I'm a European. I didn't steal anything from anyone.

An Aside* Sorry to hijack the thread so I'll stop after this, but Wounded Knee was 1890 and was pretty much considered the final *raw* act. So we're not speaking 300 years, only 115. Above that Alcatraz and the re-occupation of Wounded Knee, etc were actually in the early 1970's. I wouldn't consider it a stretch to say that they had anything and everything to do with law enforcement agencies in this country, etc. So one could argue that these questions are very relevant and only about 30 years old...and still occuring. How ever, I'm not going to argue this right now for the sake of redirecting this thread to questions directly dealing with Border Control.

-Dolce

Indian culture couldn't support the developpement that europeans brought to North America. What happend was long time ago and it's time to get over it. I don't like seeing in Canada how natives don't have to pay for university or don't pay taxes on items. It happend a long time ago and it's time to get passed it. Plus if you want to be a canadian citizen you should have to pay the taxes and have to pay for your universities and follow the same rules as other hunters do.

So am I krem. Do you have a complex or something? Noone is saying you stole anything from anyone. IM saying Europeans BACK IN THE DAY did all that shit to the Native Americans. Please, if you can refute that Im all ears....once again, calm down....Im not saying YOU did anything :wink:

Neither the left or the right want to do much on immigration. It's a legitimate source of frustration that people feel like there is no choice. If one party clearly advocated one side of the issue and the other party the other side, there'd be less frustration. We could make a choice as a democracy and/or work out a compromise. But the way it looks to Joe Six-pack is that the Republicans want a flood of immigration to fill wage slave jobs and the Dems want a flood to be new voters. It feels like the fix is in, and that's not really fair.

I don't have any issues with that. I'm more interested in finding out how the fact that a lot of Indians were killed by European immigrants and their offspring back in the day pertains to the year 2004.

Okay. I'll take that...as a start. Since you're right about the wage stuff. I would prefer to see them legal, and you know what they get paid pennies now anyways. So loosening immigration laws to Mexicans is an interesting way to make illegal immigration less desirable. Huh, I'll have to think about that, since to be honest, when I asked those questions, I meant them seriously, it not something I've given that mich thought to. What about tourism? And also, how do you plan to reform the border officials?

-Dolce

ANother Aside* Rusty, you're forgetting one of the points of Indigenous Identity may not be to identify as Canadian citizens. The nation within a nation thing can be very tricky. And then comes into play questions of urban indigenous voice and questions of assimilation. Meh. I don't htink its that easy that you can just write it off as "tough luck, deal with it." Nor do I necessarily believe in some 180 degree turnaround either. But countries, all over the world, still do have to come to grips with their own history. I think identifying the discourse of superiority in technology and "developments" that often comes with Anglo-American discussions around the New World is exacatly the kind of thing we should be soul searching in now.

I think the point is, what makes these Immigrants, any different than us?

I'm a firm believer in the theory that if you want to see less crime, you have to make less laws, but really enforce the ones you're left with.

By making most of the immigration legal, we can actually screen who's coming in to our country, and the INS agents can focus on actually patrolling the border, as opposed to making busts in some rural areas.

They're not. But that doesn't mean they don't present a threat.

Ok. That actually makes sense to me, but I doubt it'll fly with most of the country. There are still large chunks of the country that 1. Are just xenophobic, or 2. Still argue the good old fashion American Jobs thing. There's an infinite slew of other groups too, but I can't think of them, I just don't mean to point out these two alone. But, with all of that, I don't know how warm we're going to be to it. Anything that would be sort of a compromise?

I do see your point. Its the same I guess, with guns. Better make it legal and just better regulated, and I've said the same about prostitution as well. So yes, you make a good point. I just don't see it happening. I thought the immigrants Bush was making legal were already here right? I don't think he's going to actually open up the border further? Again, I don't know though.

-Dolce

Bush is stuck between two lobbies within the Republican party: the xenophobe "America first" lobby and the business lobby who want cheap labor. In his heart, I believe he wants to make it easier for people to come her. But like you said, it doesn't fly over well with the electorate.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying prostitution should be legal?

Yes, and for the same reasons Krem just mentioned other under circumstances. Its always going to happen, I'm not in denial that the sex trade is going nowhere. So why not at least keep it regulated and healthy? If it was legal, than you would have an easier time using law enforcement to clean up what isn't. Which to me are several things including underage prostitution and manipulation of wages, etc. also, violence. I'm sorry, but if a man or woman is offering you sex, they're not offering for you to stab or beat them, and right now these occurances go unreported because prositutes aren't allowed to admit what they were doing. That is wrong.

I also am uncomfortable with the idea that they are constantly trying to manuever their position in other people's spaces. When you're in someone else's car, someone else's home, some area of a city that you don't know, etc, than you aren't in the position to be demanding of what is and isn't okay with you. It is very unsafe and compromising in those aspects. So, yes, make it legal. I actually think it would be a much more productive way of dealing with this issue than to think its going to go away just because we don't want it. It didn't work for prohibition, its not going to work for sex.

-Dolce

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. -Ayn Rand

You did not just quote Rand di you? I'm confused. I thought you didn't like her? Anyways, I'm going to take it as you understand my point. That its just kind of useless to treat sex as something illegal and instead should just try to keep it safe and documented?

-Dolce

I like Rand. She was a bit of a loon, but then, any radical is. And yes, I agree with your general point (though I don't necessarily wish to regulate prostitution either; I'm against most regulation).

Are you against all governemt helping its citizens?

Yes, I am. A government helping its citizens is just a euphemism for 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'. The government by itself has no money; it has to feed off its citizens.

OK, so you dont think we should help kids with no parents? Kids who have been abused who need foster care? Are you against agencied that help those who have a substance abuse addiction? Are you against agencies that help sing mothers who have been abused by thier spouse and are now on their own?

This is what I call bait-and-switch.

No, I'm not against helping kids with no parents, but I'm against most of the government's regulation on adoption. No, I'm not against agencies who help adults deal with abuse and addiction, I am against the government sponsoring such agencies.

1. Who should sponser these agencies? Churches?
2. If you dont regulate adoption any scary mofo could come off the street and adopt a child

1. Whoever wants to sponsor them. Churches, charities, what have you.
2. Any child has a guardian (sometimes it's the government). It's up to the guardian to select a proper adoptive parent.

1. THere isnt always enough money in churches, agencies plus the fact they try to push thier agenda upon the recipient

2. I hope your not serious. A parent who has sexually molested and physically abuses their child should coose the adoptive parents?

1. How do you know there's not enough money? And if somebody is giving you money, it is their prerogative to ask you something in return. You can always refuse.

2. A parent who sexually molested and physically abused their child broke the law, and thusly loses their parental rights.