|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 20, 2008 15:10:21 GMT -5
On my end it's -- Of course, you disagree. See, I did learn something from Yogi Berra after all. Rich, you obviously set the new record for pulling quotes. Congratulations! You win, again! You get the last word, as usual. It's almost comforting knowing that I'll never be the last to comment on anything. Not on this board, anyway. So, to quote you for a refreshing change: " people must draw their respective conclusions from [what is written]." YAWN!! I'm going back to Linkedin where I often get selected for BEST ANSWERS and the recommendations on my past accomplishments continue to stack up. Number 14 just arrived. These are folks that really know me and can easily reconcile my words and actions. They care less than you what party I belong to or may have switched from because they've seen my results and it doesn't matter one bit. And why the hell should it? No need for me to have the last word -- just let me know where I went wrong? Man -- I actually tried to give you a few compliments. I am very happy about your success with business colleagues on linkedin. Keep up the great work. Meanwhile -- I will try better to pay better attention. |
|
|
|
Post by stffgpr2003 on Aug 20, 2008 15:48:58 GMT -5
After you review your notes on COBOL. I'll be glad to debate you on this topic when you get YOUR degree in Industrial Psych/Human Resources Management or and when YOU hold YOUR first position in senior management position in HR. Been there, done that, my friend. Until then, I'll accept the insult coming from a layman. I'll make you a deal. I won't talk about computer programming, if you stay the heck away from areas I know a little bit more about.
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Aug 20, 2008 15:50:33 GMT -5
Mark has 14 recommendations from 375 (4%), I have 10 (unsolicited ) from 210 (5%)  On my end it's -- Of course, you disagree. See, I did learn something from Yogi Berra after all. Rich, you obviously set the new record for pulling quotes. Congratulations! You win, again! You get the last word, as usual. It's almost comforting knowing that I'll never be the last to comment on anything. Not on this board, anyway. So, to quote you for a refreshing change: " people must draw their respective conclusions from [what is written]." YAWN!! I'm going back to Linkedin where I often get selected for BEST ANSWERS and the recommendations on my past accomplishments continue to stack up. Number 14 just arrived. These are folks that really know me and can easily reconcile my words and actions. They care less than you what party I belong to or may have switched from because they've seen my results and it doesn't matter one bit. And why the hell should it? |
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Aug 20, 2008 15:59:59 GMT -5
Marc, your taking this way to personal.... You sir can debate the Secretary of Labor, not me!  please take this as an opportunity to educate us all Professor LeVine  I do not believe that the requirements outline on #5- below have changed since 1965, but please enlighten us to the correctness? 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments Abolished the national origin quota system ~First-come first served, family and occupational preference ~Hemisphere quotas ~Special individuals ~Labor certification The national origin system was designed to preserve the ethnic balance of the U.S. population, but by 1960s, Congress began to recognize that the system was failing in this respect. 1) those countries with the highest quotas were demanding only a fraction of their quota numbers. 2) between 1953-1964 about 1.5 million immigrants were admitted under various special programs as exceptions to the national origin quota, which essentially resulted in the abandonment of the national origin system. Between 1960-64, only 34% of immigrants entered under a quota. 3) public perceptions regarding race and national origin wer changed relative to what hey were during the cold-war period under which McCarran-Walter Act was passed. 1965: 1) abolished the national-origin quota system, thus eliminated national origin, race and ancestry as a basis for exclusion. 2) established a 7-category preference system for numerically restricted immigrants. created a first-come first-served system, given preferences to family reunification and people with special and needed job skills; 3)annual quota for Eastern Hemisphere of 170,000, Western Hemisphere of 120,000 ( first time have a quota for western Hemispher). 4)it established a group of immigrants exempt from quota limitations: immediate relatives of U.S. citizen, special immigrants including ministers of religion But for each country in Eastern Hemisphere, there is a 20,000 per country limit, which was not applicable to the western hemisphere. 5) labor certification: it required that the Secretary of labor certify that an alien attempting to enter as a worker would not replace a worker in the U.S. or adversely influence either the wages or working condition.[/b] [/color] After you review your notes on COBOL. I'll be glad to debate you on this topic when you get YOUR degree in Industrial Psych/Human Resources Management or and when YOU hold YOUR first position in senior management position in HR. Been there, done that, my friend. Until then, I'll accept the insult coming from a layman. I'll make you a deal. I won't talk about computer programming, if you stay the heck away from areas I know a little bit more about. |
|
|
|
Post by stffgpr2003 on Aug 20, 2008 16:02:08 GMT -5
Now you are just being an ass! Who asked you about your participation on LinkedIn, anyway? And, since when does Rich need you to answer for him? Sorry Ted, there's no correlation on contacts versus recommendations on that board, so once again your facts and analysis are grossly distorted.
