geraldo v o'reilly [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

obeygiant

Apr 6, 2007, 02:20 PM

That's not what he's so enraged about. He's not upset about drunk driving per se.
He's upset that an illegal immigrant would be drunk driving.

O'Reilly said Alfredo Ramos should have been deported after a previous drinking charge.

Police said Ramos, an illegal immigrant, was believed to be intoxicated when he ran into 17-year-old Allison Kuhnhardt and 16-year-old Tessa Tranchant's vehicle Friday night, killing them.

The mayor said it is not the city's job to enforce American borders.

Rivera told O'Reilly, "It has nothing to do with illegal aliens, it has to do with drunk driving and I think you owe that mayor an apology."

Virginia Beach Police Chief Jake Jacocks said it is not his policy that his officers question the immigration status of people they meet except in serious circumstances, such as felonies. He said immigration enforcement is a federal job.link (http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=6330492&nav=menu45_17_4_28)

He's actually upset that the illegal immigrant wasn't deported after his first dui.

atari1356

Apr 6, 2007, 02:22 PM

That's not what he's so enraged about. He's not upset about drunk driving per se.
He's upset that an illegal immigrant would be drunk driving.

Yeah, because only citizens should be allowed to drive drunk. :rolleyes:

MacNut

Apr 6, 2007, 02:25 PM

Yeah, because only citizens should be allowed to drive drunk. :rolleyes::rolleyes: Lets see american drives drunk gets arrested, illegal drives drunk with no license do they get deported?

pseudobrit

Apr 6, 2007, 02:30 PM

:rolleyes: Lets see american drives drunk gets arrested, illegal drives drunk with no license do they get deported?

How does the local constabulary fulfil that charge?

MacNut

Apr 6, 2007, 02:32 PM

How does the local constabulary fulfil that charge?So what do we do with them then. Just set him free to drink some more?

pseudobrit

Apr 6, 2007, 02:35 PM

So what do we do with them then. Just set him free to drink some more?

No, they should send an NYPD unit driving down to the border with every law-breaking illegal immigrant they arrest.

zimv20

Apr 6, 2007, 02:43 PM

a westerner travels to cambodia, rents a car, and gets into an accident with a local. whose fault is it?

pseudobrit

Apr 6, 2007, 02:50 PM

a westerner travels to cambodia, rents a car, and gets into an accident with a local. whose fault is it?

Cambodia's

MacNut

Apr 6, 2007, 03:01 PM

Cambodia'sexplain...

princealfie

Apr 6, 2007, 03:10 PM

Okay, I still can't figure out who these guys are? Are they politicans?

Swarmlord

Apr 6, 2007, 03:11 PM

That would upset me too, no insurance no license, if he hits me then what happens.

See, if you ask questions like that you're a hispano-phobe though. :rolleyes:

aristobrat

Apr 6, 2007, 03:13 PM

a westerner travels to cambodia, rents a car, and gets into an accident with a local. whose fault is it?
If a Westerner visits Cambodia and commits a felony, I'd hope that they'd not allow him to come back a second time.

TequilaBoobs

Apr 6, 2007, 03:13 PM

Okay, I still can't figure out who these guys are? Are they politicans?

geraldo and o'reilly are both journalists. geraldo once had a talk show (a la jerry springer) and o'reilly currently as a political talk show. geraldo is now a journalist for the highly respected FOX news. geraldo once got his nose broken on national tv during a show in which his guests beat the living **** out of him. o'reilly was recently caught on tape (i think?) saying all these nasty, dirty things to some woman who didn't wanna hear them.

zimv20

Apr 6, 2007, 03:14 PM

If a Westerner visits Cambodia and commits a felony, I'd hope that they'd not allow him to come back a second time.

who said anything about a felony? it's a minor fender bender -- no one's hurt, the cars are both drive-able. but whose fault is it?

MacNut

Apr 6, 2007, 03:15 PM

Okay, I still can't figure out who these guys are? Are they politicans?Geraldo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldo)
O'Reilly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_%28commentator%29)

MacNut

Apr 6, 2007, 03:18 PM

who said anything about a felony? it's a minor fender bender -- no one's hurt, the cars are both drive-able. but whose fault is it?Well who hit who, and does said westerner have a permit to drive in that country.

pseudobrit

Apr 6, 2007, 03:23 PM

explain...

Cambodia should never have let the westerner into their country.

zimv20

Apr 6, 2007, 03:24 PM

Well who hit who, and does said westerner have a permit to drive in that country.

it doesn't matter. the westerner is at fault. because, according to police, "if you hadn't been here, the accident wouldn't have happened."

sound logic or no?

aristobrat

Apr 6, 2007, 03:25 PM

who said anything about a felony? it's a minor fender bender -- no one's hurt, the cars are both drive-able. but whose fault is it?
Sorry, I was trying to correlate your hypothetical situation with the situation being referenced to in this thread. :confused:

In your situation, the person that caused the accident would seem to be at fault.

