On 2022-08-06 11:26 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-08-06 10:25 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>
>>>>>> The system became unsustainable when pro-mass migration types set up
>>>>>> training programs in foreign countries to teach migrants how to game that
>>>>>> system and are literally bussing hordes of illegals to the U.S. border.
>
>>>>> That's a lie. There were very long backlogs long before tons of people
>>>>> were sent to claim assylum speciously.
>
>>>> Long backlogs ONLY MADE WORSE by the Left training illegals to all claim
>>>> they're asylum seeking refugees, when in fact they're coming here simply
>>>> to cash in on the generous social welfare system the U.S. (and Europe) has,
>
>>> An asylum seeker isn't a refugee. Again, that's an entirely different
>>> definition. Refugees don't immigrate, and they return home after the crisis
>>> has ended.
>
>>> Our welfare isn't all that generous despite the fortune we spend on it.
>
>>> I favor a more open immigration system. That doesn't mean I want the
>>> process of seeking and being granted asylum abused. At no point did I
>>> state that. I am well aware that asylum claims are difficult to sustain.
>>> The status shouldn't be granted to the ones who cannot make a good case
>>> for asylum.
>
>>> I don't want asylum seekers on welfare. That's outrageous. Give them a
>>> bit of cash for a month and get them to a community where they can be
>>> helped. Do not dump them in Texas without help.
>
>>> The Reagan-era immigration laws were outrageous. I remember the jobs I
>>> had in the mid '80s when they took effect. Suddenly, everybody had to
>>> prove he wasn't an immigrant even though no one was an immigrant. The
>>> only job I had around that time in which I worked with foreigners
>>> was moonlighting as a noncareer postal clerk. There was someone from
>>> Korea who was quite a good guy, who went back, and quite a number of
>>> people from the Phillipines.
>
>>> It was absurd to place the burden on the employer to check a newly hired
>>> alien worker's immigration status and to incidentally check the
>>> immigration status of everyone who is obviously a natural born citizen.
>
>>> Instead, this is what the process should be for an employer who hires an
>>> alien who isn't a green card holder.
>
>>> Positively identify newly hired workers with a fingerprint check. Assign
>>> legitimate Social Security numbers that can be verified with a
>>> fingerprint check to newly hired alien workers. Make the employer
>>> responsible for running the fingerprints without verifying immigration
>>> status.
>
>>> The asylum seekers get legitimate SSNs and there is no reason to ever
>>> add them to a payroll with SSN fraud.
>
>>> Give illegal aliens legitimate SSNs with fingerprinting and give them
>>> secure documents including drivers' licenses. No more SSN fraud.
>
>>>> I can imagine it sucks living in Guatemala and such, I sure wouldn't want
>>>> to live there and would also try to GTFO but that doesn't mean that the
>>>> West should take in all the world's poor people, as it will only lead to the
>>>> West becoming a poor shithole just like Guatemala and such.
>
>>> Oddly, America took in immigrants from all the shithole countries in
>>> Europe and became the world's most prosperous country. Immigrants
>>> prosper in America because America will always be the land of
>>> opportunity.
>
>> The difference is that the welfare system was negligible or non-existent
>> in those days so you either worked or starved. Literally. Nowadays, its
>> entirely possible to get by without working by combining welfare and
>> under-the-table jobs.
>
> I keep saying I oppose our current welfare system.
>
What would you do differently? What do you think the odds are that
anyone can be persuaded to do it the way you think would be best?

> I argue for a far more open immigration than we have but I find it
> outrageous all the people who argue for open immigration and immediate
> eligibility for social security programs. If an immigrant is placed on
> welfare, that contradicts the same argument that an expanded population
> means a larger economy.
>
It sounds like you're proposing that there be a substantial waiting
period before people are eligible for welfare. Two years? Five years?
Ten years?

>>> . .p.
>
>> Back in the 90s when I was in Toronto, . . .
>
> Interesting story. Thanks

--
Rhino

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>Ed Stasiak

>>>I seriously doubt the net costs of mass 3rd world migration are in the
>>>positive column, the decrease in wages alone negates any possible
>>>benefits they might bring.

>>It's not immigration.

>Uncontrolled mass migration intensifies the existing problems on top
>of creating even more problems, it's clearly a net loss to society.

Ah.

Ed's in full-on shithead mode with a massive snip of quotes and failure
to address what I actually wrote.

Go fuck yourself Ed.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Sat, 6 Aug 2022 15:01:42 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>The economy expands with a bigger population. If the economy is failing
>>to expand with more people working, something that's happening right
>>now, it sure as hell isn't due to immigrants.

>>For the last year and a half, the biggest economic burden on families
>>has been the massive rise in housing costs. Then we got the fuel supply
>>shock due to too few refineries.

>>It's not immigration.

>You can still have increasing poverty with immigration since either
>the GNP increases slower than the population increase or (more likely)
>that income distribution concentrates more at the upper end.

You're right, but over the long run, the economy should expand. There
will always be short-term disruption.

>My kids are routinely sarcastic about housing costs and in going
>through my wife's papers I found our 1993 municipal tax notice - the
>house that's now assessed at $ 1.7m (which I have no intention of
>selling) was built in 1972 and assessed in 1993 at $280k.

Of course you should sell. You pay yourself imputed rent. Sorry, H.G.,
but the economic pressure is going to force the issue at some point. You
are going to have to evict yourself.

'Tis one of the reasons I advocate for society collecting more of the
economic rent from land because it prevents the land value spikes.

>Now obviously that's not free money - there was a lot of interest paid
>at far higher than today's rates when we had a mortgage and there has
>been a small fortune spent on various improvements and upgrades but
>even taking that into account it translates into an effective
>"interest rate" of 6.5-7.5% per annum.

But your land value increased more than that.

>I don't know anybody who has had working income increase by that much
>in 40 years.

That's not why land values increased.

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>Ed Stasiak

>>>At a time when the U.S. could absorb those immigrants, people who happened
>>>to also be the same ethnicity and culture as the majority of Americans.

>>Bullshit

>We started with an almost empty continent (thanks to Old World diseases)
>and while most early immigration to what would be the U.S. was British,
>there had always been other Europeans coming here.

>There were Poles (mostly glass blowers and charcoalers) at the Jamestown
>settlement, Dutch in New Amsterdam (NY), and New England had Portuguese
>immigration almost from the start, as they had been fishing the Grand Banks
>since before Columbus.

Just a handful. The massive immigration from central and eastern Europe
was toward the end of the 19th century and before WWI.

Poles are still a major immigrant community in Chicago but other
groups have surpassed their numbers.

>Until the immigration reforms of the 1960s, most immigrants to the U.S. were
>ethnic Europeans with a shared European cultural heritage and prior to the
>1960s, the U.S, could absorb these (legal and limited numbers of) immigrants
>but that's no longer the case.

Ed, you have repeated that throughout this thread. You're not going to
back it up. You obviously don't have an argument to make. This is now
beyond tiresome.

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > The goal isn't to provide a better life for asylum seekers, they're simply
> > pawns, it's to destroy "racist, sexist, homophobic!" Western civilization
> > by Balkanizing the nation with bazillions of non-Europeans.
>
> Central and south America are part of western civilization.

Sure, just as Japan, S.Korea and Taiwan are a part of "Western" civilization
but nobody would call them Europeans/Euro-Americans and neither are Latin
Americans/Hispanics, who have become a distinct ethnicity if not a “race”
and that’s just genetically, their societies are wildly different from the U.S.
despite post-WWII global homogenization of cultural elements.

> You're very good at pointing fingers and lecturing me.

You're very deserving of it.

> When do we get to the point at which you've run out of fingers to point and
> put yourself on record for a practical method of dealing with the monstrous
> backlog of asylum seekers RIGHT NOW?

When you realize there ain't enough money for it, nor is it a critical pressing
issue considering all the other shit we've got going on.

> > Trump forced them to remain in Mexico until the asylum process was done,
> > at which point Mexico promptly shipped them back to their home nations
> > as everybody knows they're economic migrants and not refugees needing
> > asylum from evil mustache-twirling dictators.
>
> Ed, you know that's not true and you're being disingenuous. He ordered
> an almost complete hault to asylum claims processing. I don't know how
> many asylum seekers Mexico allowed to remain but we did hear that Mexico
> allowed a good number of them to work. They weren't all shipped back.

https://7esl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Pedantic-2.jpg

> > Yes, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY are coming here strictly for economic
> > reasons, as evidenced by most of the migrants being young men who can
> > more easily make the trek, at which point they bring in their entire extended
> > families, including pregnant sisters and cousins who then drop anchor babies
> > to insure the family remains (another law that needs to be changed).
>
> That doesn't wash, Ed. You can't argue that the young boys sent alone
> weren't being systematically abused, forced into recruitment by gangs at
> a young age. Some of them had decent asylum claims, actually, given that
> local police corruption helped the gangs to flourish.

