CDC gets list of forbidden words

[Largent80]

I don't worry because the Seahawks have been leaving Turds in my living room all year. Just got it cleaned up from that extravaganza last Sunday...

[Aseahawkfan]

I'll always look at the source of an article before I click on it and try to stick with the 'trusted' sources, and yes, it includes CNN, MSNBC, and other liberal-slanted sources. Other sources include Reuters, The Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, etc. MSN seems to do a pretty good job of mixing up what they're feeding you.

Those organizations won't let their writers throw chit on a wall, they insist that they document where they're getting their information from and edit what's filed under their company name. Looking for a source is the key to separating fact from rumor. I'll look for certain phrases, like "according to people close to the President". It's like reading the disclaimer on an ad.

I'm talking more the source of the conflict rather than article. Some of these conflicts we have go back decades with a lot of history to sort through. Have you read up on how the Saudi kings came to power and what form of Islam is taught in that nation because of it? Or what kind of deal they made with Israel to gain the support of the United States in their conflicts? It's interesting reading that isn't often mentioned in the articles posted on web sites or in the news, cable or network. There so much to read about what influences our leadership versus what is delivered to our citizens. It's a very different narrative than the one you hear in the press. Even the narrative on Vietnam is an interesting and in-depth read as to why we did what we did in that area. World politics is much more interesting when you avoid the news and read the history.

[RiverDog]

I'm talking more the source of the conflict rather than article. Some of these conflicts we have go back decades with a lot of history to sort through. Have you read up on how the Saudi kings came to power and what form of Islam is taught in that nation because of it? Or what kind of deal they made with Israel to gain the support of the United States in their conflicts? It's interesting reading that isn't often mentioned in the articles posted on web sites or in the news, cable or network. There so much to read about what influences our leadership versus what is delivered to our citizens. It's a very different narrative than the one you hear in the press. Even the narrative on Vietnam is an interesting and in-depth read as to why we did what we did in that area. World politics is much more interesting when you avoid the news and read the history.

I haven't done a lot of studying of the recent history of the Middle East. What interests me nowadays is 20th century US history, mostly because either me or my parents lived it so it's something I can easily identify with.

I do have a very good friend, a middle aged man that I mentored at work (I'm 63), that's an Iraqi-American and who talks quite frequently of the situation on the ground over there. He claims, among other things, that there's kings and princes in other middle eastern countries that are every bit as corrupt as Saadam was, how it's worse in Iraq after the US invasion than before, how you could avoid Saadam. I'm not sure how accurate his accounts are as I have no way of checking them out, but I have no reason to doubt his honesty, to the contrary, I trust what he says as being accurate at least in his mind. Another person I mentored was a former Army captain who did a tour in Iraq following the US invasion. The two former understudies of mine know each other and are great friends, something I've felt was very admirable for both. When the three of us are together, we don't talk a lot about politics.

I know that doesn't answer your question but it's the best I could do.

[Aseahawkfan]

I haven't done a lot of studying of the recent history of the Middle East. What interests me nowadays is 20th century US history, mostly because either me or my parents lived it so it's something I can easily identify with.

I do have a very good friend, a middle aged man that I mentored at work (I'm 63), that's an Iraqi-American and who talks quite frequently of the situation on the ground over there. He claims, among other things, that there's kings and princes in other middle eastern countries that are every bit as corrupt as Saadam was, how it's worse in Iraq after the US invasion than before, how you could avoid Saadam. I'm not sure how accurate his accounts are as I have no way of checking them out, but I have no reason to doubt his honesty, to the contrary, I trust what he says as being accurate at least in his mind. Another person I mentored was a former Army captain who did a tour in Iraq following the US invasion. The two former understudies of mine know each other and are great friends, something I've felt was very admirable for both. When the three of us are together, we don't talk a lot about politics.

I know that doesn't answer your question but it's the best I could do.

I picked up quite a bit of information the same way. I worked with some Iraqi folk. They gave me information I had not heard in the United States from the media or White House. I used that as a jumping off point for research. I learned a great deal about the different factions of Islam, where those factions are located, and how they have built and maintained power over the years. It was quite an education.

I know most don't care, but our leadership is playing a game for the entire world. I understand the thinking as it is inevitable that the various human factions grow into each other until we form one huge global tribe and I would prefer the United States ideals prevail. There are some dirty nations that we back really undermining American ideals like Saudi Arabia. That is a very dangerous nation playing to be the first caliphate in the Islamic World. They are paying out a lot of money to push the most dangerous Muslim ideals into other nations with them as the first caliphate and we just seem to be ignoring their actions due to their agreement with Israel and oil production. We need to put more pressure on the Saudis to modernize given their level of influence in the Islamic world. I'll hold off there as the discussion leads into deeper topics difficult to debate on a forum. If you want a couple of start places if you get bored in your retirement, read up on the House of Saud and Wajabism or Wahabism. It can be spelled different ways. The marriage of political power with extremist Islam met in Saudi Arabia.