I'm outta here. Enjoy your [admin: naughty phrase deleted]. I'm sure you have lots to talk about. Sorry, Brian and Lisa. Too much gang tackling going on here, as Ted shows above.
|
|
|
|
Post by stffgpr2003 on Aug 20, 2008 16:11:54 GMT -5
You cut and paste very well. I have no idea what your point is (not sure you do either), but thank for giving me a PhD. My job as Director of Human Resources at the Asbury Park Press didn't require that sort of degree...Sir! InfoPro, by the way, required me to work with H1B Visa's as Director of HR, since it imported programmers from India. So don't lecture me on what I already am trained in. I wish you were at these companies with me - I just don't know how I did these jobs successfully without you.
Bye.
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Aug 20, 2008 17:10:10 GMT -5
Calm down..ghhheeezzz... I said
"YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND READ BASIC IMMIGRATION LAW! to realize reform will NOT work! US immigration policy is based on two simple principals! We take in "Refugees" and "Workers" based on a quota system. We DO NOT take in foreign workers who displace legal American workers and we do not flood the labor market with foreign workers who erode wages as well as erode our economy and social services! This must be reversed, and ANY "reform" must show significant evidence that these negative trends can and will be reversed. This too is reasonable, rational and humane!"You Said... "After you review your notes on COBOL. I'll be glad to debate you on this topic when you get YOUR degree in Industrial Psych/Human Resources Management or and when YOU hold YOUR first position in senior management position in HR. Been there, done that, my friend. Until then, I'll accept the insult coming from a layman. I'll make you a deal. I won't talk about computer programming, if you stay the heck away from areas I know a little bit more about."
Then I said...
"Marc, your taking this way to personal.... You sir can debate the Secretary of Labor, not me! please take this as an opportunity to educate us all Professor LeVine I do not believe that the requirements outline on #5- below have changed since 1965, but please enlighten us to the correctness?.........
"5) labor certification: it required that the Secretary of labor certify that an alien attempting to enter as a worker would not replace a worker in the U.S. or adversely influence either the wages or working condition." In Summary... I have provided these statements of fact (#5), these are immigration protocols issued by the US Secretary Labor that qualifies and substantiates my initial statement that you seem to hold an alternative opinion on. Not my fault you missed a presentation from the US Secretary Labor, thats my source, and you outrageously impugn my ability to provide intelligent and knowledgeable information by charging laic incorrectness. We want intelligent debate here and we go it today, so lets just agree to disagree,like adults! name calling from a councilman, or a Candidate here is just as inappropriate as in a "Public" council meeting. You cut and paste very well. I have no idea what your point is (not sure you do either), but thank for giving me a PhD. My job as Director of Human Resources at the Asbury Park Press didn't require that sort of degree...Sir! InfoPro, by the way, required me to work with H1B Visa's as Director of HR, since it imported programmers from India. So don't lecture me on what I already am trained in. I wish you were at these companies with me - I just don't know how I did these jobs successfully without you. Bye. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 21, 2008 6:29:41 GMT -5
This really turned into an interesting thread. I hope that the candidates for FB can give us a race with this much passion. Although with a little less of people getting mad at each other!