Youths being recruited by drug gangs is a minuscule number, wildly overhyped
by the pro-mass migration crowd to further mass migration.

> There's no such thing as chain migration based on a failed or pending
> asylum claim. You can't make an argument, Ed, so you make shit up.

The majority of illegal migrants don't even bother with asylum claims, they
just make it across the border and once they've got a place to live and a
job, they bring over a wife, sister or cousin who drops an anchor baby and
from that point on, they can start bringing over the entire clan.

> > The system isn't "broken", it's being _purposely_ abused and neither political
> > party wants to fix it, as their Globalist masters on Wall Street don't want it
> > fixed, as it benefits (in the short term) the 1%ers calling the shots.
>
> You keep saying that without supporting it. You'll never support your accusation.

Yeah, you're right. Let me get with my Wall Street Globalist buddies and see
if I can get them to post an admission of guilt…

On 2022-08-06 2:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> Sat, 6 Aug 2022 14:25:25 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:
>
>>> Instead, this is what the process should be for an employer who hires an
>>> alien who isn't a green card holder.
>
>>> Positively identify newly hired workers with a fingerprint check. Assign
>>> legitimate Social Security numbers that can be verified with a
>>> fingerprint check to newly hired alien workers. Make the employer
>>> responsible for running the fingerprints without verifying immigration
>>> status.
>
>>> The asylum seekers get legitimate SSNs and there is no reason to ever
>>> add them to a payroll with SSN fraud.
>
>>> Give illegal aliens legitimate SSNs with fingerprinting and give them
>>> secure documents including drivers' licenses. No more SSN fraud.
>
>> The Canadian system does not involve fingerprints but very much DOES
>> require Social Insurance Numbers (our SSN) and for non-citizens those
>> all start with the digit 9. (Other numbers as the first digit have a
>> definite meaning not relevant here - but your SIN # is for life UNLESS
>> a non-citizen becomes a citizen)
>
> Yes, I understand that. Before 9/11, Social Security Administration used
> to issue numbers from a reserved series for non-immigrant aliens too.
>
> We've discussed this.
>
> What I don't get is how exactly Canada wouldn't take a full set of
> fingerprints from an alien making an asylum claim or being processed for
> an immigration status. As there's no right to immigrate, then at the
> very least positively identify people by taking finger prints so that if
> they've lied about a criminal record, they can be deported.
>
>> . . .
I agree with you, Adam. But it probably wouldn't be very helpful in
determining if they had a criminal record in their home country (or
other countries they had lived in if those other countries don't also
keep records that include fingerprints). I wouldn't count on a lot of
developing nations using computer databases with fingerprint scanners.
And then there's the problem that refugee claimants might have criminal
records in their home countries while not being real criminals. For
example, if they had demonstrated against the government, they might
have a criminal record for illegal demonstrations (or related crimes
that don't look as political, like resisting arrest). If you took those
records at face value, you might exclude a deserving person.

--
Rhino

On 2022-08-06 8:53 AM, Nyssa wrote:
> Rhino wrote:
>
>> On 2022-08-05 9:12 AM, Nyssa wrote:
>>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 8:04:10 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/4/2022 9:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 2:57:53 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 3:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 9:06:22 AM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 11:44 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 12:50 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to DHS disclosures to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> federal court hearing the
>>>>>>>>>>>> case Biden
>>>>>>>>>>>> v. Texas, the Biden Administration has
>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally released 1,049,532 illegals
>>>>>>>>>>>> into the country since Old Joe was
>>>>>>>>>>>> inaugurated. That's more
>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>> than the population of Joe's home state of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Delaware.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And that doesn't even include the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'got-aways'-- the illegals who
>>>>>>>>>>>> managed to
>>>>>>>>>>>> cross over, evade the Border Patrol, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> disappear into the countryside. DHS
>>>>>>>>>>>> estimates that number to be an additional
>>>>>>>>>>>> 700,000 to one million illegals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But it's rrraaaaciiissst to talk about
>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats intentionally trying to change
>>>>>>>>>>>> the demographics of the nation and dilute
>>>>>>>>>>>> the votes of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>> citizenry, even as they've intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>> opened the border for an entire state's
>>>>>>>>>>>> worth of illegal aliens with the promise
>>>>>>>>>>>> of no end in sight.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the solution you recommend is?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, I know we're supposed to hate
>>>>>>>>>> everything Trump but this shit
>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>> happening under his policies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why is the United States the only country in
>>>>>>>>>> the world that's
>>>>>>>>>> racist if it
>>>>>>>>>> controls its own borders?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Somehow, I think charges of charges of racism
>>>>>>>>> aren't the big issue here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The hypocrisy of DC Democrats in decrying the
>>>>>>>> fact that *they* are now
>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>> asked to deal with a tiny fraction of the
>>>>>>>> crushing burden that Texas and Arizona have been
>>>>>>>> forced to shoulder for years (and which they
>>>>>>>> apparently think those states should *still* be
>>>>>>>> dealing with so they won't have to)
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> leaves me speechless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/08/gop-governors-created-a-
>>> migrant-crisis-in-washington
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The Border Has Come to D.C.": GOP Governor Have
>>>>>>>> Successfully Created a Migrant Crisis in
>>>>>>>> Washington
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has been a "somewhat herculean effort,"
>>>>>>>> Nadeau tells me, but an unsustainable one. "This
>>>>>>>> is a crisis," the councilmember says. "We are a
>>>>>>>> sanctuary city. We welcome folks. But certainly
>>>>>>>> we are not prepared for
>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>> This is going to strain our system."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Well, no shit. But it's okay to 'strain the
>>>>>>>> [systems' of Texas and
>>>>>>>> Arizona,
>>>>>>>> amirite? You've virtue-signaled to everyone that
>>>>>>>> you're a sanctuary
>>>>>>>> city and
>>>>>>>> now you have to walk your talk. Boo-hoo.]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bowser echoed the latter sentiment last Thursday
>>>>>>>> as she called for the National Guard to be
>>>>>>>> activated; she said the city had reached its
>>>>>>>> "tipping point", but while Nadeau and groups on
>>>>>>>> the ground have been calling for
>>>>>>>> action
>>>>>>>> by Bowser and the federal government for three
>>>>>>>> months now, they say
>>>>>>>> military
>>>>>>>> response echoes the hardline Abbott and Ducey
>>>>>>>> policies that moved the
>>>>>>>> border
>>>>>>>> crisis to the Capitol.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ["They should have just kept that border crisis
>>>>>>>> [down south where all the
>>>>>>>> hicks
>>>>>>>> and rubes live and just suffered through it for
>>>>>>>> the good of the Agenda.
>>>>>>>> How
>>>>>>>> dare they send it here and dump it in our laps?
>>>>>>>> I mean sure, we created
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> problem, but we shouldn't have to deal with it.
>>>>>>>> That's what the little
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>> in flyover states are for."]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "It's really disappointing to see the mayor
>>>>>>>> engaging in basically the same xenophobic,
>>>>>>>> invasionist rhetoric" as Abbott, Fischer says.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [moviePig was dubious that the very notion of
>>>>>>>> [America controlling its own
>>>>>>>> borders is painted as racist by the leftist
>>>>>>>> intelligentsia... well, right there's Exhibit
>>>>>>>> Number One above.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is xenoophobia racism? Who knew?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everything is racism. Haven't you been keeping up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just heard on the news today that California's
>>>>>> historic Proposition 13, which has kept the
>>>>>> government from raising people's property taxes
>>>>>> through
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> roof for close to 40 years now has just been
>>>>>> declared racist.
>>>>>
>>>>> By whom? Anybody who's anybody?
>>>>
>>>> Well, it's a bunch of leftist academics and activists
>>>> who call themselves the Opportunity Institute. Do they
>>>> count?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f70367e4b0974cf2b82009/t/62b34bd3
>>> 19072b7c70d02020/1655917530375/OI%2BReport%2BProp%2B13%2BFinal.pdf
>>>>
>>>> It always seemed to me that the worst victims of an
>>>> out-of-control government raising property taxes
>>>> sky-high would be the disadvantaged, the marginalized,
>>>> and the bipocks. The rich might not like being gouged,
>>>> but they could pay the high taxes. They wouldn't be
>>>> forced out of their homes over it. The poor and the
>>>> bipocks are the ones who could lose everything and had
>>>> the most to gain from Prop 13's protections.
>>>>
>>>> But in an era where literally everything is racist,
>>>> apparently a law that protects bipocks from losing their
>>>> homes is somehow racist as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Okay, I probably need to get out more, but can someone
>>> please explain to me what a "bipock" is supposed to be?
>>>
>> I think he's giving you an alternate spelling of BIPOC,
>> which is something-something-People-Of-Colour. I want to
>> say that the "B" stands for "Black" and the "I" for
>> Indigenous but blacks are already "people of colour" - as
>> are indigenous people - so that seems redundant. But given
>> the "progressive" obsession with virtue-signalling, I'm
>> willing to believe they put blacks first just to emphasize
>> that they were forgetting them and perhaps the same for
>> indigenous people.
>>
>> I just looked it up and it turns out I'm right:
>>
>> ========================================================================
>> The acronym BIPOC, referring to "black, indigenous, (and)
>> people of color", first appeared around 2013.[22] By June
>> 2020, it was, according to Sandra E. Garcia, "ubiquitous
>> in some corners of Twitter and Instagram",[23] as racial
>> justice awareness grew in the United States in the wake of
>> the murder of George Floyd. The term aims to emphasize the
>> historic oppression of black and indigenous people, which
>> is argued to be superlative and distinctive in U.S.
>> history at the collective level.[24] The BIPOC Project
>> promotes the term in order "to highlight the unique
>> relationship to whiteness that Indigenous and Black
>> (African Americans) people have, which shapes the
>> experiences of and relationship to white supremacy for all
>> people of color within a U.S. context."[25]
>>
>> [source:
>> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color#BIPOC]
>> ========================================================================
>>
>>> Nyssa, who wonders why alleged academics are using "pop"
>>> or slang terms in a public statement if they want to be
>>> understood and taken seriously
>>>
>> Because they want to seem "hip" "cool" "with it" or
>> whatever the current equivalent is?
>>
> Thanks for the translation and explanation.