MacNut

Apr 6, 2007, 03:25 PM

Cambodia should never have let the westerner into their country.There is a difference from have a legal passport to enter and just walk thru the gate.

pseudobrit

Apr 6, 2007, 03:27 PM

There is a difference from have a legal passport to enter and just walk thru the gate.

Yup, and since this hypothetical tourist has a legal passport and a travel visa from Cambodia, it's Cambodia's fault.

MacNut

Apr 6, 2007, 03:28 PM

it doesn't matter. the westerner is at fault. because, according to police, "if you hadn't been here, the accident wouldn't have happened."

sound logic or no?Wow you love to twist things don't you.

If an illegal person goes into a country without a license to drive a vehicle then yes that person is at fault. If a person is in the country legally and has permission to drive then there is no problem. If a legal person drives drunk he should go to jail, If an illegal person drives drunk he has no right to be behind the wheel of the car for many reasons, the first being he doesn't have a license.

MacNut

Apr 6, 2007, 03:30 PM

Yup, and since this hypothetical tourist has a legal passport and a travel visa from Cambodia, it's Cambodia's fault.I still don't get how its their fault that the legal person caused the accident.

pseudobrit

Apr 6, 2007, 03:32 PM

If an illegal person goes into a country without a license to drive a vehicle then yes that person is at fault.

You're walking right into it.

If it's a no-fault accident, a 50-50 responsibility type of thing, you're willing to assign full blame to an illegal immigrant just because he shouldn't have been there in the first place? What if the other party is 100% at fault? Does the full guilt still default to the illegal immigrant?

pseudobrit

Apr 6, 2007, 03:33 PM

I still don't get how its their fault that the legal person caused the accident.

The guy wouldn't have been there if Cambodia hadn't allowed him in.

MacNut

Apr 6, 2007, 03:34 PM

The guy wouldn't have been there if Cambodia hadn't allowed him in.But why would you not allow a legal person, its the illegals that should not be allowed.

pseudobrit

Apr 6, 2007, 03:36 PM

But why would you not allow a legal person

because they might cause accidents.

zimv20

Apr 6, 2007, 03:37 PM

Wow you love to twist things don't you.

i'm not twisting anything. in cambodia, the foreigner is always at fault, for the logic i described. circumstances don't matter, only the nationalities. i'm asking if that's sound logic or not.

MacNut

Apr 6, 2007, 03:39 PM

i'm not twisting anything. in cambodia, the foreigner is always at fault, for the logic i described. circumstances don't matter, only the nationalities. i'm asking if that's sound logic or not.yes so then why is the country at fault if the foreigner gets the blame.

This convo is stuck on a merry go round.

princealfie

Apr 6, 2007, 03:43 PM

geraldo and o'reilly are both journalists. geraldo once had a talk show (a la jerry springer) and o'reilly currently as a political talk show. geraldo is now a journalist for the highly respected FOX news. geraldo once got his nose broken on national tv during a show in which his guests beat the living **** out of him. o'reilly was recently caught on tape (i think?) saying all these nasty, dirty things to some woman who didn't wanna hear them.

Wow, so that means that journalism is the same as boxing now? :eek:

princealfie

Apr 6, 2007, 03:43 PM

But why would you not allow a legal person, its the illegals that should not be allowed.

Why do immigrants who legally try to get into the States have a much harder time than the illegal ones? :eek:

atszyman

Apr 6, 2007, 03:45 PM

link (http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=6330492&nav=menu45_17_4_28)

He's actually upset that the illegal immigrant wasn't deported after his first dui.

The article you link to does not say DUI it says previous drinking charge. Which could range from an MIP, PI all the way to DUI.

If the previous charge was DUI then, yes immigration status should have been questioned and the Feds called in if he was illegal, for an MIP or PI though? Are you supposed to do this for everyone who looks foreign? Everyone with an accent? Or just anyone who looks Mexican? What if the officers, by not wasting time processing the immigration status in minor offenses managed to catch other people in DUIs before they had a chance to cause an accident?

I've had two close family members killed in accidents with drunk drivers. I could care less about the intoxicated driver's immigration status and more about their DUI history. If there are any in their past why are they even allowed on the road outside of getting to/from work?

It's a tragedy that should bring awareness to DUI not immigration reform. If the girls had been hit by any US Citizen would the families' loss be any less? It's getting publicity and spin to turn it into a hot political issue that has very little to do with the families loss. If it hadn't been Ramos who's to say that it wouldn't have been one of his citizen freinds?