But a thread like this shows what the site is for, a place where people can air out their views in a civil way and a place where all views do have value from experts to laymen. This is a good show that this is not a contest, but a discussion on solutions. This thread is a fine example of people can have very different, yet valid, views on a subject. And of course, readers will make up their own minds.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 21, 2008 12:12:12 GMT -5
Now you are just being an ass! Who asked you about your participation on LinkedIn, anyway? And, since when does Rich need you to answer for him? Sorry Ted, there's no correlation on contacts versus recommendations on that board, so once again your facts and analysis are grossly distorted. I'm outta here. Enjoy your [ admin: naughty phrase deleted]. I'm sure you have lots to talk about. Sorry, Brian and Lisa. Too much gang tackling going on here, as Ted shows above. Well -- I must say -- you went completely over the deep end here. Is everything alright? We were having a substantive debate on this thread, and as soon as I made the mistake of addressing your numerous un-addressed posts -- you turned this into some personal issue -- once again focusing on only the criticism, blowing it out of proportion, avoiding the good comments, and ignoring your own red hot pokers in the eye on people not even in the debate. (e.g the "hateful branding" by someone after you were co-opted from PEOPLE) Then -- in a twist of the purely bizarre, you start prattling on about the last word? Why on earth does the debate need to have a last word? Who said it was over? Why did you choose to avoid the substantive issues of immigration and this Town's record, and go off like you had just taken someone's meds rather than your own centrum silver? And this post -- holy smokes -- no wonder you stopped posting under your name. Marc Le Vine -- take a deep breath pal. There are no snipers on the fence post for crying out loud. Go back and read the thread from the beginning. Read it all -- all the postings all the quotes, and everything in it. How did you get to this post -- or event the 2 posts of yours previously? BTW -- I have no darn idea why linkedin got into this debate on th record of the Borough with respect to its approach and its success in working to mitigate illegal immigration and its effects. I guess I will quote you -- quoting me "people must draw their respective conclusions [from what is written]." |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 22, 2008 7:54:47 GMT -5
Well, this thread certainly did take off. Too bad it was a wee bit heated. What this thread does show is that there is plenty of discussion that still needs to take place. The topics and subjects found in this thread are not going to go away and there is no question that the solutions dealing with illegal immigration are a hot button issue.
Even at our small town level, we cannot afford to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that everything is alright, or that any one solution is perfect and going to save the day. The reality is that there are many people in this town that share some very real and very valid concerns.
Next week I will reignite this topic with a new thread. I have some very good reading material that will put a lot of what was found in this thread into perspective, from 287g to amnesty to deportation of illegals.
I fully intend on putting all of this under the microscope. I have been sitting on the side lines trying to figure out the best way to make next weeks posts non partisan, but I am not quite sure that will be possible. What I will be doing is striving for an honest look at illegal immigration from the state level down. We do have a lot to be very concerned about in this state.
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Aug 22, 2008 9:30:05 GMT -5
I see this thread as ended... well, not on such a great note. Heated debate? It was certainly spirited and people have strong opinions in this town about immigration, but my interpretation is that I think Marc just needs a break from this site, a breather, and hopefully he will return.
I did not see this thread as a reason to stop posting, maybe it was other things, or a culmination of thing. I did not see the posts as a real attack on Marc, but people pressing Marc, themselves and the readers on the issue of that particular day on FV. I think both Rich and Fiber respect Marc, but Marc made a decision. It's time to move on for the rest of us.
I hope that he returns in the future. It was a pleasure to have a councilman that could respond to some of our questions, or follow through on complaints that some people on this board had. One thing you hear throughout town are complaints about code enforcement, and Marc's help on this board in that department was certainly noticeable - whether or not code enforcement is "not doing its job" is a matter open to interpretation and after a person makes a complaint, they do not get a chance to see what is happening behind the scenes and hence the resident's frustration. But you know that if Marc sees something, he says something.
