is lower, but then you don't spend as much either.

    NTM


  • #163
    Carcharodon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    Amerika wrote: »
    When you mentioned “huge" audiences and Rachael Maddow in the same sentence, I laughed. But upon reflection I was just wondering, did you actually mean to say “stooge?” ;)

    Can I ask an off topic question, what is with the constant winks ?
    Are you deliberately trying to be obnoxious or are they genuine attempts to portray the mood of your text ?
    It is actually a genuine question from a psychological point of view.


  • #164
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    when you get pro, the sarcasm will simply flow through you. And it won't be as primitive as a smiley. Kind of like the force, but with less geek.


  • #165
    Carcharodon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    Overheal wrote: »
    when you get pro, the sarcasm will simply flow through you. And it won't be as primitive as a smiley. Kind of like the force, but with less geek.

    Oh I get it without the wink, people that watch Rachel Maddow are idiots.....

    ha

    ha

    ha

    Don't want to derail thread, just find it interesting.


  • #166
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Carcharodon wrote: »
    Can I ask an off topic question, what is with the constant winks ?
    Are you deliberately trying to be obnoxious or are they genuine attempts to portray the mood of your text ?
    It is actually a genuine question from a psychological point of view.

    Between the two, I would say an attempt to portray the mood of the text. At times humor and sarcasm do fit in the context of the topic and/or discussion. But I also realize humor or sarcastic delivery is truly an art form, that can be misinterpreted if left hanging by the unskilled. Since we don’t have a "fitting in context but said light-heartily, with tongue in cheek, not to be taken too seriously" smiley, I find the "wink" smiley to pretty much communicate the same connotation.

    Then again, maybe it’s a just a case of being obnoxious. ;)


  • #167
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Nah, There was a - particular, - user in a certain religion megathread who made far too much use of what could only be described as smiley bombs, and exclaimation points. Ol' winky is harmless.


  • #168
    Carcharodon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    Amerika wrote: »
    Between the two, I would say an attempt to portray the mood of the text. At times humor and sarcasm do fit in the context of the topic and/or discussion. But I also realize humor or sarcastic delivery is truly an art form, that can be misinterpreted if left hanging by the unskilled. Since we don’t have a "fitting in context but said light-heartily, with tongue in cheek, not to be taken too seriously" smiley, I find the "wink" smiley to pretty much communicate the same connotation.

    Then again, maybe it’s a just a case of being obnoxious. ;)

    I love it :)


  • #169
    MCMLXXXIII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 412 ✭✭MCMLXXXIII


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    This is true, but the cost of living drops dramatically as well. You drive an hour South of Silicon Valley and you're in the grazing fields of Los Banos. Pay is lower, but then you don't spend as much either.

    NTM
    Correct. The cost of living is lower. However, there is a reason for that - there aren't as many social programs. In a city, there is probably (at least there should be) a park within a few blocks, some tutors to help with studying, easily accessable sports or school programs, etc. All of those things help improve the educational experience of children AND it keeps children out of trouble. When you live in "the sticks" those things aren't as readily available. Not having a tutor available to help your kid with math will automatically save you a few hundred bucks every year. See what I mean?

    Even still, there are some things that don't change price with you live in a rural area. The price of electricity, phone service, water (if not on a well), cars/transportation, insurance, etc. are all the same price as the closest big city.

    I really don't know about how it is by you, but Detroit's services are very far-reaching. Up to about 100 miles away (in any direction) from the city is still serviced by Detroit Edison and Detroit Water & Sewer, etc. You have to be pretty far out there to really be on your own.
    Amerika wrote: »
    When you mentioned “huge" audiences and Rachael Maddow in the same sentence, I laughed. But upon reflection I was just wondering, did you actually mean to say “stooge?” ;)
    Yes, Rush has an audience six times the size as Maddow. Both audiences are still quite large, and something that most other commentators see as a benchmark.


  • #170
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    If there is any question that the Obama administration doesn’t care about border security or criminal acts of illegal aliens, but does care about their goal of getting amnesty, you can hear it from the "horses mouth."

    Finally, a union I can respect. The ICE Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations cast a unanimous vote of no confidence in the Director Of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and also the assistant Director of ICE Office of Detention Policy and Planning.

    I bet most haven't heard about this.

    And I can’t believe anybody still to this day doubts mainstream media bias.

    http://www.cis.org/kephart/ICE-mission-melt-1


  • #171
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Amerika wrote: »
    If there is any question that the Obama administration doesn’t care about border security or criminal acts of illegal aliens, but does care about their goal of getting amnesty, you can hear it from the "horses mouth."

    Finally, a union I can respect. The ICE Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations cast a unanimous vote of no confidence in the Director Of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and also the assistant Director of ICE Office of Detention Policy and Planning.

