Ruben Navarette Jr. and Illegal Immigration

All I can say is wow at someone who doesn't get it, or is willfully ignorant trying to create a political claptrap.

Let's examine Ruben Navarratte Jr.'s recent article about children's citizenship, where he calls recent attempts to deny citizenships to children of illegal immigrants 'cowardly and shameful.' Article Here.

The lawmakers are cowards because, first, they go after illegal immigrants who don't vote, lobby or contribute to political campaigns. And now they're going after children who don't vote, lobby or contribute to political campaigns.

Whom are they not going after? Employers of illegal immigrants. You know why? Because they vote, lobby and contribute to political campaigns.

This makes no sense. You know why? Because Arizona already has the most stringent laws to help enforce against illegal employment. Moreover, what's wrong with going after people who don't vote? The people who don't vote, don't because they have no right to vote. They have no right because they aren't here legally. The people who do vote want them to take their drug cartel violence and go away.

The fact that Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who was famously holed up in a Chicago, Illinois, church, had a U.S.-born son didn't stop federal officials from deporting her in 2007. Some anchor.

Just because you can point to one example where an 'anchor baby' didn't work, doesn't mean that it doesn't usually work. Most of the time, in California for example, parents of US-citizen-children-anchor-babies who are here illegally and caught are allowed to stay for humane reasons of not splitting up the family. In actuality, the parents and children should all go back to their native country if the family wants to remain in tact.

In fact, right-wingers acknowledge as much when they argue that if we dry up the jobs, illegal immigrants will self-deport.

What about their kids, some of which were born in the United States? Why not stay for them? Simple: Employment takes precedence. Thus, according to conservatives' own arguments, there aren't anchor babies -- only anchor jobs.

Very true, jobs are anchors, and employers should be punished like crazy. Unfortunately, Arizona can only make it so hard for employers to hire illegal immigrants. At some point in time, it is the federal government's job to be enforcing these laws. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually Arizona does pass legislation allowing their state troopers to raid businesses who hire illegals in the same way the federal government does. And I would bet a pretty penny that you would get upset about that, too.

Also, you can bet that some of the same people who oppose citizenship for the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants also oppose the idea of granting a pathway to earned legalization -- what they call "amnesty" -- to illegal immigrants. Why?

Because, they say, you can't willy-nilly convert those who are illegal to legal. Then how can those folks be so cavalier about making that conversion in the opposite direction by changing legal to illegal?

Of course people oppose a pathway to citizenship. (And for the record, since you started this ridiculous right-wing, left-wing crap, the left-wing coined the phrase 'Amnesty.' Only recently has it begun using 'pathway to citizenship' because they realized most people do not want Amnesty, so they gave it a new name.) But there's no two way argument here. No one is calling for those who already have US citizenship to be stripped of it. You are just trying to incite people with patently false statements.

And now all the opponents of birthright citizenship have to do is change the Constitution. The 14th Amendment makes clear that anyone born in the United States, with the possible exception of the children of foreign diplomats, is a U.S. citizen.

Now, to understand why the 14th Amendment is begin challenged, you need to have the slightest bit of historical context.

Clearly, you don't, so let me explain. Do you know why the 14th Amendment was written? Because lawmakers needed some blanket way to grant citizenships to the black population after slavery was abolished. The idea of citizenship was much looser at the time than it is today.

Presently, no other country in the world has a citizenship law similar to the 14th Amendment. None. That's because every other country recognizes the stupidity of having uncontrolled immigration in a time where the world is much smaller and easier to traverse than it was in 1868.

The people who challenge the 14th are NOT fighting to have current citizens' rights taken away. They ARE fighting to essentially change the law so that no more 'anchor babies' are created.

Given all that's happened in recent weeks in its jihad against not illegal immigrants but Hispanics in general, the Grand Canyon State seems to have more than its share of people who slept through high school civics, and they're being advised by lawyers who were obviously absent the day they taught "law" in law school. That's not a good look.

What the heck are you talking about? Can you give a single example of 'Jihad' against Hispanics? Of course you can't. SB1070 says nothing about being white, hispanic, black, asian, etc. There are other recent laws to which you may be referring, but they also make no racial distinction whatsoever, and in fact have more severe words against racial profiling than most similar federal legislation. You sir are the one grasping at straws, likely due to your political agenda.

The U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are legally entitled to U.S. citizenship. What part of "legal" don't the critics understand?

They understand perfectly. That's why they want to change the law so that the practice of birthing trips stops. (Yes, businesses in countries like Turkey actually have touring packages for pregnant women designed to get their child US citizenship while 'vacationing' in the United States.) They want to change the law to stop creating an overburden on the taxpayer, since the 'anchor babies' don't have anyone paying taxes to account for them. They want to change the law since every other country recognizes how stupid it is. They understand perfectly. That's why they want change.

You sir don't understand.

ARRGH!!! Israel vs Flotilla

I'm so unbelievably frustrated right now. Words can hardly describe the level of anger I have for the majority of the reporting world. Normally, I like to provide links as much as possible, but I'm so frustrated I need to just rattle this all off, and I will try to dig through and find all the links at a later time.

Now.. onto substance.

Every single Reporter, Politician, Activist, Blogger, and Douche-bag with a microphone or keyboard that has criticized Israel over the past two days for the events on the Flotilla just outside of Gaza's waters needs to be summarily taken out back and beaten for their willful and anti-semitic babbling arrogance. Seriously. No Joke. It's obscene.

Things said/written and my responses to them:

Turkety, et al: This was an act of Piracy.

No. It wasn't. You can board a ship in international waters if it intends to break a Blockade. Period. Shut up. Go Away. Everyone knows this.

Lots of People: The violence was unprovoked.