Anyway, to Marc, keep up the good fight, and I hope to read your words here again.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 22, 2008 11:51:42 GMT -5
Rich, you are doing exactly what you accused Marc of doing regarding his comments about the person who took over the PEOPLE organization when he left - i.e., talking about someone who is not associated with this site. At least not anymore. Marc's posts are showing up as "guest," because he deleted his posting account early this morning. After reading closley, it appears to me that you and Fiber double-teamed him and reamed him, seemingly because his views on immigration differ from yours. There is a definite attitude of condescension towards him. All he has ever tried to do on this site is reason, inform and educate. Regardless of differing views, Marc is a well respected and hard working Councilman who was elected to his position. Too bad that we lost an impotant poster, who brought us necessary balance. When will we learn to behave, boys? Lisa -- sorry -- but no darn way can I read it your way. I actually went back and read each post, and of course each post that followed. (BTW -- I find some rich irony in your typo lamenting the loss of an "impotant poster." Yes -- Marc and I obviously disagree on the issue of immigration. But disagreeing on the issue and discussing it are healthy. We have banned people for things like Marc's post. Anyway -- what Marc et al want more than anything else is for me and anyone to stop questioning their actions on immigration. My posts were full of nice things about Marc, but when he went on the attack I reminded him of the facts. He began talking about things that were simply not relevant. It's not that Marc doesn't want to post here -- he doesn't want anyone who posts here to question him. Read my post. I asked him point blank to tell me what I said factually that was incorrect. Anyway -- good news for him and his team -- they want me gone from this site so they can have no opposition. They win. I say only the following -- much of which is written previously by me. My positions here have never changed. I have been a steadfast advocate for the lawful residents of Freehold, even when others were changing positions, parties, etc. You forget that Mr. positivity is the only person from this site to bring extremely negative press to the Borough -- based on what he wrote, ironically, on this site. I have done nothing but try to bring some expertise to the issue, and stand fast on the truth -- while pointing out how the machine here has operated with impunity. When I did that -- I went from being a recognized expert to a right-wing nut on a personal vendetta. My writing on this site, and in the innumerable publications in which I have been printed tell the story of my fight to help towns over-run by illegal immigration -- including my home town. I have said this a million times -- I do very well in life -- thank God. I live in a nice home, I have a nice job, I am not over-run by illegal aliens. I am not moving back, I am not looking for political favors or business opportunities in Freehold. My motives are to advance the cause of lawful citizens and pay respect to immigrants who have come her legally. I have tried through my advocacy, expertise, and position to help this town. That has made those sitting in charge for years, changing parties, taking patronage, and doing nothing a bit uncomfortable -- now that I have had the temerity to point out the lack of progress. Well -- good luck to them. A town gets the government it deserves. Change, if its wanted must come from within. My efforts at advocacy and assistance now end. They are serving no purpose, and they are not welcomed. While my departure gives them what they want, it is not my fight to make the change. My writing will stay under my name -- and I don't intend to delete accounts, delete my posts, or change my account. I am delighted and proud to have my thoughts attached to my name. As I have written on this site previously -- when people look back and ask how this town went down, and why no one did anything to stop it -- those judges won't be able to accuse me of failing to stand for legal citizens and real immigrants. I wish the many honest, hard-working, and well intentioned people of my hometown nothing but great success. Borough pride, after all, is Revolutionary. I am out -- so the others can feel free to come back and bring their thoughts, ideal and balance. With no bitterness -- I move on. Perhaps I will see you all around on the Street of Freehold when I get up there to visit. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 24, 2008 8:08:06 GMT -5