Shoulda, woulda, coulda will always happen in an event like this and there are always a million things in hindsight that could have saved a life or two. Using it as a political tool to attack policies you don't like is shamefull.

zimv20

Apr 6, 2007, 03:48 PM

yes so then why is the country at fault if the foreigner gets the blame.

i never said it was. zimv20 <> pseudobrit.

pseudobrit

Apr 6, 2007, 03:48 PM

Why do immigrants who legally try to get into the States have a much harder time than the illegal ones? :eek:

The (legal) immigration system of the United States is horribly broken, overly restricted, shockingly obtuse and deliberately underperforming.

pseudobrit

Apr 6, 2007, 03:53 PM

yes so then why is the country at fault if the foreigner gets the blame.

This convo is stuck on a merry go round.

No kidding. Why not blame his parents for having him? Why not blame the car manufacturer? Why not blame God? Why not blame alcohol or bars for DUI?

Why not blame anyone or anything for something that has little to do with the problem?

obeygiant

Apr 6, 2007, 04:08 PM

The article you link to does not say DUI it says previous drinking charge. Which could range from an MIP, PI all the way to DUI.
Thats true.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda will always happen in an event like this and there are always a million things in hindsight that could have saved a life or two. Using it as a political tool to attack policies you don't like is shamefull.

I haven't made any statements of my opinion on immigration. This thread was made as a smear on Fox News Channel, Bill O'reilly, and Geraldo Rivera. Translating the issue into "LOUD NOISES". I'm all for immigration reform, but I'm also for hatred reform.

atszyman

Apr 6, 2007, 04:23 PM

I haven't made any statements of my opinion on immigration. This thread was made as a smear on Fox News Channel, Bill O'reilly, and Geraldo Rivera. Translating the issue into "LOUD NOISES". I'm all for immigration reform, but I'm also for hatred reform.

The big point of my rant was that I believe Rivera was right and O'Reilly is being an a$$hat. He's taking a tragedy and using one particular detail that is an offshoot of the main problem to attack a political issue. You can do this with almost any tragedy and it's always despicable. For any accident/tragedy there are countless little acts that could have prevented it, to use those little things as stepping stones to publicly attack policies and politicians is misleading and just plain a$$hattery.

aquajet

Apr 6, 2007, 04:32 PM

The real problem here is that somebody was driving drunk. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?

This thread was made as a smear on Fox News Channel, Bill O'reilly, and Geraldo Rivera. Translating the issue into "LOUD NOISES". I'm all for immigration reform, but I'm also for hatred reform.

Where is there any smearing going on? Do you even know what that means?

The point of this thread is to point out the childishness displayed between these two "professionals".

aristobrat

Apr 6, 2007, 05:17 PM

The real problem here is that somebody was driving drunk. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?

You're right. Mr. Ramos' "drunk driving" is the problem.

What angers many locally here is the fact that his problem wouldn't have affected the two girls if he was deported after his first DUI.

There's very little the gov't can do to prevent someone from driving drunk.

In this case, there was a fairly obvious action they could have taken about a year ago.

And I'd hope that ANY country would take that action regardless of the nationality of the person. If you're illegally in the country and commit a crime worthy of being called FELONY, you should get your butt sent home.

The article you link to does not say DUI it says previous drinking charge. Which could range from an MIP, PI all the way to DUI.
FWIW,

"The 22-year-old Ramos, charged with manslaughter, admitted in court that he was in this country illegally. 13News checked court records in both cities and found a previous DUI charge among other violations."
http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/wvec_local_040507_ramos_oreilly_etc.3567631a.html

Something else that is causing quite a stir locally is this quote:
Chief Jake Jacocks says the policy of not reporting illegals until after three DUI charges was his idea. He hoped it would let immigrants feel comfortable if they were involved in an accident. He also says it's because immigration never follows up on things like this, and that they are overworked and understaffed.

atszyman

Apr 6, 2007, 05:28 PM

...

I stand corrected. Yes, he should have been deported after a single DUI.

But that still does not make this an immigration issue. And it's not the fault of the politicians or police force who came up with a ******* system for dealing with it. The accident is Ramos' fault. If we're going to use it to attack the officials then let's attack the bar, the alcohol marketing companies, the car maker, whoever sold/loaned him the car, and anyone else who enabled Ramos' to drink and drive.

The DUI system needs a revamp, there shouldn't be such a thing as a repeat offender when it comes to that.

obeygiant

Apr 6, 2007, 06:29 PM

The real problem here is that somebody was driving drunk. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?

Where is there any smearing going on? Do you even know what that means?

The point of this thread is to point out the childishness displayed between these two "professionals".

Speaking of childishness, you've failed to make a convincing argument. Meanwhile a 17 year old girl is DEAD. The guy who killed her was on his, what 2nd DUI. Where is the accountability? I think O'Reilly is angry because this is not an isolated incident. Some thugs enter this country and think they can do anything they want. This guy obviously did. Where he should have been deported after the first DUI he wasn't and did it again and killed someone. Sure many things could have been attributed to this girls death, but the MAIN REASON could have been prevented if the law allowed him to be kicked out after his first DUI or SECOND DUI.