On 2022-08-06 10:24 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 8/6/2022 5:53 AM, Nyssa wrote:
>> Rhino wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-08-05 9:12 AM, Nyssa wrote:
>>>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 8:04:10 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 9:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>    On Aug 4, 2022 at 2:57:53 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>    <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>    On 8/4/2022 3:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>      On Aug 4, 2022 at 9:06:22 AM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>      <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>      On 8/4/2022 11:44 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>        moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>        On 8/4/2022 12:50 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        According to DHS disclosures to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        federal court hearing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case  Biden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        v. Texas, the Biden Administration has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        intentionally released 1,049,532 illegals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        into the country since Old Joe was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        inaugurated. That's more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        than the population of Joe's home state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Delaware.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        And that doesn't even include the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        'got-aways'-- the illegals who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    managed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        cross over, evade the Border Patrol, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        disappear into the countryside. DHS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        estimates that number to be an additional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        700,000 to one million illegals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        But it's rrraaaaciiissst to talk about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Democrats intentionally trying to change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        the demographics of the nation and dilute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        the votes of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        citizenry, even as they've intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        opened the border for an entire state's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        worth of illegal aliens with the promise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        of no end in sight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>        And the solution you recommend is?
>>>>>>>>>>>        Well, I know we're supposed to hate
>>>>>>>>>>>        everything Trump but this shit
>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>        happening under his policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>        Why is the United States the only country in
>>>>>>>>>>>        the world that's
>>>>>>>>>>> racist if it
>>>>>>>>>>>        controls its own borders?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      Somehow, I think charges of charges of racism
>>>>>>>>>>      aren't the big issue here.
>>>>>>>>>      The hypocrisy of DC Democrats in decrying the
>>>>>>>>>      fact that *they* are now
>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>      asked to deal with a tiny fraction of the
>>>>>>>>>      crushing burden that Texas and Arizona have been
>>>>>>>>>      forced to shoulder for years (and which they
>>>>>>>>>      apparently think those states should *still* be
>>>>>>>>>      dealing with so they won't have to)
>>>>>>>>>    just
>>>>>>>>>      leaves me speechless.
>>>>>>>>>      ----------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/08/gop-governors-created-a-
>>>> migrant-crisis-in-washington
>>>>>>>>>      "The Border Has Come to D.C.": GOP Governor Have
>>>>>>>>>      Successfully Created a Migrant Crisis in
>>>>>>>>>      Washington
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      It has been a "somewhat herculean effort,"
>>>>>>>>>      Nadeau tells me, but an unsustainable one. "This
>>>>>>>>>      is a crisis," the councilmember says. "We are a
>>>>>>>>>      sanctuary city. We welcome folks. But certainly
>>>>>>>>>      we are not prepared for
>>>>>>>>>    this.
>>>>>>>>>      This is going to strain our system."
>>>>>>>>>      [Well, no shit. But it's okay to 'strain the
>>>>>>>>>      [systems' of Texas and
>>>>>>>>> Arizona,
>>>>>>>>>      amirite? You've virtue-signaled to everyone that
>>>>>>>>>      you're a sanctuary
>>>>>>>>> city and
>>>>>>>>>      now you have to walk your talk. Boo-hoo.]
>>>>>>>>>      Bowser echoed the latter sentiment last Thursday
>>>>>>>>>      as she called for the National Guard to be
>>>>>>>>>      activated; she said the city had reached its
>>>>>>>>>      "tipping point", but while Nadeau and groups on
>>>>>>>>>      the ground have been calling for
>>>>>>>>>    action
>>>>>>>>>      by Bowser and the federal government for three
>>>>>>>>>      months now, they say
>>>>>>>>> military
>>>>>>>>>      response echoes the hardline Abbott and Ducey
>>>>>>>>>      policies that moved the
>>>>>>>>> border
>>>>>>>>>      crisis to the Capitol.
>>>>>>>>>      ["They should have just kept that border crisis
>>>>>>>>>      [down south where all the
>>>>>>>>>    hicks
>>>>>>>>>      and rubes live and just suffered through it for
>>>>>>>>>      the good of the Agenda.
>>>>>>>>> How
>>>>>>>>>      dare they send it here and dump it in our laps?
>>>>>>>>>      I mean sure, we created
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>      problem, but we shouldn't have to deal with it.
>>>>>>>>>      That's what the little
>>>>>>>>>    people
>>>>>>>>>      in flyover states are for."]
>>>>>>>>>      "It's really disappointing to see the mayor
>>>>>>>>>      engaging in basically the same xenophobic,
>>>>>>>>>      invasionist rhetoric" as Abbott, Fischer says.
>>>>>>>>>      [moviePig was dubious that the very notion of
>>>>>>>>>      [America controlling its own
>>>>>>>>>      borders is painted as racist by the leftist
>>>>>>>>>      intelligentsia... well, right there's Exhibit
>>>>>>>>>      Number One above.]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Is xenoophobia racism? Who knew?
>>>>>>>    Everything is racism. Haven't you been keeping up?
>>>>>>>    I just heard on the news today that California's
>>>>>>>    historic Proposition 13, which has kept the
>>>>>>>    government from raising people's property taxes
>>>>>>>    through
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>    roof for close to 40 years now has just been
>>>>>>>    declared racist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By whom? Anybody who's anybody?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it's a bunch of leftist academics and activists
>>>>> who call themselves the Opportunity Institute. Do they
>>>>> count?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f70367e4b0974cf2b82009/t/62b34bd3
>>
>>>> 19072b7c70d02020/1655917530375/OI%2BReport%2BProp%2B13%2BFinal.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> It always seemed to me that the worst victims of an
>>>>> out-of-control government raising property taxes
>>>>> sky-high would be the disadvantaged, the marginalized,
>>>>> and the bipocks. The rich might not like being gouged,
>>>>> but they could pay the high taxes. They wouldn't be
>>>>> forced out of their homes over it. The poor and the
>>>>> bipocks are the ones who could lose everything and had
>>>>> the most to gain from Prop 13's protections.
>>>>>
>>>>> But in an era where literally everything is racist,
>>>>> apparently a law that protects bipocks from losing their
>>>>> homes is somehow racist as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Okay, I probably need to get out more, but can someone
>>>> please explain to me what a "bipock" is supposed to be?
>>>>
>>> I think he's giving you an alternate spelling of BIPOC,
>>> which is something-something-People-Of-Colour. I want to
>>> say that the "B" stands for "Black" and the "I" for
>>> Indigenous but blacks are already "people of colour" - as
>>> are indigenous people - so that seems redundant. But given
>>> the "progressive" obsession with virtue-signalling, I'm
>>> willing to believe they put blacks first just to emphasize
>>> that they were forgetting them and perhaps the same for
>>> indigenous people.
>>>
>>> I just looked it up and it turns out I'm right:
>>>
>>> ========================================================================
>>> The acronym BIPOC, referring to "black, indigenous, (and)
>>> people of color", first appeared around 2013.[22] By June
>>> 2020, it was, according to Sandra E. Garcia, "ubiquitous
>>> in some corners of Twitter and Instagram",[23] as racial
>>> justice awareness grew in the United States in the wake of
>>> the murder of George Floyd. The term aims to emphasize the
>>> historic oppression of black and indigenous people, which
>>> is argued to be superlative and distinctive in U.S.
>>> history at the collective level.[24] The BIPOC Project
>>> promotes the term in order "to highlight the unique
>>> relationship to whiteness that Indigenous and Black
>>> (African Americans) people have, which shapes the
>>> experiences of and relationship to white supremacy for all
>>> people of color within a U.S. context."[25]
>>>
>>> [source:
>>> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color#BIPOC]
>>> ========================================================================
>>>
>>>> Nyssa, who wonders why alleged academics are using "pop"
>>>> or slang terms in a public statement if they want to be
>>>> understood and taken seriously
>>>>
>>> Because they want to seem "hip" "cool" "with it" or
>>> whatever the current equivalent is?
>>>
>> Thanks for the translation and explanation.
>>
>> It used to be writers, especially academic ones, would
>> try to write for clarity. I guess that's gone away like
>> the dodo bird along with academic freedom and freedom
>> of speech and thought.
>
> You gotta admit though that Black, Indigenous, People of Color is a
> mouthful.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
> There was even a proposal around then called the North Americans Water
> and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) which we learned about in junior high
> involving transporting water from Canada by pipeline to the US.