[RiverDog]

I picked up quite a bit of information the same way. I worked with some Iraqi folk. They gave me information I had not heard in the United States from the media or White House. I used that as a jumping off point for research. I learned a great deal about the different factions of Islam, where those factions are located, and how they have built and maintained power over the years. It was quite an education.

I know most don't care, but our leadership is playing a game for the entire world. I understand the thinking as it is inevitable that the various human factions grow into each other until we form one huge global tribe and I would prefer the United States ideals prevail. There are some dirty nations that we back really undermining American ideals like Saudi Arabia. That is a very dangerous nation playing to be the first caliphate in the Islamic World. They are paying out a lot of money to push the most dangerous Muslim ideals into other nations with them as the first caliphate and we just seem to be ignoring their actions due to their agreement with Israel and oil production. We need to put more pressure on the Saudis to modernize given their level of influence in the Islamic world. I'll hold off there as the discussion leads into deeper topics difficult to debate on a forum. If you want a couple of start places if you get bored in your retirement, read up on the House of Saud and Wajabism or Wahabism. It can be spelled different ways. The marriage of political power with extremist Islam met in Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps I'll take up your suggestion, especially here in the next few weeks as it's the middle of winter and I'm pretty much home bound recovering from knee surgery.

You'd enjoy this friend of mine. After my surgery, he came up to my room with a bouquet of flowers and talked with me and my wife for over 2 hours to help me pass the time. And along a different subject, ie the flag protests, one of the things that cemented my sentiments about him was the day he came to work after he had gotten his American citizenship. A couple of our female employees went and got two little 12" American flags and taped them to the outside of his locker. I had arrived before him so I saw his reaction. He broke out in this huge smile almost to the point of tears. That impressed the hell out of me. When I told him about my reaction, he told me that he still has those two little flags.

That constitutes one of the reasons why I am so anti Trump when it comes to his stance on Muslims and immigration and one of the reasons why I took offense to the flag protests. He's also one of the guys I was referring to when I said that I had to have conversations with to convince them that Trump's election didn't mean that America hated them. I hate having to have been put into that position.

[burrrton]

A couple of our female employees went and got two little 12" American flags and taped them to the outside of his locker. I had arrived before him so I saw his reaction. He broke out in this huge smile almost to the point of tears. That impressed the hell out of me. When I told him about my reaction, he told me that he still has those two little flags.

That warms my heart, and yeah, is a perfect example of something on which I fundamentally differ with Trump (around here, my experience with both legal and illegal immigrants is the opposite of the conventional wisdom).

[RiverDog]

That warms my heart, and yeah, is a perfect example of something on which I fundamentally differ with Trump (around here, my experience with both legal and illegal immigrants is the opposite of the conventional wisdom).

I'm glad that you feel that way. Perhaps now you can understand why I get so defensive anytime Trump utters a word about immigration. He doesn't want to just keep out illegals, he wants to restrict legal, law abiding applicants, including those that have successfully cleared his vetting procedures.

It's a worn out cliché for a white guy to say something like "some of my best friends are black," a phrase popular with whites that felt that they needed to qualify their tolerance. But with me, it's the majority of my close friends that weren't born here or that are part of a minority group.

I know that I don't have to convince you guys of my sincerity. I just felt like tooting my horn, something I can't always do in a face-to-face conversation.

Merry Christmas!

[burrrton]

Perhaps now you can understand why I get so defensive anytime Trump utters a word about immigration.

I understand and agree, but I think we should quit having our attitudes dictated by our hackles that go up when the dude says something. As a for instance (and what I think you're referring to), his 'Muslim ban' either banned Muslims, or it didn't.

Whatever you think of his attitude toward Muslims or illegals or foreigners in general, if we go almost literally insane calling something that is demonstrably not what we're calling it, it strengthens his position, it doesn't weaken it.

It's a worn out cliché for a white guy to say something like "some of my best friends are black," a phrase popular with whites that felt that they needed to qualify their tolerance.

It is a worn-out cliche, but it's also become a worn-out cliche for any evidence to the contrary to be dismissed as that according to anyone wishing to call someone "RAYCISS" based on nothing more than them disagreeing with them.

When "I'm friends with black people just like everyone else" doesn't disprove the charge that you hate black people, what does?

What a fun time to be alive.