These two guys arguing about this is not childish unless you can't grasp the concepts that they're talking about.

.Andy

Apr 6, 2007, 07:15 PM

Sure many things could have been attributed to this girls death, but the MAIN REASON could have been prevented if the law allowed him to be kicked out after his first DUI or SECOND DUI.
What should the law do to US citizens that drink drive the first time?

What makes you think he wouldn't have repeated his offense and killed someone in another country?

Do you think that deporting illegal immigrants after a DUI is going to decrease you road toll?

zimv20

Apr 6, 2007, 07:48 PM

no one's even touched on the issue of what exactly a local official is supposed to do to determine if someone is an illegal or not. as ABC news reported tonight, ICE (federal immigration dept) doesn't even want to be bothered until an illegal has committed a felony, because of manpower shortages.

so what exactly is a local official supposed to do w/ an illegal, or suspected illegal, or someone for whom they have no way of finding out their status, when they've committed a misdemeanor?

as p'brit and others have suggested, we're working w/ a broken system. blaming the local officials for not deporting the guy earlier depicts a lack of understanding how the system works. or in this case, doesn't.

obeygiant

Apr 6, 2007, 08:07 PM

What should the law do to US citizens that drink drive the first time?

Well it's a pretty stiff penalty for 1st DUIs. Its costs thousands of dollars plus there is rehab.

.Andy

Apr 6, 2007, 08:18 PM

Well it's a pretty stiff penalty for 1st DUIs. Its costs thousands of dollars plus there is rehab.
Do you think that's an apt punishment for some thug that thinks they can do what they want?

And if you rehabilitate your own citizens to stop them reoffending, why not illegal immigrants?

solvs

Apr 7, 2007, 01:55 AM

Leave it to Geraldo to blame us for luring our southern neighbors into breaking the law.
That part was stupid, but I agree with him that Bill is trying to turn this into something it isn't, just like he did with a fire a few weeks ago.

Im pretty sure they still are buddies.
I don't know, Billy can hold a grudge.

:rolleyes: Lets see american drives drunk gets arrested, illegal drives drunk with no license do they get deported?
Actually, they get arrested too. Or should be. Deport them, if you can even get someone to do it, and they come right back to do it again.

This thread was made as a smear on Fox News Channel, Bill O'reilly, and Geraldo Rivera. Translating the issue into "LOUD NOISES". I'm all for immigration reform, but I'm also for hatred reform.
They were the ones who were screaming at each other. :confused:

Look, this type of thing sucks. The guy should be in jail. He shouldn't have been even driving without a license and without insurance, let alone drunk. But like a lot of things, Bill's take isn't how you go about this, and I don't blame Geraldo for calling him on it.

For the record, I heard on the news the one girls Dad agreed with Geraldo and didn't like Bill politicizing her death.

yojitani

Apr 7, 2007, 02:13 AM

O'Reilly has obviously done what he is paid to do: get a bunch of people arguing about a non-issue replete with 'truthiness'

I'm still not sure where American's get their news from - CNN did a report today on what Christ might have thought about 'current issues' like abortion.:rolleyes: What's worse though is that the BBC has obviously been moved by this kind of crap.

solvs

Apr 7, 2007, 03:56 AM

I used to read AP and Reuters on the web as my main source of news, but even they've been pissing me off. I have to go out of my way to find out what's really going on, and even then it's difficult.

Let alone that whole looters/finders thing during Katrina. :rolleyes:

IJ Reilly

Apr 7, 2007, 12:29 PM

Pretty much the only places to go for news these days are the handful of national newspapers which still do some original investigative reporting, NPR news, and the NewsHour on PBS. On the cable networks, the noise constantly exceeds the signal. They're great for people who like to feel angry most the time, without ever quite knowing why.

Swarmlord

Apr 7, 2007, 06:02 PM

What should the law do to US citizens that drink drive the first time?

What makes you think he wouldn't have repeated his offense and killed someone in another country?

Do you think that deporting illegal immigrants after a DUI is going to decrease you road toll?

Incarcerate and fine them and then put them on a year's probation.

That's the problem of the country he commits the crime in.

It certainly will help.

Swarmlord

Apr 7, 2007, 06:05 PM

<snip>And if you rehabilitate your own citizens to stop them reoffending, why not illegal immigrants?

When did we become financially responsible for other people's problems? If anything, we should treat these people and then bill their governments at full freight.

skunk

Apr 7, 2007, 06:06 PM

When did we become financially responsible for other people's problems? When you first laid claim to the epithet "civilised".