To continue on topic, here is a really nice OP-ED from the APP. www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080824/OPINION01/808240349/1001/newsfrontSheriff doing what she can August 24, 2008 It has been two years since Congress failed in its latest serious attempt to find a compromise on a bill designed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into this country. There has been little debate since and scant discussion about it during the presidential campaign. Consequently, it remains up to local and state officials to deal piecemeal with the economic and social problems associated with having to absorb large numbers of illegal aliens. Because enforcement of immigration laws is the responsibility of the federal government, options at the local level are limited. Monmouth County Sheriff Kim Guadagno is among a handful of officials in New Jersey attempting to address at least part of the problem — illegal aliens with criminal pasts who are being set free because of restrictions on running checks to see whether they are in this country legally. When Guadagno ran for sheriff last year, she pledged to join a federal program called 287(g) that deputizes local law enforcement officers as federal immigration agents. She now says budget considerations make it impossible to fully implement the program, but she intends to have officers at the county jail in Freehold Township check detainees' immigration status. While we would like to see her do more, the job is far too big for one sheriff's department. Illegal immigration must be confronted at the national level. It's an outrage that years of debate over the best way to respond to it have produced few concrete initiatives. There are no reliable statistics on the number of illegal immigrants in New Jersey. But foreign-born residents now constitute 20.7 percent of the state's population, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Since 2000, foreign-born residents have increased by 21.8 percent while the native-born population has declined 0.7 percent. According to Census Bureau statistics, there were about 2.4 million people in New Jersey in 1997 who were "immigrant stock" — immigrants and children born to them here after their arrival. The immigrant stock share of the state's population is now about 28 percent — the sixth largest share in the country. Over the past three decades, immigrants and their children have accounted for all of the state's population increase. Due to a slowing economy and somewhat tougher enforcement, the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. is down about 11 percent from a year ago, according to a recent FAIR report. But a comprehensive immigration reform bill is badly needed, one that provides for secure borders, imposes stiff penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants, mandates the issuance of tamper-proof national identification cards and empowers local police to enforce immigration laws.Guadagno's plan won't solve the problem. But at least she is giving it her best shot. If only the same could be said for Congress. |
|
bergsteiger
Full Member
War is simple, direct, and ruthless
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by bergsteiger on Aug 24, 2008 19:41:51 GMT -5
|
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Aug 26, 2008 12:08:26 GMT -5
Not exactly, Rich. "Playing by the rules," is something the illegal immigrant communities have a difficult time doing, because of the economic burdens (the same ones we face, daily) they would have to accept to accomplish this. This is especially difficult in the most expensive states like New Jersey and in upscale areas like Western Monmouth County. Local poor and middle class residents, who live by the rules, have a difficult time making ends meet. Many Americans would be more tolerant if greater efforts were made by illegal immigrants to file W-7's and pay employment taxes; pay market rents without overcrowding apartments; pay cash for the medical care received; register their cars and insure them ONLY in the states they actually reside in; learn English; and respect all other federal, state and local laws. It's not a substitute for legalization, but it makes a better case for it, based on many putting their better feet forward. Down the road, eventual immigration reform should include that back taxes be paid and that sufficient penalties be assessed and collected from all illegal immigrants. Those ducking their eventual responsibilities of making restitution and those continuing to remain part of the underground economy should be deported and thrown in jail should they ever attempt to re-enter the United States. The nice thing about immigration reform, which we are bound to get under either new administration, is that it should serve to take away all the "excuses" (for continued underground behavior) and strengthen enforcement resolve. The American people must insist on this along with a tightened border with a better overall immigration policy. There is nothing wrong with what I propose. If illegal immigrants are able to survive our economy without the kind of help that none of the rest of us get from special interest groups and others, they will no longer represent themselves to us, daily, as the byproducts of a chronic crisis that is long overdue for repair. Marc While I may have been away for a couple of weeks...I certainly didn't disappear into obscurity...and this thread was one that I kept up on with great interest. Unfortunately, Marc apparently decided to delete his account as well after the arguments on this thread. For whatever reason, he also decided to change his ID before doing so, which takes his name off of all of his previous threads. Anyway...I think Marc's initial post on this thread made some very good points...but then things went off and the main points got lost