[RiverDog]

...Whatever you think of his attitude toward Muslims or illegals or foreigners in general, if we go almost literally insane calling something that is demonstrably not what we're calling it, it strengthens his position, it doesn't weaken it.

What I think his attitude towards Muslims or foreigners is? How about what Rudy G said:

“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "

It was the lawyers, not Trump, that later suggested that he focus on trouble areas of the world rather than religion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 5bfd90773b

Then he had the gall to complain about the media calling his original EO a Muslim ban, when it was he himself that used that specific term in asking for one.

So I'm sorry. Anytime Trump utters one word about immigration reform, I'll immediately think of that quote. I'll start out under the assumption that he has ulterior motives and until I'm convinced otherwise, will assume the absoulete worst intentions and will wonder what kind of legal loop holes he may have inserted into a policy proposal. Trump has zero trust from me regarding that particular issue. The simple fact that he's the one who proposes it is enough for me to be against it.

As a for instance (and what I think you're referring to), his 'Muslim ban' either banned Muslims, or it didn't.

Trump himself called it a Muslim ban, so why can't I refer to it in the same terms in which he did?

[burrrton]

Trump himself called it a Muslim ban, so why can't I refer to it in the same terms in which he did?

You shouldn't because it didn't single out Muslims, it didn't *ban* them, and he didn't even come up with the list of 'trouble countries'.

Whether he wanted them "banned" or not is irrelevant to whether he actually followed through on it (he didn't, as you acknowledge with the bit about the lawyers).

Go ahead and call it what you want (I've made my feelings clear so won't continue wasting bandwidth repeating myself), but again, I think this just puts more arrows in his quiver.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm glad that you feel that way. Perhaps now you can understand why I get so defensive anytime Trump utters a word about immigration. He doesn't want to just keep out illegals, he wants to restrict legal, law abiding applicants, including those that have successfully cleared his vetting procedures.

It's a worn out cliché for a white guy to say something like "some of my best friends are black," a phrase popular with whites that felt that they needed to qualify their tolerance. But with me, it's the majority of my close friends that weren't born here or that are part of a minority group.

I know that I don't have to convince you guys of my sincerity. I just felt like tooting my horn, something I can't always do in a face-to-face conversation.

Merry Christmas!

I don't like Trump's methods for pushing immigration either. I don't agree with his view on Muslims or Mexicans. I do believe we reached the point where a Trump reaches office because previous administrations refused to acknowledge that immigration needed to be cleaned up, especially illegal immigration. It's hard to argue against it when you see terrorist attacks by immigrants and many states beset by the Latin crime waves with violent gangs like MS13 and the Mexican cartels funneling heavy drugs into the nation with meth production facilities along the border, heavy gang violence, and drug mules being sent across illegally as well as the job destruction from the combination of outsourcing and H1B visas. It's seems a combination of factors that culminated in a final shout of "Get this under control" that helped elect Trump. Trump's along the more extreme range of immigration reform, which is apparently what it takes for a president to do more than token attempts to get illegal immigration under control. Not sure when it became common for a president to think our borders weren't necessary to protect, but it's irresponsible government to allow 20 million illegal immigrants to enter a nation. That level of illegal immigration is a breach of the government's duties to its citizens.

I know some of my friends worry about Muslims. I have to explain that Muslims in general make good citizens. They don't commit crimes in general. They like to work. They are raised to take care of their children and are very family oriented. And terrorism kills more Muslims than it does westerners by a huge margin. Most Muslims fear the Muslim terrorists because they kill any Muslims that don't believe as they believe. These terrorists don't care who they kill. It's hard to maintain perspective with Fox News and other conservative news sources hammering away at immigrants to fan the fear and get ratings. In every nation the propaganda about "the other" damaging their culture and way of life is fanned by the powers to maintain control. Even in India I learned the consider the United States as cultural imperialists pushing our values through business rather than their people seeing a different, more attractive way of life they want. We're certainly not the only nation with fears being flamed to prepare the way for a leader like Trump or far, far worse.

[RiverDog]

I don't like Trump's methods for pushing immigration either. I don't agree with his view on Muslims or Mexicans. I do believe we reached the point where a Trump reaches office because previous administrations refused to acknowledge that immigration needed to be cleaned up, especially illegal immigration. It's hard to argue against it when you see terrorist attacks by immigrants and many states beset by the Latin crime waves with violent gangs like MS13 and the Mexican cartels funneling heavy drugs into the nation with meth production facilities along the border, heavy gang violence, and drug mules being sent across illegally as well as the job destruction from the combination of outsourcing and H1B visas. It's seems a combination of factors that culminated in a final shout of "Get this under control" that helped elect Trump. Trump's along the more extreme range of immigration reform, which is apparently what it takes for a president to do more than token attempts to get illegal immigration under control. Not sure when it became common for a president to think our borders weren't necessary to protect, but it's irresponsible government to allow 20 million illegal immigrants to enter a nation. That level of illegal immigration is a breach of the government's duties to its citizens.