Swarmlord

Apr 7, 2007, 06:14 PM

When you first laid claim to the epithet "civilised".

Why is being civilized always equivalent to being a financial sucker? Heck, we're driving or flying these people back for free. They're lucky they aren't force marched back to the border from where we catch them.

skunk

Apr 7, 2007, 06:16 PM

Why is being civilized always equivalent to being a financial sucker? Heck, we're driving or flying these people back for free. They're lucky they aren't force marched back to the border from where we catch them."These people" are doing jobs none of "your people" would touch with a ten foot barge-pole.

Swarmlord

Apr 7, 2007, 06:25 PM

"These people" are doing jobs none of "your people" would touch with a ten foot barge-pole.

That canard again? There are legal avenues to provide employment for fruit pickers or whatever without creating a vacuum for millions of people to come up here illegally. Then when they are up here they aren't taking the jobs that people won't do, they start taking the jobs like roofing, plumbing and construction that people are dying to do, but not at the slave wages that illegals have driven the market down to.

I'm willing to do without whatever essential goods and services they think that they supply me and I'm not kidding. I can grow my own damned fruits and vegetables.

skunk

Apr 7, 2007, 06:34 PM

That canard again? There are legal avenues to provide employment for fruit pickers or whatever without creating a vacuum for millions of people to come up here illegally. Then when they are up here they aren't taking the jobs that people won't do, they start taking the jobs like roofing, plumbing and construction that people are dying to do, but not at the slave wages that illegals have driven the market down to.It's supply AND demand. Have you seen anyone complaining how little they have to pay?

zimv20

Apr 7, 2007, 06:35 PM

There are legal avenues to provide employment for fruit pickers or whatever

dunno about the fruit pickers, but look what happened with the h1b visas this week (http://www.andhracafe.com/index.php?m=show&id=21250):

The US Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) recieved 150,000 applications for 65,000 H1B visas within the first few hours of opening petitions for H1B visas on April 2nd.

Since the number of applications recieved was already more than double the limit, the US immigration service office has now stopped taking any more petitions for this visa for the next year.

US businesses have a huge demand for skilled labor, and the pool to fill it all exists outside the US. but our immigration laws prevent that need from being met (i should know, i used to recruit for a tech firm, and i had to look outside the US for talent). the immigration laws are out of date and the process is broken.

aristobrat

Apr 7, 2007, 06:37 PM

the immigration laws are out of date and the process is broken.
And none of the politicians seem to care...

solvs

Apr 8, 2007, 05:02 AM

And none of the politicians seem to care...

They care enough to talk about it when it gets them votes. That's about it. It's a tough issue that needs to be dealt with. So it probably won't so politicians can continue to use it as an issue to get them elected.

Maybe we should also do something about those that hire them.

(oh, and silly me... I always thought immigrants were people too)

IJ Reilly

Apr 8, 2007, 12:57 PM

Most Americans don't realize that immigration quotas are relatively recent creations. For most of the nation's history (with a few exceptions), virtually anyone could emigrate to the United States. The only major change in the immigration standards up to the 1920s was the requirement for having at least $50 in your possession, and if you didn't have the $50, then someone in the U.S. to vouch for you. Very few immigrants were sent back, and then usually for medical reasons. This system was changed in increments beginning in the '20s to the country of origin quota system we've got today, in the face of increasing nativism in the United States after World War I. Most people think the quota system has been around forever, but it hasn't, not by any stretch. Legal immigration into the U.S. has turned into a lengthy bureaucratic nightmare, even for people who've got legally resident or citizen family members here, including children and parents.

My great-grandparents arrived here when that statue in New York Harbor was facing out to sea. Sadly, its back is turned now. Even more sadly, a lot of Americans prefer it that way.

solvs

Apr 9, 2007, 03:12 AM

My great-grandparents arrived here when that statue in New York Harbor was facing out to sea.

Mine too. I hate to cry racism, but it does strike me as odd this seems to be about brown people. Latinos and Arabs mostly. No one seems to bat an eye when those stinkin' Canadians walk across their borders and take our jobs. :rolleyes:

macdaddy121

Apr 9, 2007, 03:29 AM

"These people" are doing jobs none of "your people" would touch with a ten foot barge-pole.

Because they do them illegally for a much cheaper wage. I'm pretty sure there are millions of unemployed people in this country who would happily pick up their shovels to make some form of a wage.

Swarmlord

Apr 9, 2007, 10:25 AM

dunno about the fruit pickers, but look what happened with the h1b visas this week (http://www.andhracafe.com/index.php?m=show&id=21250):

US businesses have a huge demand for skilled labor, and the pool to fill it all exists outside the US. but our immigration laws prevent that need from being met (i should know, i used to recruit for a tech firm, and i had to look outside the US for talent). the immigration laws are out of date and the process is broken.