Bullshit. Go watch the videos that are plastered all over Youtube. 5 of the 6 ships were peaceful and no one on them died or got hurt in the slightest (IDF commando or Activist). One ship mobbed every single commando as they repelled down from the helicopter, beating them with bats, crowbars, pipes, and chairs. It was only after over half and hour of sustained violent resistance that when an Israeli commando was near death that the military personelle radioed for permission to use their handguns.

Many D-bags who write blogs: No seriously, boarding a ship in international Waters is the aggressive act.

No Seriously, It isn't you freaking morons. Attempting to break a Naval Blockade is an ACT OF WAR. Part of the international law involving Blockades mentions the neutrality of the parties NOT directly associated with the blockade. Basically, Israel can blockade Gaza as long as it isn't also Blockading a neutral country. Similarly, the Blockade MUST be fully enforced so that neutral countries don't find themselves accidentally violating a blockade, and thus taking a side and being at war. This implies that by actively attempting to break a Blockade, you are choosing a side in a conflict and can be seen prima facie as an ACT OF WAR.

A lot of Reporters and Bloggers (most of them): The two version of events cannot be verified (referencing the counter claim by activists that the IDF shot first.

Bull SHIT. Watch the videos. The evidence is there. Some of the activists claim that Israel shot first from the Helicopter on the ship with the violence. Wait What!? So 5 of the 6 ships Israel peacefully controls, and for the last ship they just decide to go cowboys and start shooting? That sure makes a lot of sense. If fact, the only types of guns that the commandos were armed with were handguns and Paintball guns. You are claiming that they came down from the helicopters with pistol blazing? Really? And it's clear they weren't shooting as they came down from the helicopters; the video PROOVES this.

One Activist Claims that there were no Crowbars or Pipes being use. That the 'Civilians' that were fighting the IDF were simply defending themselves with only wooden sticks!

BULL SHIT. There is another video out there shot by news crews ON THE SHIP that clearly show people hitting Commandos as they come down with both metal pipes and crowbars! Unless of course they were wooden pipes and crowbars painted to look like metal.That any media (Blogger, CNN, BBC, or otherwise) would parrot this lie only proves their obscene bias. The statement is VERIFIED untrue. As in, this activist is clearly lying or simply was kept in the dark. Either way, it shows clearly that the activists claiming that Israel was the aggressor have NO CREDIBILITY

Oh, and by the goddamn way. There is also video from those ships of members singing songs asking to kill jews and become martyrs that are also available to any moron who spends a few minutes on the internet. Seriously. How can anyone actually believe this was some peaceful aid mission. Israel explicitly said to come to Ashdod and they will help deliver the goods personally. But NO, these 'Peaceful' Activists had to try to break the Blockade (and Act of War) and physically assault the Israelis for trying to stop them.

And now the entire world condemns Israel for kill 9 people who willfully participated in Violence. WOO FUCKING HOO. You don't condemn Turkey for the Armenian Genocide. You don't bitch at them for the Cyprus occupation either. You can't condemn acts of terrorism in Baghdad. You don't condemn human rights violations in China, NPT violations by Iran, Drug Cartel murders in Mexico, the Violence in Thailand, bombing in Pakistan and India, churches and synagogues being destroyed in Egypt, arms smuggling in Lebanon (against UN resolution 1702 might I add), the entire China-Tibet debacle, and a whole host of other FAR WORSE proportionally issues going on in the world. Don't even get me started on the lack of any real diplomatic effort to deal with Darfur. The simple fact is that the entirety of the world that chooses to spend their time and energy condemning Israel for this act is likely doing so based on their rampantly anti-semitic beliefs rather than any real humanitarian concern.

Humanitarians help people. This ridiculous stunt did NOTHING to help Gaza.

I'm just flabbergasted...

I keep trying to figure out how to respond to this in as forceful a way as possible, but I simply cannot find the right words. What a brazen twerp. How many more people are there like here in the student bodies of US schools?

The Science of Arguments and Compromise

Don't you all simply hate politics? Unfortunately, the fundamental flaw in politics pervades any and all human interaction. It is that flaw of having imperfect information when attempting to compromise.

Let me give you a demonstration of what I mean. If you know that the end result of any discussion you have is a compromise, what is the logical course of action? Let's say I wanted something to be 5, and my friend wanted it to be 3. Logically, a good compromise would be in the middle at 4. However, I know that compromise will be the final solution, so it is quite easy for me to simply tell my friend that the number I actually would like is 7. Now, the obvious compromise between 3 and 7 is 5! Of course, my friend isn't stupid, so he too will use this logic. Before you know it, we both keep choosing a number further away from where we actually stand.

This is how Democrats and Republicans interact. Whether it is discussing global warming, how to deal with iran, abortion, gay rights, or anything else. No one in their right mind believes half of the crap these people say. They just have to make their views extreme in order to get a more favorable compromise.

It is akin to haggling at a store. If you want that shiny new laser pointer for only $100, but the manager has it listed for $120, you don't walk in and say that you will only pay $100 for it. If you do this, he'll tell you he can only let it go for $110 at the least. But if you walk in and say you want it for $80, then he might let you have it for $100.

Notice, as two individuals, you each choose a just barely reasonable starting point, and the move to the obvious compromise.

The problem with this interaction is that our politicians never do reach that compromise stage. Each new politician that comes in just has a more extreme view and agenda in hopes that if they do compromise, their extremism will a better deal than their predecessors. The group mentality that allows newcomers to express their views after other have already put their views forward continually ensures the increasing extremism of individuals views.

Unfortunately, there is no cure for people being assholes. The simple fact is that every individual has it in their interest to take a stance slightly more extreme than their actually viewpoint.