I know some of my friends worry about Muslims. I have to explain that Muslims in general make good citizens. They don't commit crimes in general. They like to work. They are raised to take care of their children and are very family oriented. And terrorism kills more Muslims than it does westerners by a huge margin. Most Muslims fear the Muslim terrorists because they kill any Muslims that don't believe as they believe. These terrorists don't care who they kill. It's hard to maintain perspective with Fox News and other conservative news sources hammering away at immigrants to fan the fear and get ratings. In every nation the propaganda about "the other" damaging their culture and way of life is fanned by the powers to maintain control. Even in India I learned the consider the United States as cultural imperialists pushing our values through business rather than their people seeing a different, more attractive way of life they want. We're certainly not the only nation with fears being flamed to prepare the way for a leader like Trump or far, far worse.

I agree with pretty much everything you're saying. The only thing I'd differ with is the reasons why Trump got elected. For one, you left out the fact that the Dems nominated a snake. There are others that voted for him for economic reasons, such as his "America First" theme that played so well in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. And there are those that voted for him because they saw our military preparedness back sliding under Obama.

I agree with tightening our borders and making it more difficult for people to illegally enter our country, but Trump's talk about building a wall, saying that Mexico was going to pay for it, and labeling all Mexicans wanting to come to our country as a bunch of drug running thugs and criminals, was incredibly insensitive. Many good, hard working and law abiding Mexican-Americans and legal green card holders that love their homeland just like we love ours were disrespected with his inflammatory and completely unnecessary rhetoric. I agree with going hard to find illegals, at least those most likely to commit crimes, but I also advocate helping those that pose no threat to us and that have proven themselves worthy by their hard work a way to become legal or gain citizenship. But Trump is going after stuff like the "Dreamers" program. I'm not sure how that helps our security or law enforcement issues.

Even though I didn't vote for Obama, I felt that he was a likeable person and that his election as our first African-American president gave me the feeling that we had continued to heal centuries worth of racial and ethnic divides, but Trump has torn that sentiment to shreds and set us back 50 years. Not only do I feel that Trump's not likeable, I feel he's the polar opposite, that he's a despicable character that I would not want to sit down at the dinner table with. I never felt that way about any other POTUS, with my eyewitness memory going back to JFK.

[burrrton]

But Trump is going after stuff like the "Dreamers" program. I'm not sure how that helps our security or law enforcement issues.

That's because it doesn't, and it's a horrible impulse.

Whatever you think of the program, it's a reality now that we should deal with because the DREAMers are people who were brought here as children, know no other country, have no criminal history, and came forward and registered voluntarily. Yanking the rug out from under them now is not just bad politics, it's morally wrong.

I think too many have no idea what the DREAM program is, so just conflate its members with illegals that flow over our border. Ignorance.

[RiverDog]

Whatever you think of the program, it's a reality now that we should deal with because the DREAMers are people who were brought here as children, know no other country, have no criminal history, and came forward and registered voluntarily. Yanking the rug out from under them now is not just bad politics, it's morally wrong.

I think too many have no idea what the DREAM program is, so just conflate its members with illegals that flow over our border. Ignorance.

Here, here! Some don't even speak English with an accent.

The program does have some problems and I don't mind Trump going through it and cleaning it up, but to end it completely would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[burrrton]

The program does have some problems and I don't mind Trump going through it and cleaning it up, but to end it completely would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Agreed. I have no doubt an Obama program is messed up in fundamental ways, but giving these people an avenue to legitimize their status, considering who they are and *especially* after they've exposed themselves by registering in the first place, is unquestionably the right thing to do.

And no, I don't give two sh*ts who anyone thinks they'll vote for.

[Aseahawkfan]

I have trouble with the DACA program. Surprisingly again I don't agree with burrton. You can't let emotions enter into immigration enforcement. If people their children here illegally, it shouldn't be a race to keep them here long enough to stay. Using children to tug at the hearstrings is a cheap way to push something undesirable through. You can't break up the families, so the children act as an anchor to keep them here? That just encourages this type of behavior further.

Half my family is Mexican. They came over legally. They didn't try to bring children over, hide out for five years illegally, then hold them up as an emotional call for immigration reform.

