Senate votes to fund the fence - Page 6

DosEquis · 08-04-2006, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

National ID, ftw???

you have one called a social security number

We just need to make it so that it is easier to verify the authenticity of the card. Make sure Mike Thompson is actually Mike and not Pedro Martinez with Mike's card and a fake ID.

Ardentfrost · 08-04-2006, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yea, but that involves people to be able to transport themselves and take the time to get it done. Sending a SASE along with your insurance card would be the best way to ensure the poor people would have no excuse. Then once they're received they can be digitized easily.

People don't need to see insurance adjusters and shit? Or when they go to the Dr's office, if they haven't done their fingerprinting, it can be done. It only has to be done once.

Concept · 08-04-2006, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

NO! lol. That's not the way to fix it either (although it probably WOULD, I just don't want any authoritarian-style programs in place)

Stylerod · 08-04-2006, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

NO! lol. That's not the way to fix it either (although it probably WOULD, I just don't want any authoritarian-style programs in place)

I know. I was sort of kidding. Kinda of.

Make people actually have a SS card that has a picture on it and is harder to duplicate?

JaJae · 08-04-2006, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

People don't need to see insurance adjusters and shit? Or when they go to the Dr's office, if they haven't done their fingerprinting, it can be done. It only has to be done once.

That puts the cost, responsibility and liability of doing it correctly on the doctor.

We use fingerprint readers at my job for payroll clocking in and out. It's a very good system, but I don't like the idea of using a middle man. Overall though, I love this idea and like how you think.

Ardentfrost · 08-04-2006, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

you have one called a social security number

We just need to make it so that it is easier to verify the authenticity of the card. Make sure Mike Thompson is actually Mike and not Pedro Martinez with Mike's card and a fake ID.

no no no, social security is bad enough, don't make this shit nationalized. Keep it private. An insurance company with your fingerprint is one thing, but the federal government with EVERYONE'S fingerprint (retinal scan, voice recognition, brain wave patter....

) is SO bad.

Aren't you a democrat? How could you suggest such things

Scrum · 08-04-2006, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

So you comment on false stories (thinking they are true because you want them to be).

I commented on the story posted, just as everyone else in the thread did.

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Criticize any idea that might stop the flow of illegal aliens.

When I think they are garbage ideas I will criticize.

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Have absolutley no comments or ideas on what can be tried to help the situation.

I have made posts on the subject.

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Only bitch about what other people want to try.

Bitch when they want to spend million to stop very few people from crossing. This fence is just to make people like you feel better about something being done.

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Sounds just like a Democrat to me!

OMG AM I RITE!!????!?

Ardentfrost · 08-04-2006, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

That puts the cost, responsibility and liability of doing it correctly on the doctor.

We use fingerprint readers at my job for payroll clocking in and out. It's a very good system, but I don't like the idea of using a middle man. Overall though, I love this idea and like how you think.

I think if it would lower insurance and medical costs, no one would complain

Stylerod · 08-04-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I commented on the story posted, just as everyone else in the thread did.

When I think they are garbage ideas I will criticize.

I have made posts on the subject.

Bitch when they want to spend million to stop very few people from crossing. This fence is just to make people like you feel better about something being done.

OMG AM I RITE!!????!?

You finally said something in a half assed way on post 91. I almost fell off my chair.

ballz2wallz · 08-04-2006, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Pff, if you're going to take care of the roots of problems, then there's no need to keep them out

the root of the problem is that their country sucks. as long as the US is better than mexico, they will continue to come here, even if they can't work. poverty here is WAY better than poverty in mexico.

Stylerod · 08-04-2006, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

the root of the problem is that their country sucks. as long as the US is better than mexico, they will continue to come here, even if they can't work. poverty here is WAY better than poverty in mexico.

We have the richest poor in the world.

ballz2wallz · 08-04-2006, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

We have the richest poor in the world.

indeed we do. as long as that is the case, immigrants will ALWAYS try to come here. that's why 'getting the root of the problem' is not the sole way to keep them out. we need border security as well, and a fence is a good START.

DosEquis · 08-04-2006, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

no no no, social security is bad enough, don't make this shit nationalized. Keep it private. An insurance company with your fingerprint is one thing, but the federal government with EVERYONE'S fingerprint (retinal scan, voice recognition, brain wave patter.... ) is SO bad.

Aren't you a democrat? How could you suggest such things

Oh believe me i dont want a national ID with all that jazz. An SS number is really kind of a national ID in itself.