I've never understood why we can build massive continent-spanning pipelines
for oil stretching for thousands of miles but to my knowledge, no one
seriously considers doing so for water. Water pipelines aren't even the
environmental threat that oil pipelines are. If a water pipeline breaks,
all you get is a maybe a little localized flooding until someone turns the
valve off. With an oil pipeline, you could have an entire ecosystem
permanently fouled, yet we do the oil ones but not the water ones.

A pipeline from Lake Superior to the headlands of the Colorado River would
solve a lot of problems.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 18:44:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>>Ed Stasiak
>
>>>>At a time when the U.S. could absorb those immigrants, people who happened
>>>>to also be the same ethnicity and culture as the majority of Americans.
>
>>>Bullshit
>
>>We started with an almost empty continent (thanks to Old World diseases)
>>and while most early immigration to what would be the U.S. was British,
>>there had always been other Europeans coming here.
>
>>There were Poles (mostly glass blowers and charcoalers) at the Jamestown
>>settlement, Dutch in New Amsterdam (NY), and New England had Portuguese
>>immigration almost from the start, as they had been fishing the Grand Banks
>>since before Columbus.
>
>Just a handful. The massive immigration from central and eastern Europe
>was toward the end of the 19th century and before WWI.
>
>Poles are still a major immigrant community in Chicago but other
>groups have surpassed their numbers.
>
>>Until the immigration reforms of the 1960s, most immigrants to the U.S. were
>>ethnic Europeans with a shared European cultural heritage and prior to the
>>1960s, the U.S, could absorb these (legal and limited numbers of) immigrants
>>but that's no longer the case.
>
>Ed, you have repeated that throughout this thread. You're not going to
>back it up. You obviously don't have an argument to make. This is now
>beyond tiresome.

His assumption is they are too different. Never mind the entire
Tex-Mex thing shows just how well those from south of the border can
integrate into the USA, given time. Hell, unless they already spoke
English those Eastern Europeans coming over had just as rough a time
integrating into American society, except perhaps for the skin color
similarity.

On 2022-08-06 2:05 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>> Ed Stasiak
>
>>>> Can you really not understand that Biden has allowed over 1,000,000
>>>> illegals into the nation in just the last two years, let alone all the
>>>> illegals that have been flooding in before that and we simply cannot
>>>> afford to give them all asylum lawyers at tax payer expense (and that's
>>>> assuming there are millions of asylum lawyers to be had).
>
>>> Of course it would be expensive. But unless we do something about asylum
>>> claimants we aren't going to reverse the backlog.
>
>> Oh well, then I guess we've got a backlog. This is a problem created by
>> the Leftists training (purely economic) migrants to purposely overwhelm
>> the system by all claiming refugee/asylum status.
>
>> The goal isn't to provide a better life for asylum seekers, they're simply
>> pawns, it's to destroy "racist, sexist, homophobic!" Western civilization
>> by Balkanizing the nation with bazillions of non-Europeans.
>
> Central and south America are part of western civilization.
>
> You're very good at pointing fingers and lecturing me. When do we get to
> the point at which you've run out of fingers to point and put yourself
> on record for a practical method of dealing with the monstrous backlog
> of asylum seekers RIGHT NOW?
>
>>> There is no where to hold them. Process them quickly. Admit the handful
>>> that have legitimate asylum claims and send the rest back.
>
>> Trump forced them to remain in Mexico until the asylum process was done,
>> at which point Mexico promptly shipped them back to their home nations
>> as everybody knows they're economic migrants and not refugees needing
>> asylum from evil mustache-twirling dictators.
>
> Ed, you know that's not true and you're being disingenuous. He ordered
> an almost complete hault to asylum claims processing. I don't know how
> many asylum seekers Mexico allowed to remain but we did hear that Mexico
> allowed a good number of them to work. They weren't all shipped back.
>
>>>> Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that vast majority of illegals are
>>>> coming here for purely economic reasons and not because they're being
>>>> tortured in Latin American gulags by evil dictators, as they have been
>>>> coached to say by anti-Western, anti-American and anti-White Leftists,
>>>> acting as Useful Idiots for Wall Street corporate globalists.
>
>>> Really? You believe nearly none of them have been systematically abused by
>>> their own governments given massive institutionalized corruption?
>
>> Yes, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY are coming here strictly for economic
>> reasons, as evidenced by most of the migrants being young men who can
>> more easily make the trek, at which point they bring in their entire extended
>> families, including pregnant sisters and cousins who then drop anchor babies
>> to insure the family remains (another law that needs to be changed).
>
> That doesn't wash, Ed. You can't argue that the young boys sent alone
> weren't being systematically abused, forced into recruitment by gangs at
> a young age. Some of them had decent asylum claims, actually, given that
> local police corruption helped the gangs to flourish.
>
> I'll agree that fewer of the men in their 20s versus the boys were as
> likely to have sustainable asylum claims, but I could be wrong about that.
>
> There's no such thing as chain migration based on a failed or pending
> asylum claim. You can't make an argument, Ed, so you make shit up.
>
He may be thinking about Canada where "family reunification" was a
widely-used rationalization for bringing in foreign family members of
someone who was accepted into this country. In other words, if you
admitted Sam from some developing country, Sam soon applied to bring his
wife and children over to keep them from being split over two countries.
That doesn't sound too unreasonable but then we started hearing reports
that some newcomer's whole VILLAGE had been brought over because
everyone there was a "cousin" of the newcomer. As you can imagine, this
caused some serious anger among ordinary Canadians to the point where
the government of the day said it was *REDUCING* the numbers of people
who would be allowed to enter on the grounds of family reunification.
Whether they actually reduced the numbers - or how much - was never
clear to me; it could have just been an intention that never
materialized or one that was reversed after the next election.

I have reason to believe that "family reunification" has never been
fully rescinded as a justification for immigration. There was a horrific
case here a few years back where a Muslim man, his wife, his son, his
three daughters and his (alleged) ex-wife were all allowed into Canada.
I say "alleged" ex-wife because it turned out that she lived with the
family as the senior wife in a polygamous marriage; she was barren so
the second wife had produced the children but the senior wife was still
in the family. As the daughters acclimated to Canada, they started to
chafe at having to wear hijabs and eat according to Muslim dietary
rules. The father and mother, using his son as "muscle", tried to keep
the girls in line while the 1st wife apparently sided with the girls.
Tensions grew and finally the father, mother and son MURDERED the three
girls and the senior wife. They were eventually found out and all three
got 25 year sentences in the slammer.

Oops! I thought that the senior wife had come to Canada as part of the
family but couldn't remember the grounds since polygamy isn't legal
here. On researching the case, I find that the first wife was actually
brought over as a cousin, cook and housekeeper. There's much more detail
in this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafia_family_murders -
but suffice it to say that she *was* brought over on the grounds that
she was a part of the family, not on her own merits as an individual.
(It turns out that there were three additional children who were neither
killed nor killers but there's nothing about their ages so it's not
clear if they are older or younger than the ones who were killed; they
have apparently been in foster care while their parents and brother have
been serving their sentences. I suppose they have "aged out" by now and
are adults now.)