Sounds like employers need to do a little recruiting and relocating of candidates from other areas in the US. I don't think that we need to import people from the other side of the world when the unemployment rate of young, black males in say Detroit is pushing 30%.

Drawing on immigrants rather than seeking solutions using American citizens is taking the easy route and is doing our country no good.

skunk

Apr 9, 2007, 10:34 AM

Drawing on immigrants rather than seeking solutions using American citizens is taking the easy route and is doing our country no good.Ah yes, but it provides a pool of desperate, unemployed American citizens to fill the ranks of your armed forces, so it's not all bad, eh?

zimv20

Apr 9, 2007, 11:01 AM

Sounds like employers need to do a little recruiting and relocating of candidates from other areas in the US. I don't think that we need to import people from the other side of the world when the unemployment rate of young, black males in say Detroit is pushing 30%.

Drawing on immigrants rather than seeking solutions using American citizens is taking the easy route and is doing our country no good.

i just told you i saw this firsthand. you don't think i *wanted* to hire a citizen? do you think i really *wanted* to go through all the extra paperwork, hire an immigration attorney, and pay extra money to hire a foreigner?

what is also not fun: interviewing dozens of unqualified people for a high-tech job at a demanding company, where each candidate would require some 20 man hours to process and interview. for a company w/ only a dozen employees, that's a logistical nightmare.

OR -- hey, look, here's exactly the guy we're looking for, but he's foreign and *already in the US on an h1b*. i can steal him and write him a new h1b and solve my recruitment problem. too ****ing bad all the american candidates suck, but i'm trying to run a business here.

go ahead, tell me i didn't try hard enough. even though you weren't there.

IJ Reilly

Apr 9, 2007, 11:17 AM

Mine too. I hate to cry racism, but it does strike me as odd this seems to be about brown people. Latinos and Arabs mostly. No one seems to bat an eye when those stinkin' Canadians walk across their borders and take our jobs. :rolleyes:

In the past it's been about Italians, Irish, Jews, Chinese, Japanese -- whichever national or ethnic group was immigrating in numbers sufficient to be noticed (and to be accused of "taking American's jobs"). It seems that every American generation creates a new brand of nativism, thinking it somehow better and more justified than the one that came before.

Swarmlord

Apr 9, 2007, 11:49 AM

Ah yes, but it provides a pool of desperate, unemployed American citizens to fill the ranks of your armed forces, so it's not all bad, eh?

I didn't realize that recruiting in the 'hood in Detroit was going so well.

You know as well as I do that the military has education and police record standards that these kids don't meet. Would it be so bad to offer them an opportunity to turn their lives around by relocating them out of Detroit into other communities that need low skilled workers and then give them opportunities to improve themselves once they have a little work history under their belts?

skunk

Apr 9, 2007, 11:53 AM

IYou know as well as I do that the military has education and police record standards that these kids don't meet.You should know as well as I do that those standards are dropping fast to meet recruiting targets.

Swarmlord

Apr 9, 2007, 11:58 AM

i just told you i saw this firsthand. you don't think i *wanted* to hire a citizen? do you think i really *wanted* to go through all the extra paperwork, hire an immigration attorney, and pay extra money to hire a foreigner?

what is also not fun: interviewing dozens of unqualified people for a high-tech job at a demanding company, where each candidate would require some 20 man hours to process and interview. for a company w/ only a dozen employees, that's a logistical nightmare.

OR -- hey, look, here's exactly the guy we're looking for, but he's foreign and *already in the US on an h1b*. i can steal him and write him a new h1b and solve my recruitment problem. too ****ing bad all the american candidates suck, but i'm trying to run a business here.

go ahead, tell me i didn't try hard enough. even though you weren't there.

I've been there too. I've hired dozens of foreigners although on the other end of the spectrum. I couldn't find qualified analog or power supply engineers and ended up hiring two guys from the Czech Republic. I like bringing in and providing opportunities for highly qualified people though.

Swarmlord

Apr 9, 2007, 12:07 PM

You should know as well as I do that those standards are dropping fast to meet recruiting targets.

I'll believe it when they establish a don't ask, don't tell policy on previous and current drug use and accept ex-felons.

pseudobrit

Apr 9, 2007, 05:17 PM

You know as well as I do that the military has education and police record standards that these kids don't meet. Would it be so bad to offer them an opportunity to turn their lives around by relocating them out of Detroit into other communities that need low skilled workers and then give them opportunities to improve themselves once they have a little work history under their belts?

They have education and criminal standards, eh? So do employers who would be willing to front relocation fees to prospective employees. You really think a farmer is going to pay the moving expenses of some kid in Detroit to come to California and work in a field?

princealfie

Apr 9, 2007, 05:22 PM

You should know as well as I do that those standards are dropping fast to meet recruiting targets.

