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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Rat dog micro-cap picks... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (16967)	1/8/2004 12:41:14 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 48461

speaking of Vegas and illegals, How much do those guys get paid for handing out those nudie pictures on every street corner?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (16967)	1/8/2004 12:46:31 PM
From: Bucky Katt	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 48461

So you are saying to Mr & Mrs Average US citizen, thanks for playing by the rules, obeying the law, paying taxes on time, but we will bend the rules for a large group of people that have broken our laws, and have no legal right to be here in the first place? Sounds like a big load of crap to me... And to be crystal clear, I have no problem with legal immigration.. Key word, legal, by the book, the right way...

To: tsigprofit who wrote (16967)	1/8/2004 4:31:57 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 48461

You can read the same argument for slavery in the 1800's in the old newspapers of the day. "It's bad, but better here than where they came from" "They do things none of us white Southerners would do. We cain't find anyone to do that stuff!" Sure, if you allow the formation of an illegal underclass, they'll always be available cheaper than citizens, who play by the rules. It's exploitation, pure and simple. There are winners and losers. Winners are foreign countries who get weekly paychecks sent back home and outsourced callcenters and professional services. Countries like Mexico can avoid needed social and political changes by allowing their most ambitious to go to the US. Winners are also the corporations who get lower costs, and skim the profit, often sending that offshore also, btw. Losers are American workers, who watch as their jobs decline, and politicians of both parties lie like rugs in order to get those juicy corporate contributions, and supposed immigrant votes. 75% of Americans are against this, including a majority of immigrants. You never see those polls. The reason is the politicians would have to admit they do not represent the American people, they represent themselves and Big Gov't, in that order. Losers are also foreign countries, like Mexico, who lose ambitious people, instead of keeping them. The situation there is getting worse by the year.

To: tsigprofit who wrote (16967)	1/8/2004 7:23:09 PM
From: fishweed	Respond to of 48461

Just another view but, once these workers are recognized, at whatever level, they become a legitimate entity in the country. When that happens you'll see unions all over them and you can kiss good-by the low wages. fishweed

To: tsigprofit who wrote (16967)	1/12/2004 1:19:16 PM
From: Bucky Katt	Respond to of 48461

Explain this to me> llIegals the political 'untouchables' According to a Roper ASW poll from last year, 83 percent of Americans support mandatory detention and forfeiture of property for illegal immigrants, followed by deportation. Eighty-three percent. Pretty big number. So who are the 17 percent who don't think illegal immigrants should be seized, jailed, have their property confiscated and deported? Well, they're pretty much everyone in the two major parties, plus the entire U.S. media. Fast forward> Remember the 1986 immigration amnesty? One of its beneficiaries was Mahmoud abu Halima, who went on to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993. His friend Mohammad Salameh wasn't so fortunate. He applied for the '86 amnesty but was rejected. So he just stayed on in America, living illegally, and happily was still around to help Mahmoud and co-attack the Twin Towers. He's the guy who rented the truck, which suggests he had enough ID to get past the rental agent at Ryder. But I don't want to tar illegal immigrants with the terrorist brush. After all, in their second and much more successful assault on the World Trade Center, most of the killers were approved by the State Department, ushered in through Foggy Bottom's ''visa express'' program for Saudis, even though their answers on the application form were almost comically inadequate (''Address while in the United States: HOTEL, AMERICA'') and they're exactly the category -- young single men with no job and no motive to return -- that's supposed to be a red flag for immigration fraud. So that's a triple failure. Whether the terrorist (a) does the proper paperwork upfront, (b) applies for a retrospective amnesty, (c) gets rejected and ordered to be deported, or (bonus category d) gets arrested for immigration violations and then released (like Sniper Boy John Lee Malvo), it makes no difference: Whichever menu option he selects, the federal government will let him carry on living here until he's decided which Americans he wants to kill. The world's most powerful nation has an illegal immigration problem because it has a legal immigration problem. Transferring millions of people from the unofficial shadow network to the arthritic bureaucracy that allowed the problem to get this big is unlikely to solve it. The whole story, a good read> suntimes.com