>> The system isn't "broken", it's being _purposely_ abused and neither political
>> party wants to fix it, as their Globalist masters on Wall Street don't want it fixed,
>> as it benefits (in the short term) the 1%ers calling the shots.
>
> You keep saying that without supporting it. You'll never support your
> accusation.
>
>>> That still doesn't necessarily mean they meet the definition of asylum but
>>> that doesn't mean that they are lying.
>
>> Well, there is no way to tell now, as the Left as trained all migrants to claim
>> asylum status. I guess they'll just have to wait in line (in Mexico) until we
>> can figure out who is or is not lying.
>
> Of course there are ways to tell if someone is lying. I'm agreeing that
> I don't want the liars benefitting from falsehoods stated in support of
> their asylum claims. Making such a false statement is criminal. That
> doesn't mean the vast majority have lied in support of their asylum
> claims. They may not have evidence, or they can't prove that the people
> who are trying to kill them are directly aligned with government.

That's a tricky situation. I can well imagine that the regime in their
home country isn't going to openly admit torturing them or threatening
to kill them yet such things might well have happened. Or they could
have been completely invented by the refugee claimant.

I saw a great documentary on the Canadian refugee system several years
back. (I thought the McKenna brothers, Terence and Brian, produced it
but I can't find it at IMDB in either of their entries so it must have
been someone else.) Anyway, I distinctly remember the documentary
following three different refugee claimants for several months and
eventually caught all of them admitting that they were NOT really in
danger if they went back to their home countries. I remember the Russian
woman from one of the 'stans - Kazakhstan maybe? - mocking the
gullibility of the Canadian bureaucrats. If I remember correctly, all
three got their refugee status anyway, although it took a while to jump
through all the hoops.

On 2022-08-06 3:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>> There was even a proposal around then called the North Americans Water
>> and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) which we learned about in junior high
>> involving transporting water from Canada by pipeline to the US.
>
> I've never understood why we can build massive continent-spanning pipelines
> for oil stretching for thousands of miles but to my knowledge, no one
> seriously considers doing so for water. Water pipelines aren't even the
> environmental threat that oil pipelines are. If a water pipeline breaks,
> all you get is a maybe a little localized flooding until someone turns the
> valve off. With an oil pipeline, you could have an entire ecosystem
> permanently fouled, yet we do the oil ones but not the water ones.
>
> A pipeline from Lake Superior to the headlands of the Colorado River would
> solve a lot of problems.

Small problem: roughly half of Lake Superior is on the Canadian side of
the border and you can't drain your half without lowering OUR half. That
will surely raise some environmental and economic issues that will keep
the diplomats hopping for years.

--
Rhino

On 8/6/2022 12:08 PM, Rhino wrote:
> On 2022-08-06 10:24 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 8/6/2022 5:53 AM, Nyssa wrote:
>>> Rhino wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-08-05 9:12 AM, Nyssa wrote:
>>>>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 8:04:10 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 9:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>    On Aug 4, 2022 at 2:57:53 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>    <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>    On 8/4/2022 3:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>      On Aug 4, 2022 at 9:06:22 AM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>      <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>      On 8/4/2022 11:44 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>        moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        On 8/4/2022 12:50 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        According to DHS disclosures to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        federal court hearing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case  Biden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        v. Texas, the Biden Administration has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        intentionally released 1,049,532 illegals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        into the country since Old Joe was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        inaugurated. That's more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        than the population of Joe's home state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Delaware.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        And that doesn't even include the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        'got-aways'-- the illegals who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    managed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        cross over, evade the Border Patrol, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        disappear into the countryside. DHS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        estimates that number to be an additional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        700,000 to one million illegals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        But it's rrraaaaciiissst to talk about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Democrats intentionally trying to change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        the demographics of the nation and dilute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        the votes of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        citizenry, even as they've intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        opened the border for an entire state's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        worth of illegal aliens with the promise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        of no end in sight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        And the solution you recommend is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>        Well, I know we're supposed to hate
>>>>>>>>>>>>        everything Trump but this shit
>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>        happening under his policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>        Why is the United States the only country in
>>>>>>>>>>>>        the world that's
>>>>>>>>>>>> racist if it
>>>>>>>>>>>>        controls its own borders?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>      Somehow, I think charges of charges of racism
>>>>>>>>>>>      aren't the big issue here.
>>>>>>>>>>      The hypocrisy of DC Democrats in decrying the
>>>>>>>>>>      fact that *they* are now
>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>      asked to deal with a tiny fraction of the
>>>>>>>>>>      crushing burden that Texas and Arizona have been
>>>>>>>>>>      forced to shoulder for years (and which they
>>>>>>>>>>      apparently think those states should *still* be
>>>>>>>>>>      dealing with so they won't have to)
>>>>>>>>>>    just
>>>>>>>>>>      leaves me speechless.
>>>>>>>>>>      ----------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/08/gop-governors-created-a-
>>>>> migrant-crisis-in-washington
>>>>>>>>>>      "The Border Has Come to D.C.": GOP Governor Have
>>>>>>>>>>      Successfully Created a Migrant Crisis in
>>>>>>>>>>      Washington
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      It has been a "somewhat herculean effort,"
>>>>>>>>>>      Nadeau tells me, but an unsustainable one. "This
>>>>>>>>>>      is a crisis," the councilmember says. "We are a
>>>>>>>>>>      sanctuary city. We welcome folks. But certainly
>>>>>>>>>>      we are not prepared for
>>>>>>>>>>    this.
>>>>>>>>>>      This is going to strain our system."
>>>>>>>>>>      [Well, no shit. But it's okay to 'strain the
>>>>>>>>>>      [systems' of Texas and
>>>>>>>>>> Arizona,
>>>>>>>>>>      amirite? You've virtue-signaled to everyone that
>>>>>>>>>>      you're a sanctuary
>>>>>>>>>> city and
>>>>>>>>>>      now you have to walk your talk. Boo-hoo.]
>>>>>>>>>>      Bowser echoed the latter sentiment last Thursday
>>>>>>>>>>      as she called for the National Guard to be
>>>>>>>>>>      activated; she said the city had reached its
>>>>>>>>>>      "tipping point", but while Nadeau and groups on
>>>>>>>>>>      the ground have been calling for
>>>>>>>>>>    action
>>>>>>>>>>      by Bowser and the federal government for three
>>>>>>>>>>      months now, they say
>>>>>>>>>> military
>>>>>>>>>>      response echoes the hardline Abbott and Ducey
>>>>>>>>>>      policies that moved the
>>>>>>>>>> border
>>>>>>>>>>      crisis to the Capitol.
>>>>>>>>>>      ["They should have just kept that border crisis
>>>>>>>>>>      [down south where all the
>>>>>>>>>>    hicks
>>>>>>>>>>      and rubes live and just suffered through it for
>>>>>>>>>>      the good of the Agenda.
>>>>>>>>>> How
>>>>>>>>>>      dare they send it here and dump it in our laps?
>>>>>>>>>>      I mean sure, we created
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>      problem, but we shouldn't have to deal with it.
>>>>>>>>>>      That's what the little
>>>>>>>>>>    people
>>>>>>>>>>      in flyover states are for."]
>>>>>>>>>>      "It's really disappointing to see the mayor
>>>>>>>>>>      engaging in basically the same xenophobic,
>>>>>>>>>>      invasionist rhetoric" as Abbott, Fischer says.
>>>>>>>>>>      [moviePig was dubious that the very notion of
>>>>>>>>>>      [America controlling its own
>>>>>>>>>>      borders is painted as racist by the leftist
>>>>>>>>>>      intelligentsia... well, right there's Exhibit
>>>>>>>>>>      Number One above.]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    Is xenoophobia racism? Who knew?
>>>>>>>>    Everything is racism. Haven't you been keeping up?
>>>>>>>>    I just heard on the news today that California's
>>>>>>>>    historic Proposition 13, which has kept the
>>>>>>>>    government from raising people's property taxes
>>>>>>>>    through
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>    roof for close to 40 years now has just been
>>>>>>>>    declared racist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By whom? Anybody who's anybody?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, it's a bunch of leftist academics and activists
>>>>>> who call themselves the Opportunity Institute. Do they
>>>>>> count?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f70367e4b0974cf2b82009/t/62b34bd3
>>>
>>>>> 19072b7c70d02020/1655917530375/OI%2BReport%2BProp%2B13%2BFinal.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It always seemed to me that the worst victims of an
>>>>>> out-of-control government raising property taxes
>>>>>> sky-high would be the disadvantaged, the marginalized,
>>>>>> and the bipocks. The rich might not like being gouged,
>>>>>> but they could pay the high taxes. They wouldn't be
>>>>>> forced out of their homes over it. The poor and the
>>>>>> bipocks are the ones who could lose everything and had
>>>>>> the most to gain from Prop 13's protections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in an era where literally everything is racist,
>>>>>> apparently a law that protects bipocks from losing their
>>>>>> homes is somehow racist as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Okay, I probably need to get out more, but can someone
>>>>> please explain to me what a "bipock" is supposed to be?
>>>>>
>>>> I think he's giving you an alternate spelling of BIPOC,
>>>> which is something-something-People-Of-Colour. I want to
>>>> say that the "B" stands for "Black" and the "I" for
>>>> Indigenous but blacks are already "people of colour" - as
>>>> are indigenous people - so that seems redundant. But given
>>>> the "progressive" obsession with virtue-signalling, I'm
>>>> willing to believe they put blacks first just to emphasize
>>>> that they were forgetting them and perhaps the same for
>>>> indigenous people.
>>>>
>>>> I just looked it up and it turns out I'm right:
>>>>
>>>> ========================================================================
>>>>
>>>> The acronym BIPOC, referring to "black, indigenous, (and)
>>>> people of color", first appeared around 2013.[22] By June
>>>> 2020, it was, according to Sandra E. Garcia, "ubiquitous
>>>> in some corners of Twitter and Instagram",[23] as racial
>>>> justice awareness grew in the United States in the wake of
>>>> the murder of George Floyd. The term aims to emphasize the
>>>> historic oppression of black and indigenous people, which
>>>> is argued to be superlative and distinctive in U.S.
>>>> history at the collective level.[24] The BIPOC Project
>>>> promotes the term in order "to highlight the unique
>>>> relationship to whiteness that Indigenous and Black
>>>> (African Americans) people have, which shapes the
>>>> experiences of and relationship to white supremacy for all
>>>> people of color within a U.S. context."[25]
>>>>
>>>> [source:
>>>> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color#BIPOC]
>>>> ========================================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Nyssa, who wonders why alleged academics are using "pop"
>>>>> or slang terms in a public statement if they want to be
>>>>> understood and taken seriously
>>>>>
>>>> Because they want to seem "hip" "cool" "with it" or
>>>> whatever the current equivalent is?
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the translation and explanation.
>>>
>>> It used to be writers, especially academic ones, would
>>> try to write for clarity. I guess that's gone away like
>>> the dodo bird along with academic freedom and freedom
>>> of speech and thought.
>>
>> You gotta admit though that Black, Indigenous, People of Color is a
>> mouthful.
>
> And redundant since blacks are already "people of colour" as are
> indigenous people.
>
> I *loathe* the whole expression "people of colour". White is a colour
> too so we're ALL "people of colour" but "people of colour" is clearly
> designed specifically to EXCLUDE whites.

