Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty - Page 7

Velociryx · July 31, 2003, 22:58

And GePap....having just re-read your message, yes! I think you're finally getting it.

It IS just empty words, and they're coming from our beloved leadership.

Thank you for agreeing with me!

-=Vel=-

GePap · July 31, 2003, 23:09

So you are basing your claim on why these people should be allowed to enter into the US based on what you know to be the empty words of the admin? Why, cause you think the admin. cares if it's words are shown to be hypocritical?

They don't.

And you also misconstrue the meaning of their words. They would hardly ever make statements as categorical as those you make while keeping dictatorships as allies: that would just be to easy for the DC press corp to eat the spokesperson alive with.

Velociryx · July 31, 2003, 23:14

GePap: I am saying (and have been again, and again, and again), that things like turning the boat around only underscore the sheer emptiness OF the words themselves.

It's quite clear that they don't care, and so we agree again. You are, in essence, preaching to the choir.

As to their words....you said it. They are THEIR words. Spoken in the national and international area. There aren't terribly many ways to interpret "don't try to catch us" "you're either with us, or against us" and "if you pose a threat to us or to our beliefs, we reserve the right to hit first."

Now, I'm guilty of a heck of a lot of things, but I don't believe that misinterpreting any of these statements is among them.

-=Vel=-

GePap · July 31, 2003, 23:25

Vel, if that is what they had menat, this would have been the press conmference the next day:

AF: yes, quesiton? you..
R1: the president said any state that threaten our beliefs could come under attack: will this include SA, Egypt, and Pakistan?
AF: certainly not, those state do not pose a htreat to our beliefs. next, you...
R2: so what posses a threat to our beliefs? After all, isn;t freedom one of our beliefs, and don;t dictatorhips threatn freedom?
AF: well, no, actually no, you see, whent he president meant our beliefs, he meant in the persons of Americans. SA does not threaten any American lives, and thus can not threaten American values, you see?

so forth and so on.

Velociryx · July 31, 2003, 23:25

The crux of it, G, is this:

One of the following statements must be true:

a) The administration (now) firmly believes and is committed to a "regieme change" in Iraq on the basis of liberation of the Iraqi people.

If this is true, and there are additional peoples from other oppressive regiemes that we can save in like manner, at no cost to ourselves or to our troops, then it is hypocracy of the highest order to intentionally NOT do so (ie - the truck-boat full of Cubans is escorted to the shores of the USA as a clear demonstration of our desire to help free oppressed peoples, wherever they might be)

or

b) The administration doesn't give a rat's ass about liberating the Iraqi people, and merely played that card as a means of maintaining public support for the war at home, and they're really after something else. (ie - the Cubans are sent home, and their innovative craft is sunk)

If this is true, then the public statements fronted by the administration are false, and acts such as forcing the Cubans back home only bear this out.

-=Vel=-

GePap · July 31, 2003, 23:38

Neither of those are true. The admin. did NOT sell this war with the notion of liberating Iraq: the vast majority of Americans would not have spent even one American life to liberate Iraqis. The war was sold on the notion of a grave Iraqi threat, and only after the war begun did "liberation" become the admin. main theme. This is so becuase the actual policy that drove the Iraq war is a complex one going back a decade.

And our policy on Cuba is also a higly complex one based on political realities in the US.

The US is hypocritical when it comes to being a champion for democracy..we have been so for 55 years. This is nothing new.

Velociryx · July 31, 2003, 23:43

Yes....it was only after the war had begun did the liberation card get played, but it GOT played. You said it yourself. When no weapons were immediately recovered, it got played, either genuinely by the White House, or as a stunt to maintain support for us being there. So yes, one or the other of those statements must be true.

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · July 31, 2003, 23:45

Either way, the very best case is that the administration is either behaving hypocritacally or is lying, and either way, they're not gettin' my vote in the next election.

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · July 31, 2003, 23:46

And by the way...it must KILL you when things aren't complex!

Hate to break it to you, but the ONLY reason the liberation card got played was because the administration was struggling to find some reason (ANY reason) to continue to justify the war and our presence there, not because of some imagined complexity in your head....

