ParanoiA

I think you'd have to prove it's abnormal - like a benign tumor or something - in order to justify a "cure" like you're talking about. Otherwise, it's just brainwashing. If it was a case of the overused term "chemical imbalance", then would that be considered abnormal? I think it's important to pinpoint whether or not the condition is proved to be a variance of human evolution, or if it's actually a "mistake" in the blueprint of that particular human. And in either case, I would never propose a forced treatment or whatever. Live and let live is my philosophy.

So nobody ever self-harmed after years of being bulled about their sexual preference? Gay bashing is just a myth? You seem to have missed that homosexuality is not generally considered desirable - it's tolerated and accepted, particularly verbally - but it's still not desirable. I think you had to really want to disagree with me on this, not to see that. And you don't see how a gay person might want to be straight because they perceive it to bring them benefits which they find desirable? Being gay is still tough on people in terms of how society treats them, so you don't think they might want to eliminate that? I'm not placing value any which way. I don't have any issues with homosexuality and have no problem with gay marriage. What did you read in my post that made you think so? I'm simply predicting that I doubt many people will settle on the choice to stay gay. I think they'll choose the treatment option for the most part. Not so much at first, but ultimately in the end. Bad analogy, I guess, but the point should still stand. If it's a physiological condition that's proven to be abnormal - as opposed to simply unique characteristics - then treatment should be recommended, in my opinion. Not forced, not condemned, no burning crosses...just recommended. I shouldn't have to type this paragraph, but I feel like I've got a bull's eye on my back here so allow me to spell it out... If it's proven not to be abnormal, just merely a variance of the human condition, then treatment would likely not be called "treatment" and obviously shouldn't be recommended, but rather reserved for those who simply wish to change.

Well sure. As harmful as being...ugly. Does being ugly hurt anyone or cause a problem? No. So who wants to be ugly? Anybody? Hello....? I realize there would still be a choice, but if it's truly a medical condition, then wouldn't that be akin to rejecting treatment for the flu? "I have a right to have the flu and you can't judge me or violate my civil liberties!" I don't think it would be the choice people settled on if it did turn out to be a medical issue. Maybe some, and certainly in the beginning - conspiracy stories flying around and such.

Well' date=' wait a minute. Now, don't mistake this for being argumentative because I'm completely ignorant on the subject. But do we know, for a [i']fact[/i], those conclusions you just drew? Man was pretty convinced the earth was flat at one point too, although I'm not sure whether or not it was touted as fact. So, my question is, if it turns out it is a physiological symptom that can be treated, then doesn't that change the whole implication of homosexuality? Would we still insist on allowing gay marriage and teaching tolerance, when we're really talking about a medical condition? [Admin edit] This thread was split off from the thread on Gay Marriage.

That's what I'm afraid of... I guess I should relax about it, but it's incredibly difficult for me. Makes me sick to see people, even silly teenagers, glorify stupidity. The whole being-smart-is-not-cool thing... Maybe that's an invalid association, but much of the jargon just seems like dumbed down english.

I can see that, I find myself doing it too. But to the point that you're basically adopting a whole new dialect seems to go way beyond a quirky human behavior thing. Not to mention, how do you explain using it around people who don't have that dialect? No one in our house talks like that...except my son. So where's the imitation factor on that? I think you're right though, at least at perhaps how it all starts out. But at this point, I think we're beyond the quirky imitation phase.

I would take mild offense to that. If you ran into me, here in the midwest of the USA, and started using my dialect, I might not say anything, at least at first. But, I would be thinking to myself..."where's this guy get off talking like he's from around here?" It seems patronizing to me. Like you're making fun without being funny. It seems like it comes from the same place that blissful ignorance merged with stereotypes of other cultures comes from. Like, assuring a Polish person that you don't think they're stupid at all. Or, declaring your love for spaghetti to an Italian person. Yeah, maybe that's all good intentions, but it's also quite stupid, ignorant and somewhat offensive. Edit: After re-reading that, it sounds like I'm calling you stupid and ignorant, I did not mean that at all.