On 8/6/2022 12:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>> There was even a proposal around then called the North Americans Water
>> and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) which we learned about in junior high
>> involving transporting water from Canada by pipeline to the US.
>
> I've never understood why we can build massive continent-spanning pipelines
> for oil stretching for thousands of miles but to my knowledge, no one
> seriously considers doing so for water. Water pipelines aren't even the
> environmental threat that oil pipelines are. If a water pipeline breaks,
> all you get is a maybe a little localized flooding until someone turns the
> valve off. With an oil pipeline, you could have an entire ecosystem
> permanently fouled, yet we do the oil ones but not the water ones.
>
> A pipeline from Lake Superior to the headlands of the Colorado River would
> solve a lot of problems.

Except the headwaters of the Colorado are one the west side of the
Rockies. So getting water up over them would require a lot of very
powerful pumps.

On 8/6/2022 2:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>> There was even a proposal around then called the North Americans Water
>> and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) which we learned about in junior high
>> involving transporting water from Canada by pipeline to the US.
>
> I've never understood why we can build massive continent-spanning pipelines
> for oil stretching for thousands of miles but to my knowledge, no one
> seriously considers doing so for water. Water pipelines aren't even the
> environmental threat that oil pipelines are. If a water pipeline breaks,
> all you get is a maybe a little localized flooding until someone turns the
> valve off. With an oil pipeline, you could have an entire ecosystem
> permanently fouled, yet we do the oil ones but not the water ones.
>
> A pipeline from Lake Superior to the headlands of the Colorado River would
> solve a lot of problems.

Hmm, could it be private corporations make profits off one but not the
other? Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
> Rhino wrote:
>
>> On 2022-08-05 9:12 AM, Nyssa wrote:
>>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 8:04:10 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/4/2022 9:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 2:57:53 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 3:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 9:06:22 AM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 11:44 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 12:50 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to DHS disclosures to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> federal court hearing the
>>>>>>>>>>>> case Biden
>>>>>>>>>>>> v. Texas, the Biden Administration has
>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally released 1,049,532 illegals
>>>>>>>>>>>> into the country since Old Joe was
>>>>>>>>>>>> inaugurated. That's more
>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>> than the population of Joe's home state of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Delaware.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And that doesn't even include the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'got-aways'-- the illegals who
>>>>>>>>>>>> managed to
>>>>>>>>>>>> cross over, evade the Border Patrol, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> disappear into the countryside. DHS
>>>>>>>>>>>> estimates that number to be an additional
>>>>>>>>>>>> 700,000 to one million illegals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But it's rrraaaaciiissst to talk about
>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats intentionally trying to change
>>>>>>>>>>>> the demographics of the nation and dilute
>>>>>>>>>>>> the votes of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>> citizenry, even as they've intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>> opened the border for an entire state's
>>>>>>>>>>>> worth of illegal aliens with the promise
>>>>>>>>>>>> of no end in sight.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the solution you recommend is?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, I know we're supposed to hate
>>>>>>>>>> everything Trump but this shit
>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>> happening under his policies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why is the United States the only country in
>>>>>>>>>> the world that's
>>>>>>>>>> racist if it
>>>>>>>>>> controls its own borders?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Somehow, I think charges of charges of racism
>>>>>>>>> aren't the big issue here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The hypocrisy of DC Democrats in decrying the
>>>>>>>> fact that *they* are now
>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>> asked to deal with a tiny fraction of the
>>>>>>>> crushing burden that Texas and Arizona have been
>>>>>>>> forced to shoulder for years (and which they
>>>>>>>> apparently think those states should *still* be
>>>>>>>> dealing with so they won't have to)
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> leaves me speechless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/08/gop-governors-created-a-
>>> migrant-crisis-in-washington
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The Border Has Come to D.C.": GOP Governor Have
>>>>>>>> Successfully Created a Migrant Crisis in
>>>>>>>> Washington
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has been a "somewhat herculean effort,"
>>>>>>>> Nadeau tells me, but an unsustainable one. "This
>>>>>>>> is a crisis," the councilmember says. "We are a
>>>>>>>> sanctuary city. We welcome folks. But certainly
>>>>>>>> we are not prepared for
>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>> This is going to strain our system."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Well, no shit. But it's okay to 'strain the
>>>>>>>> [systems' of Texas and
>>>>>>>> Arizona,
>>>>>>>> amirite? You've virtue-signaled to everyone that
>>>>>>>> you're a sanctuary
>>>>>>>> city and
>>>>>>>> now you have to walk your talk. Boo-hoo.]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bowser echoed the latter sentiment last Thursday
>>>>>>>> as she called for the National Guard to be
>>>>>>>> activated; she said the city had reached its
>>>>>>>> "tipping point", but while Nadeau and groups on
>>>>>>>> the ground have been calling for
>>>>>>>> action
>>>>>>>> by Bowser and the federal government for three
>>>>>>>> months now, they say
>>>>>>>> military
>>>>>>>> response echoes the hardline Abbott and Ducey
>>>>>>>> policies that moved the
>>>>>>>> border
>>>>>>>> crisis to the Capitol.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ["They should have just kept that border crisis
>>>>>>>> [down south where all the
>>>>>>>> hicks
>>>>>>>> and rubes live and just suffered through it for
>>>>>>>> the good of the Agenda.
>>>>>>>> How
>>>>>>>> dare they send it here and dump it in our laps?
>>>>>>>> I mean sure, we created
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> problem, but we shouldn't have to deal with it.
>>>>>>>> That's what the little
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>> in flyover states are for."]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "It's really disappointing to see the mayor
>>>>>>>> engaging in basically the same xenophobic,
>>>>>>>> invasionist rhetoric" as Abbott, Fischer says.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [moviePig was dubious that the very notion of
>>>>>>>> [America controlling its own
>>>>>>>> borders is painted as racist by the leftist
>>>>>>>> intelligentsia... well, right there's Exhibit
>>>>>>>> Number One above.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is xenoophobia racism? Who knew?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everything is racism. Haven't you been keeping up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just heard on the news today that California's
>>>>>> historic Proposition 13, which has kept the
>>>>>> government from raising people's property taxes
>>>>>> through
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> roof for close to 40 years now has just been
>>>>>> declared racist.
>>>>>
>>>>> By whom? Anybody who's anybody?
>>>>
>>>> Well, it's a bunch of leftist academics and activists
>>>> who call themselves the Opportunity Institute. Do they
>>>> count?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f70367e4b0974cf2b82009/t/62b34bd3
>>> 19072b7c70d02020/1655917530375/OI%2BReport%2BProp%2B13%2BFinal.pdf
>>>>
>>>> It always seemed to me that the worst victims of an
>>>> out-of-control government raising property taxes
>>>> sky-high would be the disadvantaged, the marginalized,
>>>> and the bipocks. The rich might not like being gouged,
>>>> but they could pay the high taxes. They wouldn't be
>>>> forced out of their homes over it. The poor and the
>>>> bipocks are the ones who could lose everything and had
>>>> the most to gain from Prop 13's protections.
>>>>
>>>> But in an era where literally everything is racist,
>>>> apparently a law that protects bipocks from losing their
>>>> homes is somehow racist as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Okay, I probably need to get out more, but can someone
>>> please explain to me what a "bipock" is supposed to be?
>>>
>> I think he's giving you an alternate spelling of BIPOC,
>> which is something-something-People-Of-Colour. I want to
>> say that the "B" stands for "Black" and the "I" for
>> Indigenous but blacks are already "people of colour" - as
>> are indigenous people - so that seems redundant. But given
>> the "progressive" obsession with virtue-signalling, I'm
>> willing to believe they put blacks first just to emphasize
>> that they were forgetting them and perhaps the same for
>> indigenous people.
>>
>> I just looked it up and it turns out I'm right:
>>
>> ========================================================================
>> The acronym BIPOC, referring to "black, indigenous, (and)
>> people of color", first appeared around 2013.[22] By June
>> 2020, it was, according to Sandra E. Garcia, "ubiquitous
>> in some corners of Twitter and Instagram",[23] as racial
>> justice awareness grew in the United States in the wake of
>> the murder of George Floyd. The term aims to emphasize the
>> historic oppression of black and indigenous people, which
>> is argued to be superlative and distinctive in U.S.
>> history at the collective level.[24] The BIPOC Project
>> promotes the term in order "to highlight the unique
>> relationship to whiteness that Indigenous and Black
>> (African Americans) people have, which shapes the
>> experiences of and relationship to white supremacy for all
>> people of color within a U.S. context."[25]
>>
>> [source:
>> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color#BIPOC]
>> ========================================================================
>>
>>> Nyssa, who wonders why alleged academics are using "pop"
>>> or slang terms in a public statement if they want to be
>>> understood and taken seriously
>>>
>> Because they want to seem "hip" "cool" "with it" or
>> whatever the current equivalent is?
>>
> Thanks for the translation and explanation.
>
> It used to be writers, especially academic ones, would
> try to write for clarity. I guess that's gone away like
> the dodo bird along with academic freedom and freedom
> of speech and thought.
>
> Nyssa, who well remembers how the two semesters of
> required composition classes in university were picky
> about things like that, but that was last century
>
>