in the shuffle. If Marc were still around, I would like to ask him some questions on this particular topic, such as... What did he mean by "the economic burdens (the same ones we face, daily) they [illegal immigrants] would have to accept" in order to play by the rules? It seems to me that their economic burdens are made worse by the fact that they don't play by the rules...if they were here legally, they would not be subject to getting paid the pitiful wages for the work they do. Next, "Many Americans would be more tolerant if greater efforts were made by illegal immigrants to file W-7's and pay employment taxes; pay market rents without overcrowding apartments; pay cash for the medical care received; register their cars and insure them ONLY in the states they actually reside in; learn English; and respect all other federal, state and local laws. It's not a substitute for legalization, but it makes a better case for it, based on many putting their better feet forward." Could not agree more!! The thing that continues to grate on my last nerve is the fact that there is no effort made by the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants or their support groups to assimilate in any way. They continue to (as Brian has put it) feel that they are simply entitled to equal treatment and protection despite the fact that they broke the law to get here, and break the law by staying here and not seeking out legal means to becoming a citizen. I can only speak for myself, but I certainly would fall into the category of people who would not have as big a problem with illegal immigrants if they were contributing their fair share and trying to assimilate to their surroundings. It is the fact that they continue to use my tax dollars to take care of those who contribute nothing to the system that ticks me off. The idea of immigration reform was brought up, and I agree with those who ask, "How can we believe that the same people in Washington are miraculously going to have the guts to enforce new laws when they can't even bring themselves to enforce the current ones?" Funny...I have the same opinion about folks here in town There was also discussion about loitering laws and immigration reform in other states, and then why we can't do it here... Well, since everyone is always telling me I don't come up with answers, only criticisms, let me propose this... Freehold Boro's Mayor and Town Council should put forth a motion recommending that the state of New Jersey reform it's laws on loitering in order to enable towns to better deal with problems that arise from large numbers of people loitering all over their streets. They should also put forth a motion recommending that the state reverse their current stand on illegal immigration as well as the directive given by the state's Attorney General, and should instead support initiative's such as 287g on a local, county, and state wide level in order to help New Jersey deal with a problem that is affecting the lives of the citizens of New Jersey. Tell the state to stop finding excuses to pass the buck up to the Federal level when the Federal government is trying to offer the tools which would enable the states to deal with these problems. Instead of collectively writing letters to the local newspapers to blast an opponent in the upcoming election, perhaps our Mayor and Town Council should collectively write letters to the Governor, his Blue Ribbon Panel on Immigration, and our State Representatives to get them to act on the reform of those laws. I have to once again refer to the work that was done with the schools in town. Thanks to a group of motivated parents, teachers, administrators, BOE members, and one persistant State representative, the "Yellow T-shirts" got themselves in the faces of the lawmakers in Trenton and forced them to open their eyes to the problems that were killing our schools. The people from Freehold Boro stood up and fought for a number of districts who were all dealing with the same issues...and we did it without their help. As a result, all of our schools got an additional influx of at least some funding, and now our district is set to receive decent increases in state funding for the next couple of years. The point, of course, is that if you don't open your mouth and start screaming at the folks in Trenton...you're not going to get anywhere. In fact, Mayor Wilson himself stood at the Town Hall meeting that we had all those months ago "rallying" everyone in the room to shout loud enough so they could hear us in Trenton...I only wish he would do the same with regard to other issues in town. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 26, 2008 12:16:54 GMT -5
I have to clear something up from an admin perspective. Andrew wrote:
Unfortunately, Marc apparently decided to delete his account as well after the arguments on this thread. For whatever reason, he also decided to change his ID before doing so, which takes his name off of all of his previous threads.
Marc's change of name when he left the site was not his doing. It is a site glitch. When Marc first signed up, he did so with the screen name "stffgrp" and then changed his profile to show his real name. When he deleted his account, the original screen name is what appeared.
