immigrants

quote:

---

Who even cares about the illegals already here?

---

Uhhh... we don't want the criminals here, do we?On another note, did you see some of the signs not shown on major news channels on TV?From Michelle Malkin's web site: Domain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network SolutionsOne of the handouts:

They have been. Not sure where you've been, I guess. You don't watch the news? Oh, right - you don't. Being the minority party, with barely enough members to force a filibuster, they don't have much opportunity to do those things. And they do have to win elections. Nobody ever won an election by refusing to torture someone with a turban on their head.

I must have slept through the news.
When did Ramsey Clark win the case and the Gitmo prisoners celebrate?

Did you not read my post, or what?Or is it your position that, should the unthinkable occur and Republicans be involved in something untoward, that they would simply roll over for the investigation?Like, I don't know what universe you inhabit where investigations of Republican policies and corruption are completely unhampered by top government officials.

Ahhh... so Ramsey did not win the case.

What case?

Nothing to do with God and everything to do with the munatics living there.Brian.

Yeah I already got your joke. You could get mine.

I loved this post. A real gem.
I will have to save all these quotes to pull out the next time some Christian Right fanatic starts talking about how fundamental Christianity is to our constitution.EZ

You mean like THESE good intentions?Cherry-picking and warping intelligence to support a pretedermined plan for a war of aggression, and then purposely leaking 'classified' (phony) information to punish a dissenter?
He's a self-serving little fascist hipocrite.

EZ, don't let facts get in the way of jingoism and blind patriotism...I think at this point we can say that is it is fact that Bush is a known liar. But hey, all politicians lie from time to time.... but Bush has lied to get us into a war that has cost thousands of american ilves, 10s of thousands of iraq lives and cost us almost 1 trillion dollars.Gee, I wonder if we could completely fix social security and healthcare for a trillion dollars?

It is true that economic development *correlates* with declining birth rates, but let's not assume that correlation is equivalent to causation. I don't think economic development alone will stop rampant population growth - economics theory seems predicated on infinite growth which is not realistic ecologically.There are many approaches to curbing population growth and I am in favor almost of them (short of inflicting direct mortality through war and genocide). The problem in Mexico is they have exceeded the carrying capacity of their own land in urban areas and have swamped their cities with poor peasants looking for work. My beef with the religious missionaries is that NONE of them counsel family planning and many, like the Catholic Church, actually counsel against it. It's suicidal from a global population stability viewpoint. We cannot continue to reproduce indefinitely on this planet without extremely dire consequences. A think tank of world expert ecologists has estimated the sustainable human carrying capacity of the planet around 2 billion. We are already approaching 6 billion, if we haven't past it already.In any case, I would contend there is a real link between overpopulation and rampant emigration in underdeveloped countries. Most are breeding themselves into further poverty as we speak.

This is very true.... but there are going to be big die-offs in the near future. Look at what is happening in Africa already? Once oil supplies become tighter it will be very hard to grow enough food to sustain the world population. There will be a huge die-off in countries (probably mostly or all in the 3rd world) that can't grow enough food to sustain themselves.Of course the US and Canada are two of the largest food producers in the world and will probably be just fine. (not that it helps anyone else)

Hi EZ.I essentially agree with you. But I want to find out if what I am learning in my Environmental Science class holds any water.As said before, economic development can lead to population stabilization. But an important factor I left out was the vital importance of women's rights. Recent evidence suggests that more educational and financial freedom for women is inversely related to the TFR- total fertility rate.In addition, when a nation suffers from poverty and a tenuous economy, women are more likely to have more children because the cost in doing so is far less in less-developed countries. Moreover, children also are seen as a cheap and plentiful source of labor. Basically, the cost to raise a child in America is far greater than it is in Nigeria.P.S. I hope my ignorance and inflexibility is not too conspicuous.

You are a very gracious and respectful poster - no need to be so self-effacing.All those points are very good ones.
I am reminded of a program in India (or Bangladesh ?) where they set up a small community bank specifically to lend the women of the community money for agricultural and small business enterprises. This was based on observations that the men of the community were not being good stewards of the environment and were too ready to 'sell out' their natural resources to invasive big business interests. The premise was that the women would be better stewards of the natural resources if they had some independance and economic influence. Not sure how true this would be in all cases, but I think you are right that empowerment of women financially and educationally will mean fewer of them barefoot and pregnant. It remains a question how to instill the education before the poverty-pregnancy cycle begins. Women start reproducing at a very early age in these countries...