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > What needs to be fixed is the conditions in these nations, (something the
> > people of these nations need to do themselves) not off-loading their poor
> > populations onto American tax payera.
>
> Sure. They can just vote in a less corrupt government or revolt against
> the government armed with American military weapons.

Again, we're not talking about N.Korea and while life may suck in Guatemala
and such, that doesn't mean the U.S. should take in bazillions of people from
these nations.

> > The U.S. of 2022 is not the U.S. of the 1800s or even the 1950s,
> > we simply cannot and should not flood the country with bazillions of 3rd
> > world peasants.
>
> You keep saying that. You refuse to acknowledge basic economic reality.

The economic reality is that the U.S. is long past being a frontier nation
giving away 40 acres and a mule to anybody willing to farm the land.

And Hong Kong was a Libertarian nightmare.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/KWC_-_1989_Aerial.jpg

> > Not at all, I've repeatedly and clearly pointed out that THERE AIN'T ENOUGH
> > FUCKiNG MONEY to provide bazillions of migrants with asylum lawyers.
>
> It's always cost effective to put in place a system that can truly process
> claims. The "system" we cannot afford that we spend massively on is what
> we're doing right now.

I agree we can't keep doing what we're doing; throwing open our borders to
anybody and everybody who can make it across and the answer isn't pissing
away bazillions of dollars on asylum lawyers, but locking down the border with
the U.S. Army and retasking the Immigration Dept. with busting employers and
landlords enabling this uncontrolled mass migration.

No job + no housing = no illegal migrants.

> > I never said "ignore" those treaties, I pointed out that they are no
> > longer practicle considering the conditions TODAY in the U.S.
>
> Let's restore the quote you cut because you always get exposed as a liar
> when context is restored:

Your Usenet Lawyer stichk has been boring us for years. Everybody knows
what we’re talking about even if we don’t use the words you demand.

> > There is nothing stoping politicians from withdrawing/repealing these
> > treaties, except the will to do so.
>
> There's quite a lot, actually. You don't want to be seen as a bad actor
> on the world stage, otherwise you get treated like Cuba or Iran for many
> many decades. That's a real deterrent to just handwaiving away old
> treaty obligations without renegotiation.

Every nation on the planet outside the West has strict immigration controls
and somehow they're not seen as "bad actors". All it takes is the will to
change the treaties to bring them in-line with the current situation in the
U.S.

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Uncontrolled mass migration intensifies the existing problems on top
> > of creating even more problems, it's clearly a net loss to society.
>
> Ed's in full-on shithead mode with a massive snip of quotes and failure
> to address what I actually wrote.

And once again we get Adam's typical defense when he's lost the debate
and is floundering; throw around insults and cry about snipping unnecessary
and irrelevant text, as if that would change anything.

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > There were Poles (mostly glass blowers and charcoalers) at the Jamestown
> > settlement, Dutch in New Amsterdam (NY), and New England had Portuguese
> > immigration almost from the start, as they had been fishing the Grand Banks
> > since before Columbus.
>
> Just a handful. The massive immigration from central and eastern Europe
> was toward the end of the 19th century and before WWI.

Until the 1960s, immigration to the U.S. was overwhelmingly European, this
isn't debatable even if this or that European ethnic group had periods where
greater or lesser numbers immigrated.

> > Until the immigration reforms of the 1960s, most immigrants to the U.S. were
> > ethnic Europeans with a shared European cultural heritage and prior to the
> > 1960s, the U.S, could absorb these (legal and limited numbers of) immigrants
> > but that's no longer the case.
>
> Ed, you have repeated that throughout this thread. You're not going to
> back it up. You obviously don't have an argument to make. This is now
> beyond tiresome.

So now the “Kerman Standard for Debate” requires providing citations for
common knowledge? You’ve still lost the argument.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 13:02:30 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>I wonder if the real solution to the problem is creating a drug that
>gives what the drug users are seeking without doing any harm, then
>dispensing it freely to everyone who wants it.

Aldous Huxley wrote about that 80 years ago in Brave New World - he
called in Soma

Didn't seem like my idea of a idyllic world.....

On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 18:30:19 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>What I don't get is how exactly Canada wouldn't take a full set of
>fingerprints from an alien making an asylum claim or being processed for
>an immigration status. As there's no right to immigrate, then at the
>very least positively identify people by taking finger prints so that if
>they've lied about a criminal record, they can be deported.
>

I don't know whether Canada does fingerprint claimants though given
the usual suspects would say "they're being treated as criminals" I
suspect they're not given the usual screamers would have screamed.

I do think it would be a good idea - not just to screen out criminals
but to prevent multiple claims under fake names.

("You've applied before - you were turned down - goodbye!" would be a
reasonable response in these cases to prevent these guys gaming the
system to find out what they need to say to gain admission)

But for sure those 9 million 10 year visas (which I remind you is 30%
of the Canadian population) REALLY gives me the heebie jeebies since
while the concept of that visa isn't necessarily bad issuing a number
of these 30+% of the national population? Are you kidding me?

