As if bypassing construction of the fence through the land Bush's country club friends while confiscating the land of the poor and middle class citizens of Texas wasn't bad enough, now Chertoff, in an utterly unsurprising move, has declared that the fence will be exempt from more than 30 laws and regulations.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 1067.story

What's funny is that Chertoff argued, at the same, that it was vital that these immigrants FOLLOW THE LAW.
That's the typical Bush administration MO. Rules are for everyone else.

Chertoff: hello, fence

The fence should be built. It's about god damn time.

second that

they're actually building the fence? never thought it would happen.
especially in an election year.

Damn straight. It'll also keep everyone inside when the SHTF. More sporting that way, eh wot?

And a 600 mile fence on a 2000 mile border, with gaping holes in it where Bush's friends live, will accomplish what exactly? Beyond flushing billions of dollars down the drain that is. It seems to be the only thing this administration is any good at.

I'd say they're ONLY building it because it's an election year. Republicans have to pander to their xenophobic Mexican-hating base.

"Page not found".

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/16/che ... gerprints/

Of course not Mr. Chertoff. Nothing is private to you sir. My hair, my phone #, who I speak with, what I eat or where I drive. Can someone make him disappear! Puh-lease.

lets blame those damn mexicans for taking our jerbs away instead of focusing on real issues!
jerbs!
jerbs!
they took our jerbs!
I still want to see if americans are willing to take up landscape jobs that these immigrants keep taking
Obama is right about one thing is that people have nothing going on in their life in terms of economy so they turn to guns and stuff like this that doesnt really affect them.

Really? McCain's immigration policies aren't up to snuff with your typical Republican's though. I'd say it has more to do with the fact that regardless of who takes office, they'll have to absorb the project because its already been started. Each exiting president tries to throw a couple last-minute desires into the pot in order to force his heir's hand in seeing them through. That fence will get built long before New Orleans is rebuilt now, even if a Dem takes office.

I remember when Romney left office in MA, one of the last things he did was freeze toll fees for a couple of upcoming years. Coming off the massive debt of the Big Dig, that was clearly just him giving Patrick a hard time and trying to make sure he would look fiscally incompentent by cutting off major sources of revenue for state projects and debt payoff, etc.

Build the fence. Building a fence has nothing to do with the rest of immigration policy. It's an embarrassment how in America, "illegal" doesn't really mean what the dictionary says. This is not a matter of human rights. Ask Singapore what they do to illegal immigrants.

Singapore is a big plastic bubble of shit. A neo-con's wet dream.

None of you are getting what Beeble is saying here: that the building of the fence is being loaded with nepotism and typical reckless disregard for the law by the government. The government is doing shit much more illegal than what some 40-year-old man with kids in a Monterey slum is doing to keep his family alive.

A regular conservative's (i.e., my) wet dream. You have to espouse some sort of anally probing other countries to qualify as an authentic neo-con.

What, turning your citizens into obedient soul-dead workers for a garish glass town parroting "Asian values" that were in fact at least as much ripped off from a bunch of long-dead imperialist limey dinks? Don't even get me started on the fact that it's basically a reasonably benevolent dictatorship run by a single party.

That is correct, and I love it. I have always held the belief that a straight-headed single party government is more effective than a dysfunctional two-party state. It's just that I would never inflict the misfortune of one-party rule on any other existing country, since one-party rule almost always goes horribly wrong.

In the realm of one-party governments, Singapore is a statistical freak, and one I am immensely proud of. A transparent, uncorrupted, benevolent dictatorship! They have stricken an impressively pragmatic balance between American-style freedom and Chinese-style oppression. What you end up with is a state that punishes illegal immigrants according to the law that makes them illegal, a place where only married people can have subsidized housing... perfectly in line with my values. A system that offers criminals more rights than the citizenry is one where the citizenry lives in fear.