This type of emotional manipulation is why we are in the situation we are in. We're constantly telling our people we have to do this because "morals" or we have to do this because "the children." And other such things to emotionally manipulate the masses on big issues. I'm utterly tired of it. Where does it stop? Enforce the immigration laws as you should have been doing for ages. It's very sad that we are sending immigrant children back to their home nation, but the government should have been doing it's job to begin with. So we wouldn't be in this situation.

My Mexican mother who worked in a public hospital in El Paso, a border town, told me many stories of Mexicans coming over to specifically have children in this nation. They do this because a child born here immediately gains American citizenship due to the 14th Amendment. This immediately creates an immigration anchor for the mother to stay. Often the father doesn't sign the birth certificate to give the child and mother a better chance to obtain social program benefits for the child and mother. My Mexican mother did not like this type of scamming she saw quite often in this public hospital.

I do not feel that sympathy for children is a sufficient reason to alter our immigration laws.

[burrrton]

I'm not making an emotional appeal, asea- I'm making a moral one.

If you want to end the anchor avenue for others, I'm all for that, but the DREAMers aren't the hill to die on.

Yeah, I know the majority of legal immigrants are as hawkish as anyone on illegal immigration (and I agree with them), but the DREAMers aren't the bog standard 'illegal immigrant'- these people came here illegally through no choice of their own, have lived as Americans for decades (no criminals, etc), and came forward and registered when given the opportunity.

Tossing them is both bad for this country and cruel to them. And no, it's not just "amnesty".

Surprisingly again I don't agree with burrton.

That should be the first clue you need to rethink your position!

[RiverDog]

I have trouble with the DACA program. Surprisingly again I don't agree with burrton. You can't let emotions enter into immigration enforcement. If people their children here illegally, it shouldn't be a race to keep them here long enough to stay. Using children to tug at the hearstrings is a cheap way to push something undesirable through. You can't break up the families, so the children act as an anchor to keep them here? That just encourages this type of behavior further.

Half my family is Mexican. They came over legally. They didn't try to bring children over, hide out for five years illegally, then hold them up as an emotional call for immigration reform.

This type of emotional manipulation is why we are in the situation we are in. We're constantly telling our people we have to do this because "morals" or we have to do this because "the children." And other such things to emotionally manipulate the masses on big issues. I'm utterly tired of it. Where does it stop? Enforce the immigration laws as you should have been doing for ages. It's very sad that we are sending immigrant children back to their home nation, but the government should have been doing it's job to begin with. So we wouldn't be in this situation.

My Mexican mother who worked in a public hospital in El Paso, a border town, told me many stories of Mexicans coming over to specifically have children in this nation. They do this because a child born here immediately gains American citizenship due to the 14th Amendment. This immediately creates an immigration anchor for the mother to stay. Often the father doesn't sign the birth certificate to give the child and mother a better chance to obtain social program benefits for the child and mother. My Mexican mother did not like this type of scamming she saw quite often in this public hospital.

I do not feel that sympathy for children is a sufficient reason to alter our immigration laws.

In any large program, especially one ran by the federal government, it is inevitable there are going to be abuses and unintended consequences, and like I said, I support a review of it to see if we can't do a better job of seperating the wheat from the chaff. There are tight restrictions as to who is eligible along with a built in sunset clause as they have to have arrived before age 16 and been in the country since 2007 when the law was passed.

The focus on immigration reform should be on the law enforcement side, finding the bad guys and either putting them in jail or booting them out of the country, and these kids are not part of the crime equation. To the contrary, they are being fingerprinted and their biometrics recorded as if they were criminals.

I agree with doing something about this long standing problem of families entering the country illegally just to have their offspring granted citizenship. But that's our fault for creating that loop hole, not theirs, and certainly not the kid's fault. The problem is that it would require a Constitutional amendment because as you noted, the 14th has a very clear and explicit text defining citizenship. It's one of those unintended consequences created during Reconstruction that should have had a sunset clause in it such as DACA has so that it doesn't go on into eternity.

The only defense we currently have is to stop them at the border and force them to enter legally, but since that abuse doesn't involve crime, it should not take as high a priority as screening out the truly bad dudes that mean to do us harm.

And as burrton pointed out, I think that part of the reason why Republicans, and Trump in particular, are more insensitive to the immigration reform issue is that they see them eventually joining the ranks of the Democrats. That's one of the reasons why even though I hold some very conservative viewpoints on a variety of issues that I don't consider myself to be a Republican.

[Aseahawkfan]

In any large program, especially one ran by the federal government, it is inevitable there are going to be abuses and unintended consequences, and like I said, I support a review of it to see if we can't do a better job of seperating the wheat from the chaff. There are tight restrictions as to who is eligible along with a built in sunset clause as they have to have arrived before age 16 and been in the country since 2007 when the law was passed.