-=Vel=-

GePap · July 31, 2003, 23:54

An admin. Vel constitutes more than just a president. cheney, Rummy, Wolfie, Powell, Armitage, Bolton, Rice were all saying slightly different things at different points. The ones that came up with this policy first, liek Wolfie, always focused on the "liberation" angle, since it is a big part fo their greater aim, which is to use US military hegemony to remake the world into our image. People like Powell, who did not agree with this, and could see it political suiced, sold the threat angle and the Violation angle much more.

The president always focused on WMD's, since it was the issue to gain political support with, but liberation was always mentioned, so that a relatively quick segway could be achieved.

Yes Vel, it is complex... (we could always have said it was all about OIL..look, 10 cents a gallon by next year! Political gold, no?)

But it is nice to hear you won;t vote for them

KrazyHorse · August 1, 2003, 00:26

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Boris, you're a thinking dude, buddy.

Are you related to Dubya by any chance? You twist so hard to defend the man from all sides that I'm starting to wonder...

Velociryx · August 1, 2003, 08:23

This is what I love about you, G. Even when we agree on all the major points, that hard head of yours just simply can't resist the urge to try and find something else to argue about!

Yes. The administration is made up of lots of different people, each with their own slant on things, but tell me: Do you think that for even one second on any given day, any of those people forget who they work for? Is it not true that at the end of the day, those other voices can chatter all they want, but there's actually one voice among them that carries more weight than the rest combined? That there's one person IN the administration who, when he gives a speech, THAT's the one that really counts?

Care to give this person a name?

So yes. The other little chattering chipmunks all had their say, and when no weapons were found, another reason needed to be fronted for the war. One was. Liberation. And WHEN that card was played, it was either played genuinely, or it wasn't. Those are the two choices (and they are exactly the same as the two choices I outlined above.....the one you said that "neither was true.") - not possible. It's either a genuine statement, or it's....not. There aren't any other choices. If it was a genuine statement, then the cuban boat should have been escorted to the shores of the US, and the occupants given asylum, because this would have been a clear demonstration that the liberation message was meant for oppressed folks, no matter where they might be. If it was a lie, then we could expect to see the cubans returned home, and the boat sunk.

-=Vel=-

Ogie Oglethorpe · August 1, 2003, 08:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

This is what I love about you, G. Even when we agree on all the major points, that hard head of yours just simply can't resist the urge to try and find something else to argue about!

Yes. The administration is made up of lots of different people, each with their own slant on things, but tell me: Do you think that for even one second on any given day, any of those people forget who they work for? Is it not true that at the end of the day, those other voices can chatter all they want, but there's actually one voice among them that carries more weight than the rest combined? That there's one person IN the administration who, when he gives a speech, THAT's the one that really counts?

Care to give this person a name?

So yes. The other little chattering chipmunks all had their say, and when no weapons were found, another reason needed to be fronted for the war. One was. Liberation. And WHEN that card was played, it was either played genuinely, or it wasn't. Those are the two choices (and they are exactly the same as the two choices I outlined above.....the one you said that "neither was true.") - not possible. It's either a genuine statement, or it's....not. There aren't any other choices. If it was a genuine statement, then the cuban boat should have been escorted to the shores of the US, and the occupants given asylum, because this would have been a clear demonstration that the liberation message was meant for oppressed folks, no matter where they might be. If it was a lie, then we could expect to see the cubans returned home, and the boat sunk.

-=Vel=-

100% agree Vel. My earlier point re: this is the real intention of war was another scene within the war on terrorism. Major purposes being the declared ones of eliminating the WoMD and ability for terrorists to gain safe haven and acess to same WoMD. My point has always been regardless of WoMD the underlying reason was Saddam was an easy target and it allowed the US to put all other nations in the region on notice.

Your points are well taken that once no WoMD and smoking gun was found the administration cravenly changed their tune to the liberation theme in order to court public favor.

Knowing that the admin is spin doctoring everything wrt Iraq war motivations and then surmizing the original reasons for war (which they declared at the time) still does not put the latest turn about of Cubans at odds with the 9/11 moods and policies (like them or not). It does put it at odds obviously with the newly stated humanitarian aims.

I understand the admin is disingenuous and yes it does cause me anger. Face it, most Americans realize that what is going on now is spin doctoring to the nth degree.

But I also realize that the real motivations for the war in Iraq are still in keeping with tighter illegals policing.