I would just like a better way to verify the person is who they say they are when they apply for a job. The way it is you use a state ID and you ss card. There has to be a way to verify that stuff without getting authoritarian.

Ardentfrost · 08-04-2006, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

the root of the problem is that their country sucks. as long as the US is better than mexico, they will continue to come here, even if they can't work. poverty here is WAY better than poverty in mexico.

The point shouldn't be to STOP immigration, but to stop illegal use of socialized programs (or even better, get rid of socialized programs so they can't take advantage of them).

unnationalized citizens should not be able to get welfare, get free healthcare, get free schooling (this only applies to immigrant children, not children born in the US to immigrants imo)... shit like that.

If you're 100% against immigration, you have other personal issues. Immigrants have helped build this country, I certainly don't want to get rid of them now.

ballz2wallz · 08-04-2006, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The point shouldn't be to STOP immigration, but to stop illegal use of socialized programs (or even better, get rid of socialized programs so they can't take advantage of them).

unnationalized citizens should not be able to get welfare, get free healthcare, get free schooling (this only applies to immigrant children, not children born in the US to immigrants imo)... shit like that.

If you're 100% against immigration, you have other personal issues. Immigrants have helped build this country, I certainly don't want to get rid of them now.

the point is to stop illegal anything, both immigration and use of programs

i'm 100% for legal immigration. we have a system set up for a reason, and we should adhere to it.

Ardentfrost · 08-04-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

the point is to stop illegal anything, both immigration and use of programs

i'm 100% for legal immigration. we have a system set up for a reason, and we should adhere to it.

Are you also for making immigration difficult? because that promotes illegal immigration

Unless something happens that causes CRAZY immigration (see Ireland's Potato famine in the late 1800's) then immigration should be as easy as walking across the border and getting a job. Well, maybe not THAT easy, but getting papers should be that easy.

ballz2wallz · 08-04-2006, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Are you also for making immigration difficult? because that promotes illegal immigration

every country is going to be different.

Unless something happens that causes CRAZY immigration (see Ireland's Potato famine in the late 1800's) then immigration should be as easy as walking across the border and getting a job. Well, maybe not THAT easy, but getting papers should be that easy.

no way in hell should it be that easy. for the US, considering everyone in teh world wants to come here, i think we should recognize that we can only handle a certain number per year. to have an easy system would mean we'd crumble in a matter of decades from within. our country and economy can sustain only a certain number of people, and we should only allow that mean to come in. if that means that a small percentage of all applicants come in each year (making it difficult using your terms) then so be it. it's not an issue to be decided based on difficulty level...it's an issue to be decided based on the country's ability to take that many.

Concept · 08-04-2006, 03:45 PM

Guest-worker programs, anyone?

Ardentfrost · 08-04-2006, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

every country is going to be different.

no way in hell should it be that easy. for the US, considering everyone in teh world wants to come here, i think we should recognize that we can only handle a certain number per year. to have an easy system would mean we'd crumble in a matter of decades from within. our country and economy can sustain only a certain number of people, and we should only allow that mean to come in. if that means that a small percentage of all applicants come in each year (making it difficult using your terms) then so be it. it's not an issue to be decided based on difficulty level...it's an issue to be decided based on the country's ability to take that many.

I sort of agree with you. I don't think the desire for immigration to the US is as prevalent as you claim, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be monitored. We should keep tabs on the number of people coming in, we should watch for areas that are trying to seek refuge here (if immigrants are coming for refuge, then that may lead to uncontrolled immigration from that region).

But the main point is, we can sustain, theoretically, an infinite number of people as long as the move is gradual. More people means more demand, means more jobs, means wealth, means higher GDP and bigger economy. Some of our biggest GDP leaps and most thriving economies in the past were due to immigrants (see Roaring 20's). So, a steady immigration is certainly a good thing.

Now, realistically, obviously we can't support EVERYONE, and we have to be attuned to unemployment rates and the like, but for the most part, the desire of people to come here (given a situation where they couldn't take advantage of socialize programs) should equal out to our economic growth potential for any given year. Poeple won't come here to NOT get a job. They won't come here just because America is pretty or the people are nice. They'll come for the job opportunities, because our economy has better potential than theirs.

That's the way it's been happening for a few centuries

ballz2wallz · 08-04-2006, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I sort of agree with you. I don't think the desire for immigration to the US is as prevalent as you claim,

as someone mentioned at one point, the chinese aren't shipping themselves in cargo crates to any other country

and a lot of things have happened on way or another for long periods of time, but never in the history of the earth have there been this many people, nor this kind of technology on the earth either.