The focus on immigration reform should be on the law enforcement side, finding the bad guys and either putting them in jail or booting them out of the country, and these kids are not part of the crime equation. To the contrary, they are being fingerprinted and their biometrics recorded as if they were criminals.

I agree with doing something about this long standing problem of families entering the country illegally just to have babies and granted citizenship. But that's our fault for creating that loop hole, not theirs, and certainly not the kid's fault. The problem is that it would require a Constitutional amendment because as you noted, the 14th has a very clear and explicit text defining citizenship. It's one of those unintended consequences created during Reconstruction that should have had a sunset clause in it as DACA has so that it doesn't go on into eternity.

The only defense we currently have is to stop them at the border and force them to enter legally, but since that abuse doesn't involve crime, it should not take as high a priority as screening out the truly bad dudes that mean to do us harm.

It is not abuse when it becomes a method for entry. Welfare abuse is not abuse when it is simply learning the rules and using them. A bad policy that focuses on pulling heartstrings over following laws in place to ensure immigration is kept at a healthy and controlled level is a bad idea that encourages the use of children or some other vulnerable group as a lever to force through further bad policy.

It's very hard not to feel bad watching young people that had no real say in the matter pushed out of the only home they ever knew. I understand that. If children suffering is our criteria, we might as well let the entire world in because children suffer a lot in this world, here and abroad.

I don't know. Maybe let them stay. I would have a hard time watching that as well. How much do I overlook things to have a happy conscience? I don't know. I might overlook quite a bit for it. Seeing children or young people suffering is not at all a good feeling. We are a very rich nation. We can afford some additional people. I guess I don't feel as strongly against DACA as I do against general illegal immigration.

[RiverDog]

I don't know. Maybe let them stay. I would have a hard time watching that as well. How much do I overlook things to have a happy conscience? I don't know. I might overlook quite a bit for it. Seeing children or young people suffering is not at all a good feeling. We are a very rich nation. We can afford some additional people. I guess I don't feel as strongly against DACA as I do against general illegal immigration.

It's refreshing to see that you're looking at this with an open mind.

And you're right about our nation being able to support more immigrants, at least younger ones. I don't want to see us admitting people in their 50's and only work a few years before they start having health issues and go on federal programs like Medicare, Medicade, and SS. But the average age of legal immigrants coming into our country is below that of the average worker, so contrary to what so many are saying, they have a net positive effect on our social program as they will be paying taxes into the system and not drawing money out of it at the same rate as current workers.

If there were an economic reason for restricting legal immigration, then I'd be for it. But our unemployment rate is at historic lows and there are certain industries that are experiencing a labor shortage so they won't be taking jobs from existing Americans. Per capita, we take in fewer immigrants than does Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and a number of western European countries. Our ratio isn't horrible as you have to underscore the fact that we take in a larger total of immigrants than any other country, but Trump wants to cut the number of legal immigrants in half and has not made a case for it.

So, if it were me, I'd look for ways to raise the bar: No one over 50 unless it's via some sort of hardship case, such as persecution. They should be relatively educated or demonstrate some sort of job skills; Restrict how many can enter as a family. Husband and wife should be judged on their own merits with no more than two kids under age 12 in tow. Be able to communicate in very basic English enough to know what to do in an emergency, how to call 911, read road signs, and show some understanding of our laws like drinking and driving.

I've helped friends pass their citizenship test, and it's a joke. They want them to know who their representative in Congress is even though a third of all adults can't even name one branch of government let alone who their representative is. Make citizenship exams meaningful and use it to help predict if they are going to be law abiding and have a positive effect on our economy.

Sorry for going off on a tangent.

[Aseahawkfan]

It's refreshing to see that you're looking at this with an open mind.

And you're right about our nation being able to support more immigrants, at least younger ones. I don't want to see us admitting people in their 50's and only work a few years before they start having health issues and go on federal programs like Medicare, Medicade, and SS. But the average age of legal immigrants coming into our country is below that of the average worker, so contrary to what so many are saying, they have a net positive effect on our social program as they will be paying taxes into the system and not drawing money out of it at the same rate as current workers.

If there were an economic reason for restricting legal immigration, then I'd be for it. But our unemployment rate is at historic lows and there are certain industries that are experiencing a labor shortage so they won't be taking jobs from existing Americans. Per capita, we take in fewer immigrants than does Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and a number of western European countries. Our ratio isn't horrible as you have to underscore the fact that we take in a larger total of immigrants than any other country, but Trump wants to cut the number of legal immigrants in half and has not made a case for it.