What amazes me though more than anything is the rationale can be used post 9/11 to give this tougher stance on illegals but pre 9/11 when these same things were going on there wasn't the huge outrage now displayed.

Meldor · August 1, 2003, 09:14

Quote:

Truck Rafters Seek Political Asylum
HAVANA (Reuters) - Twelve Cubans who tried to sail to Florida in a 1951 Chevy truck ingeniously converted into an amphibious craft are making a second attempt to get to the United States, this time as political refugees.

The group, repatriated to communist-run Cuba by the U.S. Coast Guard (news - web sites) 10 days ago, applied on Wednesday for political asylum at the U.S. Interest Section in Havana.

"This is our last hope. We want to go. We love our country very much, but there is no future here," said Michael Lau Valdez, 25.

The nine men, two women and a three-year-old boy got halfway across the Florida Straits in the bright-green truck floating on twelve oil drums with a propeller attached to the transmission before they were intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard. They were making eight miles per hour in the Chevy.

"We weren't looking for publicity or money. We just wanted to get to the United States. We hope we can do that legally now," said Eduardo Perez, owner of the truck, which was sunk by the Coast Guard.

The group, all under 35 years, said they had not been harassed by Cuban authorities since their return to a Havana suburb, but they did not expect to find work again in Cuba.

They drove to the U.S. diplomatic mission in another 1951 Chevy truck to turn in their application forms.

U.S. diplomats hand repatriated migrants a form to apply as refugees if they feel they are being politically persecuted.

"These 12 felt that they qualified. Whether we as the U.S. government feel that they qualify is a different matter," said a spokeswoman for the U.S. Interest Section.

President Fidel Castro (news - web sites)'s government has not been known to allow repatriated rafters permits to leave Cuba legally.

The would-be-emigres said they will take to the sea again if they do not get U.S. visas, but next time in a faster craft.

I put some stuff in bold just to put to rest all of the rumors about what happened after we forced them to go back. Castro hasn't thrown them in prison and their life is no different than before. Strange happenings for such an evil man.

The problems I have with Castro deal with what he has done to the country, the way he took a country that at one time was the jewel of the gulf and turned it into an economic wreck. However, if forced to leave the US, I would rather go to Cuba than to a lot of the other Latin American countries.

Velociryx · August 1, 2003, 09:18

I knew we were on the same page, Master Og...I just wasn't 'spressing myself as succintly as I shoulda been before.

I think the outrage we're seeing now about stuff like this is specifically because the administration is making such a big to-do about the liberation angle in Iraq, and it raises eyebrows in the public when we're willing to take a risky position (3 billion a month and 1-2 lives a day in Iraq) to "liberate them" but the coast guard can't be arsed to do the same in an essentially riskless venue.

Even the biggest Bush supporters scramble for cover then, because it underlines the point that those actions aren't in line with the latest spin, which means one or the other of them is a lie.

Hand in hand, I also agree with you that the initial (and underlying) reasons for the war....and likely the REAL reasons (as opposed to the spin doctoring occuring in the here and now), are not at odds with the actions toward the Cubans.

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · August 1, 2003, 09:25

Good article, Meldor.

I wonder tho....if YOU were a Communist dictator living right next door to a newly aggressive America, if your biggest arms and money supplier (the USSR) had long ago shut off all aid to you to deal with their own crisis, and if you were faced with a high-profile case (as is the case of the chevy-boat refugees), would YOU risk doing something nasty to them? Honestly?

Of course, they've already said that it's highly unlikely they'll ever work in Cuba again, which is bad enough on its own, even if it doesn't involve beatings, or running water and car batteries, true? I mean...no job = no eat, yes? Might take a little longer to kill someone that way, but it's pretty effective.

-=Vel=-

Q Classic · August 1, 2003, 09:28

you know, we really ought to have given at least the persons who built it asylum. i could use a decent and skilled mechanic.

Velociryx · August 1, 2003, 09:35

Amen, Q....G won't agree of course, but I figure we could use people who are inventive enough to combine 55 gallon drums, an old truck, and a propeller, make a functional boat out of it (steerable via the steering wheel, btw), and have the nads to set sail in it! That's....awesome.

I hope they make it.

-=Vel=-

Meldor · August 1, 2003, 09:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Meldor, all of what you are saying is true. Yes there ARE bigger fish to fry out there. There are worse regiemes (by far) than Castro's.