Ok, so I've been laughing for years at white kids holding their pants with one hand, sporting a cleverly original crooked ball cap and talking ebonics with rapper sign language. Now my son is doing it... Is this some kind of cruel joke? There really is a god isn't there...and he's paying me back huh? So, I'm wondering about other's experiences with this phenomenon. I have a strong aversion to it. It looks so stupid to me. I know, I know...I was stupid too as a teenager, growing long hair (which I still have to this day), cutting up my concert shirts and putting holes in my jeans. I've always said I wouldn't care what kind of freaky hair thing my kids wanted to do, or even fashion apparel - and I don't. I can deal with the ignorant "I don't wear pants that fit cuz I'm cool" thing, but talking black? What up wit 'dat? I'm trying not to be a stuffy old man, I'm only 36, but I hate this...let me repeat, I HATE this. And now I may have even crossed the line. I told my son, last night, not to act like that in my house. I told him he is not black and so forcing himself to talk like that is almost, downright offensive. Doing it in jest, or joking around to a certain extent I can understand, but adopting the dialect just seems rather offensive. What do you all think?

I can't keep going with these long posts, it's killing me, between you and Haezed. Although, both of you should know you have given me a lot to think about and some interesting perspectives I hadn't considered before. I've definitely gotten something out of this discussion. Funny part is, I'm usually the guy at work arguing your side. You don't want to know what the people I work with think... But I have to at least clear this up: It's simple, I believe in freedom. The freedom to come here and do your best and keep what you earn. I believe in the dream of the immigrant nation, but I also believe in government taking as little from the people as possible. I don't believe the safety net is good for the country as it helps creates a culture of poverty. Also, keep in mind, I said "in its present form" and I also said "no one should receive a dime from the government without working for it". There are practical reasons to maintain something of a welfare program, but it shouldn't resemble what we have today. When people organize and demonstrate in front of the capital (ie..when the government shut down years ago) and slam their fists on the podium chanting "I want my welfare check!!" or "I have a right to my welfare!!" - it comes as no surprise to me. The entitlement attitude in this country is disgusting and extremely wasteful. We have generations of people on welfare. I can't come up with the words to convey the sickness we have created with this idea. Instead, every penny should be earned. Even the handicapped have something to contribute and many want to. Single moms get a lot of sympathy from me, and they can work as well. If you can't make it here in America...you can't make it anywhere.

Isn't that like making a case for no international support for our invasion of Afganistan because Al Quada didn't support it? As should you for sacrificing your children so you can type on this board with your computer you're reading this with. No one in a third world country would agree with that. And you wouldn't lecture them about it either...just the west. No kidding. You'd think they'd have that figured out by now... This testosterone knowledge competition is really getting annoying. Why don't you two march 10 paces and then turn and fire your smartest nugget of knowledge on the subject? Then we'll all decide which of you is the weiner...

No, no, my country loves me very much. With me dead, how do they make money? Anyway, according to the article: Is that a lie?

That's no excuse. She's not even in office and you're already diverting blame to others. Bad taste in music is bad taste. Why even take a look at her policies and intellect when it's perfectly clear that she is not cool? Wasn't Howard Dean roasted for less?