What was it that Ben Franklin once said? "Anyone that values security over freedom deserves neither"? It's not even about security, it's about control. How else do you explain Singapore on homobuttsex and porn and media? That's what I hate about this kind of mentality. It hides the desire of control with a thin veneer of bullshit and "security".

Rights do not exist anyway, but that's another philosophical discussion.

Oh, and the two-party thing is a straw man. I never mentioned any support for the American system, did I? I don't think you'll find a more vocal opponent of it on the site, save for some Ron Paul basement-dwellers.

Ben Franklin's somewhat cynical quote reflects the historical reality of power grabs. Here we have a regime whose propagation of security and positive values is not a smokescreen for ulterior motives, itself a freak of nature among one-party control states.

You have the right to stay alive. To work a job of your choice. To eat what you want. Travel where you want. You do not, however, have the right to have anal sex with your congressman. See how there is a threshold in every value spectrum?

What would be your preferred system of government? I will agree to respect your preference. My personal experience has reflected well upon Singapore's system of governance.

It doesn't? Then why is questioning authority met with such scorn in Singapore? Yes, it's cultural, but it's precisely because the people in power want to keep it, and they do. The PAP has the country by the balls, and not because security is so great, but because it's the one thing that keeps them in power. With a cultural ethic of shutting up and listening to what you're told to do (which is everywhere, really, but incredibly pervasive in Singapore and it's ilk), and hypnotizing the populace with their safe little plastic bubble society, it works. I guess there's inherently nothing wrong with the plastic bubble, but, it's bullshit in this case. It's a tranquilizer, a distraction.

Oh, and Chye Thye Poh might have a few opinions on this.



What kind of rights are we talking about? Moral? Sure, I'll agree, but that doesn't mean anything except our outrage as humans. Legal? That only means anything if they are enacted, which they are loosely, really, they are more "temporary privileges". Things that if violated will result in repercussions? Far from guaranteed. Things that are universal? Ha. Godly? Ha. Things that if violated will rupture space-time and destroy all? No.



I don't have any.

Since that plastic bubble society is a masterpiece of modern statecraft, I don't begrudge people wanting to maintain the status quo. Not only is security a factor; the state has been able to actualize progressive urban and environmental planning that would have been impossible here. This indeed is a cultural factor. Collective versus individual freedom is a major cultural gulf between western and eastern civilizations. That you were taught only individual freedom is true freedom is a philosophical inconvenience... the kind that causes diplomatic friction.

Precisely why should I care about those opinions?

More philosophy. I can assert that the individual freedoms of others have damaged the collective freedoms I could otherwise have enjoyed. Again, not a moral absolute.

In summary, every possible permutation of the world is a hole and you have no suggestions otherwise. Way to go. Now you just need a few quality conspiracy theories to back that up.

Singapore's wealthy, clean and lacks the horrifically clusterfucked urban planning that you'll find in, say, LA, or Atlanta, or Raleigh now that I think about it. I never disputed any of that. I'm not even so much arguing individual vs. collective freedom here. (That's another philosophical question. Are you totally free, or not free at all?) What would the difference of individual or collective freedom truly be anyway? What I do wonder, is why the methods of their government, or any government, really, are put in place. And I don't find it to be anything but for the control of people, with the benefit of the controllers first. And the individual that is not one of the controllers is, of course, not valued at all, but that's only part of it.

I don't advocate any system or pretend which culture is better or yadda yadda yadda. I'm just not too fond of most anybody in positions of power or bullshit, and yet bullshit and power are evil necessities. And, because I'm bored and unhappy with my life and things in general, I try to stay away from the grid as much as I can while staying in touch with why I am.



His life's an interesting story that you might find relevant here.



I'm not sure what you're getting at relative to what I said, but yes, I believe you here.



I wish I had answers myself, but I don't really.



What the hell?

Once they build a fence, the immigrants simply find other ways to enter USA. So building the fence is completely useless, and a waste of money.