But tell me this: How many deaths does it take before it's wrong? Before it's a problem?

If ten people disappear in the night and are never heard from again, that's okay, right?

How many does it take to be an affront? How much blood has to be spilled, and how many people have to be denied their freedom before it's wrong?

Five hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand?

This is a straw man arguement Vel. There are a lot of people that have "disappeared" here that have never been seen again. Should we overthrow our own government? The question is not one of quantity, but of a long standing predisposition to murder people without cause.

There are laws in Cuba against opposing the government. The penalty can include and does death. There are people who have done this and had death imposed on them. They aren't raped or tortured, their family members aren't raped and murdered in front of their eyes. A person couldn't be killed for refusing to allow one of Castro's sons to soddomize their 12 year old daughter. It is one thing for a country to have a system of government that we disagree with or to have laws in place that we find oppressive. It is another to allow lawlessness and despotic behavior to go unchecked. As much as you would like to equate Castro with Saddam they are not even in the same league.

How many people here are given the death penalty. There are a lot of countries that consider us just as bad as Cuba in that respect (personally, I support the death penalty).

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
* If it's wrong for ten thousand, then it's wrong for five.

Only if those five are killed for the wrong reasons and without the order of the law. If you take a bible into Suadi Arabia, you will be killed. Is that right? No, but you know ahead of time what the consequences are and what happens isn't arbitrary. What we should be doing in Cuba is working for reform and free elections, not invading them. They and Iraq are two totally different cases.

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
* If our current policy toward the oppressors of the world has fundamentally changed, then WE, as a nation, need to get serious about it.

The statement was "You are either with us or against us". If a country that is otherwise oppressive, still wants to help fight terrorism, they are in no danger of getting attacked. Heck, even if they just remain neutral. It isn't about going after dictators who are oppressing their people, it is about going after those who aide and abet terrorists.

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
* What would it have cost us to let the boat continue to the shore? Would it have cost more than the two American lives lost in yesterday's continuing crusade to "liberate the Iraqis?" - I think not.

The lives of hundreds of thousands who would follow after with their wifes and children, but not be as inventive as this group. Go do a search and find out for your self how many times the CG pulls these rafts in with half the people dead and the children either dead or straving to death because their parents are already dead. As soon as you allow this to happen, then every one of the Cubans, Haitians, Dominicans, etc, are going to be taking to the seas.

How many deaths are you willing to except so that a few can make it here? Is 5 too many, 10, 100? It will be thousands.

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
But we turned them away.

The alternative is that the current administration is attempting to blow a large, billowing mass of smoke up our asses, in which case, the sooner they are OUT of office, the better.

-=Vel=-

The alternative is that these people could have apppied for an exit visa just like a bunch of others do each year (20,000 was the figure someone here used, don't know how accurate that is...). Somewhere along the line you decide to turn on the current administration, and that is your choice. But in this case, your strawmen are blown away, and you are left with nothing but the empty clothes. Pick another fight and move on...

Velociryx · August 1, 2003, 09:55

Meldor - It's not a strawman just because you want it to be, and the "cloak of law" is laughable in a dictatorship. You are essentially saying that if this one-party system, run by a dictator passes a law that SAYS it's okay to send people to the slaughterhouse well then....it's okay, cos you know....it's the law.

That's ummm....not the strongest argument I've ever seen to justify the actions of any two-bit dictator.

As to the cost argument - I view it as incorrect. Since these people have no cable tv, and many (most?) don't have radio, how will they know if their bretheren made it or not? You forget, these folks we're talking about don't have air conditioning, popcorn, and cable with 300 channels. They're not lounging around watching CNN to see if the first boat makes it, true?

-=Vel=-

Meldor · August 1, 2003, 10:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Meldor - It's not a strawman just because you want it to be, and the "cloak of law" is laughable in a dictatorship. You are essentially saying that if this one-party system, run by a dictator passes a law that SAYS it's okay to send people to the slaughterhouse well then....it's okay, cos you know....it's the law.

That's ummm....not the strongest argument I've ever seen to justify the actions of any two-bit dictator.

As to the cost argument - I view it as incorrect. Since these people have no cable tv, and many (most?) don't have radio, how will they know if their bretheren made it or not? You forget, these folks we're talking about don't have air conditioning, popcorn, and cable with 300 channels. They're not lounging around watching CNN to see if the first boat makes it, true?

