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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (51798)	3/5/2008 11:49:36 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 540942

And it's not "control of our borders". Trying to control illegal immigration at the border is like trying to win the Iraq war or the war on drugs. Indeed. By "control of our borders" I took Rambi to mean "stop or drastically slow the inflow" before giving amnesty or whatever we do with those who are already here. Same with health care. Fix as much as we can to make it more affordable, and there's a lot of opportunity there. Then see how many are still left out and deal with that. The characteristics of that group may have changed and the numbers drastically reduced, which alters the remedy options.

To: KyrosL who wrote (51798)	3/5/2008 11:54:26 AM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 540942

The high cost of health insurance is a problem for me because I have to pay for my own. Illegal immigration is a problem for me because of ... what? Because I see little central american guys mowing lawns in the neighborhood? Cause when I stay in a hotel the woman who gives me fresh towels is from central america? I agree we have to take control of our borders but on a personal level we could maintain the status quo on immigration for the next hundred years and it would be no skin off my back ... the illegals aren't costing me anything and they aren't a threat to me.

To: KyrosL who wrote (51798)	3/5/2008 12:11:29 PM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 540942

You missed the analogy. I wasn't comparing apples to apples- as in which is more important, or what placement each has in some hierarchy, but in the sense that making radical changes before you control some of causes doesn't make sense. The same problem just gets passed on to a different group for solving (or covering up). If you solve some of the causes, you may discover you don;t need the radical treatment- unless it is just a philosophical belief that we should have universal care, which does seem to be a strong component for the proponents.