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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (173878)	7/17/2006 11:27:45 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793776

Well LindyBill, As far as I understand the term a "conspiracy" implies an agreement to perform or achieve something illegal or underhanded and deceitful. I don't see any agreement on anything having to do with our borders... any of them. And the problem... assuming for a moment that there is a problem... it is one of inertia or lack of any agreement. Until the last few years the only people actually doing anything about the Southern Border have been employers of the people coming across. That group is pretty extensive, far too extensive to be part of any "conspiracy." All they share is an advantage which a porous border administration allows. In my view it shares this characteristic with the last centuries experiment with Prohibition when vast numbers of people continued to violate the "laws" prohibitions because doing so didn't "feel" like a criminal act. So they voted and acted in a manner consistent with their "feelings" and refused to accept the change. People used to hiring employees without concern for their legal status is a similar refusal to change... no matter what the law may dictate. Those people vote and act in their interests too, and they'll continue to do so long as they don't have to face substantial INS prosecution or a Senate Judiciary hearing because they've been appointed to the federal bench or a Cabinet post. ...Or until they see that it no longer serves their interests. Assuming we aren't going to build many more jails, they know they won't have to deal with substantial INS prosecution and most won't be appointed to a federal post. You might achieve the objective of persuading them by giving them some assurance that they will not lose their "benefit" from the current status quo; or you can convince them that maintaining the benefit will result in an offsetting loss by virtue of some catastrophic event or unforeseen consequence. But to date they have not been convinced. If one believes in the efficiencies of our republican institutions it has to be assumed that those people made their affinity for the status quo clear before the last Senate vote on the issue. And if they did so without recourse to the various firms populating Washington DC's lobby row... Well that's one I am not prepared to swallow and if that makes me Oliver Stone, all I can say is... where's my check. <vbg> ...But I'll be happy to "say" it by telepathy and depart your local environs if you prefer. 0\|0