-=Vel=-

False, they have access to American news and TV. Do you think that TV signals can't span a mere 90 miles? Do you think that we haven't been pumping Radio Free America into Cuba for 50 years? They are very aware of what it takes. The last group that made it within a couple hundred yards of shore all jumped off and swam for it to get to the beach before they were picked up. They know they have to hit sand. They know a lot better than you, it seems.

Now for your other part.

I never said the laws were godd. But they are laws and they are not applied with any randomness. It is against the law to plot to overthrow or to attempt to overthrow the government of the US. You can get the death penalty for that. Is that law batter than Castros's?

You totally bypass the point because to do otherwise would force you to admit defeat. Castro doesn't have a law on the books that says "I can kill whomever I want". What he does have is a law to protect his government. You know it before you plot, and you know what can happen if you get caught. BTW, unlike in Iraq, no one is feeding people into giant shredders. While it might serve your purposes to call them slaughterhouses, it isn't any different than death row here. Justice just tends to be a little swifter there.

If you want me to continue to go back and forth on this point again you will need to show evidence of "slaughter", rape, torture, and other bad things that have occurred in the last 15 years or so. Show me were his family has taken peroson pleasure in extending for amusement the deaths of any of those convicted. Show me were their families have suffered worse fates. Show me were he is just like Saddam, or even a Saddam want-a-be.

Velociryx · August 1, 2003, 10:20

Meldor, I am well aware that TV signals travel farther than 90 miles. I am also well aware that you need to HAVE a TV to be able to pick up the signal. That's rather a fundamental part of the whole equation.

Further, you can look up the total number of TV's and Radios in any of the countries you added to the equation (Hati, Dominican Rep, etc), and clearly see that the numbers don't add up. Can they GET the news? Sometimes. Probably not reliably.

Further, IF we changed our tune, and began allowing oppressed peoples an assist to get here, they would NOT be dying in mass thousands in the open seas as you predict, because we DO patrol the region and if we were to change our stance, that patrolling would intensify.

Would there be risks? Would some people still die? Yes. Unfortunate, but true. And they weigh that risk against the life they currently know before making the decision. What does that suggest about their lives in the places they are running from? These dictators you keep saying aren't all that bad?

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · August 1, 2003, 10:29

And for the record, YOU provided all the proof needed to bear out my point.

You did it when you made the comment that if we changed our stance and policy toward those rattletrap ocean-growing craft, THOUSANDS of people would take to the sea to try and get here.

Now, if the dictators in those countries "aren't all that bad" as you say, then why the mad rush to get away, I wonder? Could it be because the countries really ARE that bad, little $hitholes that are the private playgrounds of the dictators who are in power, and for everybody else, it's worth risking life and limb on the open sea to get away.

But oh no....they're not that bad, of course!

That's why people would flock to the sea, right? Cos they're not that bad.

Uh huh.

-=Vel=-

Meldor · August 1, 2003, 11:29

I never said that they would take to the seas because the governments under which they live are bad. I didn't say they were oppressed. Thousands of Mexicans cross the border and not because their government is going to kill them anytime soon. They are coming here for money. Those people in Haiti would be doing the same. The folks in other places as well. Don't try to mix two arguements please. And don't try to put togethter two of them and say I make your point.

The point is that if we change the policy thousands of people will take to the seas. The CG won't be able to handle the rush of people, as in the Haiti incident or the Cubans in 81. That doesn't even begin to address the folks from say China or Mexico. Does it matter to you if the Mexican starts out from the pennisula in a boat or just walks across? Should they be treated differently?

1) These people are trying to get here for economic reasons, not political. So are the ones from other countries. They should be treated the same. Heck, we can't fix every problem in the world, don't have the time or the money. Clinton tried to in Haiti, the people aren't ready for a change of government and there is too much graft and corruption to be able to fix the real problems. Much worse than in Cuba.

2) You are trying to equate Castro with Saddam and it ain't working. You haven't proven your case for his unjust opression of a level even 1/10th of what was going on in Iraq.

3) You keep repeating the same mantra over and over. If you are for open immigration just step up and say it. I would respect that. Just don't try to take a case of the US treating Cubans just like other people in the region and make it a bash of the current administration, because that is really what you want to do here.