That's silly to compare selling crack and robbing people to risking life and limb to enter america. It's not an appeal to emotion, it's pointing out an absurdity: That those who "woke up" a citizen somehow are more deserving of citizenship than those who had to actually risk something and almost certainly always loses something - like family. Something most of us will never understand, luckily. I'm almost of the mind that citizenship should be a competition. I'm really fed up with the lazy notion that being born here is good enough, but sacrifice to be here is worth nothing. Or, become citizens. I like the idea. That they aren't the theives and murderers that our ancestors were. That their intent is productive, for the most part, and will contribute positively to the land. Who doesn't? I would include a working knowledge of english as well. Exactly! They had a choice, and yet they gave up more to be here than those of us who got a free pass by being born here. Again, no emotional appeal, but rather the contrast of who's a deserving citizen. Maybe that doesn't matter, but when we start talking about rounding up people and kicking them out of the country, I think it's an ugly reference. That's what started that line of thought. But you also have an excellent point. If millions of mexicans are willing to sacrifice - albeit not quite the sacrifice I've been talking about - then why aren't they willing to put that effort towards their own country? After all, they always seem to speak fondly of their country, their love for their homeland and so forth - yet not enough love to change it? I'm all for it. I have no issues with chasing down and shooting drug dealers and armies who try to aid them. Maybe we should just take Mexico and then we could fix it all nice and maybe they'll just stay there? Not sure I agree with that. The problem is the "illegality" of these immigrants, and the concentrated mass of inflow in one general area, as you've pointed out previously. The quality of citizens we're getting are mainly workers. People who want to work and make a living. Take away the safety net and illegal jobs and will get even better citizens. Isn't that the kind of people that contribute to a better way of life for the whole country? We need numbers and source here. You're right about flooding the labor market, but I'm not convinced the economy doesn't rebound in other areas. I suspect a shift rather than a loss. But I'd like to see the data. I might look for this myself, too, a little later. So what? That's traditionalist thinking. So, you're not willing to share your house with your extended family and they are. Seems to be working out for them too huh? Maybe more poor people should follow that example instead of insisting they all have their own house...that they can't pay for...that my tax dollars cover for them. Maybe we should follow their example, or quit bitching because we're not willing to sacrifice (again) our privacy and comfort of a more isolated living arrangement. I get the same benefit when the federal government has the day off too. I'm not kidding. The freeway is open and running clear - I get home in half the time. Don't know about the latchkey kids as it sounds like law enforcement sucks around there. I, personally haven't noticed poor immigrants being any more criminal-like than poor citizens. The ghetto is the ghetto and there's all kinds and colors. Keep any group of them at home and I'm sure we'll notice the difference. No, I'd get rid of the safety net irregardless of immigration. It just so happens to be a big plus in my immigration argument, but the safety net is illogical to me in the first place, at least in it's current form. No one should receive a dime from the government without doing work for it - period. That's not fool proof, but that at least sheds the laziness and lack of motivation that feeds the poverty culture. You don't get something for nothing. Again, I love the idea. No arguments at all. The bigger issue to me, is getting our government motivated to enforce those laws. It's baffling to me how indifferent they seem to be. It's almost like there's a dirty secret that they don't want to admit...something like we don't have the money, manpower, facilities, equipment and etc to do what the american people want done. So, they play around with silly legislation to get us off of their back. You're talking to the wrong person. You should direct this to Mexican TV. Our country isn't going to ruined by allowing droves of productive workers to enter. I will be ruined by allowed droves of sponges to enter. Maybe, but it's sensibile too. It would cost more to round them up and deport them all than it would to grant citizenship and punish differently. Why do I care how Mexico handles their illegals? I don't care if they shoot them on sight or give them mansions to live in - has no bearing on how I believe WE should treat illegals. I will agree with that. I have agreed with that, and my proposal for forced citizenship agrees with that. And I won't agree with deporting 15 million people who've established lives here. We let this go and go, for years, and now we're going to act like they are soooo terrible and should be removed and blah blah blah - reminds me of a parent who lets their child get away with everything and then one day has decided they've had enough and beat the kid senseless. That's ridiculous. Should have been punishing the kid all along... For the record, I don't believe illegals are saints or aren't guilty of anything. Going back home over the weekend, I noticed my home town seems to have doubled their population of mexican immigrants. I don't know these people are illegal, but everywhere I went I'm hearing spanish, I'm getting cold stares, rude behavior - they practically own Wal-Mart - I was a minority in that store. You're right, they really don't give a crap if they bring down the country or not. And they seem to act entitled to things. Sounds like real americans to me...