So, if it were me, I'd look for ways to raise the bar: No one over 50 unless it's via some sort of hardship case, such as persecution. They should be relatively educated or demonstrate some sort of job skills; Restrict how many can enter as a family. Husband and wife should be judged on their own merits with no more than two kids under age 12 in tow. Be able to communicate in very basic English enough to know what to do in an emergency, how to call 911, read road signs, and show some understanding of our laws like drinking and driving.

I've helped friends pass their citizenship test, and it's a joke. They want them to know who their representative in Congress is even though a third of all adults can't even name one branch of government let alone who their representative is. Make citizenship exams meaningful and use it to help predict if they are going to be law abiding and have a positive effect on our economy.

Sorry for going off on a tangent.

I have to admit I was more unhappy when the big tech companies were complaining of a labor shortage in 2008 when the economy collapsed and our unemployment rate reached the high double digits. These smarmy bastards were asking for more H1B visas to bring more IT and computer workers into the United States while they had a huge number of unemployed Americans looking for jobs. If the unemployment rate drops out, cut the immigration down. Our economy can't support that when our unemployment rate is out of control and we have disastrous economic situation. You knew then that the H1B visa program was about undermining American workers at that point and big tech was out of touch with what was going on around them in America.

Now the economy is booming again, we can absorb heavier immigration rates. I don't think you have to worry too much about older folks unless they are the parents of children coming here. I certainly wouldn't be any better at stopping someone wanting to bring their parents here than I would sending children out of the country to places they will suffer.

I think about this in terms of what could I do myself and thus what could I ask of another American working for the government. If I can't do something like eject children from this nation to places they will suffer or keep someone from bringing their old infirmed parents over, I can't expect another American to do that. Some of the stories I hear from the immigrants about their parents is heartbreaking. A lot of them leave their parents behind and they die back home without them seeing them again because of the distance and cost to return home. A lot of their parents don't even want to come here because they are too accustomed to life in their country. It's a hard situation to leave your family and go to another nation never knowing if you'll see your parents again. One Somali guy I worked with quit his job to return home to see his mom after 25 years. The man was tearful preparing for that. He had run from Somalia through a refugee camp after the wars there. And those bastards in Saudi Arabia are funding Islamic extremist militias in Somalia to ensure that country remains destabilized because they don't want Somalia accessing their oil fields as it seems Somalia's oil exists in an area that might drain oil from Saudi Arabia due to the elevation. And those bastards in Saudi Arabia buy Somalian women as servants to come over and work in their homes and sometimes to use as sex slaves. Saudi Arabia is such a corrupt nation it makes me seek that we do business with them letting them exploit nations in sick ways. So many people like to admonish America for nation building, but some of the ways competing nations exploit other nations is far sicker than anything America even attempted. We've been fairly benign dictators when we take over and govern another nation. We don't allow our people to purchase slaves or completely exploit other nations. We need to see when a nation isn't as poisonous as some are led to believe. Personally, I"d much rather be allies with Iran than Saudi Arabia. Iran is surprisingly is more progressive than Saudi Arabia and is more likely progress further if we take the pressure off of them.

[RiverDog]

I have to admit I was more unhappy when the big tech companies were complaining of a labor shortage in 2008 when the economy collapsed and our unemployment rate reached the high double digits.

High double digits? The highest monthly unemployment rate since 1948 was 10.2% in 1982. The highest monthly unemployment rate in 2008 was 7.5% in the month of December, but that's damn high.

These smarmy bastards were asking for more H1B visas to bring more IT and computer workers into the United States while they had a huge number of unemployed Americans looking for jobs. If the unemployment rate drops out, cut the immigration down. Our economy can't support that when our unemployment rate is out of control and we have disastrous economic situation. You knew then that the H1B visa program was about undermining American workers at that point and big tech was out of touch with what was going on around them in America.

I'll agree with that. Our current unemployment is at a historic low of 4.1% and there are labor shortages in certain fields. I agree with immigration rate reductions based on economic or infrastructure issues. But Trump just flat out called for a 50% reduction without saying why. He needs to make his case.

I don't think you have to worry too much about older folks unless they are the parents of children coming here. I certainly wouldn't be any better at stopping someone wanting to bring their parents here than I would sending children out of the country to places they will suffer.

We probably don't have to worry about older folks coming here. But to hear the right wingers talk about it, the reason our social programs are going bankrupt is because of the flood of Mexicans coming across the border. Perhaps having some sort of limits would help defeat some of that crazy talk (you ought to hear my neighbor!)

Foreign parents of American citizens should be admitted on their own merits. I don't like the idea of admitting people into the country for the simple fact that their kids are already here. They should be able to meet the same standards as any other applicant. But there should be a hardship process, ie political asylum, medical reasons, that sort of thing, to address the situations you've mentioned.