Army Lowers Bar for Recruits
Miami Herald | October 04, 2005
Army Secretary Noel Harvey and Gen. Richard Cody, the vice chief of staff, said Monday that the Army is using looser Defense Department rules that permits it to sign up more high school dropouts and people who score lower on mental-qualification tests, but they denied that this meant it was lowering standards.

Until Army recruiters began having trouble signing up enough recruits earlier this year, the Army had set minimum standards that were higher than those of the Defense Department.

The Army has had a recruiting shortfall of 6,000 to 8,000 soldiers during the past 12 months. It hasn't fallen so short of its annual goal since 1979, several years after the Vietnam War.

Harvey and Cody addressed the recruiting issue in news conferences during the annual convention of the Association of the U.S. Army.

The Department of Defense "standards on qualification tests call for at least 60 percent Category 1 to 3 [the higher end of testing] and 4 percent Category 4," the lowest end, Harvey said. "The other services follow that standard and the Army National Guard always followed it as well. But the active Army chose a standard of 67 percent in Categories 1-3, and 2 percent Category 4." It now will use the Defense Department guidelines.

Cody said that increasing the number of people with General Education Diplomas allowed to enlist in the Army wasn't really a lowering of standards. GEDs are certificates granted in lieu of high school diplomas to dropouts who can pass an examination.

The Army's figures show 6.5 percent of all enlisted soldiers held GED certificates at the end of 2004, the last year statistics were available. The Army plans to keep its limit on new soldiers with GEDs at 10 percent in any year.

He said the number of soldiers on recruiting duty is increasing from 9,000 to 12,000, and the Army is asking Congress to increase enlistment bonuses from a maximum of $20,000 to a new limit of $40,000 for some who choose branches where there are shortages. The advertising budget for the Army was being boosted by $130 million.

Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.

Airforce

Apr 9, 2007, 09:45 PM

link (http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=6330492&nav=menu45_17_4_28)

He's actually upset that the illegal immigrant wasn't deported after his first dui.

Yup and he should have been. ****ing illegals. :mad:

Swarmlord

Apr 9, 2007, 11:58 PM

<snip>
Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.

I think it's more of a condemnation of our public school system than anything. Good to see our military can snatch them up at the last moment and make productive men and women out of them. :)

pseudobrit

Apr 10, 2007, 12:00 AM

I think it's more of a condemnation of our public school system than anything. Good to see our military can snatch them up at the last moment and make productive men and women out of them. :)

Sometimes. The military is not a reform school.

solvs

Apr 10, 2007, 02:23 AM

Drawing on immigrants rather than seeking solutions using American citizens is taking the easy route and is doing our country no good.
I'm confused. I thought you were a libertarian. Believing that we should leave businesses alone to do what they're going to do. Well, this is what they do. If they'd stop hiring illegals, illegals would stop being able to come here. But they do. Because it's cheaper. And because everybody else does it, so they have to compete.

So, unfettered business = bad now?

In the past it's been about Italians, Irish, Jews, Chinese, Japanese -- whichever national or ethnic group was immigrating in numbers sufficient to be noticed (and to be accused of "taking American's jobs"). It seems that every American generation creates a new brand of nativism, thinking it somehow better and more justified than the one that came before.
I don't see Canadians in there. Or my Germans, the English, Russians... my ancestors. Ok, Irish maybe. But it does smack of it, doesn't it? We don't seem to have a problem with Canadians or Swedes coming over and taking good jobs, but we have a problem with a Mexican or Muslim taking menial labor? Doesn't make sense to me.

As I said, I hate crying racism, but it smacks of it.

I'll believe it when they establish a don't ask, don't tell policy on previous and current drug use and accept ex-felons.
They're already doing that with lesser criminals.

Yup and he should have been. ****ing illegals. :mad:
I think you're missing the point.

And it wasn't a DUI he was convicted of before.

obeygiant

Apr 10, 2007, 11:11 AM

And it wasn't a DUI he was convicted of before.

I think we've been over this, but..

"The 22-year-old Ramos, charged with manslaughter, admitted in court that he was in this country illegally. 13News checked court records in both cities and found a previous DUI charge among other violations."

IJ Reilly

Apr 10, 2007, 11:52 AM

I don't see Canadians in there. Or my Germans, the English, Russians... my ancestors. Ok, Irish maybe. But it does smack of it, doesn't it? We don't seem to have a problem with Canadians or Swedes coming over and taking good jobs, but we have a problem with a Mexican or Muslim taking menial labor? Doesn't make sense to me.

As I said, I hate crying racism, but it smacks of it.