On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 18:35:16 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>And then lets discuss absolutely everything thats massively stupid about
>>>how California deals with water. That's your biggest infrastructure problem.
>
>>That goes back at least as far as the 60s (at least as I personally
>>remember).
>
>I'd say to the 1920s.

You may well be right - you'll notice I said 'in my personal memory' -
I'm 60+ not 100+!

>>There was even a proposal around then called the North Americans Water
>>and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) which we learned about in junior high
>>involving transporting water from Canada by pipeline to the US. It
>>looked like a great deal for California though 50 years later I'm
>>still mystified what was in it for Canada. Quite apart from anything
>>else either their planning or their art was deficient since at least
>>one of their dams would have flooded a Canadian city of 200000.
>
>Yeah, well, the arrid west would like nothing better than for the United
>States government to drain the Great Lakes to give them heavily
>subsidized water.

For sure though it would wipe out both the ports of Toronto and
Chicago....though the entire proposition (draining the Great Lakes) is
just goofy in the first place. Bear in mind that > 50% of the waters
of the Great Lakes is in Lake Superior.

>>If California wants to utilize nuclear power effectively,
>>desalinization would be a good use - the Saudis and Emirates appear to
>>have led the way.
>
>You're absolutely right.
>
>>>And then lets discuss massive spending on subsidizing housing for middle
>>>class and upper middle class so that they can live in forested areas
>>>that are reguarly subject to wildfire.
>
>>Specifically what kind of subsidization?
>
>That they keep rescuing them and keep allowing them to rebuild to be in
>the way of the next wildfire.
>
>>>You think the California economy was wrecked by immigrants?
>
>>>Build the wall. The United States shall send all the STOOPID to
>>>California. It's a one-way trip. We'll make it so the STOOPID cannot
>>>escape.

One wonders the reaction if they put the proposition in those terms :)

>>It used to be said that somebody lifted up America from the east and
>>all the nuts went west. The same was said about Canada though as a
>>native British Columbian I didn't feel it was as funny as the
>>California version.
>
>Heh.
>
>Feel free to send the STOOPID south across the border headed for
>California. It'll make Canada a better place.

Please recall I spent most of my toddlerhood in the Bay area - and my
parents got me OUT.....Richmond, CA to be specific.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 18:44:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>>Ed Stasiak
>Just a handful. The massive immigration from central and eastern Europe
>was toward the end of the 19th century and before WWI.
>
>Poles are still a major immigrant community in Chicago but other
>groups have surpassed their numbers.

They are in the Toronto - Hamilton area as well. How ironic that post
WW2 that's ALSO (well at least in Toronto) where the Germans and
Italian immigrants to Canada mostly settled. Somehow they managed to
co-exist with the Poles and largely built Toronto leapfrogging
Montreal to become Canada's #1 city by a country mile.

>>Until the immigration reforms of the 1960s, most immigrants to the U.S. were
>>ethnic Europeans with a shared European cultural heritage and prior to the
>>1960s, the U.S, could absorb these (legal and limited numbers of) immigrants
>>but that's no longer the case.
>
>Ed, you have repeated that throughout this thread. You're not going to
>back it up. You obviously don't have an argument to make. This is now
>beyond tiresome.

I'd not convinced eastern and southern Europeans had nearly as much in
common with the descendants of British (which includes Ireland and
Scotland given we're talking pre 1914) along with many Germans.

Except for the Italians, my childrens' heritage contains all of the
groups mentioned above.

On 8/6/2022 5:19 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 18:35:16 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>> And then lets discuss absolutely everything thats massively stupid about
>>>> how California deals with water. That's your biggest infrastructure problem.
>>
>>> That goes back at least as far as the 60s (at least as I personally
>>> remember).
>>
>> I'd say to the 1920s.
>
> You may well be right - you'll notice I said 'in my personal memory' -
> I'm 60+ not 100+!
>
>>> There was even a proposal around then called the North Americans Water
>>> and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) which we learned about in junior high
>>> involving transporting water from Canada by pipeline to the US. It
>>> looked like a great deal for California though 50 years later I'm
>>> still mystified what was in it for Canada. Quite apart from anything
>>> else either their planning or their art was deficient since at least
>>> one of their dams would have flooded a Canadian city of 200000.
>>
>> Yeah, well, the arrid west would like nothing better than for the United
>> States government to drain the Great Lakes to give them heavily
>> subsidized water.
>
> For sure though it would wipe out both the ports of Toronto and
> Chicago....though the entire proposition (draining the Great Lakes) is
> just goofy in the first place. Bear in mind that > 50% of the waters
> of the Great Lakes is in Lake Superior.
>
>>> If California wants to utilize nuclear power effectively,
>>> desalinization would be a good use - the Saudis and Emirates appear to
>>> have led the way.
>>
>> You're absolutely right.
>>
>>>> And then lets discuss massive spending on subsidizing housing for middle
>>>> class and upper middle class so that they can live in forested areas
>>>> that are reguarly subject to wildfire.
>>
>>> Specifically what kind of subsidization?
>>
>> That they keep rescuing them and keep allowing them to rebuild to be in
>> the way of the next wildfire.
>>
>>>> You think the California economy was wrecked by immigrants?
>>
>>>> Build the wall. The United States shall send all the STOOPID to
>>>> California. It's a one-way trip. We'll make it so the STOOPID cannot
>>>> escape.
>
> One wonders the reaction if they put the proposition in those terms :)
>
>>> It used to be said that somebody lifted up America from the east and
>>> all the nuts went west. The same was said about Canada though as a
>>> native British Columbian I didn't feel it was as funny as the
>>> California version.
>>
>> Heh.
>>
>> Feel free to send the STOOPID south across the border headed for
>> California. It'll make Canada a better place.
>
> Please recall I spent most of my toddlerhood in the Bay area - and my
> parents got me OUT.....Richmond, CA to be specific.

A good place to get out of before the 1970s!

On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 15:06:18 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>In Grades 7 and 8, I was in advanced classes and we had a full period of
>grammar every single day. At the time, it was pretty tedious and didn't
>seem terribly interesting or relevant but now I am very grateful for
>having spent the time. About the time I was entering high school (at the

So was I though in my case it was grades 4 through 9.

>end of the 60s) the "experts" at the provincial ministry of education
>declared that it was no longer important for students to express
>themselves accurately in terms of spelling, grammar and so forth; they
>reckoned that as long as the student was relatively close to correct,
>the person reading their work or speaking with them was going to figure
>out what they meant. That declaration essentially ended the teaching of
>grammar. I think I had a single period in grammar - in other words a
>single 45 minute session, NOT a whole year of grammar - throughout my
>entire five years in high school. (We actually had five years of high
>school in those days here in Ontario.) A couple of years after I started
>university (also in Ontario), my university started insisting on
>remedial English since so many of its students, most of whom came from
>Ontario, had major problems with communicating in English, even though
>most of us had gone to high school in Ontario. Coincidence? I think not!

We were expected to form gramatically sound sentences with good
spelling - anybody who made more than the occasional slip got extra
help to work it out.

>As I understand it, the remedial English program at university has grown
>and grown in the years since then. Initially, new first year students
>merely had to write one essay that had reasonably good grammar and
>spelling to meet the requirement. I gather that nowadays there's quite a
>bit more to it with full classes being necessary to satisfy the
>requirement. If they had simply reintroduced spelling and grammar to the
>senior public schools (our equivalent to your "middle schools") and high
>schools, the basic English requirement at universities might be minimal
>or non-existent by now.

In BC elementary is 1-7 with jr high being either 8-9 or 8-10. Again
by grades 6-7 we were expected to be able to write 1 page essays
without difficulty with instruction being about 'choosing a good
theme' or 'what makes a good story?'

One discussion I never got to have with my wife's siblings was the
impact of the end of grade 13 in Ontario (her brother was the last
year of grade 13 and her sister three years younger was 12 only)

>I have no idea if they teach spelling and grammar in Ontario any more.
>If you look at the course descriptions put out by the Ministry, they are
>so vague that it's impossible to know what is being taught.

Generally we were satisfied with out kids' eleentary education EXCEPT
we were extremely unhappy with the fact that our kids were generally
those who finished tasks first and got ignored by the teacher who was
focusing on the tail enders. All three were labelled 'gifted' and all
3 manifested that in different ways - #1 daughter was an all-rounder,
#2 daughter was off the charts in visual arts (she's now a commercial
artist and advertising director), my son was very strong in mechanical
visualization (read: future engineer) and is now a robotic engineer
who builds automated warehouses for Amazon.