Some of the stories I hear from the immigrants about their parents is heartbreaking.

Yes, they are, and I've heard a lot, too. I had a brother of one of my workers, not an employee, come to our plant and asked me if he could to speak with him and told me why. I had to escort him to his work station and thus to bear witness to my guy being told that his mother had just died. He had left his family in Bosnia 5+ years earlier and hadn't seen his mother since. I almost broke down myself. It was a pretty awkward situation.

Along another note, I just got through watching a 10 part series on the Vietnam War by Ken Burns. You need to watch it if you get a chance.

[Aseahawkfan]

High double digits? The highest monthly unemployment rate since 1948 was 10.2% in 1982. The highest monthly unemployment rate in 2008 was 7.5% in the month of December, but that's damn high.

It started rising in 2008 and up. I mean for the whole recession. I mean the U6 versus the U3. https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate-3306198

Foreign parents of American citizens should be admitted on their own merits. I don't like the idea of admitting people into the country for the simple fact that their kids are already here. They should be able to meet the same standards as any other applicant. But there should be a hardship process, ie political asylum, medical reasons, that sort of thing, to address the situations you've mentioned.

Like I said, I wouldn't be able to stop some person wanting to bring their sick parents here any more than I would be inclined to send a bunch of crying children over the border because they were brought over when young illegally. As tough as I talk sometimes, I am pretty soft-hearted when it comes to people suffering, especially women and children. I don't even much care for war give that modern warfare leads to an inevitable large amount of innocent casualties and all the mental disorders associated with mechanized warfare. Seems like our technology created human meatgrinders that we expect human soldiers to use and be used by creating enormous stresses on their minds. I truly think a lot of PTSD comes from human minds feeling completely helpless as explosives go off around them, while the are expected to hold their minds together when the instinct is to run from the nameless, faceless, cannot fight danger of mechanized warfare. Some of these stories from soldiers in war zones are nightmarish in the modern era. You can be a good person, trying to do your job right as on top of it as is humanly possible, one stray IED or sniper and you're done or you accidentally murder a group of women and children non-combatants because your bomb went off course. And we expect these men and women to keep their sanity with this type of warfare. Sheesh.

Along another note, I just got through watching a 10 part series on the Vietnam War by Ken Burns. You need to watch it if you get a chance.

I've heard Burns documentaries are good. I might give that a run. Didn't he do one on the Civil War as well?

[RiverDog]

It started rising in 2008 and up. I mean for the whole recession. I mean the U6 versus the U3.

OK, I see what you're talking about. I think we're both in agreement that economics should be part of the equation as to how many immigrants we permit.

Like I said, I wouldn't be able to stop some person wanting to bring their sick parents here any more than I would be inclined to send a bunch of crying children over the border because they were brought over when young illegally. As tough as I talk sometimes, I am pretty soft-hearted when it comes to people suffering, especially women and children. I don't even much care for war give that modern warfare leads to an inevitable large amount of innocent casualties and all the mental disorders associated with mechanized warfare. Seems like our technology created human meatgrinders that we expect human soldiers to use and be used by creating enormous stresses on their minds. I truly think a lot of PTSD comes from human minds feeling completely helpless as explosives go off around them, while the are expected to hold their minds together when the instinct is to run from the nameless, faceless, cannot fight danger of mechanized warfare. Some of these stories from soldiers in war zones are nightmarish in the modern era. You can be a good person, trying to do your job right as on top of it as is humanly possible, one stray IED or sniper and you're done or you accidentally murder a group of women and children non-combatants because your bomb went off course. And we expect these men and women to keep their sanity with this type of warfare. Sheesh.

Yea, I hear ya about the tough talk. That's one of the problems with Donald Trump. He's never had to encounter immigrants..unless his libido tells him that it's time to go trophy hunting. He's never had to live with immigrants like we have. But that problem isn't limited to Trump. It's common with almost all of those stiffs that spend most of their time in the back seat of a limo.

I've heard Burns documentaries are good. I might give that a run. Didn't he do one on the Civil War as well?

Yes, he did, and you heard right, his documentaries are great. The Civil War was fantastic. I also liked Baseball and The National Parks. But for a person like you that has a keen interest in history, you need to watch The Vietnam War. It's extremely long, though. 10 episodes and over 20 hours total. It was released last September and I recorded all the episodes and just got through with it a couple days ago. I'll watch it several more times before deleting it.

If I could only have one TV channel, I'd take PBS. American Experience and Nova are my two favorite TV series. You asked me once where I got my information, and a lot of it comes from PBS.