4) If less people die if they stay in there current situation as oppsed to attempting to cross the seas, isn't it better for them to stay? If those same people can apply for immigration to this country and if they have reason get it granted, isn't that a better way to do it than to encourage them to risk the lives of themselves and their family? We are not responsible for welfare in other countries. We are responsible for the welfare and securtiy of our own people. Then we can look to the welfare of others.

Velociryx · August 1, 2003, 11:36

How do you know what their resons are? Have you asked them? Nope....but it sure is a lot easier to make the blanket assumption that their lives suck economically, and they're willing to die for the chance to have a job. Now, I don't know 'bout you, but I don't know too many people who would be willing to risk their own lives, and the lives of their children, for the chance to get a better paying job, which sugessts then, that there must be some other factor at work, doesn't it?

You're not going to convince me otherwise, and it's clear that I'm not going to convince you. The whole boat thing is but a tangential point to the core argument I was making in any case, which is that if the administration was serious about its own "liberty message" then the boat wouldn't have been turned 'round. We have the resources to augment the Coast Guard to assist oppressed people in getting here, and if we were interest in liberty, we would.

We aren't, which points to the fact that the current administration is blowing smoke up our asses by claiming we're in Iraq for the sake of liberty.

It's not hard to fathom, I promise....

-=Vel=-

MichaeltheGreat · August 1, 2003, 12:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
How do you know what their resons are? Have you asked them? Nope....but it sure is a lot easier to make the blanket assumption that their lives suck economically, and they're willing to die for the chance to have a job. Now, I don't know 'bout you, but I don't know too many people who would be willing to risk their own lives, and the lives of their children, for the chance to get a better paying job, which sugessts then, that there must be some other factor at work, doesn't it?

Apparently, being far removed from the US-Mexican border, you don't get news too often about the annual death toll from Mexican and Central American (a lot of them first sneak into Mexico and make their way north) border crossers attempting to enter the US, or waiting to do so on the Mexican side. People fall, drown, starve, die of thirst, are killed by robbers, die of exposure, all sorts of things. Hundreds more are rescued each year, by Grupos Beta down here, and the Border Patrol or other LE organizations up there. Yes, people are willing to risk death for better economic opportunities. The difference is that even the poorest people you know live in comparative luxury to many third world people, and have at least some degree of safety net and public services that are unavailable to most people in the world. How many people do you know who've had kids die of cholera or diptheria?

Kidicious · August 1, 2003, 12:20

There is oppression in Mexico too. It's just of a different nature. The Mexican govt doesn't have to do much for the poor there because they don't have to deal with them. The poor will just migrate to the US.

Meldor · August 1, 2003, 12:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
How do you know what their resons are? Have you asked them? Nope....but it sure is a lot easier to make the blanket assumption that their lives suck economically, and they're willing to die for the chance to have a job. Now, I don't know 'bout you, but I don't know too many people who would be willing to risk their own lives, and the lives of their children, for the chance to get a better paying job, which sugessts then, that there must be some other factor at work, doesn't it?

You're not going to convince me otherwise, and it's clear that I'm not going to convince you. The whole boat thing is but a tangential point to the core argument I was making in any case, which is that if the administration was serious about its own "liberty message" then the boat wouldn't have been turned 'round. We have the resources to augment the Coast Guard to assist oppressed people in getting here, and if we were interest in liberty, we would.

We aren't, which points to the fact that the current administration is blowing smoke up our asses by claiming we're in Iraq for the sake of liberty.

It's not hard to fathom, I promise....

-=Vel=-

See point 3 above...but maybe you have convinced yourself...

GePap · August 1, 2003, 12:30

The Haitians get on boats just as rickty, and thier travel distance is much greater than that of Cubans, and look, no communist dictatorship either!

I guess your poverty Vel was not bad enough, if you really can;t see people risking thier lives for the hope of better jobs and more wealth.

David Floyd · August 1, 2003, 12:31

Here's the problem, in my mind. I do support open borders, however, to me it's sickening that letting these people in will allow them to take advantage of my money in the form of welfare and other social programs.

Once we eliminate those, I'll be all for open borders - but I imagine that without social programs, less people will want to come in. Oh well, that doesn't concern me too much.