Bigotry covers it, I think. Fundamentally, nativism is a form of bigotry. Sadly, a great many if not most Americans who become so incensed about "illegal aliens" don't realize that their parents, grandparents, or whatever generation of their ancestors who immigrated here, would be considered "illegal aliens" if they tried to get into the U.S. today.

solvs

Apr 10, 2007, 05:10 PM

I think we've been over this, but..
Then I stand corrected. He should have been in jail then. This still isn't about all immigrants, but about a criminal who is an immigrant.

Bigotry covers it, I think. Fundamentally, nativism is a form of bigotry. Sadly, a great many if not most Americans who become so incensed about "illegal aliens" don't realize that their parents, grandparents, or whatever generation of their ancestors who immigrated here, would be considered "illegal aliens" if they tried to get into the U.S. today.
My point exactly. We've even seen Latino and Asian politicians whose own parents or grandparents were immigrants, some even illegal, decry the system. But it does seem more slanted against Latinos and Arabs it seems. More than just them driving down the minimum wage, those same people don't mind when the Republicans try to do it, and more than just nationalism.

I don't know what to do about the problem, if there even is as big a problem as people suddenly started saying when some politicians brought it, but it doesn't even seem like thinly veiled racism to me anymore. Just bigotry, flat out. Wondering why that doesn't bother more people than it does.

fotografica

Apr 10, 2007, 05:18 PM

their parents, grandparents, or whatever generation of their ancestors who immigrated here, would be considered "illegal aliens" if they tried to get into the U.S. today.
How would that be so?When my father came to this country from Italy in the 1950's he had to prove that he had a sponsor here (who was a citizen) and a place to live.The requirements seem to be a little more "lax" today.

IJ Reilly

Apr 10, 2007, 05:31 PM

How would that be so?When my father came to this country from Italy in the 1950's he had to prove that he had a sponsor here (who was a citizen) and a place to live.The requirements seem to be a little more "lax" today.

Some of this was discussed in previous posts, but the short answer is no. The process of becoming a legal resident alien is far more difficult now than it was during the 1950s, and far, far more difficult than it was before nation of origin quotas began in the 1920s. Sponsorship, a place to live, or even U.S. citizen parents or children, do not make any difference now. I think most people when they learn about the nightmare legal immigration has become, begin to feel differently about the issue of illegal immigration. At a minimum, they come to realize that the vast majority of people who come here illegally don't do it to flaunt the law, but because legal immigration has turned into a virtual impossibility.

aquajet

Apr 11, 2007, 03:09 PM

Speaking of childishness, you've failed to make a convincing argument. Meanwhile a 17 year old girl is DEAD. The guy who killed her was on his, what 2nd DUI. Where is the accountability?

I agree with you -- something is wrong. But I believe it has more to do with how we handle people who have issues with alcohol. The "he shouldn't have been here in the first place" line is silly.

Some thugs enter this country and think they can do anything they want. This guy obviously did.

I prefer not to pass such a harsh judgement against someone without actually knowing the person or all the details of the case. It's easy to demonize a person who breaks the law without actually knowing the person, especially if they're brown and in the US illegally. For all we know, he could be a good person who happens to suffer from alcoholism and, unfortunately, made several bad decisions.

Where he should have been deported after the first DUI he wasn't and did it again and killed someone. Sure many things could have been attributed to this girls death, but the MAIN REASON could have been prevented if the law allowed him to be kicked out after his first DUI or SECOND DUI.

I agree -- deportation should be an option for guests who don't follow the rules. But my guess is that there are other aspects of the laws that govern cases such as this that could be addressed. We should be asking ourselves how we can minimize repeat offenses rather than screaming about immigration issues.

These two guys arguing about this is not childish unless you can't grasp the concepts that they're talking about.

To clarify my point, screaming at each other on television because you strongly disagree is childish. Discussing the issues calmly is okay.

princealfie

Apr 11, 2007, 03:12 PM

Some of this was discussed in previous posts, but the short answer is no. The process of becoming a legal resident alien is far more difficult now than it was during the 1950s, and far, far more difficult than it was before nation of origin quotas began in the 1920s. Sponsorship, a place to live, or even U.S. citizen parents or children, do not make any difference now. I think most people when they learn about the nightmare legal immigration has become, begin to feel differently about the issue of illegal immigration. At a minimum, they come to realize that the vast majority of people who come here illegally don't do it to flaunt the law, but because legal immigration has turned into a virtual impossibility.

Amen, seriously I'm still trying to get my girlfriend into the United States. Talk about too many hardships and roadblocks! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

zimv20

Apr 11, 2007, 06:02 PM

Amen, seriously I'm still trying to get my girlfriend into the United States. Talk about too many hardships and roadblocks! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

i had to sign an affidavit attesting to the love of my friend for his german fiancee. after much paperwork, uncertainty and delays, she was granted a fiancee visa. they've been married, errmmm, i think 15 years now.

i think the INS finally stopped doing their yearly inquiries...