This is a very understandable point of confusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 26, 2008 12:24:56 GMT -5
Not exactly, Rich. "Playing by the rules," is something the illegal immigrant communities have a difficult time doing, because of the economic burdens (the same ones we face, daily) they would have to accept to accomplish this. This is especially difficult in the most expensive states like New Jersey and in upscale areas like Western Monmouth County. Local poor and middle class residents, who live by the rules, have a difficult time making ends meet. Many Americans would be more tolerant if greater efforts were made by illegal immigrants to file W-7's and pay employment taxes; pay market rents without overcrowding apartments; pay cash for the medical care received; register their cars and insure them ONLY in the states they actually reside in; learn English; and respect all other federal, state and local laws. It's not a substitute for legalization, but it makes a better case for it, based on many putting their better feet forward. Down the road, eventual immigration reform should include that back taxes be paid and that sufficient penalties be assessed and collected from all illegal immigrants. Those ducking their eventual responsibilities of making restitution and those continuing to remain part of the underground economy should be deported and thrown in jail should they ever attempt to re-enter the United States. The nice thing about immigration reform, which we are bound to get under either new administration, is that it should serve to take away all the "excuses" (for continued underground behavior) and strengthen enforcement resolve. The American people must insist on this along with a tightened border with a better overall immigration policy. There is nothing wrong with what I propose. If illegal immigrants are able to survive our economy without the kind of help that none of the rest of us get from special interest groups and others, they will no longer represent themselves to us, daily, as the byproducts of a chronic crisis that is long overdue for repair. Marc While I may have been away for a couple of weeks...I certainly didn't disappear into obscurity...and this thread was one that I kept up on with great interest. Unfortunately, Marc apparently decided to delete his account as well after the arguments on this thread. For whatever reason, he also decided to change his ID before doing so, which takes his name off of all of his previous threads. Anyway...I think Marc's initial post on this thread made some very good points...but then things went off and the main points got lost in the shuffle. If Marc were still around, I would like to ask him some questions on this particular topic, such as... What did he mean by "the economic burdens (the same ones we face, daily) they [illegal immigrants] would have to accept" in order to play by the rules? It seems to me that their economic burdens are made worse by the fact that they don't play by the rules...if they were here legally, they would not be subject to getting paid the pitiful wages for the work they do. Next, "Many Americans would be more tolerant if greater efforts were made by illegal immigrants to file W-7's and pay employment taxes; pay market rents without overcrowding apartments; pay cash for the medical care received; register their cars and insure them ONLY in the states they actually reside in; learn English; and respect all other federal, state and local laws. It's not a substitute for legalization, but it makes a better case for it, based on many putting their better feet forward." Could not agree more!! The thing that continues to grate on my last nerve is the fact that there is no effort made by the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants or their support groups to assimilate in any way. They continue to (as Brian has put it) feel that they are simply entitled to equal treatment and protection despite the fact that they broke the law to get here, and break the law by staying here and not seeking out legal means to becoming a citizen. I can only speak for myself, but I certainly would fall into the category of people who would not have as big a problem with illegal immigrants if they were contributing their fair share and trying to assimilate to their surroundings. It is the fact that they continue to use my tax dollars to take care of those who contribute nothing to the system that ticks me off. The idea of immigration reform was brought up, and I agree with those who ask, "How can we believe that the same people in Washington are miraculously going to have the guts to enforce new laws when they can't even bring themselves to enforce the current ones?" Funny...I have the same opinion about folks here in town There was also discussion about loitering laws and immigration reform in other states, and then why we can't do it here... Well, since everyone is always telling me I don't come up with answers, only criticisms, let me propose this... Freehold Boro's Mayor and Town Council should put forth a motion recommending that the state of New Jersey reform it's laws on loitering in order to enable towns to better deal with problems that arise from large numbers of people loitering all over their streets. They should also put forth a motion recommending that the state reverse their current stand on illegal immigration as well as the directive given by the state's Attorney General, and should instead support initiative's such as 287g on a local, county, and state wide level in order to help New Jersey deal with a problem that is affecting the lives of the citizens of New Jersey. Tell the state to stop finding excuses to pass the buck up to the Federal level when the Federal government is trying to offer the tools which would enable the states to deal with these problems. Instead of collectively writing letters to the local newspapers to blast an opponent in the upcoming election, perhaps our Mayor and Town Council should collectively write letters to the Governor, his Blue Ribbon Panel on Immigration, and our State Representatives to get them to act on the reform of those laws. I have to once again refer to the work that was done with the schools in town. Thanks to a group of motivated parents, teachers, administrators, BOE members, and one persistant State representative, the "Yellow T-shirts" got themselves in the faces of the lawmakers in Trenton and forced them to open their eyes to the problems that were killing our schools. The people from Freehold Boro stood up and fought for a number of districts who were all dealing with the same issues...and we did it without their help. As a result, all of our schools got an additional influx of at least some funding, and now our district is set to receive decent increases in state funding for the next couple of years. The point, of course, is that if you don't open your mouth and start screaming at the folks in Trenton...you're not going to get anywhere. In fact, Mayor Wilson himself stood at the Town Hall meeting that we had all those months ago "rallying" everyone in the room to shout loud enough so they could hear us in Trenton...I only wish he would do the same with regard to other issues in town. Andrew, Earlier in the week I posted some links in another thread. I hope you read them. Too much of what was in that thread sounds too much like the appeasement and santuary mentality that we have been seeing at our local level. freeholdvoice.proboards46.com/index.cgi?board=unlawfull&action=display&thread=3770 |
|
|
|
Post by pricewepay on Aug 27, 2008 8:13:07 GMT -5
"What the sheriff wants to do in Monmouth County is venture into an aspect of the 287(g) program, and what she is proposing is something we oppose," said Charles "Shai" Goldstein, executive director of the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network. "This new booking procedure is not necessary. Local police and corrections officers are already overburdened, and to create an additional responsibility for them in the specialized area of immigration law is bad law enforcement. You will be taking away corrections officers from other training so they can be trained for this."