Tell that to the vietnameze boat people. I'm thinking it's quite the big whoop, actually... It's not our border that's difficult to breach anyway, obviously, it's getting out of their countries. That's the hard part I was referring to. And most of those 20 million gave up more than I did to become a citizen...wait, I didn't give up jack. Yeah, some pretty tough stuff you've had to endure there... It's easy to be born a citizen. I didn't say it shouldn't have any meaning. Again, bring the pendulum to the center Haezed. The clout of citizenship is overrated, not meaningless. It's perspective. These aren't imperialists set on taking land and running off the natives. They are the desparate poor people that we brag about wanting to come here. Wormwood was painting a picture of self interest driven thieves and leeches. I was trying to adjust that picture. We're all self interest driven, and our ancestors were even worse about it. If you're going to argue these points, try to keep the context in mind. After a couple of quotes and posts, the context is lost and the quote is misleading. There you go with "meaningless" again. If it was meaningless, I wouldn't propose to force immigrants to do it now would I? I'm just trying to say that your entry into this club was a given, smooth sailing - all done for you nice and tidy. All you did was wake up here. In terms of who really deserves to be here, I can't just ignore the trouble an immigrant goes through to get here and pretend like my "citizenship" - free membership - trumps that. They've certainly demonstrated a desire to be here more than the majority of the spoiled brats in this country that get a free pass because they were born here. Not directed at you, and you know who they are... That's why I propose to control the border and quit pretending like poor people should know better and respect the laws of countries they would risk death to enter. Take away the handouts that are basically a beakon to the world's poor - come on in and abuse our taxpayers! Neither one of these are practical in the long run either... Anything that jeopardizes national security and weeds out leeches. That should be the goal, in my mind. Citizenship should remain the partition. NOT the partition for deporting 20 million illegals though. Criminal activity and welfare should be the partition for those 20 million. And I mean real criminals, not poor people who went for the bread dangling in their face...ie. illegal entry into the country. I'm all for punishing employers however makes you happy. Hungry lawyers are as good a punishment as I can think of. Although, I'm still not sure we need any immigrants at all. You have a non-government solution to border control? If not, I'm not the only person with a surprising confidence level in government doing anything. Absolutely. And I'm all for chasing them down and shooting them in the butt too. Bush should be ashamed for not stepping in on that one, by the way. Not complicated at all. Amnesty for those who are here. Then, unlike Reagan, START ENFORCING THE FREAKING LAW! Not directed at you, but it drives me nuts. We wouldn't be in this position if we were truly doing our job. But, again, you're arguing with my quotes that were in reference to someone else that WAS arguing for a round up. Are you kidding? So you want nothing but leeches? The government safety net - and income tax. It's not that they ignored the constitution, but they certainly ignored the intent of it. I actually would like to argue they went against the constitution, but I don't have time to go digging it all up right now. I might tomorrow, but I've been extremely busy lately. Maybe I could hire some illegals to do some of this... Depends on what you mean by social services. They eat up our money in hospitals, prisons and schools and is a large part of why I prefer to force citizenship rather than let people run around the country on the "path to citizenship". I don't think any immigrant should be allowed in until they are a citizen. It should all take place at the border - the secure border that exists only in my mind right now.

Actually, my intent was to clarify with theCPE that I do understand the disgust and absurdity, since I've experienced it first hand. I still believe, however, the courts are the fairest place to receive judgement, and that when we all get upset at the outcome of court proceedings, we often direct our anger at the courts - rather than realize that it's the media we get our information from. If the media is an accurate barometer of who's guilty and who's not, then why would we need courts? As for the other matter, until you've experienced it first hand you're going to doubt it. Kind of like when black people first started complaining about being beaten by the police. We all just kind of collectively shrugged our shoulders so to speak, after all, we don't now the whole story and there's always multiple sides to it. Now we realize, that while each case has its own set of dynamics, police brutality is a valid issue. This is my conclusion with "he said, she said" type crime. Sexually related crimes are almost always going to boil down to one person's word against the other. And those on the outside looking in are typically going to shrug their shoulders, after all, they don't know the whole story. The concern dies there as well. This bodes well for sexual predators. As a society, I guess I'd like to see us more willing to investigate and pursue sexual crimes, and less willing to conclude guilt based on the news business.

Statute of limitations for both my wife and her sister. Their brother is deceased. The other two siblings were separated from them 20 years ago when it all came down, and cannot be located. Otherwise, the siblings, I believe could make a case of it. My wife and her sister had no idea they had a chance to prosecute him as the years went by. They had assumed it was case closed when they were kids and were taken away by the state. By the time we discovered they could have done something, it was too late. And we have no idea what happened back then - how the decisions were made. I believe my wife told me something about needing her mother to testify, which she wouldn't do. Maybe that's why they took the kids? Really not sure. Oh, of course not. But there's a grand canyon between not pursuing an investigation and throwing people behind bars, don't you think? There's plenty of middle ground to be had, but they were disinterested. And why does it matter if there's little evidence? Why wouldn't you still pursue? These are pedophiles of the hollywood kind. Inviting strange men over to "babysit"? Teams of pedophile family members? Yeah, I'm sure your right. Little evidence and little resolve = more molested kiddos. I wonder how many more of their victims are running around that we might hear about one day. Understand, this has always been the nature of rape and molestation cases. We get that. We've had plenty of experience dealing with it, and our society knows and accepts the nature of this. So, that's no excuse for not pursuing the case. Don't have enough police to pursue every report? Hire more folks. There really is no excuse... And keep in mind, this is my take on all crime, not an emotional appeal for something personal. And if we're going to make excuses for not investigating, then we have no reason to wonder why child molesters are still as successful as ever.

And murder countless species of insects, bugs, and etc. Murderous humans...always killing something aren't you?