    I bet most haven't heard about this.

    And I can’t believe anybody still to this day doubts mainstream media bias.

    http://www.cis.org/kephart/ICE-mission-melt-1

    First, I wouldn't consider the CIS a neutral source on immigration stories. And from what I have seen, major media outlets ignore immigration stories both positive and negative depending on if it suits the narrative that the journalist wants to create; the 2009 NY Times series on downward assimilation ran different articles online than in the print paper, and basically ignored contradictory data given to them by several immigration scholars, in order to paint a more negative portrait of contemporary immigration.

    Also, please tell me what US president in the last 20 years has been serious about border enforcement? Once IRCA was passed under Reagan, border patrols increased briefly, then illegal immigration skyrocketed. In addition, mass amnesty accelerated legal immigration through family reunification.

    Immigration isn't necessarily a partisan issue, it's an interest-based issue. Politicians worried about electoral support from Latinos and the businesses that rely on immigrant labor will support more open immigration policies. Less skilled workers who compete in the job market with illegal labor, and those who are increasingly concerned about the rule of law will oppose illegal immigration. Middle and upper middle class people will tut-tut these attitudes, ans some will even label them as 'racist'; in the meantime they pay their Mexican nannies and gardeners their meager wages in cash, so as to avoid paying social security.

    Frankly, in this environment, border patrols mean relatively little - the broader issue we need to confront is the fact that most immigrants come to the US to work, and there are a hell of a lot of people who benefit from that work without sharing the burden of overcrowded schools and emergency rooms. Until immigration laws are enforced - rigorously - in the workplace, shifting more resources to the border is simply throwing good money after bad.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Appears I was not quite crazy afterall. So... lookin' like backdoor amnesty now begins.

    https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/04/02/2012-7698/provisional-unlawful-presence-waivers-of-inadmissibility-for-certain-immediate-relatives


  • #173
    Carcharodon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    Amerika wrote: »
    Appears I was not quite crazy afterall. So... lookin' like backdoor amnesty now begins.

    https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/04/02/2012-7698/provisional-unlawful-presence-waivers-of-inadmissibility-for-certain-immediate-relatives

    Is it not merely the same process but the person can remain in the US while it takes place. I presume it is mainly aimed at parents and their children, so as to stop them getting separated.

    Either way I have no problem with it and I know for a fact we will never agree on anything regarding this issue, which is fine.


  • #174
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Carcharodon wrote: »
    Is it not merely the same process but the person can remain in the US while it takes place. I presume it is mainly aimed at parents and their children, so as to stop them getting separated.

    Either way I have no problem with it and I know for a fact we will never agree on anything regarding this issue, which is fine.

    No... Because in the past, they must return to their home country and upon approval, enter the U.S. legally -- just like all the other foreigners do on a yearly basis. Therefore many would not be coming back to US soil. This looks like little more than an Obama Administration disregard of Congress and our laws by using executive powers to grant illegal immigrants backdoor amnesty -- and just in time for the election... yeah!

    And yes, we will never agree on this subject... that’s what keeps things interesting, doesn’t it?


  • #175
    Carcharodon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    Amerika wrote: »
    No... Because in the past, they must return to their home country and upon approval, enter the U.S. legally -- just like all the other foreigners do on a yearly basis. Therefore many would not be coming back to US soil. This looks like little more than an Obama Administration disregard of Congress and our laws by using executive powers to grant illegal immigrants backdoor amnesty -- and just in time for the election... yeah!

    And yes, we will never agree on this subject... that’s what keeps things interesting, doesn’t it?

    Interesting, thats one way of putting it :)

    But, as you you said as it stands they must return to home country and return legally upon approval. This seems to be the same process but they stay here until a decision is made upon which they either are granted to stay or are deported.
    Depending on the length of the process will it not be beneficial for the government to grant these people temporary work cards to enable them to work legally and contribute. I am sure the government will also make some money off the fees associated with this as will many US lawyers.


  • #176
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,767 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    According to the Population Reference Bureau, "About 2,000 unauthorized foreigners a day settle in the United States." Over half of these illegal residents enter by eluding Mexican-United States border apprehension, while less than half enter legally, but overstay their visas by not departing.

    The number of unauthorized foreigners settling in the United States per year declined for the first time in 2 decades during the 2008-2009 year. The reasons for this decline has been attributed to heavy US unemployment starting with the 2008 Great Recession, as well as with stepped-up border enforcement.

    In summary:
    • Securing the southern border is only "half" the solution to unauthorized immigration, although the most sensational from a media and political platform standpoint.
    • The other "half" of the solution is by addressing those that enter legally, but violate their visas.
    • Regardless of whether the Democrats or Republicans controlled Congress or the presidency in the past, it appears that none can claim effectiveness towards solving this problem.