I have one question for Mr. Goldstein and his associates - Is there anything, short of eliminating the border, that they would support, to help eliminate illegal immigration ? My personal feeling is no. Being they don't believe that being illegal is a crime, regardless of the laws we have, their feeling is do nothing and find excuses to defend that position. Continuing with that logic, since I believe that having a legal drinking age of 21 is ridiculous, I propose that we stop having the police enforce that law. Think of all the "real" criminals the cops could go after rather than going after 18 - 20 year olds that want to have a beer !! If others have laws they don't agree advocate the same, of course we all know that would be ridiculous, but that will never stop Mr. Goldstein and who think like him.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 2, 2008 7:51:43 GMT -5
I was rereading this thread. For the life of me, I still cannot figure out why Marc got so mad as to quit the site over the content found in this thread. As I was reading, I came back cross several interesting things. Marc wrote
Start "reconciling" what I wrote, because you have not paid any attention at all. Influencing reform is all I talked about because reform is coming. Influencing reform is what PEOPLE was all about. Go back to the very first articles in the newspapers and read them. I was trying to encourage residents to read up on the immigration matter, discuss it and collectively influence policy. And, immigration was not all that PEOPLE was supposed to be about, either. Things only got ugly when I stepped down and my replacement used the group with her own personal hateful branding on it as her platform for GOP election. So much for my non partisan group.
I found the above interesting and largely agree with him. I do not know what he meant by "hateful branding," but the statement that the PEOPLE group was used as a GOP platform was a perception that I shared. At the time, I had not met any of the PEOPLE group. I had only been to one meeting which was the only time I met the GOP/PEOPLE candidate.
Most of what I knew about the PEOPLE group was what I read about in the papers. I did follow very closely and with great interest. It was great to see a group of concerned citizens banding together and making an attempt at positive changes. I also recall that letters to the papers that Marc wrote were also my biggest source of info in understanding the group. I recall that I did not always agree with what he wrote, but, Marc had a good middle ground approach. That was the right approach for a non partisan group.
When he left, I too felt that the group was a platform for a candidate. I thought that was a big mistake. I believed, and was right, that the group would fizzle after the election. There were few meetings afterwords.
The above was just my perceptions. I do not really know how right I was based on fact. What I do know, is that there is still a very real need for an independent group in this town. One distant from both GOP and Dem. I also know, and agree with what Marc wrote, about the need for such a group to be about far more than that one certain topic. The PEOPLE group did become just a one issue group, but that was far more due to the perception that the papers and the groups opponents created.
Few recall, the last public PEOPLE meeting was about the schools. I was a part of that one. I was also a part of exploring the idea of putting the group back together. Unfortunately, that did not work out so good. At least two interested people moved. Two interested people got very caught up dealing with sick relatives. Another who I had high hopes for turned out to be a very big disappointment. We had a nice outline dealing with a number if different and good issues in our town. It is a shame that there was not enough of us to get anything good off the ground.
And it is a real shame that the group does not exist. This is a great town with great people, but we are far from out of the woods. Committees and other government backed groups that help our are great, but an independent group of citizens would be better.
|
|
please take this as an opportunity to educate us all Professor LeVine 
I do not believe that the requirements outline on #5- below have changed since 1965, but please enlighten us to the correctness?
;D 