It's a long, personal story, but in short my wife's step-father (it's always a creepy uncle or step something isn't it?) got away with sexually abusing all 5 of the kids, including sharing them with other pedophile adults. All were taken away from their mother, who chose to ditch the kids and keep the molesting hubby. Somehow, he wasn't prosecuted and the children have to deal with insult to injury, although the injury is much worse. Fast forward 20 years, and he's still at it - this time with a mentally retarded girl. Him and his brother (they all seem to be pedophiles in his family) took advantage of this 13 year old. After contacting police, my wife and her sister began a little crusade to get justice and finally get him behind bars. The police were unmoved, to put it nicely. They didn't pursue the case at all. This is the same state in which the sexual abuse occured in their youth - Missouri. After calling and calling, and dragging up old memories - repeating the events of their childhood, trying to get them to understand this man and is brother are animals - they would not pursue it. This is a problem with pedophilia. There is so much "he said, she said" going on, that police don't want to pursue anything. I guess, anyway. We could never figure out their disinterest. It's hard to have faith in the system when it so blatantly doesn't seem to care. Keep in mind, this is Missouri. Missouri is a disgusting state. So I understand your feelings on the absurdity. And I'm really not surprised. I try to have faith that courts are objective and therefore more accurate, but you have to get to court first - and even then....

Actually, I think he said teenage girls - the one's I was talking about doing the car washes, whereas your point was on pre-pubescents. But are you hearing these cases in the same detail and from the same source as those judges? I understand the courts aren't perfect, but aren't the courts fundamentally the fairest platform from which to judge someone? You may be right, but I have to wonder about a sentence of 2 months probation. Perhaps the media got a little carried away?

A source of confusion for me is the mixed message concerning pedophilia. Everytime I see a school fundraiser car wash at some convenience store I'm always floored to see teenage girls wearing skimpy two-pieces infesting the intersection. And this is being promoted by the freaking school! Oh, but lusting over teenage girls is wrong... I go to the movies, the supermarket, anywhere - pre-teen and teenie boppers dressed like whores by mom and dad - itty bitty skirts, skin tight hip huggers - with various slut slogans stiched across their ass. Oh, but lusting over teenage girls is wrong... I'm sorry, but I'm a man - a 36 year old man. Youth is beautiful. That's a natural thing too as it's arguably part of the design in breeding and perpetuating the species. And while your daughter might have nice assets, I really don't need the mind f#ck of feeling like a pedophile everytime I have to see her dressed up in her latest incarnation of a ho outfit. Paraphrasing Dave Chappel...you're right, just because a girl dresses like that, doesn't mean they're a whore...but she's wearing a whore's uniform.

Was scouring through the news this morning and ran across this... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280413,00.html Personally, I'm against the death penalty in any crime, no matter how heinous. But, for the reasons people are put to death presently, I don't think this is too much of a stretch. A raped child, especially, is essentially dead when you consider who they are afterward compared to who they were. What do you all think?

Well sure, but I thought we were debating that... I mean, you're circling back to "that's how it is", when I thought the discussion was about "why is it like this?" so to speak. Yeah, I teach my kids not to curse and use their language appropriately. But I'm asking why should I have to teach my children illogical conclusions of our language? Or at least, that's part of teen's argument, and I'm right behind him.