  • #177
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    2011-deporations-and-latinos-02a.png

    obama aye.. :rolleyes:


  • #178
    timesnap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 423 ✭✭timesnap


    Black Swan wrote: »
    According to the Population Reference Bureau, "About 2,000 unauthorized foreigners a day settle in the United States." Over half of these illegal residents enter by eluding Mexican-United States border apprehension, while less than half enter legally, but overstay their visas by not departing.

    The number of unauthorized foreigners settling in the United States per year declined for the first time in 2 decades during the 2008-2009 year. The reasons for this decline has been attributed to heavy US unemployment starting with the 2008 Great Recession, as well as with stepped-up border enforcement.

    In summary:
    • Securing the southern border is only "half" the solution to unauthorized immigration, although the most sensational from a media and political platform standpoint.
    • The other "half" of the solution is by addressing those that enter legally, but violate their visas.
    • Regardless of whether the Democrats or Republicans controlled Congress or the presidency in the past, it appears that none can claim effectiveness towards solving this problem.

    Would it not be much less painful to simply give Texas back to Mexico.:confused::)


  • #179
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    RichieC wrote: »
    2011-deporations-and-latinos-02a.png

    obama aye.. :rolleyes:

    So he is racist.....

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • #180
    Reindeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,076 ✭✭✭Reindeer


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    ...

    Also, please tell me what US president in the last 20 years has been serious about border enforcement? Once IRCA was passed under Reagan, border patrols increased briefly, then illegal immigration skyrocketed. In addition, mass amnesty accelerated legal immigration through family reunification.
    ...

    The IRCA is a large part of where and why our immigration is a mess today. It basically legalized millions of illegals. Once that passed, turning back was going to be difficult. Having said that, turning back was never an option. The immigration issue in the states is so widespread and involved that no amount of enforcement will turn that ship about.

    But we are all missing the real issue. "Why" does America have an immigration 'problem'. The answer, of course, is 'Mexico'. Oddly enough, the other answer is 'China'. But a small part of that answer is also 'Monsanto'. First - Mexico:

    Mexico has never really had a bustling economy in the modern age. The US really took off after WWII for several reasons, and Mexico has been in the shadows ever since. But Mexico has had a lot of issues, and still does, with some of those issues compounding day by day. With a better job market, and a better promise of upward mobility, the US has been a target for expat Mexicans for some time now. Current figures show that roughly half of Mexican citizens live below the poverty line, with 20% of those in extreme poverty. That is basically 50 million very poor people. Corrupt policies, corrupt government, and bad economic policies have been taking their toll for some time now. Add in similar problems in Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, and Mexico itself is having immigration issues as well. A fair amount from the states south of Mexico make it up to the US as well.

    Mexico's fall-back industry was sugar and corn. It did have, and has, some American auto industry presence as well. Basically speaking, NAFTA absolutely hammered Mexico when ti came to farming. With hardly any protection and with open importation of US farming goods, Mexico's farming sector took a pretty good hit. That is where Monsanto came in. Monsanto has basically ensured that corn was going to play a major role in the US farming economy, whether purposefully or not. In the US, where our farming is razor thin on profits and at the forefront of technology, there was no way Mexico could hope to compete. This has had a huge knock-on affect on Mexican farming, or the lack thereof.

    Why did Mexico sign on to NAFTA? Other than some likely corrupt government kickbacks, some also felt that relocated US manufacturing would more than cover the discrepancy of farming(although a juggernaut at the time, US farming was just ramping up compared to what it has become today). But it really wasn't to be because eventually -

    China came on line. NAFTA passed in 1994. China gained permanent '(MFN)most favoured trading status' in 2001 and was the inevitable nail in the Mexican coffin. China gained this by ramping up their production and quality control standards and better mass production after their computerisation in the 90's, using their previous favoured nation status as the conduit. It was once affordable to make small products in Mexico and ship them up through the lanes to the US and Canada. In the mid 90's and early 2000's, China became far more affordable than Mexico. Mexico lost again.

    This is all relatively simplistic, and the issues go deeper and are far more varied, but it's to make a point. The US is unlikely to have any successful border and immigration policy in light of the profound social and political problems Mexico and other Central American states are currently suffering from. The border is simply too long, and the reasons for immigrating illegally are too strong. What has to happen to stem illegal immigration is a total restructuring of the Central American economic system, or a miracle. Neither seems likely any time soon.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Might be philanthropic, but wouldn't it then be in our current interests to help Mexico restructure itself? Both to solve our own immigration griefs, and to make them more competitive to China?


Advertisement