Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (17813)	4/29/2000 7:19:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I know two guys who went to Haiti on a church mission last year. Their part of the island is so denuded of trees they use rocks as toilet paper even in the hospital which causes the septic system to overflow into their drinking water system. Not a track-hoe in the country to fix it. Didn't we go in to over turn the corrupt government a few years back?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (17813)	4/29/2000 10:12:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Steven, res- <<What about these guys>> Sad, I wish their country wasn't run by a two-bit dictator who stripped freedom from the people for so long the country was run into the dirt. Are they fleeing a prison hell, or just a hell? What's the difference, really? I have no idea, but I would assume a little of both. It may be difficult to determine exactly what reason a person has for fleeing his/her country. Are you suggesting that political reasons such as torture in Castro's jails don't exist? Of course you're not. The issue of whether Elian should have a day in court has got next-to-nothing to do with refugee's from Haiti and elsewhere. The fact is our immigration laws treat people differently based on where they come from. Are those laws unjust. Undoubtedly. Could we make them perfect and fair? Of course not. Could we improve them? Yes, I believe we could. But it still has next-to-nothing to do with the lawlessness upon which this administration acted with regard to one Cuban child. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that people will look for any reason under the sun to justify the government acting unilaterally in a lawless fashion. It's interesting Steven that of all the things I've written in that post and the ones previous to it. The one you are most willing to discuss relates to justification for the Clinton/Reno raid. Is it you just don't care about our government illegally breaking into an American home and shoving automatic weapons in children's face? I remember you said the other day it happened all the time. Could you please show me one or two incidents where the INS surrounded a home, broke into it, and shoved automatic weapons in law abiding citizens face to extract a child for deportation. Because I simply don't believe it happens all the time (as you previously suggested). I could be wrong though, so please show me a similar incident. Seems to me that one of the best arguments for not accepting Cubans who arrive by sea is that leniency only encourages others to risk their lives and the lives of their children. You may be right to a certain degree. But people will always attempt to escape communist tyranny Steven. The question is, do you want a country which accepts them (as our forefathers have) or would you rather take them back to a prison where they will most likely be shot and killed. One of the reasons we have a different policy with regard to Cuban refugee's and Haiti ones, is undoubtedly based on the treatment given by the butchering Castro when we did return people to his marxist prison. When viewed in that light, seems logical to me that we should treat them differently. In one country, you return the people to probable poverty. The other, to probable immediate death. Not a perfect solution, but it certainly makes some sense from a humanitarian perspective. Michael