Busted - for not reading my post before commenting on it. I've stated in three different posts I'm for a secure border - every inch actually - and I don't know anyone who has proposed security like that yet. Yes, it was. How much effort did you put into it? Risk your life in a sardine can to get here? Paid much attention to human trafficing and how people get into that position? You have to be pretty damn desparate to take on the odds and put your life and money - and your kid's lives - in the hands of a smuggler to get you here. No we're not. There's a gaping hole in the ideology - including mine - that needs to be worked out. Pragmatism is just realizing the hole is there and patching it up. You and wormwood, both, missed this one because you both took it out of context. I wasn't crying about how we enslaved or slaughtered the natives here - that's a whole 'nother topic. I don't apologize for what happened to the indians, just like I don't shrug my shoulders in confusion as to why slavery still exists today. The point I was making is that our ancestors came here and abused the land and it's people on a level that trumps, ten fold, the abuse we get from current immigrants. And the only reason that point was made was to put things in perspective. But that's all a citizen is though. You were either born here - my how impressive that citizenship status was earned. Or you migrated here, in which case we require a brief symbolic ritual that magically transforms you into the "citizen". Like learning the pledge of allegiance and some history...etc. Not that I don't think it's necessary for them to do this ritual, but put it in perspective. You're basically advocating that people who have not performed this ritual are so far removed from being a "citizen"...I just don't believe in the clout you seem to be giving the "citizen". In my mind, someone who ran from their government to get here, and all the horror that goes along with that, has done more to earn a life here than you or I. Force. Every border on the globe is maintained by force - or implied force. Again, I'm not crying about the indians' plight. I'm also not worried about our level of force and losing our country to anyone. Maybe animosity was the wrong word, but the point I'm trying to make is that "citizenship" seems to be the grand partition. "If they would just go the legal route...blah blah blah". I think people point to this "category" without really thinking about it. I challenge the credit given "citizenship". I don't think the difference between a citizen and an non-citizen is such that one should be deported, irregardless of their contribution to our economy, while the other is totally immune. Don't 12 to 20 million people "absorb" and therefore create job opportunities and growth in other areas - perhaps indirectly? Stands to reason that many people eat, live in houses, buy stuff...etc. Granted, some get all of this from our tax dollars, but these are augments to our economy. We don't need any of them do we? Isn't this a myth as well? And I agree, the employers should be punished. Just like we bust prostitutes AND johns, we should bust illegals AND their employers. Well, so far, I'm coming across as a bleeding heart for immigrants. In some respects, that's true, because it falls in line with the ideology that america is a nation of immigrants. But we're not a nation of ignorants, either. I don't think we should let people in with infectious diseases, criminal records, welfare bound - my plan would be a two part thing. I would collapse the welfare system as we know it today - another long discussion but would essentially be a distant memory. And would deny all government services. I wouldn't let them in to run around the country in the first place until they are citizens. My approach would be more of a forced citizenship. With an actual secure border, we welcome all who can get here, however you can get here, but then you are held and put through the citizenship process. You will learn the fundamentals about our country, and you will learn english enough to assimilate - you will be a citizen before you are allowed "in the country". With a secure border, I wouldn't give them the chance to be an illegal member of society. You may disagree, but I don't think this is being soft on immigration. It would weed out those who are looking for a free ride. Those who want to work will have no problem. Kind of rehash at this point, but no I'm putting it in perspective. There's not enough to being a citizen in the first place to conclude that deportation of people who have established lives here is the proper punishment for breaking that law. In this country, we punish people with jail and prison, fines for all kinds of crime. We don't rape guys that raped women - we put them in jail. We don't make someone stop at every corner because they ran a stop sign - we fine them. So why suddenly do we deport because they broke the immigration law? I say force their citizenship and punish them with jail or a fine. My only issues with deportation have more to do with those who have established lives here - the 10 to 20 million we keep referring to that no one has any real idea about. But someone coming to this country initially, has no roots or life here. To me, there is nothing wrong with kicking that person out if they don't follow the path to citizenship. I don't put enough clout to citizenship to remove those who are already here and established, but I DO see enough credit in citizenship to throw someone out who just got here and isn't following the rules right out of the gate. But again, I don't wish to give them the opportunity to evade in the first place. With no government aid and no employers willing to hire them, how could they really want to be here, unless they're a citizen and can work and pay taxes like the rest of us? No flip flopping at all - what you're seeing here is a pendulum that rests in the center instead of pushed all the way one way or the other. Yes, the citizenship credit is over rated to be deporting people who have already established family and their own life here. But it's not overrated to be deporting people who have NOT, and will not follow the rules. In other words, if those 10 to 20 million had been deported before they got settled in, I would be all for it. Really stop and consider how totalitarian it would look when you go rounding up established family members and kicking them out. That's disgusting. If 100% of them were criminals and leeches - no problem, but they're not. They broke a law and should be punished like the rest of us are punished when we break laws - and we're not deported so.... You are exactly right. And we have defined our membership as tired, poor immigrants yearning to be free. Worked out for our ancestors and ultimately you and I, so why shouldn't it continue to work out? The problem is, immigration in the past has meant economic growth and labor diversity. We were also far more self sufficient and needed the people. Today, with the decline of our industrial labor and outsourcing, and all of the handouts and the culture of poverty - immigration is so negative - doesn't seem to be good for us at all. But you want to blame the immigrants and their overloaded desire to get here and get a better life - self serving just like all of us americans. I want to put the blame on government that's ignored the constitution and set up a system for the poor to leech off of and ultimately attract every loser on the planet - that WE get to pay for. Then add in the anti-american businesses selling out our country to hire someone for pennies on the dollar in some other country...